2. The reviewer discussed in much detail which design might better describe the method used in our study. In the sequential exploratory strategy a qualitative component is followed by a quantitative component (Creswell, JW. ; Plano Clark, VL. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2011). Aspects of the organizational environment (e.g., creative problem solving) were identified in the qualitative component and statistically confirmed or rejected in the preceding quantitative study phase, which is exactly what the authors did in this study. However, the reviewer suggested that the convergent parallel design might fit our methodology even better. In the convergent parallel strategy, quantitative and qualitative data collection occurred concurrently. The components are given equal weight, and the two datasets are analyzed and compared in parallel. Quantitative data identified factors statistically, which were integrated with qualitative data from in depth interviews with a subset of participants to understand how and why the identified factors influenced participants’ attitudes. In the method’s section of our study we lined out that the results of the first qualitative study part were the basis for the development of the online survey. Based on the qualitative study part, the questions for the qualitative study were formulated when students’ attitudes were expressed frequently. In this sense, the first (quantitative) phase informs the next, but the reviewer is right, that both phases are interlinked. Although our study integrates components of both strategies, the authors still think, that the sequential exploratory strategy describes our methods better than the convergent parallel design (see also: Curry et al Circ. Cardiovasc, Qual. Outcomes 2013, 6:119-123). As suggested by the reviewer, the authors specified in the method section that we used an additive rather than a parallel integrative strategy.
I think, the manuscript benefits from a minor language editing.