Administering Data Collection

One of the critical aspects for a successful research is to get access to the most required data to generate reliable and credible results (Saunders et al., 2009). When a research is carried out that involves human participation, it is of utmost importance that the researcher respects the participants’ privacy and the voluntary nature of their involvement (Zikmund et al., 2014). The essence of ethics in research is to gain consent by convincing people to participate rather than forcefully compelling them to participate, and to maintain confidentiality (Salant and Dillman, 1994). There are mainly four areas that researchers’ need to consider regrading ethical principles: a) no harm to participants (such as physical harm or harm to participants’ self-esteem); b) approval of informed consent; c) no invasion of privacy; and d) no involvement of deception (Bryman and Bell, 2011). Researchers need to obtain a formal approval from the university’s Research Ethics Committee to grant access towards their data collection process in order to make sure that the four ethical principles are strictly followed (Guillemin and Gillam, 2004). However, it is important that the ethical principles are considered throughout the research procedure (Creswell and Clark, 2011). All the required documents along with the ethics application was submitted to the Human Research Ethics Committee of Tasmania (HREC) for approval. The ethics approval number for this study is

H0015234 (see Appendix IX). The ethics approval confirms that the researcher can administer data collection.

According to Fowler (2009), it is important that a researcher chooses the best possible procedure to conduct his/her research because it will have a major effect on the survey results and its intended purpose. However, the choice of a particular method depends on the specific study topic, population, budget, staff and time constraints (Salant and Dillman, 1994). In this study, the researcher physically met the respondents, handed over the questionnaire and asked them to fill up the questionnaire. This is called a drop-off survey (Salant and Dillman, 1994). Drop-off surveys are mostly suitable when the respondents belong to a small community, not spread over a large area and when the project has a small staff with large sample size (Salant and Dillman, 1994). This way of conducting a survey gives the survey a human face and is mostly effective when the survey is left with intended respondents (Salant and Dillman, 1994).

Considering the length of the questionnaire, it was a wise decision to personally meet the respondents and explain them the purpose of this study. The main rationale behind choosing

110

the drop-off survey was to exhibit the survey’s importance to the potential respondents so as to increase the response rate. The link to the online version of the questionnaire as well as its electronic version (Word and PDF – see Appendix III) was also sent out to each respondent via email to provide them with different options to complete the survey. In addition, a cover letter and an invitation letter were attached to the questionnaire to explain the research purpose, the importance of the participants’ cooperation and the confidentiality and anonymity of the respondents’ identity (see Appendix I and II).

The questionnaires were completed by the respondents (self-administered questionnaires) rather than being recorded by the researcher based on each respondent’s answers (interviewer-administered questionnaires) (Saunders et al., 2009). Best efforts were made to collect the completed surveys at the same time. However, there were some respondents who proposed a later date for collection. Since it was logistically difficult to visit one company twice due to resource and time limitations, the researcher requested such respondents to scan it and email it back once they have completed, which they accepted happily. If the respondent decided to complete the survey in the presence of the researcher, then the researcher guided the respondents through the questionnaire helping them to clear their doubts or confusions if required (Salant and Dillman, 1994). Follow-up (either through email or telephone) was made with those who did not complete the survey in two weeks. The follow-up reminder email is included in Appendix IV.

When the researcher visited the companies for the survey, the respondents were asked if they would be ready to accept an interview invitation regarding the topic under study (see Appendix V for Interview Invitation Letter). Priority was given to their convenience and hence, interviews were conducted either on the same day or on a different date proposed by the participant. Only nine out of the selected 15 agreed to do the interview where seven were conducted during the visit while two were conducted at a later date proposed by the respondents. The interviewees were asked to read and sign the Consent Form (see Appendix VI) before starting the interview. The interview sessions took approximately 30 minutes to one hour depending upon the convenience of the participants and the interviewer. With the participants’ permission, the interviews were recorded for transcript. The purpose of recording the interview was clearly explained to the participants. It was important that the researcher created a contact and a sense of trust and respect with participants so that a normal conversation could be developed (Kvale, 1996, DiCicco-Bloom and Crabtree, 2006).

111

Throughout the interview session, the researcher maintained a courteous, friendly and conversational tone (Berg and Lune, 2004).