This research adopts an explanatory quantitative–qualitative mixed-method design as a reflection of the adopted research approach, which is mainly quantitative and therefore deductive and postpositivist in nature (Creswell 2014; Fraenkel & Wallen 2015). Mixed-method research has indeed secured a prominent and considerable place in educational research (Creswell & Plano Clark 2011; Creswell 2014;
Fraenkel & Wallen 2015; Cohen, Manion & Morrison 2018). Creswell (2014, p. 14) defined mixed- method study design as a research design that “involves [the] combining or integration of qualitative and quantitative research and data in a research study”. Mixed-method research was also defined by Creswell and Plano Clark (2011, p. 4) in a comprehensive and informing manner. According to them, mixed- method research “typifies research undertaken by one or more researchers which combines various elements of both quantitative and qualitative approaches (e.g., with regard to perspectives, data collection and data analysis) to research, together with the nature of the inferences made from the research” (Ibid., p. 4), the purposes of which are “to give a richer and more reliable understanding (broader and deeper) of a phenomenon than a single approach would yield” (Cohen, Manion & Morrison 2018, p. 32).
The researcher adopted this widespread study design in educational research for several reasons. Firstly, this form of research enabled the researcher to obtain a more comprehensive and complete understanding of the phenomenon under investigation in this study than single methods or approaches. The intention of the researcher in this context is to provide a better understanding of the inquiry under investigation.
Secondly, this approach helped the researcher “answer complex research questions more meaningfully, combining particularity with generality” (Cohen, Manion & Morrison 2018, p. 33). Finally, the researcher adopted this kind of research in order to use the qualitative results as triangulation tools to support and inform on the quantitative data, as will be further discussed in the next sections, as well as during the data collection and analysis phases.
Therefore, the nature of this research is explanatory in the sense that the researcher supports the results of the questionnaire sent to faculty members and academic administrators with document analysis and interview research qualitative tools. This study first used a quantitative method of a structured questionnaire supported by a brief qualitative semi-structured interview method to answer the major question of the study (RQ1). The researcher then used the follow-up qualitative method of document analysis and interviews “to follow up and refine the quantitative findings” (Fraenkel & Wallen 2015, p.
561), while answering the remaining research questions (RQ2 and RQ3), as shown in Figure 3.2.
Figure 3.2 – Explanatory Study Approach – Adopted from Creswell (2014, p. 220)
Following the gap analysis presented in previous chapter, Table 3.1 shows how the study methodology and approach were adopted to answer the research questions of the study and which research instrument tools were used and defines what data analysis methods were implemented. In other words, the gaps identified in research informed the main aim and focus of the research. Additionally, the methodology was selected by the researcher based on its appropriateness to generate relevant data and supporting evidence to achieve the research aim, given that the paucity of research in the field meant little to no existing and reliable methodology to adopt from.
Table 3.1 – Research Design in Relation to the Questions of the Study
Research Questions
Research Objectives Research
Approach
Research Instrument
Data Analysis
RQ1 Investigating the perceptions of faculty members and ERM administrators of the effectiveness of ERM implementation in their HEIs.
Quantitative Structured Questionnaires
Statistical:
Descriptive (Non- Parametric tests) Qualitative In-depth Semi-
Structured Interviews
Thematic Coding
& Categorising (the Interactive Model)
RQ2 Exploring the current status of ERM policies and practices in UAE HEIs.
Qualitative Document Analysis
Analytical &
Content Analysis (the Interactive Model)
RQ3 Proposing a set of workable guidelines for more effective ERM strategies for HEIs in relation to effective ERM implementation in the UAE higher education context.
Qualitative In-depth Semi- Structured Interviews
Thematic Coding
& Categorising (the Interactive Model)
Proposing a set of workable guidelines of ERM Implementation(Guidelines & Framework)
Based on the theoretical considerations highlighted in the Literature Review chapter and previous research in the field, the researcher adopted the mixed-method research study approach, comprising both the quantitative and qualitative designs, for the following reasons. The main reason the researcher used an explanatory mixed-method approach is because it suited the nature of the different research questions and expanded on the range of inquiry by using different inquiry components (Johnson & Christensen 2014, pp. 501–502). Additionally, this mixed-method approach was adopted in the collection of data and answering the research questions since all single methods would have their own “bias and weaknesses, and the collection of both quantitative and qualitative data neutralize[d] the weaknesses of each form of data” (Creswell 2014, pp. 14–15). Another reason for the researcher’s adoption of such an approach is that the majority of the conceptual and construct components of the study would best fit conceptual elements from both the quantitative and qualitative study designs. This is explained through the researcher’s concentration on the elaboration of a concept or thought by investigating its interpretation in relation to other concepts or thoughts. In the case of this study, the researcher expanded on the major research question of the respondents’ perceptions of ERM implementation in UAE HIEs by expanding on its conceptual elements of ERM policy application and effectiveness using a questionnaire and interview questions. By doing so, the researcher intended to capture all the major constructs stated in the objectives and research questions of the study, namely investigating the effectiveness of ERM implementation in UAE HEIs, as well as proposing to present a workable set of guidelines for an effective ERM model, mainly through a quantitative approach and design since the major constructs of the study are already identified.
The explanatory mixed-method design adopted for the study involves quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis in relation to the discussion of the perceptions offered by faculty members and academic administrators in the context of UAE HEIs. To that end, it mainly relies on the quantitative tool of a survey questionnaire on a high priority basis, and on qualitative research tools of document analysis and interviews on a low priority basis (Creswell & Plano Clark 2011). Figure 3.3 shows how in explanatory mixed-method study design the quantitative portion of the study can be of a higher priority than the qualitative one. This study would deviate from such a design only based on the fact that the researcher did not combine the results, but rather integrated them in the analyses.
Figure 3.3 – Explanatory Study Design – Adopted from Fraenkel and Wallen (2015, p. 561)
The results of the quantitative phase give direction to the qualitative method, and the qualitative results are used to validate or elaborate on the quantitative findings. In this sense, the analysis of the data in both phases is separate, in the researcher’s attempt to investigate the effectiveness of ERM implementation as perceived in the UAE higher education context.
Therefore, while adopting an explanatory mixed-method study design, the researcher gives priority to the quantitative analysis (Creswell & Plano Clark 2011), to answer the major research question (RQ1) quantitatively, and then further qualitatively validate the quantitative data so that a more precise and supportive explanation of the effective implementation of ERM in UAE HEIs is presented and secured (RQ2 and RQ3). The follow-up qualitative study then seeks further explanation of the quantitative findings (Creswell & Plano Clark 2011; Johnson & Christensen 2014). The results from the two stages are integrated at the end to ensure complementarity and integration.
In other words, the explanatory study is proposed to transition the research through a mixed quantitative and qualitative phased approach, as shown in Figure 3.4.
Figure 3.4 – Mixed-Method Study Phased Approach
The quantitative part is the first phase and the dominant approach to reach answers, and as such findings for the study, where the researcher intends to collect data with the help of a structured survey questionnaire with close-ended questions. To elaborate, for the quantitative part of the research the researcher selected a survey research strategy where a structured questionnaire was designed to be
• Quantitative
• Survey Phase
1
• Quantitative + Qualitative
• Document Analysis followed up by Interviews Phase
2
Setting an section plan for a more effective ERM framework Phase
3
and instructors. The survey design of the research has proven to be an ideal tool for the collection of data from a representative sample of the population where key areas of research reliability, credibility and validity can be easily covered and achieved (Yin 2003). The quantitative research approach is the major tool with regards to how the major research question (RQ1) is answered. Even though in the view of Creswell (2014) and Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2019) the research design and approach should not be related, the research design would be affected by the research approach being utilised. One positive feature of the survey research strategy is that it helps capture events in a cross-sectional manner without the direct involvement of the researcher or any other person. This ensures the findings are objective since all forms of interference are excluded from the main results and findings, leading to solid conclusions.
On the other hand, the second phase of the study is the qualitative part conducted through document analysis based on the answers obtained from the questionnaire, as well as open-ended in-depth interviews, which would help determine which policies, manuals and procedure documents to analyse, as well as the questions of the in-depth interviews. The document analysis approach is usually used by qualitative researchers as a means of triangulation (Denzin 1970; Bowen 2009; Fraenkel & Wallen 2015).
However, in the case of this study, the researcher used the document analysis for both triangulation purposes and as a follow-up phase for the quantitative study, as well as an introductory tool for the qualitative interview phase. In their research, Rossman and Wilson (1985) adopted mixed quantitative and qualitative methods through surveys and open-ended, semi-structured interviews, and combined them with the review of documents as a support for the quantitative data and yet a source for the qualitative data. The qualitative research approach is observed as the supportive tool of the research line with regards to how document analysis and interviews are conducted at the end of the second research phase. The third and final phase is the outcome of the first two, where the researcher provides a set of workable guidelines for a more effective ERM framework, including workable guidelines that will represent an enhanced version of the existing risk management manuals and policy documents. These proposed guidelines of an enhance ERM framework could be utilised to even suggest a further study and pilot the results in other HEIs in the UAE.