Originally posted by **edzob** April 26, 2022
**5. Interviews**
1. “The interviewees were carefully selected to have a balanced understanding. “
-> how and by whom? And Add few criteria
2. “The interviews had a time constraint of one hour.”
-> where limited to one hour, because …
3. “It was not possible to talk about every attribute separately.”
-> So why was this not possible? Good pointer for when re-reading: Why do I want to write this sentence, and has the reader enough information to understand the why and impact.
4. “The interview questions were theme-based. The themes were carefully selected to make sure that there is a possibility that the attributes appear in the interview.”
-> this does not tell the reader anything ;)
5. “a concept map”
-> what is a concept map, why use it here (in the process) etc
6. “Because the interviews were at C-level, the interviews were not in-depth.”
-> I do not agree with this logic! At ING and other companies (KLM etc) C-level is indepth.. This is not okay to put in a public paper.
7. “It was not possible to talk in-depth about the attributes of EA.“
-> Why? Due to …
8. “Instead of analysing the attributes of EA, the analysis was on the EA schools of thought“
-> incorporate in the storyline..
9. “The first question is about how”
-> introduce the concept. Tell Tell Tell. so you are here communicating the X number of questions you prepared to discuss with the 4 C-level managers?
10. “As we already know from section 2.2 and section 4.1, the “
-> bit to much talking like for a class. A little bit back to the writing style. So for example “the concepts of diversity are important in regards to XXX (see 2.2 and 4.1) (taleb, gorgeon, botjes).
11. “Table 5.2 contains the questions asked and to which research concept they relate.”
-> rewrite to.. In total 14 questions where prepared (see table 5.2).
**5.1. Interview results**
1. “The interview results are recordings and transcriptions.”
-> rewrite!
2. “It is impossible to use these results for validation unless we transform this text into useful information.”
-> rewrite. This is an opinion. You choose to … or make a statement that is backed by a reference.
4. “becomes meaningful after Qualitative Data Analysis (QDA).”
-> rewrite. See previous statement. FYI.. QDA and how you did this is very cool. Give yourself a bit more space to explain what you did, and why you did this, and how you validated what you did was good (reference).
6. “For every positive and negative instance of an attribute of antifragile a label was created.“
-> the reader does not know what an instance is and has not enough information to identify the impact of this statement.
8. “It is important to know if an attribute exists or not. “
-> the reader can not do anything with this statement.
10. “The data set of this analysis is available as a structured Microsoft
11. Excel workbook with multiple worksheets.”
-> good to make explicit that the transcription files and the QDA are xyz stored and not public available due to.
13. “This file is publicly available in the GitHub repository of this research1”
-> many of the words are redundant. You can merge sentence with previous one.
**5.1.1. Interview results on attenuate variety**
2. “The frequency of the attributes”
-> Start section with an introduction what you are going to tell or something along these lines.
5. “The consequences are the main reason why the public sector gets very insecure from uncertainty. The public sector does not know how to deal with uncertainty and tries to control it. The common reflex is that the public sector tries to push uncertainty back into a state that it is certain Again”
-> is this your conclusion or paraphrasing an interviewee or what is the status/ source/ weight of this information? Please rephrase. The data is here, the interpretation of the data is in a separate section. Or make it more explicit that it is the validate summary of the interviews.
8. Figure 5.2 -> not certain i this is readable (vertical text)
10. “Shell has multiple suppliers for the same product or service. It gives Shell the option to choose between suppliers at any moment in time.”
-> source! These two statements need proof and thus a source. :) Especially since this is going online.
12. “”The public sector is obliged to comply with public procurement laws. The tender process is mandatory”
-> source for these two statements. Could be link to a law or wikipedia.
15. “Many attributes of a learning organisation are in place in the public sector. The attributes related to this behaviour are personal mastery, shared mental models, and building shared vision.“
-> ik zou eerst definitieren wat de attributen zijn en dan stellen dat uit de interviews blijft dat deze aanwezig zijn.
17. “Figure 5.3 shows the same.“
-> you now what the feedback will be :)
19. “For this category, the concern is what the most common Enterprise Architecture school of thought is in the public sector.“
-> rephrase sentence
21. “Al three schools of thought were present in the interviews. “
-> The three schools of EA as defined by la palme (000) (see cha..) where described by the interviewees in the … oid.. You know the drill.
24. Ik denk dat je dat paragraaf 1 van 5.1.4 in een twee sessie anders zou schrijven.
26. “One of the interviewees is in the school of thought Enterprise IT Architecting but has already started to show signs of Enterprise Integrating (appendix E.4).“
-> deze conclusie is heel lastig om op te schrijven. Heel rustig terug naar de basis. Wat moet de lezer hier weten en kunnen we dit netjes opschrijven op zo’n manier dat we de data en de interpretatie van de data scheiden. Zoals het nu leest is het een analyse van jou en geen beschrijving van wat ze verteld hebben.
29. “The interviewees have the opinion that EA does not communicate in the stakeholder’s natural language.“
-> all four?
31. “All four interviews confirmed this finding.”
-> is this double? Since you already stated that he interviews state this.
33. “This new attribute is noted in figure 5.5.“
-> this finding resulted in a new attribute for … : “.... “ (fig… )
36. “The newly found attributes (figure 5.5) were discovered conducting interviews.“
-> I assume that all the new attributes were described before . then you write here again the list of the new attributes.
38. “Not all the findings were attributes. Some are, but others are essential themes for a discussion or it is a not-able finding for later use.“
-> this is magic for the reader.. How what why, and when?
40. “treated, the most important two are blaming culture and no safe working environment.“
-> Why are they important?
42. “Until now, we have interview results with an explanation of attribute presence in the public sector.”
-> We? I :)
44. “It is at most a success factor for the sub-system of the interviewee. Based on studies (n=75), the median threshold for reaching consensus is 75% (Diamond et al.,2014, p. 404).”
-> ?? i think we know that this sentence does not make sense.
**5.3. Results of Qualitative Data Analysis**
1. “After performing Qualitative Data Analysis (QDA),” -> the previous paragraph is not complete! Where does the story end?
2. “When there is a score of 0 or less for attenuate variety, amplify variety, and learning organisation attributes, the attribute has some degree of certainty that it has a positive influence on achieving antifragility in the public sector.“ -> When there is ….., then the attribu….
3. “Based on the used data set and the interpretations of this data set, the attributes (table 5.4) are, with some degree of certainty, possible attributes that have a positive influence on EA in achieving antifragility in the public sector.” -> split sentence. And perhaps state.. X attributes result from the analysis of the data (table x).
4. “As already mentioned in chapter 5 the attributes of EA are implicitly part of the school of thought Enterprise Ecological Adaptation.“ -> we are in chapter 5 so this is a bit strange to state.
5. “The school of thought is an aggregation of its attributes.’ -> ??
Discussed in https://github.com/JRBliekendaal/master-thesis/discussions/146