Table 4.3 · Cross-participant evidence
Where the voices converge
Eight of the study’s most consistently evidenced findings, mapped across all twelve participants. Hover a participant to trace their column.
AI-generated conceptual illustration · Not research evidence or a real study site
| Finding |  P1 |  P2 |  P3 |  P4 |  P5 |  P6 |  P7 |  P8 |  P9 |  P10 |  P11 |  P12 | Convergence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Raw/unexplained data is associated with confusion or disengagement | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Convergent (12/12) |
| Visual formats are described as reducing cognitive load vs. raw tables | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | P | Y | Y | Convergent with one contrast case (P8 divergent) |
| Transparency about limitations builds trust; omission breaks it | P | P | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | P | Convergent (9 direct, 3 partial) |
| Audience-tailored explanation is described as important | P | Y | Y | P | Y | Y | Y | Y | P | Y | — | — | Convergent (7 direct, 3 partial) |
| Collaborative/synchronous review resolves ambiguity faster | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | P | P | P | P | — | Convergent with one contrast case (P4) |
| Storytelling is a normalized, present practice | Y | P | P | N | P | Y | Y | — | P | Y | P | P | Divergent |
| AI is emerging as a narrative-generation accelerant | Y | — | Y | — | P | P | Y | — | P | P | — | P | Emerging |
| Hierarchical filtering is associated with exclusion when unexplained | P | Y | Y | P | P | P | Y | Y | P | — | — | — | Mixed |
Portraits are imaginary icons, not photographs or demographic evidence. Y/P/N indicate qualitative support, not measured outcomes.
Central finding
Raw or unexplained data was associated with confusion or disengagement, while narrative context helped resolve it — supported directly by all twelve participants, from both data producers and data consumers.
An unresolved divergence
Two frontline shop-floor participants, P8 and P9, diverged sharply on dashboard usefulness. The dissertation reports this as a genuine, unresolved finding — fit, not frontline status, is what the evidence differentiates.
Table 4.4 · Second data source
The NCDOT documentary corpus
A purposively selected corpus of publicly available NCDOT organizational documents — an Annual Report (D1), a Performance Dashboard (D2), and Employee Engagement Surveys (D3) — coded to the same six-theme, thirty-code framework and compared against participant accounts. No participant is affiliated with NCDOT; the documents are contextual evidence, compared against — never substituted for — participant voices.
Annual Report — performance framework
States accountability “cascades down to all employees”; 41 executive measures, 8 strategic goals.
Stated top-down intent vs. P4/P8’s uneven access in practice.
Annual Report — Performance Scorecard
41 executive measures publicly reported with actual-vs-target results.
Confirms institutionalized dashboard reporting exists; not how any employee experiences it.
Performance Dashboard — six core priorities
Dashboard organized around six stated core priorities (Transportation Safety, Workforce Safety and Readiness, Program Delivery, System Reliability, Infrastructure Health, and Digital Modernization), each tracked through detailed sub-metrics with Current/Target columns.
Confirms institutionalized, multi-priority dashboard reporting; most sub-metrics were unpopulated at time of capture.
Annual Report — engagement metrics
Engagement score 5.7 vs. 5.00–5.50 target; absenteeism 0.03% vs. 2.5–4.0% target.
Public actual-vs-target reporting parallels participants’ transparency finding.
Employee Engagement Survey, 2024 vs. 2021
991 (2024) vs. 1,520 (2021) responses; unit scores range 5.2–6.9.
Unit-level variation echoes participants’ view that engagement tracks leadership, not the org. overall.
Annual Report — training / knowledge management
91% LMS training completion; CLEAR program logged 47 lessons-learned submissions (FY2025).
Infrastructure exists; does not confirm effectiveness for NCDOT’s own employees.
Annual Report — technology & innovation
Drone-response program; 79 national research projects; no AI-specific initiative identified.
Absence of an AI mention is not evidence NCDOT does not use AI.
—
No content addressing informal meaning-making or storytelling practice identified in any document.
Formal organizational reports do not capture first-person meaning-making.
Cross-source comparison: documentary content was coded against the existing framework with no new themes or codes introduced. Where documents were silent (Theme 2) or diverged from participant accounts (Theme 1), the difference was deliberately preserved.