Collection methods

The selection of collection methods depends largely on the methodology of the study. Keeping in mind that qualitative methodologies were most prevalent in this review (as shown in Table 4.10), the frequency with which a variety of data collection methods were utilised within the sample set are reviewed.

Table 4.12 cross-tabulates the frequency with which data collection methods were utilised and the overall methodology of the study. This organisation of data allowed the researcher to determine which collection methods were most frequently used overall within the sample set,

as well as which collection methods were used most frequently within study methodologies. For example, which methods were used most in quantitative, qualitative and mixed method studies respectively.

The keys for the collection theme codes as well as the methodologies are provided in Table 4.12. The process followed to determine the thematic categories of the data collection methods is described in Section 4.3.3. In Table 4.12, the green highlighted text indicates the lowest frequency while the blue indicates the highest frequencies.

Table 4.12: Frequency with which the data collection themes occurred in the dataset DATA COLLECTION METHOD METHODOLOGY TOTAL 1 2 3 Nr % 1 8 8 5 21 29.58 2 2 16 9 27 38.03 3 1 8 2 11 15.49 4 0 2 0 2 2.82 5 0 3 2 5 7.04 6 5 0 0 5 7.04 TOTAL 16 37 18 71 100

Source: Own compilation

Key for Data Collection Codes: 1) Survey/Questionnaire 2) Interview/Focus Group 3) Document Study/Review 4) Case Study 5) Observation 6) Test/Evaluation/ Experiment

Key for Methodology Codes: 1) Quantitative

2) Qualitative 3) Mixed Methods

Table 4.12 displays the frequency with which the various collection methods were utilised in relation to the methodology of the study. As can be seen in Table 4.12, the use of an interview or focus group was very popular within the dataset. It constituted 43.23% of collection methods within the qualitative methodologies reviewed in the dataset and 50% of collection methods in mixed methods studies. According to Gavin (2013:254-255), focus groups and interviews are some of the most widely-used collection techniques in qualitative studies, a notion that was supported by the findings of this study. The importance of this finding lies in the type of information gathered through this method.

According to Nieuwenhuis (2013:87), qualitative interviews can be a valuable source of descriptive information aimed at helping the researcher to understand the participant’s construction of knowledge and social reality. The value of interviews in contextualising topical issues serves as an explanation for its popularity in South African rural health development research, which is contextually varied. Nieuwenhuis (2013:90) describes the focus group as a productive technique encouraging participants to discuss issues more openly than they would in individual interviews. Similar to interviews, focus groups can be a source of rich, contextually-grounded information that can, when used correctly, contribute to the understanding of topical issues and phenomena from the perspective of immediate stakeholders.

Interestingly, the use of case studies within the sample set was found to be limited. Case studies, although often used in qualitative studies can also be used effectively in mixed method studies as quantitative data can just as easily be gathered and analysed using this method (Nieuwenhuis, 2013:75-76). Case study research can be defined as an empirical inquiry investigating a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context. Constituting only 2.82% of data collection techniques (see Table 4.12), it only occurred within qualitative studies. The use of case study research could provide significant insights into the contexts within which rural health development occurs in South Africa. Figure 4.2 graphically presents the data as recorded in Table 4.12, illustrating the spread of collection techniques across the three overarching study methodologies.

Figure 4.2: Use of data collection methods in relation to study methodology

Source: Own compilation

The data captured in Figure 4.2 indicates that the use of the various collection methods varied widely across the three methodologies but that there were collection techniques consistently used across methodologies. Of particular interest was the consistent use of questionnaires and surveys across all three methodologies.

According to Maree and Pietersen (2013:155), surveys serve to collect information regarding respondents’ opinions and perceptions to “describe and interpret the ‘what is’”. They continue to state that there are two typical characteristics shared by surveys despite their varied approaches. These are big sample sizes and the measurement of a variety of variables and testing of multiple hypotheses. Questionnaires, although they can take a variety of forms including open-ended, structured or semi-structured, collect information from a predetermined sample regarding a variety of topics. The ability to use questionnaires and surveys either qualitatively (open-ended) or quantitatively (closed-ended) makes them a popular choice of collection method in a variety of settings.

An interesting point to note is that observational techniques were largely underrepresented in the sample set. Although document studies or reviews were utilised in all three methodologies (see Table 4.12 and Figure 4.2), their use was relatively limited when compared to other techniques of data collection. Furthermore, the use of tests, experiments and/or evaluations

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

Quantitative Methodology Qualitative Methodology Mixed Methods

Questionnaire/ Survey Interview/ Focus Group

Document Study/ Review Case Study

were also limited (as shown by both Table 4.12 and Figure 4.2), and the use of case studies was equally limited. This phenomenon within the data suggested that the bulk of information gathered by the studies within the sample set was participant dependent, relying on the cooperation of these participants in the gathering of valid and sufficient information to meet study objectives thereby limiting the interaction between the researcher and the phenomena under investigation.