“A mixed-methods study on the influence of quality of work life on commitment and performance”

Academic institutions are distinguished entities that perform pivotal functions to pro- mote education and research. Faculty are involved in these aspects by contributing their best efforts to achieve goals. Thus, they are the most important organizational resources. The study aimed to investigate the quality of work life of state university faculty. Moreover, it intended to contribute new knowledge by identifying its influ- ence on commitment and performance using Explanatory Sequential Mixed Methods. There are studies on quality of work life (QWL) in higher academic institutions with different components. However, this will be the first in education using the thirteen (13) factors of QWL of the 21st century. There is a sample of two hundred fifteen (n = 215) respondents and twenty participants from the state university in the province of Rizal, Philippines. Numerical data were treated with mean and Pearson’s r, while thematization is used to analyze qualitative data. Rewards and recognition have been commendable (M = 4.37); however, sustainable safety and health programs are aspired (M = 3.38). People feel empowered, but the excessive number of teaching loads was noticed, and the incentivization of those with the additional designation. The study found influence of quality of work life on commitment (r = .583, p < .01). QWL is considered multi-faceted, and evidently, many elements do not directly influence performance, having a very weak positive correlation (r = .079, p < .01). These results are deemed significant to continuously improve the welfare of employees. Hence, commitment and performance will be intensified.


INTRODUCTION
In higher education, universities serve as originators of various actions like social, economic, cultural, and political development, which can encourage the growth of a country (Mirkamalia & Thani, 2011;Arif & Ilyas, 2013). It brings guidance to sensible learning acquisition (Moscardini et al., 2022) with faculty as its partners for goal accomplishment. These knowledge workers are now compelled to compete in many facets (Freitas & Paredes, 2018) because of the trends in higher education in the local and international setting; thus, demands are persisting. Contemporarily, organizations are becoming increasingly aware of the importance of employees, which may be equated to a principle that states that happy workers lead to high-performance levels and commitment. It must be ensured, especially in educational institutions, which is an option that was recently considered in human resource management. The theoretical perspectives of quality of work life (Martel & Dupuis, 2006) have been a worldwide topic in human resource management (Srivastava & Kanpur, 2014). It has been one of the challenges of workers today: the focus of being a person rather than work and the impression that one is satisfied with work and its environment since an unsatisfied employee can be the first enemy of the organization (Swamy et al., 2015). If employees feel that they are a vital part of the organization, they tend to behave and participate more. Thus, it is an organization's outlook to ensure the holistic well-being of employees towards achieving sustainable organizational performance. An organization can use the humanized job design process like the quality of work life (Swamy et al., 2015) to treat employees as assets.
Faculty enter the teaching profession for various reasons, but they all share the need for appreciation, self-sufficiency, and affiliation (Canoy, 2020). This study is imperative because it will contribute new knowledge on the quality of work life and its influence on the commitment and performance of state university faculty in the Philippines. Investigating how people perceived the balance between their work and life with the organization's help on its provisions through its human resource policies may lead to understanding the pressing needs of workers. Furthermore, this endeavor will provide academic leaders with relevant knowledge on handling the organization's most important resources -its people.

LITERATURE REVIEW
This concept was explored many years ago and is widely used as a human resource management concept. The idea was first introduced during the 1972 International Labor Relations Conference (Hian & Einstein, 1990). Moreover, its constructs and models have evolved in published literature (Martel & Dupuis, 2006;Mirkamalia & Thani, 2011). Many constructs originated from the works of Walton (1975), Hackman and Oldham (1975), Taylor (1978), Westley (1979), and Levine et al. (1984). It is continuously searched and defined in many articles. However, in the context of this study, the following definitions have been highlighted. Amish and Singh (2021) reiterated that quality of work life pertains to the level of satisfaction, motivation, and involvement. On the contrary, for Srivastava and Kanpur (2014), it pertains to the commitment individuals experience to their lives at work. It is concerned with the welfare and satisfaction of employees on the job and off the job (Saidykhan & Ceesay, 2020). It stressed people's satisfaction since there is a variety of work, entrusted responsibility, and safety, health, and welfare are encouraged.
In education, Kaur (2016) defined QWL as the bond between the teachers and the working environment of the universities. Bagtasos (2011) defined QWL as a multi-faceted concept containing various constructs perceived by those who are interested and use it. The definition of QWL all points to equilibrium between work or career and personal lives of an employee with job satisfac-tion and refraining job stress. Aside from its many meanings, disagreements also exist (Saidykhan & Ceesay, 2020) on its dimensions to come up with precise identifiers of QWL of employees (Walton, 1975;Swamy et al., 2015;Afroz, 2017). In the education sector, there is an empirical review of QWL literature. The teacher's job satisfaction, work environment, motivation, and compensation shaped the QWL principle (Arif & Ilyas, 2013).
Interestingly, studies on QWL have been associated with performance and commitment (Mat Saimin et al., 2020). Definition and concepts of QWL have been widely studied in various areas. Many scholars agreed that it is not significant to establish one image or model since it can be used in various topics, fields, and settings. Hence, there is no single theory that underscores QWL, which has increasingly undergone rapid transformations. Inadequacy in identifying specific theoretical perspectives on QWL has been emphasized by Martel and Dupuis (2006). Taylorism of Taylor (1911), the Human Relation theory of Mayo (1960), and Herzberg's et al. (1959) Two Factor Theory are always partnered with QWL. Pioneered concepts and models widely used can be traced to the works of Walton (1973), who included eight (8) factors. Taylor (1978) did his empirical study patterned on Walton's work with the addition of employer and society factors.
On the other hand, Levine et al. (1984) argue that the ones who can best define QWL are those who use and are knowledgeable in it. Thus, they described seven (7) QWL factors. Next, Swamy et al. (2015) conducted their research using explorato-ry factor analysis and the principle of component analysis. As a result, they came up with nine (9) factors. This study considered Afroz's (2017) conceptual model, which is coined as the 21 st -century QWL factors. Her findings were presented with the use of Pareto analysis, which includes a review of significant literature. The study identified 13 significant factors out of a set of 27 factors considered. The results revealed new findings on QWL constructs with each factor defined and described how it could be identified.
Commitment is proven to be significant in managing human resources in the organization. The way people are driven may meaningfully affect their level of commitment (Cai et al., 2019), which tends to improve employees' attitudes and attachment to the organization. Commitment is employees' feeling of being connected with the organization. They feel that they fit in and understand their goals. Beloor et al. (2017) stated that if employees are committed, they tend to be determined to work and become productive. This concept gained much attention in research and was investigated by many scholars dealing with employees' outcome behavior toward the organization. QWL and commitment are consistently found to have an association (Farid et al., 2015), and the status of the former can affect the latter. Therefore, it is significant to be responsive to employees' quality of work life, which may lead to examining how they perceive it since it is vital to the organization's achievements. As mentioned, this will promote intensified commitment among employees.
Job performance pertains to an employee's productivity based on the job description prescribed. Moreover, performance indicators vary from one organization to the other (OECD, 2019). There are many studies linking performance to the aspects of the job. For example, Shmailan (2016) investigated the relationship between job satisfaction, job performance, and employee engagement. Ghaffari et al. (2017) found that the most significant motivational factor for job performance was responsibility.
Furthermore, Johari et al. (2018) concluded that job performance is impacted by autonomy and work-life balance. Predictors and indicators of employees' performance vary, so organizations must be conscious and concerned to avoid productivity problems. On QWL and performance, literature disclosed that they are closely related (Suyantiningsih et al., 2018).

AIM AND HYPOTHESES
The study aims to investigate the faculty quality of work-life using the 21 st -century factors and how they influence commitment and performance. This will contribute new knowledge, which can be used to continuously manage effectively the human resources of an organization, specifically those of state universities. With previous theoretical perspectives and literature reviewed, the following hypotheses are presented: H1: There is a positive correlation between the quality of work life and employee commitment.
H2: There is a positive correlation between the quality of work life and employee performance.

METHODS
This study is anchored on the pragmatic worldview of research, which applied the Explanatory Sequential Mixed Methods approach, specifically the follow-up explanations variant (Creswell & Plano, 2018). This type of research helps analyze the results collected through quantitative research. This study is explanatory research. First, the paper presents the quantitative data. Second, it offers qualitative data . This approach helps critically analyze data, where qualitative results refine the quantitative with a depth understanding of participants' views. Qualitative data analysis may lead to confirmation, expansion, or discordance (Fetters et al., 2013) of quantitative findings. The descriptive correlation was employed for the quantitative approach, which is non-experimental.  (20) university faculty from other academic institutions. Thus, proper approval was sought, and a reliability test using Cronbach's Alpha (see Table  A1) was conducted. On commitment, it was measured with a 15-item instrument from Mowday et al. (1979), coined as Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ). Records on the average job performance were obtained from the faculty responses considering the last three (3) years. There are two hundred (215) respondents. Appropriate statistical treatments were used with SPSS version 23 to interpret and analyze the data correctly.
The qualitative phase of the study is a phenomenological design that made the participants describe their experiences based on the topic deliberated. The guide question was prepared and sought expertise from people familiar with the topic and two of the respondents from the quantitative phase who are not part of the second phase to test how they would feel about answering these questions. The interview protocol (Jacob & Furgerson, 2012) was prepared, and a good rapport was built with the participants, which facilitated better responses. Purposeful sampling was used, meaning included some of the participants in phase 1. It considered the length of service, faculty rank, campus, gender, and the monthly salary in se-lecting the twenty (20) participants.
The qualitative data obtained followed the principle of trustworthiness (Korstjens & Moser, 2018), particularly credibility, transferability, dependability, confirmability, and reflexibility (see Table A2). It is validated using the member strategy (Creswell & Plano, 2018). After analyzing qualitative data, it was presented to participants to confirm if it was the correct manifestation of their experiences. Ethical concerns have been considered, and permissions have been sought. Furthermore, in the actual conduct, the identity of the respondents has been guarded, and there is a certainty that all participants receive the same treatment . To analytically examine data, a joint display is a compelling tool to present the integration of both data sets with meta inferences (Haynes-Brown & Fetters, 2021). The procedural diagram is presented in Figure 1.

RESULTS
A sided-by-side joint display was used in the study to reflect the results of the descriptive survey, which utilized a questionnaire and a phenomenological interview. With this, results of the different research topics were integrated to reveal in the meta inferences whether it confirms, discord,  or expand findings. The significant findings and/ or outliers were considered in the quantitative results. The textual interpretation was reflected with quantitative, qualitative, and integration of findings. Systematic identification of awardees.
"We are much happy… on the way we are recognized" (F10).
"Our performance is always emphasized, and we are recognized for that" (F1).
"The university has a manual and clear policy on recognizing deserving employees" (F5). Confirming.
They remarked that they are rewarded for their performance to create a thriving workplace, as reflected in the mean (4.37). They have a common feeling shared about this. They expressed positive outlooks on the way employees are recognized. Incentivization of faculty with a designation.
"Why faculty are not motivated to accept designation, particularly dean… maybe the reason is lack of motivation. How can we motivate them? The university may find ways to give rewards and recognize those handling designations…compensate those holding positions" (F5).
"Maybe, give incentive to faculty who are handling designation. They are not adequately rewarded for the extra effort they have. Maybe some rewards and recognition to motivate faculty" (F19).

Expanding.
They are happy with the recognition they received but revealed that there might be a consideration on faculty handling designation, although the authorities may deliberate just temporary. Their additional efforts may be considered like giving incentives.

LM = 3.38 (Safe and Healthy Working
Condition) Number of teaching loads vis-a-vis research activities.
"The university may consider new structure in faculty loadings such as assigning faculty research assistant or others" (F9).
"Please review the loading… because we cannot perform research and extension since most of our time is allotted to instruction and Designation" (F17). Expanding.
It was told that the number of teaching loads reveals to be one of the barriers to their research involvement. They reiterated that overloads and assignment of designations consumed much of their time. Safety and health are a matter of concern.
"Philippine Health insurance is not sufficient. There may be other medical insurances. It will help faculty". "There is no regular medical check-up, which is necessary. I think it is due to the problems in allocating the budget, and it will not be easy" (F12).
"No established stress management program. Some campuses are also suffering from traveling without official vehicles provided by the university, making them uncomfortable and may lead to untoward incidents" (F15).
"I am bothered how some of us are having difficulties taking care of our health because of financial limitations. Some are unable to finance regular medical check-ups and medicine, considering that most faculty are aging" (F6).

Confirming.
Having the lowest mean (3.38) among the QWL factors, they confirmed the results by expressing their dismay at the lack of ability of the organization to provide a sustainable health program for its personnel. In addition, many suffered because of aging unpreparedness. This QWL factor is one of the most important, however, given less attention.

OM = 4.04 SD = .6043
Faculty are empowered and have job security.
"I am happy to be part of URS, and I believe, my retirement is here" (F12).
"Do not get us wrong, yes, there are policies in place to improve the welfare of faculty, but there are still more to be noticed" (F10).

Confirming and expanding.
It was revealed that they are happy and empowered; however, some factors require more attention that necessitates an extra effort to improve. As for quantitative data, descriptive statistics revealed the result of the quality of work life (M = 4.04, SD = .6043) of faculty on thirteen (13) QWL factors (see Table A3). Specifically, reward and recognition got the highest mean (M = 4.37) among the factors considered, while safety and health working conditions (M = 3.38) obtained the lowest mean.
As for qualitative data, participants acknowledged the systematic identification of awardees. "We are much happy… on the way we are recognized" (F10). "The university has a manual and clear policy on recognizing deserving employees" (F5). Reflectively, they revealed that the university may incentivize faculty with the designation. They reiterated that reward and recognition are not a question since they received what is due. However, there is a lack of policy on giving incentives to designated individuals, bringing status and respect to the position. As one remarked: "Maybe, give incentive to faculty who are handling designation. They are not adequately rewarded for the extra effort they have. Maybe some rewards and recognition to motivate faculty" (F19). Some aspects have been noticed that necessitate attention, like the number of loads so faculty can focus on researching since it is needed in a higher academic institution. "Please review the loading… because we cannot perform research and extension since most of our time is allotted to instruction and designation" (F17).
Furthermore, satisfaction with the way the university is giving attention to safety and health is a matter of concern. There is an absence of sustainable programs which can address the insufficiency to support the needs of the faculty in their difficulties. "I am bothered how some of us are having difficulties taking care of our health because of financial limitations. Some are unable to finance regular medical check-ups and medicine, considering that most faculty are aging" (F6).
They further confirmed that every faculty is empowered. However, they noted that this action must not lead to abuse of human force. Job security is never an issue, and no instance of intimidation was experienced to be removed from their ranks. "I am happy to be part of URS, and I believe, my retirement is here" (F12). "Do not get us wrong, yes, there are policies in place to improve the welfare of faculty, but there are still more to be noticed" (F10).
The numerical results of QWL, considering the highest mean (4.37 = Reward and Recognition), were confirmed by the participants to be prominent among the other factors. They share common feelings and positively respond to how people are recognized. On the other hand, safety and health obtaining the lowest mean (3.38) were reiterated, which may necessitate immediate attention to lessen the future effects faculty may experience. Furthermore, insights revealed other concerns, which were able to expand the results like providing incentives to faculty with additional work and revisiting the number of teaching loads so faculty can perform other required functions.
As for quantitative data, the commitment of the faculty disclosed that they are pleased with their choice to be part of the university (M = 4.04, SD = .6878); hence, they are proud to be with the organization. Further, they extend their concern for its welfare and perform what is expected of them for the organization's success. The faculty considered that there is more to gain by staying in the organization, and it was not a mistake to be part of the university. There is a moderate positive correlation (r = .583, p < .01) on QWL and commitment (see Table A4). Therefore, the study failed to reject the Hypothesis 1 since the statistical results were significant.
As for qualitative data, happiness, contentment, and continued support to the university are the words to describe their commitment. "I will not leave the university, that is for sure" (F1). "This organization is a better workplace for me. I cannot afford to leave it" (F18). "I will forever be grateful for what the university can give me, but I have also to serve it to better serve our clientele" (F4). "QWL of faculty will sum up the commitment with the university" (F2). Faculty expressed that commitment is affected by the way individuals are treated. "Treat me right, and I will love and be committed to you in return" (F5).
Accordingly, QWL and its relationship to commitment are evident. Hence, they acknowledged that it has an association with each other. As comment-ed: "There is no such perfect organization, this is not perfect, not even others. However, to continuously serve the university better, its employees have to be nourished as well" (F15). "If an individual has been treated well and provided with better incentives, rewards, and others, his/her commitment will be affected" (F19).
There is a confirmation of quantitative findings, as shown in the results of the phenomenological interview. The treatment and welfare they received at the university fortify their commitment. This can be one of the reasons why employees are motivated, and the university can keep and protect highly qualified personnel. These are sealed by the faculty's statement, which implied the willingness to spend more time in the university and exert more effort to contribute to organizational goals.
As for quantitative data, mean (1.75, SD = .4733) of faculty performance is interpreted as very sat-isfactory. The correlation (r = .079, p < .01) between QWL and performance is statistically significant, showing a very weak positive correlation (see Table A5); thus, the Hypothesis 2 is failed to be rejected. QWL has various elements, and evidently, some factors do not directly influence job performance.
As for qualitative data, the faculty is aware of the performance management in the university, particularly the planning, implementation, and utilization. Contents weigh more on instruction, research and extension conducted. However, they claimed that there are lots of components that affect their performance. "You know, there are so many elements that ,can contribute to an individual's performance because we have different priorities" (F2). "I am not bound by so many advantages I cannot get so I will perform better; it is the engagement I have with the job I am doing" (F11). "I am teaching because this is my passion; "I will not leave the university, that is for sure" (F1). "This organization is a better workplace for me. I cannot afford to leave it" (F18).
"I will forever be grateful for what the university can give me, but I have also to serve it to better serve our clientele" (F4).
"QWL of faculty will sum up the commitment with the university" (F2).
"Treat me right, and I will love and be committed to you in return" (F5). Confirming.
The numerical results (r = .583, p < .01) are confirmed by the qualitative data.
Correspondingly, it revealed that employees' QWL experience influences their commitment. The practices and involvements during their stay at the university made them realize and strengthen the level of commitment they can offer. Thus, the organization's practices to promote the welfare of employees influence the allegiance of the faculty. They have expressed their love and support and further emphasized that a better workplace may lead to confidence the employees may share.
Continued support to the university.
"I love this organization; I will support all of its endeavors" (F5).
"The university is approaching various activities for development; I will support it in whatever capacity I can partake" (F7).
A conducive workplace leads to employee loyalty.
"I have been in the university for quite a long time, and I am very much delighted how they manage their employees" (F2).
"There is no such perfect organization; this is not perfect, not even others. However, to continuously serve the university better, its employees have to be nourished as well" (F15).
"If an individual has been treated well and provided with better incentives, rewards, and others, his/her commitment will be affected" (F19).
yes, I can say that the welfare of the faculty is a university's priority, but we should not rely on that.
Let us show what we can do to help the university" (F13). Concepts on making employees informed on their performances were revealed in the interview. "May I suggest that a post-conference be a policy to be strictly implemented. We have to be informed about our strengths and weaknesses" (F6). "After we know the results, maybe our immediate superior can mentor us to improve our performances" (10).
The survey conducted was confirmed by the qualitative results. Noticeably, they mentioned other factors and components which affect their job performance. They are not after what they are getting from the university, but it is more about their passion and personal choices. A sense of professionalism to accomplish their job is strong.

DISCUSSION
Reward and recognition had been emphasized among the QWL factors. The participants have expressed affirmation; however, concerns on incentivizing faculty who hold designation came out suggestively. It may assist them in any way to inspire them to perform their job better. Emphasizing employees' contribution has to be valued and appreciated (Aberdeen Group, 2013); thus, this tends to be repeated (Nelson, 2016). Other insights were re- "You know, there are so many elements that can contribute to an individual's performance because we have different priorities" (F2).
"I am not bound by so many advantages I cannot get, so I will perform better; it is the engagement I have with the job I am doing" (F11).
"I am teaching because this is my passion; yes, I can say that the welfare of the faculty is a university's priority, but we should not rely on that.
Let us show what we can do to help the university" (F13).
"Incentives, benefits, privileges are given; however, the people who received it have different views about it. For me, they are not the only basis for an individual to do their job" (F8).
Confirming and expanding.
The numerical (r = .079, p < .01) result interpreted as a very weak positive correlation is confirmed by the faculty as they established that QWL is not a sole factor that might affect performance. It is more on personal choice and priorities to do their job. A sense of professionalism amongst others is strong. However, it was manifested that to better implement the performance management system, employees should be informed by way of post-conference. This activity may lead to mentoring of employees so they can address their weaknesses and develop more on their strengths.
Awareness of Performance Management System.
"We are educated on how performance is conducted and its use" (F5).
"Every semester, it is administered, and we have given copies of the results." Conduct of Post Conference for feedback.
"May I suggest that a post-conference be a policy to be strictly implemented. We have to be informed about our strengths and weaknesses" (F6).
"After we know the results, maybe our immediate superior can mentor us to improve our performances" (10).
vealed, which led to the expansion of findings. They felt employee empowerment in the organization, freedom to perform their job and solve problems associated with their work. Better than this is being exercised in an organization because part of its advantages shows employees' willingness to accept responsibility, increased morale, and improved QWL (Hanaysha, 2015). Faculty acknowledge their responsibility and believe that all dimensions of their job are essential, which they experienced as challenging and fun. Remarkably, they do love and value the university. It is also noted that there must be a review of policy on faculty loading (Lucero-Prisno, 2021) to focus on research and extension undertakings that are vital in higher education.
Another confirmation led to safety and health, which is a matter of concern since sustainable health and wellness programs are absent, including promotional campaigns to reassure physical activity, healthy eating in the workplace, and providing information about drug and alcohol use and mentoring activities (Burton, 2010). In addition, there are limited welfare facilities that can help employees continuously develop their efficiency. Such facilities will enable a worker and his family to lead an excellent work-life, family life, and social life (Odeku & Odeku, 2015). Moreover, this will rely on employer and employees' organization negotiation for its provision (Oginni & Segun, 2013). Aldana (2021) claimed that this action might improve employee health behaviors, promoting productivity and increasing organizational performance. Given the results, the factors used have been significant in determining the status of faculty well-being. Hence, this human resource management concept necessitates attention since it has an important impact on the quality of education in academic institutions, and its many components influence the education quality (Patro, 2015).
There is a validation of findings on the correlation between QWL and commitment. Employees appear to value the organization and are proud to be part of its endeavors. They have expressed their sincere concern and protection to the university. Employee commitment will help achieve goals continuously; hence, it must be strengthened, leading to serving the organization better (Abrahamyan et al., 2014). The findings suggest the importance of faculty QWL to commitment. People who experience better QWL tend to have a high level of commitment (Farjad & Varnous, 2013). However, QWL and performance have a very weak positive correlation. It was also revealed that the behavioral components may influence a great extent other than socioeconomic factors.

CONCLUSION
The study investigated the quality of work life of state university faculty and how it influenced their commitment and performance. With explanatory sequential mixed methods design, the meta inferences led to validating the positive correlation of quality of work life to commitment, which means that when employees are being treated fairly and right, their loyalty and allegiance are developed. On the other hand, employees' behavioral components might influence their performance rather than the QWL socioeconomic aspects.
The paper emphasizes that being a faculty, employee empowerment is evident. Moreover, it also highlighted the need for safety and health programs for government-owned universities in the Philippines and other developing countries. There is an aging population, and there are limitations on the health package and privileges given.
The 21 st -century factors used to identify the QWL have been experiential for the faculty since they could relate to their experiences and reveal their well-being status. This can be considered universal and proven to be well-matched in the academic setting. Thus, it will contribute to the plethora of knowledge on the topic of QWL, believing that it is a multifarious concept of human resource management. The study can be a springboard for an organization to give attention and emphasis to human resources welfare and development since these aspects should be a priority.

Credibility Prolong Engagement
Before FGD was conducted, the researcher educated the informants about the activity. Rapport has been built, which resulted in continuous exchanges of ideas. The transcription of data is done rigorously and personally organized by the researcher.

Persistent
Observation Qualitative data were coded, and results were read and reread.
The researcher studied the data before coming up with a probable profundity of insight.

Triangulation
Factors have been considered in choosing the key informants like the length of service, faculty rank, campus, sex, and monthly salary to access various experiences.
Mean results of job performance have been one of the bases in crafting the guide questions.

Member Checking
The researcher sought the participants' approval on the accuracy of their reflection on the topic deliberated.
The respondents' data have been affirmed in the second round of interviews, and no disagreements have been recorded.
The researcher asked for no sensitive information from the participants.

Transferability Comprehensive Description
There is a clear description of sample size, how participants are selected, data collection, and analysis. Views and experiences are presented clearly with quotes to emphasize the findings. Data sets have been implicated in the findings.

Dependability and confirmability
Audit Trail All the procedures conducted have been cited and explained. Two meetings have been conducted. One is to acquire the data, and the second is to affirm the data findings.
Proper protocols in conducting qualitative research have been followed.

Self-Reflection
The personality of the researcher is evident and delineated from the research topic. Google meetings have been watched repeatedly to get a correct transcription of the proceedings and reflect on the outcomes of the activity.