The plan of this report was to select a large enough number of online admissions advisors to reflect the general body. Since each of these people has had contact with multiple OS they are able to relay information gathered from a variety of contacts rather than only first hand feelings which would be the result of surveying the OS themselves. This can then be shown to accurately reflect the overall student body of the university in question (Effective Clinical Practice, n.d.).
Upon contact at their place of employment most of the employees were willing, but they were worried about their job status since they were told that they were not to make commentary outside of work about work. There were assured of the anonymity of the survey by sharing with them that their names were not going to be used; only the number that was assigned to their survey, the same was told to the interviewees (Confidentiality, n.d.).
On December 2nd, the survey was delivered to the selected group consisting of 60 admissions advisors expecting a return of at least 2/3rds. By December 8th, there were 43 surveys which had been returned. These were retrieved by visiting the call center where the employees worked. All 16 interviews were conducted during the same period of time.
As the surveys were returned they were entered into an Excel spreadsheet with the name and the number of the survey. The name field was then hidden and the document was locked to prevent reading the names. A series of formulas were entered on the spreadsheet to arrive a statistical data that would be useful to further review of the topic. The answers to the first10 survey questions were grouped into percentages of affirmative, neutral and negative results for each question. This was in accordance with the general