Data Collection Methods

Assessing all potential data collection methods aids selection of the most appropriate technique to answer the research objectives and questions (Saunders et al. 2007).

4.5.1 Questionnaires

Questionnaires are an important technique in collating quantitative primary data. It is a formalised instrument for asking information directly from respondents concerning behaviour, demographic characteristics, level of knowledge, and/or attitudes, beliefs, and feelings (Tull and Hawkins, 1993). Saunders et al. (2007) suggest that there are two main types of questionnaires; self-administered and interviewer administered.

Self-administered questionnaires are usually completed by the required respondents and can be collected through various ways such as online questionnaire, postal or mail questionnaire, delivery and collected questions. Alternatively, interviewer administered questionnaires are recorded by the interviewer on the basis of each respondents’ answers.

The objectives of questionnaires include translating the information needed into a set of specific questions the respondents can and will answer. It is important that questionnaires must motivate respondents to complete the questions and must also minimise the response error (Malhotra, 2007). The design of the questionnaire will affect the response rate and the reliability and validity of the data collection.

Reliability refers to the consistency in reaching the same results when the measurement is made again and again. Validity refers to the degree to which the question measures what it is supposed to be measuring (Proctor, 2003). The validity and reliability if the data collected and the response rate will largely depend on the design of the questionnaire and the structure of the research questions.

4.5.2 Focus Groups

Focus groups are a data collection method synonymous with qualitative research (Malhotra, 2007). They are designed to obtain data regarding the opinions and feelings of a group of selected respondents (Hussey and Collis, 2003), through their interaction with both the interviewer and the other respondents (Ghauri and Gronhaug, 2002).

The effectiveness of the focus group depends on: group composition; moderator characteristics; and the interview atmosphere (Malhotra, 2007). The atmosphere should preferably be comfortable, informal, relaxed and the process should take no longer than 2 hours (Malhotra, 2007). Stokes and Bergin (2006) and Malhotra (2007), identify the following advantages and disadvantages of focus groups:

Advantages:

• The researcher will be able to collate a wide range of information, insight and ideas from a number of people, so data collection and analysis proceed quickly rather than the lengthy process of one-to-one interviews.

• Creative responses are more likely to occur due to the spontaneity and unconventional and flexible structure of the interview, often one person triggering a chain of reactions from other participants.

• Respondents are generally less likely to feel inhibited as they are in the company of others similar to themselves therefore providing accurate responses.

• Focus groups are versatile and can be used to gain insight into almost any product, service, concept or issue.

Disadvantages:

• Misuse of the results, by considering the results as conclusive rather than exploratory.

• Generalisation, stating participants reactions as fact, focus groups are to generate insights, which must be verified through more formal research.

• Client and researcher bias, providing the opportunity for the researcher or the client to interpret focus group data arbitrarily.

• The quality of results depends heavily on the skills of the moderator.

• The unstructured nature of the responses can often make the analysis and interpretation, difficult to read and often the presentation can look messy.

• A well-conducted focus group interview conducted by a research firm can cost up to five thousand pounds.

4.5.3 In-Depth Interviews

In-depth interviews are single units of one-to-one data collection and analysis (Malhotra, 2007), are most appropriate for exploratory and inductive research (Ghauri and Gronhaug, 2002) and last for 30 minutes or longer (Tull and Hawkins, 1993).

They are structured and planned to allow collection of quantitative data (Denscombe, 1998), but also allow the researcher to ‘probe for elaboration’ (Mahlotra, 2007) and extract fundamental reasoning behind the respondent’s responses by adapting subsequent questions in accordance with their answers about a relevant social context (Bauer and Gaskell, 2000).

Stokes and Bergin (2006) identified the following three broad categories of depth-interview advantages:

• Can be applied to topics that involve unique, sensitive or personal topics.

• More depth, context and flexibility in the process of inquiry can be achieved due to greater control of respondent selection.

• Hedges (1985) discussed preferential outcome as an advantage in terms of the depth and comprehensiveness of information that depth studies can yield. The reasons for this is that it is an opportunity for the respondent to analyse motivations they may have not considered previously and most importantly the opportunity to be listened to which leads to a feeling of empowerment (Berent, 1966).

Further preferential outcomes discussed by Webb (1992) are as follows:

• It is possible to ascribe the views to individual respondents, allowing for precise interpretation.

• It affords the opportunity to build a close rapport ad high degree of trust, thus improving the quality of data.

• It allows for easier expression of non-conformity.

The disadvantages of depth-interviews are identical to those of focus groups (see section 4.5.2), plus the following identified by Malhotra (2007):

• Data obtained can be difficult to analyse and interpret. Psychologists are often required to help with the data.

• The interviews are time-consuming and a high cost method of obtaining information.

There are four types of in-depth interviews (Birn, Hague and Vangelder, 1990; Tellis, 1997):

1. Open-ended – key respondents are asked to comment about a set of topics or issues.

They may propose solutions or provide insights into events.

2. Focused – respondent is asked to answer precise questions about a set of topics or issues. This technique is often used to confirm data collected from another source.

3. Structured and Survey – the structured interview and survey are similar, and are used to gather data studies involving a larger group of respondents. The interviewee answers a list of questions which are detailed and developed in advance.

Stokes and Bergin (2006) assessed the merits of using focus groups and individual depth interviews by conducting identical research into the relative potential of a new product in different target markets, the comparative outcomes of which are depicted in Figure 4.5. In brief, it emerged that in-depth interviews can be more effectively utilised to expose important attitudinal data and access the important underlying issues, whilst focus groups are more appropriate to identify principle issues, and hence, are more pertinent when applied to wide ranging exploratory research (Stokes and Bergin, 2006).

Figure 4.5 Comparison of research potential of groups and interviews

Potential of each research method for: Focus Groups Interviews

Identify central buying motivations. Yes Yes

Identify key buying processes. Yes Yes

Identify target markets. Yes Yes

Qualify brand name. Yes Yes

Identify spread and extent of options. Incomplete Yes

Provide and consensus view. Yes No

Offer depth and clarity of data. Incomplete Yes

Offer breadth of data and contextual information. Yes Incomplete

Uncover subtleties in attitudes. Incomplete Yes

Source: Stokes and Bergin (2006)

4.5.4 Summary

The comparative advantages and disadvantages of questionnaires, focus groups and depth-interview are depicted in Figure 4.6.

Figure 4.6 Advantages and Disadvantages of Data Collection Methods

Advantages Disadvantages

Unable to obtain richer data and find out reasons behind the answers.

Focus Group Able to obtain richer data.

Cheaper.

Able to make more complex questions and follow up questions.

More accurate and clear picture of respondent’s position or behaviour.

Higher degree of confidence in the replies.

Demand a cautious and skilled

4.5.5 Data Collection Method Adopted

The data collection method will incorporate research variables determined by secondary research that is relevant to the research area (Kotler, 2003) and provide a viable and reliable foundation of research (Malhotra, 2007). It will provide specific first-hand data (Creswell, 2009) about existing plus size fashion online consumers, the analysis of which will enable the conceptualisation of plus size fashion online shopping motivations.

The data collection approach adopted should be determined around the nature of the research approach (Strauss and Corbin, 1988). Since this research is taking a pragmatic ontological perspective and realist epistemological standpoint, a positivist methodological approach has been determined. Hence, a quantitative data collection method has been adopted that will enable statistical generalisation of the research findings (Easterby-Smith et al. 2002). A questionnaire data collection method with the aim to precisely, viably and reliably conceptualise the plus size fashion online shopping motivations (Proctor, 2003) will gather data that represents a privileged reality that is mostly true and as objective as possible.

4.6 Summary of Research Approaches, Design and Data Collection Method Adopted