Recall RQ 2:
RQ2: What, if any, is the relationship between the different model visibility levels and conflict management types across the stages of FM workshops for the cases observed?
As previously explicated in the Methodology chapter, the analysis for RQ 2 progressed in two steps. The first step was to conduct two sided chi-square tests in order to identify whether the MVL-CMT variables were related or not. For stages in which 2x2 tables were observed the Fisher’s exact test was used (Field, 2009:690). For stages in which 20% of cells did not have an expected count higher than 5 or had a minimum expected count less than 1, thus making an exact test not possible), the chi-square value and significance was obtained by utilising Monte Carlo simulated samples (Field, 2009:547). In the cases where the Monte Carlo sampling technique was used 10.000 samples were generated (as the default for SPSS 15).
The chi-square tests for the stages of cases A, B and C can be seen in tables 4.32, 4.33, and 4.34 respectively. Since this is an exploratory research a more liberal p<.10 was used. Still, both p<.05 and p<.10 significance levels are reported
191
Table 4:32 RQ2 -- Case A - Cross Stage Chi Square tests. Case A Stages χ2 (df64) Notes.
Variables: MVLs Vs CMTs
Stage 1 NA65 Perfect association of the variables. No-model
appropriation and no-conflict are the only behaviours observed. No further
interpretation is possible since there is no variance in both model appropriations and conflict observations. Variables: MVLs Vs CMTs Stage 2 46.49** (9) MVLs and CMTs appear to be related, thus Case A- Stage 2 is a suitable candidate for further analysing the MVLs-CMTs relationship Variables: MVLs Vs CMTs Stage 3 120.09** (9)
Same as Case A-Stage2
Variables: MVLs Vs CMTs Stage 4 4.21* (1) MVLs and CMTs appear to be related albeit with a .05<p<.10 confidence. Since this is an exploratory research Case A- Stage 4 has been chosen as a suitable candidate for further analysing the MVLs-CMTs relationship. ** p<.05, *p<.10 64 df: degrees of freedom. 65 No variance observed.
192
Table 4:33 RQ2 -- Case B - Cross Stage Chi Square tests. Case B Stages χ2 (df) Notes.
Variables: MVLs Vs CMTs
Stage 1 NA66 No conflict is observed. No further interpretation is possible since there is no variance in terms of CMT observations. Variables: MVLs Vs CMTs Stage 2 38.54** (6) MVLs and CMTs appear to be related, thus Case B- Stage 2 is a suitable candidate for further analysing the MVLs-CMTs relationship Variables: MVLs Vs CMTs Stage 3 19.19** (4)
Same as Case B-Stage2
Variables: MVLs Vs CMTs
Stage 4 NA67 No CMTs observed
**p<.05, *p<.10
Table 4:34 RQ2 -- Case C - Cross Stage Chi Square tests. Case C Stages χ2 (df) Notes.
Variables: MVLs Vs CMTs
Stage 1 NA68 No conflict is observed. No further interpretation is possible since there is no variance in terms of CMT observations. Variables: MVLs Vs CMTs Stage 2 78.71** (9) MVLs and CMTs appear to be related, thus Case B- Stage 2 is a suitable candidate for further analysing the MVLs-CMTs relationship Variables: MVLs Vs CMTs Stage 3 47.51** (4)
Same as Case C-Stage2
Variables: MVLs Vs CMTs
Stage 4 94.09** (9)
Same as Case C-Stage2
Variables: MVLs Vs CMTs
Stage 5 131.24** (9)
Same as Case C-Stage2
** p<.05, *p<.10 66 No variance observed. 67 No variance observed. 68 No variance observed.
193
The chi square analysis indicated that a relationship between MVL and CMT variables exists in all of cases stages except for Case A-Stage 1, Case B-Stages 1&4 and Case C-Stage 1.
Having established the stages which are amenable to further analysis, the second step of analysis was performed.
The second step in the analysis entailed performing multinomial regression models for assessing the likelihood of observing a given pair of interaction between the MVLs and CMTs compared to the benchmark pairs [i.e MVL(NMA)-CMTs].
For every stage, the number of pairs observed has been compared to the number of pairs bearing statistically significant differences from the benchmark pairs. A p<.10 was used as the level of acceptance for reporting. Dependent on the behaviours observed, the number of pairs varied across case and stages. Any stage in which the statistically significant pairs were less than 50% of the total number of pairs was excluded from further analysis since the data points were extremely low in order to draw any inference about the behaviour the stage presented. This is not to say that the variables MVL-CMT were not related, it merely suggests that the MVLs-CMTs pairs bearing statistically significant differences from the benchmark pairs [MVL(NMA)-CMTs) were not enough to allow for safe inference. For example, Stage 3 of Case B while presenting a statistically significant chi-square value, it merely offers 2 pairs out of a total of 6 observed, as presenting statistically significant differences from the benchmark pairs. Thus stage 3 for case B has been excluded from any further analysis altogether.
The cross-case and cross-stage results for all three cases can be viewed in the following graphs (Graph 4.28 and 4.29).
Graph 4:28 RQ2 -- Cross Case Likelihood of Co
194
Graph 4:29 RQ2 -- Cross Case Likelihood of Co
No 5th stage observed. No 5th
195 No CMT’s observed
Cross Case Likelihood of Co-Occurrence MVLs Vs CMTs. (continued).
th
196