An exploratory exercise to produce an MBA dissertation proposal: on government service quality

 An exploratory exercise to produce an MBA dissertation proposal: on government service quality

I am a part-time MBA student, currently learning to do my dissertation project. As an employee working in one of the government departments in Hong Kong, I want to study the crude research theme of "how the bureaucratic culture of the Hong Kong Government affect the government service quality to Hong Kong citizens". As it is not quite feasible to conduct a case study research in the government department I work in. I intend to extend the research theme to cover that of two other countries, namely, South Korea and Japan. At this stage, please describe some relevant research issues as well as some public-media reported issues over the past 8 years, as well as suggest 3 academic theories (with references in Harvard reference format) for me to consider.

 

Framing the topic

Your initial theme is important, but “bureaucratic culture” and “service quality” is both broad. A more feasible MBA dissertation would examine how selected cultural mechanisms—such as hierarchy, risk avoidance, silo working, rule orientation, and responsiveness to complaints—shape citizens’ experience of a particular type of public service. This is more defensible than attempting to judge the entire Hong Kong Government. Your preference for a time-bounded, pragmatist or critical-realist design also makes a focused comparative document study more realistic than access-dependent departmental case research.

A possible working title is: “Bureaucratic culture and citizen-perceived public-service quality: a comparative documentary study of Hong Kong, Japan and South Korea, 2018–2026.” Treat Japan and South Korea as comparative reference cases, not as three full national case studies; otherwise the project will likely become too large for a part-time MBA dissertation.

Research issues

• Hierarchy versus responsiveness: Does a strong approval chain discourage frontline discretion and slow responses to citizen problems?
• Silo working and coordination: Do fragmented responsibilities between departments cause “buck-passing,” repeated submissions, or unclear ownership of a case?
• Rule compliance versus citizen-centred service: When procedures are tightly standardised, do they protect fairness but reduce flexibility, empathy, and accessibility?
• Digitalisation as a cultural test: Digital platforms may improve convenience, but outages, inaccurate records, and weak recovery procedures can expose weaknesses in coordination, accountability, and user-centred design.
• Complaint learning: Analyse whether complaint systems merely process individual cases or generate organisational learning and service improvement.
• Trust, transparency and equity: Service quality is not only speed. It includes procedural fairness, clarity of explanations, accessibility for digitally excluded groups, and citizens’ confidence that decisions can be challenged.

A focused central question could be: How do hierarchical coordination, rule orientation and cross-agency collaboration influence reliability, responsiveness and citizen-centredness in public-service delivery in Hong Kong, with lessons from Japan and South Korea?

Publicly reported issues

• Hong Kong: Ombudsman material has documented problems such as interdepartmental buck-passing and delayed replies, while formal government responses record investigations into deficient enforcement and follow-up practices. These are useful observable indicators of coordination and responsiveness rather than proof that all public servants share one culture.admwing.gov+1
• Japan: The My Number programme illustrates the tension between digital efficiency and public trust: Japan’s Digital Agency confirmed errors in linked records during a 2023 nationwide check, while the government continued pushing mobile integration of the national ID. This supports analysis of data governance, error correction and citizen confidence.reuters+1
• South Korea: In November 2023, failures in the Saeol administrative network and Government24 portal disrupted both online and offline civil-document services nationwide for several days. This is a strong comparative incident for examining organisational resilience, escalation, vendor/technology dependence and communication during service failure.koreatimes.co+1
• South Korea: Public-organisation reform discussions in 2022 also explicitly raised concerns about efficiency following expansion in public entities, offering a broader context for examining how organisational scale and control arrangements affect public value.reuters

Use these reports as issue triggers and documentary evidence, not as direct measures of bureaucratic culture. Your analysis should compare incidents with policy documents, ombudsman reports, audit reports, service pledges, and—if feasible—citizen survey data.

Three theory options

1.    Hofstede’s cultural dimensions theory
Useful for examining power distance and uncertainty avoidance: high power distance may be associated with hierarchical decision-making, while high uncertainty avoidance may encourage detailed rules and cautious discretion. Use it carefully at organisational level; national culture should not be assumed to describe every agency or employee.
Reference: Hofstede, G. (2001) Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

2.    Street-level bureaucracy
Lipsky explains how frontline public servants exercise discretion under rules, workload pressures and resource constraints. It is especially relevant for investigating the gap between formal service promises and citizens’ actual encounters with public agencies.
Reference: Lipsky, M. (2010) Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. 30th anniversary expanded edn. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

3.    New Public Service
This normative theory shifts attention from treating citizens as customers to serving them as citizens through responsiveness, participation, public interest and democratic accountability. It provides a useful counterpoint to a narrowly efficiency-based view of service quality.
Reference: Denhardt, J.V. and Denhardt, R.B. (2015) The new public service: Serving, not steering. 4th edn. New York: Routledge.

Which of the three cultural mechanisms—hierarchy, rule orientation, or interdepartmental coordination—seems most visible in your own observations of citizen-facing government services?

 

The research theme of “Bureaucratic culture and citizen-perceived public-service quality: a comparative documentary study of Hong Kong, Japan and South Korea, 2018–2026.” is good to me and I would also like to focus specifically on the issue of "Trust, transparency and equity". Moreover, I would like to consider the following key words in my concrete research theme formulation: pragmatism, exploratory research, secondary research method of case study, questionnaire survey on citizen opinion, bureaucratic culture, service quality of transparency and equity.

 

Sharpen the theme

This is becoming a coherent pragmatist, exploratory mixed-methods MBA project: use the method that best answers the practical problem, combine documentary cases with citizen perceptions, and focus on how bureaucratic features may be linked to transparent and equitable service experiences. That focus is supported by research associating perceived government transparency with perceived social equity, with citizen trust affecting that relationship.journals.sagepub

A strong working title could be:

Bureaucratic Culture, Transparency, Equity and Citizen Trust in Public-Service Quality: An Exploratory Pragmatist Study of Hong Kong, with Comparative Documentary Insights from Japan and South Korea

This wording keeps Hong Kong as the empirical centre for your questionnaire, while Japan and South Korea supply contextual learning through secondary case evidence. It is far more manageable than trying to survey citizens in all three places within a part-time project.

Aim and objectives

Research aim
To explore how citizens perceive the influence of bureaucratic culture on the transparency and equity of Hong Kong Government services, and to identify potential improvement lessons from documentary cases in Japan and South Korea.

Four research objectives

1.    To identify bureaucratic-culture characteristics relevant to public-service delivery, especially hierarchy, rule orientation, risk aversion and interdepartmental coordination.

2.    To examine citizens’ perceptions of transparency, equity and trust in selected Hong Kong Government services.

3.    To explore the perceived relationship between bureaucratic culture and the transparency and equity dimensions of public-service quality.

4.    To compare secondary evidence from Hong Kong, Japan and South Korea in order to identify practicable service-improvement lessons.

Research questions

1.    How do Hong Kong citizens perceive bureaucratic culture in their encounters with selected government services?

2.    How do citizens evaluate the transparency and equity of those services, and how are these evaluations associated with their trust in government?

3.    What lessons concerning transparent and equitable public-service delivery can Hong Kong draw from documented service issues and reforms in Japan and South Korea?

Avoid claiming that the questionnaire can establish that culture causes poor service quality. With cross-sectional self-reported data, the academically safer language is “perceived association,” “relationship,” or “influence as perceived by citizens.”

Practical research design

Use an exploratory sequentially integrated design:

• Phase 1 — secondary comparative case study: Analyse publicly available ombudsman reports, audit reports, government reform documents, official statistics, and reputable news coverage from 2018–2026. Construct a comparison matrix covering bureaucratic features, transparency practices, equity/access issues, citizen complaints, and reform responses.
• Phase 2 — Hong Kong citizen questionnaire: Survey adults who used at least one selected government service during the preceding 12 months. Choose only one service domain—such as digital public services, housing-related services, licensing, or public enquiries—to keep respondent experiences comparable.
• Integration: Use the documentary findings to interpret survey patterns and develop practical recommendations. For example, a survey finding of low perceived clarity or fair treatment could be examined against case evidence on information disclosure, complaint handling, accessibility, or cross-department coordination.

The survey should operationalise service quality as two focused dimensions rather than a vague overall rating: transparency (clarity, access to information, explanations, status updates) and equity (consistent treatment, reasonable accessibility, and support for citizens with different needs). Research on public administration treats transparency, trust and perceived equity as related but analytically distinct constructs.journals.sagepub+1

Conceptual relationship

A simple model for your literature review and questionnaire is:

Perceived bureaucratic culture ⟶

Perceived transparency and equity of service ⟶

Citizen trust in government

At this exploratory stage, treat this as a conceptual proposition to investigate, not a causal model already proven by your study. A questionnaire can measure whether these perceptions move together; the comparative documents can help explain the organisational mechanisms that may lie behind the pattern.

What one specific Hong Kong Government service domain do you think would give respondents the clearest and most comparable experience of transparency and equity to evaluate?

For this more concrete proposal draft, could you suggest some specific research issues, public media-reported issues and 3 academic theories (with references in Harvard reference format) for me to consider.

 

Specific research issues

Keep the study centred on Hong Kong citizens’ perceptions, using Japan and South Korea to illuminate plausible organisational mechanisms and policy responses rather than to rank three national governments. This suits your pragmatist, exploratory design and preserves feasibility for a part-time MBA project.

·        Procedural transparency: Whether citizens can obtain understandable eligibility criteria, decision reasons, expected processing times, progress updates and appeal routes.

·        Equitable access: Whether older persons, persons with disabilities, lower-income residents, ethnic-minority groups and less digitally confident citizens can obtain comparable service access and outcomes.

·        Consistency versus discretion: Whether rule-based processing delivers equal treatment or, conversely, fails to accommodate legitimate differences in citizens’ circumstances.

·        Cross-department coordination: Whether citizens must submit the same information repeatedly, receive conflicting advice, or are passed between units—problems that may reduce transparency and perceived fairness.

·        Trust repair after failure: How clearly government agencies disclose mistakes, explain accountability, offer remedies and prevent recurrence after data, system or administrative failures.

Media and public-record issues

·        Hong Kong—access to information: Government departments received more than 10,900 public information requests in 2022–23; 94 percent were fully granted and 3 percent partly granted, but the remaining cases still provide a useful basis for examining whether formal disclosure performance matches citizens’ perceived clarity and openness.info.gov

·        Hong Kong—digital equity: Government reporting states that websites and mobile applications have adopted accessibility measures, including WCAG Level AA requirements and elderly-friendly design guidance. Your study can investigate the gap between such formal compliance and users’ actual ability to complete a service independently.legco.gov+1

·        Hong Kong—maladministration and redress: The Ombudsman may undertake direct investigations where matters indicate systemic deficiencies, gross injustice or serious maladministration; this provides a credible source base for selecting documentary mini-cases on complaint handling, unclear procedures or unequal treatment.ombudsman+1

·        Japan—My Number errors: In 2023, government investigations acknowledged erroneous data links in the My Number system, leading to a nationwide review, preventive measures and explicit trust-restoration efforts. Official updates later reported 8,351 linking errors among 82.08 million records reviewed. This is a valuable case of transparency, accountability and citizens’ confidence in digital public services.digital.go+1

·        South Korea—Government24 service outage: A November 2023 administrative-network failure interrupted the Saeol system and Government24 portal, disrupting both online and face-to-face issuance of official documents. Public reporting noted criticism of the response and concerns about the reliability of digitally dependent public services.koreajoongangdaily.joins+2

Three theories to consider

1.    Procedural justice theory
This is particularly well matched to your equity focus. It argues that people judge institutions not only by outcomes but also by whether decisions are made through fair, consistent, impartial and explainable procedures. It can guide questionnaire items on clear explanations, respectful treatment, voice, consistency and opportunities for review.
Reference: Tyler, T.R. (2006) Why people obey the law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

2.    Public-service quality model
Adapt the SERVQUAL dimensions rather than applying them mechanically. For this project, prioritise reliability (accurate and dependable service), responsiveness (timely assistance), assurance (competence and confidence), and empathy (consideration of diverse citizens’ needs). Add transparency and equity as context-specific public-sector dimensions.
Reference: Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1988) ‘SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality’, Journal of Retailing, 64(1), pp. 12–40.

3.    Institutional theory
Institutional theory helps explain why bureaucratic organisations retain formal rules, standard procedures and legitimacy-oriented practices even where they may impede citizen-centred innovation. It is useful for interpreting documentary evidence on digital reforms, accessibility standards, information-disclosure codes and complaint-handling reforms across the three settings.
Reference: Scott, W.R. (2014) Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities. 4th edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Recommended theoretical linkage

A concise framework would treat bureaucratic culture as the organisational context; use institutional theory to explain why its rules and practices endure; use procedural justice to explain how citizens judge transparency and equity; and use the adapted service-quality model to measure the resulting experience. Evidence already links transparency, perceived equity and citizen trust, making trust a sensible outcome variable rather than simply another service-quality item.journals.sagepub+1

Which of the five issues—procedural transparency, equitable access, consistency, coordination, or trust repair—would you prioritise as the single main focus of your questionnaire?

 

Please suggest an overall research methodology with 1 primary research method (i.e. an opinion questionnaire survey), 2 secondary research methods (i.e. on case studies and on secondary data analysis) as well as a dissertation project title.

 

Recommended title

Bureaucratic Culture, Transparency, Equity and Citizen Trust in Public-Service Quality: A Pragmatist Exploratory Study of Hong Kong with Comparative Case Evidence from Japan and South Korea, 2018–2026

A shorter alternative is:

Bureaucratic Culture and Citizen-Perceived Transparency and Equity in Public Services: A Pragmatist Comparative Study of Hong Kong, Japan and South Korea

The first title is preferable because it makes clear that Hong Kong citizens provide the primary evidence, while Japan and South Korea are examined mainly through secondary evidence.

Overall methodology

The study could adopt a pragmatist research philosophy, an exploratory research purpose, and a mixed-methods research design. Pragmatism is suitable because the research combines numerical citizen opinions with documentary evidence and prioritises useful explanations and practical recommendations. Contemporary methodological literature similarly presents pragmatism as appropriate for mixed-methods research intended to address meaningful real-world problems.tandfonline

A suitable design is an exploratory, sequential, partially integrated design:

1.    Begin with secondary case-study and documentary research to identify recurring issues and develop questionnaire dimensions.

2.    Conduct a Hong Kong citizen-opinion questionnaire survey.

3.    Analyse secondary data separately and then integrate all findings when answering the research questions.

This is not necessarily a fully balanced mixed-methods project. For a four-month, part-time MBA dissertation, the questionnaire should be the main empirical component, while the secondary research provides context, explanation and comparison.digital.go+1

Primary method: questionnaire survey

The primary method would be a cross-sectional opinion questionnaire survey of Hong Kong residents who have recently used a selected government service.

To improve comparability, specify one service context—for example, online public services, housing-related services, licensing, immigration-related services, or general public enquiry services. Asking respondents about “the Hong Kong Government” in general may produce vague answers because citizens interact with different departments and service processes.

Suggested questionnaire constructs

Use five-point Likert-scale statements, for example from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree:

Construct	Possible dimensions
Perceived bureaucratic culture	Hierarchy, excessive rule orientation, risk avoidance, departmental silos, limited discretion
Transparency	Clarity of requirements, availability of information, understandable reasons, processing updates, appeal information
Equity	Consistency, equal treatment, accessibility, affordability, support for people with different needs
Service quality	Reliability, responsiveness, timeliness, accuracy and ease of access
Citizen trust	Perceived competence, integrity, benevolence and confidence in government
Background variables	Age, gender, education, income category, frequency of service use, digital confidence and type of service used

The OECD trust-survey framework identifies responsiveness, reliability, openness, integrity and fairness as relevant dimensions for analysing trust in government. A validated citizen-trust scale also distinguishes perceived competence, benevolence and integrity.thedocs.worldbank+1

Sampling and analysis

For a feasible MBA project:

• Use purposive convenience sampling, recruiting respondents who have used a selected service within the previous 12 months.
• Aim for approximately 150–250 usable responses, subject to your university’s expectations and access.
• Pilot the questionnaire with approximately 10–20 respondents to identify ambiguous or culturally inappropriate wording.
• Use descriptive statistics, reliability testing, correlation analysis and, if the sample is adequate, multiple regression.
• Treat findings as evidence of perceived relationships, not proof of causal effects.

A possible exploratory model is:

Perceived bureaucratic culture→ Transparency and equity perceptions→ Service quality and citizen trust

Do not claim that the sample represents all Hong Kong citizens unless you have probability sampling. Report sampling bias, common-method bias, self-selection and the limitations of cross-sectional data.

Secondary method 1: comparative case studies

The first secondary method would be a comparative documentary case-study analysis of selected public-service incidents or reform episodes in Hong Kong, Japan and South Korea between 2018 and 2026.

The cases should be selected because they directly involve transparency, equity, trust or administrative accountability. Possible cases include:

Jurisdiction	Possible documentary case	Main analytical issue
Hong Kong	Ombudsman investigations into administrative procedures, information access or complaint handling	Transparency, redress and bureaucratic accountability
Hong Kong	Government digital-accessibility policies and implementation reports	Digital inclusion and equitable access
Japan	My Number data-linking errors and the subsequent national review in 2023	Data accuracy, transparency and trust repair
South Korea	Government administrative-network and Government24 disruption in November 2023	Digital reliability, crisis communication and equal access

Japan’s official review of My Number information followed confirmed record-linking problems and was explicitly connected to restoring confidence in the system. South Korea’s administrative-network failure disrupted the processing and issuance of civil documents, creating a useful case for analysing reliability, communication and accountability.journals.sagepub+3

Case-analysis procedure

For each case, record:

• The public-service function affected.
• The bureaucratic or institutional problem reported.
• The transparency problem, if any.
• The equity or access implications.
• The effect on public trust.
• The government’s response and corrective measures.
• Evidence of citizen complaints or media criticism.
• Lessons potentially relevant to Hong Kong.

Use a structured coding framework rather than simply narrating events. For example:

• Rule orientation.
• Hierarchical approval.
• Interdepartmental coordination.
• Information disclosure.
• Explanation of decisions.
• Accessibility.
• Equal treatment.
• Complaint handling.
• Corrective action.
• Trust restoration.

The cases should be interpreted as illustrative institutional episodes, not as proof that an entire country possesses a single bureaucratic culture.

Secondary method 2: secondary data analysis

The second secondary method would be a systematic secondary-data analysis of existing quantitative and qualitative datasets.

Potential sources include:

• Hong Kong Ombudsman annual reports and investigation reports.
• Hong Kong Government Minutes responding to Ombudsman recommendations.
• Legislative Council papers and committee records.
• Government service-performance reports.
• Public information-request statistics.
• Digital-accessibility and e-government reports.
• Japanese Digital Agency reports on My Number implementation.
• Japanese audit, ministry and parliamentary documents.
• South Korean government service-performance reports and administrative-network reviews.
• Reputable media reports from 2018–2026.
• OECD, World Bank and other international governance datasets, where country-level indicators are comparable.

The Hong Kong Ombudsman’s work is particularly useful because its remit covers administrative actions and systemic maladministration concerns. Publicly available information-request statistics can also help you compare formal transparency performance with citizen perceptions.oecd+1

Suggested secondary-data analysis

You could create a spreadsheet containing:

• Year.
• Country.
• Government department or agency.
• Service area.
• Type of issue.
• Transparency indicator.
• Equity/access indicator.
• Bureaucratic-culture indicator.
• Trust or legitimacy implication.
• Public response.
• Government remedy.
• Source type.

You could then conduct:

• Frequency counts of issue categories.
• Trend analysis by year.
• Thematic coding of official documents and media reports.
• Within-country comparison.
• Cross-country comparison.
• Comparison between official performance claims and reported citizen problems.

Avoid treating media frequency as a direct measure of poor service quality. Media coverage is affected by newsworthiness, political attention and editorial choices. Use media reports to identify public controversies, then verify important facts through official reports or multiple reputable sources.

Methodological integration

The three methods should have distinct roles:

Method	Main purpose	Expected output
Questionnaire survey	Measure Hong Kong citizens’ perceptions	Statistical profile of transparency, equity, service quality and trust
Comparative case studies	Explain significant public-service episodes	Contextual comparison of bureaucratic responses and reforms
Secondary data analysis	Identify patterns over time and across sources	Documentary evidence and issue trends

Integration can occur through a joint-display matrix. For example, if survey respondents report that government decisions are insufficiently explained, compare that result with documentary evidence on information requests, complaint responses and Ombudsman recommendations. Convergence strengthens the interpretation; divergence becomes a finding requiring explanation.

Suggested final formulation

You could describe the methodology in your proposal as follows:

This study will adopt a pragmatist research philosophy and an exploratory mixed-methods design. Its primary method will be a cross-sectional questionnaire survey examining Hong Kong citizens’ perceptions of bureaucratic culture, transparency, equity, public-service quality and trust. Two secondary methods will complement the survey: a comparative documentary case-study analysis of selected public-service episodes in Hong Kong, Japan and South Korea between 2018 and 2026, and a secondary-data analysis of official reports, administrative statistics, legislative documents, Ombudsman materials and reputable media coverage. Questionnaire data will be analysed using descriptive and exploratory inferential statistics, while documentary materials will be analysed through thematic coding and structured cross-case comparison. Findings will be integrated to identify relationships between bureaucratic culture and perceived transparency and equity, and to develop practical lessons for improving citizen trust in Hong Kong public services.

This design is sufficiently ambitious for an MBA dissertation but remains feasible because it avoids requiring access to confidential government records or interviews with serving officials. It also allows you to acknowledge that citizens can report their service experiences, while documentary evidence is needed to examine organisational processes behind those experiences.

 

If I include a focus group study for this project with 4 of my friends as citizens in Hong Kong, 1 university lecturer on public admin, and one friend of mine who is a a recently retired Hong Kong government official from a service department in Hong Kong, would it make the research methodology better in quality?

 

Short answer

Yes, adding qualitative evidence could improve the study’s depth and triangulation, but the proposed arrangement should not be treated as one focus group. Five citizens, one academic and one recently retired government official have different roles and status, so they may not speak equally freely. Focus groups generally work best when participants have reasonably similar status or relevant experience; common guidance places group size around six to eight participants.academic.oup+1

The strongest design would be:

• One citizen focus group with the five Hong Kong citizens.
• One separate semi-structured expert interview with the university lecturer.
• One separate semi-structured former-official interview with your retired government friend.

This gives you one primary method, two secondary methods, and an additional qualitative method without confusing the voices of citizens and experts.

Why separation matters

If all seven participate together:

• The retired official may be perceived as authoritative, causing citizens to moderate criticism.
• The lecturer may dominate the discussion because of specialist knowledge.
• Your friends may hesitate to discuss politically sensitive experiences.
• The official may unintentionally defend government procedures or speculate beyond personal knowledge.
• The group would mix citizens’ lived experiences with expert interpretations, making analysis less clear.

Focus-group homogeneity is not an absolute rule, but participants are generally more willing to disclose views when they perceive others as similar in status or experience. Therefore, a mixed-status group may generate interaction, but it may reduce candour—the quality most valuable for discussing bureaucratic culture, fairness and trust.academic.oup

Recommended qualitative component

Citizen focus group

Conduct one 60–90-minute focus group with the five citizen participants.

Its purpose should be exploratory rather than representative:

• Identify how citizens understand bureaucratic culture.
• Explore experiences of unclear procedures or explanations.
• Discuss whether government services feel equally accessible.
• Examine how mistakes, delays and complaints affect trust.
• Test whether questionnaire wording is understandable and relevant.

Five participants is a reasonable mini-focus group, although it is slightly below the commonly cited six-to-eight range. You should describe it honestly as a small exploratory focus group, not as evidence representing Hong Kong citizens.academic.oup+1

Expert interview

Interview the university lecturer separately. Ask about:

• Concepts of bureaucratic culture and administrative accountability.
• The meaning of transparency and equity in public services.
• The appropriateness of comparing Hong Kong, Japan and South Korea.
• Interpretation of the documentary evidence.
• Risks of measuring bureaucratic culture through citizen perceptions.

Former-official interview

Interview the retired government official separately and focus on professional experience rather than confidential information:

• How procedures and approval structures affect service delivery.
• How departments communicate reasons and processing requirements.
• How complaints and service failures are escalated.
• Tensions between consistency, risk control and flexibility.
• Barriers to equitable access and citizen-centred service.
• Experiences of reform, digitalisation and interdepartmental coordination.

Do not ask for confidential documents, personal data, classified information or identifiable details about individual cases. Because this participant is your friend, disclose the relationship and explain how you will reduce interviewer bias.

Revised methodology

Your overall methodology could now be described as a pragmatist exploratory mixed-methods study with qualitative triangulation:

Component	Participants or sources	Main purpose
Primary questionnaire survey	Hong Kong citizens who recently used a selected public service	Measure perceptions of bureaucratic culture, transparency, equity, service quality and trust
Secondary comparative case studies	Selected public-service episodes in Hong Kong, Japan and South Korea	Compare documented institutional problems and government responses
Secondary data analysis	Official reports, Ombudsman material, statistics, legislative papers and media reports	Identify trends, recurring issues and evidence of reform
Citizen focus group	Five Hong Kong citizens	Explore meanings, experiences and questionnaire-relevant themes
Expert interview	One public-administration lecturer	Obtain conceptual and interpretive insight
Former-official interview	One recently retired government official	Explore organisational processes and implementation realities

The questionnaire remains the primary method. The citizen focus group, lecturer interview and former-official interview should be described as supplementary qualitative evidence, not as a large qualitative sample.

Suggested sequence

1.    Review academic literature and documentary evidence.

2.    Conduct the citizen focus group to identify language, experiences and themes.

3.    Conduct the two expert interviews separately.

4.    Finalise and pilot the questionnaire.

5.    Conduct the Hong Kong questionnaire survey.

6.    Analyse documentary, qualitative and quantitative evidence.

7.    Integrate findings using a comparison matrix.

An alternative is to conduct the questionnaire first and use the focus group and interviews to explain unexpected survey findings. However, because your study is exploratory, the first sequence is useful for improving questionnaire relevance. Mixed-methods research commonly uses sequential designs to allow one form of evidence to inform another.pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih

Important limitations

This addition will not automatically make the research “higher quality.” Quality depends on methodological coherence, transparent recruitment, careful moderation, ethical safeguards and appropriate claims.

You should acknowledge that:

• The five citizens are a convenience sample and may be your friends.
• One focus group cannot establish thematic saturation.
• The lecturer and retired official are expert informants, not representative samples.
• The former official’s perspective may reflect one department and one career experience.
• Participants may provide socially desirable answers.
• The researcher’s employment in a Hong Kong government department may influence recruitment, questioning and interpretation.
• A former official cannot be assumed to represent current civil-service practice.

Use triangulation by comparing whether the survey, citizen discussion, official’s account, academic interpretation and documentary evidence converge or diverge. Multiple sources, including surveys, focus groups, interviews and documents, can strengthen credibility when their different purposes are clearly distinguished.reference-global

Recommended wording for the proposal

The study will adopt a pragmatist research philosophy and an exploratory mixed-methods design. The primary method will be a cross-sectional questionnaire survey of Hong Kong citizens who have recently used a selected government service. Secondary research will comprise comparative documentary case studies of relevant public-service issues in Hong Kong, Japan and South Korea between 2018 and 2026, together with secondary analysis of official reports, administrative statistics, legislative documents, Ombudsman materials and reputable media reports. To enhance contextual understanding and triangulation, one small citizen focus group and two separate semi-structured expert interviews will be conducted: one with a university lecturer in public administration and one with a recently retired Hong Kong government official. The qualitative evidence will be used to refine interpretation of the survey and documentary findings, rather than to claim statistical or professional representativeness.

Thus, the proposed additions can improve the study, but only if you use separate participant groups, modest claims and clear role differentiation.

A collection of blog notes on using chatgpt for research purpose.