Ravalier PhD Theis.pdf - Anglia Ruskin Research Online

328
quantitative results show that some of the psychosocial hazards that individuals face have increased in intensity
over time.
As well as having strong research outcomes from the quantitative phase of the research design (see
Appendix 12 for a journal article currently in press awaiting publication based on these outcomes), it is also
proposed that each of the qualitative phases in work gave not only an understanding of the area of the workplace
requiring improvement, but also led to the design and implementation of organisational improvement
interventions. Indeed the qualitative aspect has been so well received that, upon discussions with the editor of the
International Journal of Stress Management, it was decided that the qualitative AI aspects would form an ideal
journal publication.
One issue in which the presented research could be faulted upon is inherent within the utilisation of an AI
approach. It is generally agreed that in order to understand what requires improvement within an organisation it is
necessary to have an idea as to what is afflicting employees, and in turn the organisation. In other words it is
necessary to understand the issues facing people before the AI methodology is started. It is recognised that this is
a potential limitation of AI research - it is difficult to understand the issues facing employees if they are never
sought. However practitioners have agreed that it is possible to include a 'diagnostic' aspect in such a research
methodology, an aspect which should be undertaken prior to the commencement of the AI approach. Whether the
quantitative approach taken in the presented research in order to determine the areas requiring improvement was
adequate for this task however is questionable. As shown in Chapter VIII Part 4, Section 9b there were a
number of qualitative results which were not mirrored in the quantitative outcomes, highlighting a limitation to the