Data Collection Methods

This study used mixed qualitative methods to gather data from the field; namely, In-depth interviews, focus groups, observation and qualitative analysis of radio advertising. The first two were the primary methods, and the rest were subordinate. Together, the interviews, focus groups and observations generated

7

Further details about the strengths of the thesis will be presented in section 7.5 in the final chapter (the conclusion).

126

naturally occurring data, (Kvale, 2007; Ritchie, 2003), while the qualitative analysis of the radio announcements was an analysis of defined media texts.

The qualitative interview is a data collection method which depends on conversation and interactive discussions between the interviewer (the researcher) and the interviewees about the topic of the research (Bryman, 2012; Fielding, 1994; Ryan, Coughlan, & Cronin, 2009). It is recognised as the most used qualitative data collection method (Ibid). There are many reasons behind this popularity with interview method flexibility being one of them. Famously, Kvale defined the interview as follows:

In an interview conversation, the researcher asks about, and listens to, what people themselves tell about their lived world, about their dreams, fears and hopes, hears their views and opinions in their own words, and learns about their school and work situation, their family and social life. The research interview is an interview where knowledge is constructed in the interaction between the interviewer and the interviewee (2007, p.2).

The consensus between qualitative methodologists is that there are three types of in-depth interview; structured (standardised), semi-structured, and unstructured (open) interviews. Structured interviews contain structured questions asked by the researcher (interviewer) to the interviewees and the data is usually analysed statistically (Fielding, 1994; Ryan et al., 2009). It differs from quantitative surveys as the interviewees responses are collected by the researcher, so the interviewees would be careful about their answers, and the number of nonresponses is limited (Ibid). The questions of the standardised interview format – what is called ‘the interview schedule’ – contained predefined questions and answers (Ibid).

Unstructured interviews share some features with the conversational method because the interviewer puts one or two main questions or points across and the discussion then involves following up the points that are raised by the interviewee (Bryman, 2012; Fielding, 1994; Ryan et al., 2009). In contrast, the interviewer in semi-structured interviews adopts a list of points or questions to be discussed. This list of questions is called an interview guide (Ibid).

127

Since the research questions sought a rich description and explanation about the reality of Saudi cultural influences on communicating health and substance abuse issues, and how health communication emerged in the first place, the semi-structured interview method was used to collect interviewee responses (participants). Lambert et al has argued that if the interview is designed well and the questions are carefully framed, the outcomes will reveal the truth about the social world (Lambert & Loiselle, 2008; Ryan et al., 2009). Indeed, what is good about the semi-structured interview is that “they provide an opportunity for detailed investigation of people’s personal perspective, for in- depth understanding of the people’s context within which the research phenomena are located, and for very detailed subject coverage” (Ritchie, 2003, p.36).

The implementation of the semi-structured approach contained practical steps in the design, sampling and in the access to the research participants. The first step was framing the interview guide. Bryman described the interview guide as “the term (which) can be employed to refer to the brief list of memory prompts of areas to be covered that is often employed in unstructured interviewing or to the somewhat more structured list of issues to be addressed or questions to be asked in semi-structured interviewing” (2012, p.442). Therefore, the interview guides of this thesis were developed during the second year of this PhD, especially after the researcher finished reviewing the related- literatures in 2012. Two short visits to Saudi Arabia were made to explore the situation of the Saudi drug and alcohol prevention sector as well as to build relationships with potential gatekeepers.

It is important to mention that there were two kinds of interview guide used, and the difference between them were the extra questions added to one of them, which were directed to those affiliated with the promotion and prevention organisations from both sectors – public and NGOs. Because of the nature of those participants’ work backgrounds, and their potential contributions to the research, a special interview guide was created for them. Indeed, the interview guides facilitated the relationship between the interviewer and the interviewees. Both interview guides share the primary focus of the research

128

questions. In fact, the use of two different interview guides re-affirms the data source triangulation in this study, by engaging with various groups. Furthermore, the interview guides were designed to fall between semi- structured and unstructured techniques in order to allow the participants to talk and express their views about what they believed to be important. However, this was constrained so the interviews did not divert from the focus of the study8.

In terms of the empirical work conducted, I felt it was impossible to interview everyone related to the focus of the study because of the limitations of time and finances9. So I picked a small group of interviewees based on a selection process, known as sampling. A small number of knowledgeable research participants is a common feature of qualitative research, and the focus is always on in-depth understanding (Daymon & Holloway, 2002; D. Silverman, 2009). Sampling refers to the process of selecting those who are important to the researcher in order to gather data that will help the investigator to find answers to the research questions (Bryman, 2012). To overcome the limitations of time and finances, three sampling techniques were used; purposive was the main technique and snowballing and convenience techniques were the secondary techniques. They correspond with the research objectives and the research methods. All three techniques were used in the selection of the interviewees.

Purposive sampling refers to the selection of the interviewees on the basis of their relevance to the research topic (E. Donovan, Miller, & Goldsmith, 2014; Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009; Kvale, 2007). The selection was made based on criteria to identify those included in the sample. This criteria consisted of three factors; the relevance to health communication in Saudi Arabia, being actively engaged in the communication efforts, and being familiar with the Saudi context. Firstly, the relevance to the promotion and prevention sector meant the interviewees were involved in the promotion against risky-behaviour at the time of the data collection. The degree of involvement was defined as the

8 _{Both the interview guides and the focus groups’ questions guides can be found at the end of the thesis} in Appendix one.

9 _{Further details about the limitations will come in section 7.4 in the final chapter (the Conclusion} Chapter).

129

engagement in managing, planning and reviewing communication and prevention interventions and programmes, and that included government employees, NGO employees, and activists in the field. Secondly, the requirement of interviewees being active in the field during the data collection added more weight to their contributions to the study. Finally, familiarity with Saudi culture and the Saudi prevention sector was also considered compatible with the research focus.

Furthermore, generated from the purposive sample, snowballing and convenience samples were integrated to find further participants. These participants were intended to reflect on the insights gathered and contributed to the expansion of the sample. Snowballing sampling technique refers to contacting interviewees through other interviewees, while the convenience sample meant taking the opportunity to ask useful participants to give an interview even though this may not have been planned (Daymon & Holloway, 2002). In addition, it was important that the research participants exhibited geographical diversity. The researcher made sure that interviewees were drawn from different regions in Saudi Arabia to bring various perspectives into the study.

Based on these sampling techniques, the interviewees fell into three groups; those working in the government promotion and prevention organisations, interviewees working with the NGOs, and the last group consisting of activists and those who were not affiliated with any sector but who were active in the fight against illicit use of drugs and alcohol. In addition, the three groups above match the three features of the criteria standards mentioned earlier. In other words, the three elements of the purposive sampling played a crucial role in forming these groups. A list of the interviewees (participants) is provided but it is important to look at the steps which led to the interviews. These steps were not without their challenges. In fact, there were many obstacles throughout the whole data collection journey. To meet them, I had to employ a range of skills and features that can be counted as strengths10.

130

Before the field work trip in 2012/13, I went to Saudi Arabia to explore the environment. In July 2011, I travelled to Riyadh, the Saudi capital city and also to the city of Jeddah to browse the annual statistics and records on drug and alcohol abuse11. In May 2012, I began the complicated process of securing preliminary approval from the targeted organisations and interviewees to participate in the study and to get access to the data. I was fortunate to receive positive responses from many of the potential participants. In early September 2012, with my supervisors’ approval12

, I went into the field to carry out the interviews, focus groups, nonparticipant observation sessions and to collect materials. The field trip took place between September 2012 and February 2013.

The pre-fieldwork trips to Saudi Arabia were essential in order to make contact with the gatekeepers of the organisations and to build a list of contacts. I drew up a list of potential interviewees and participants and noted the appropriate way to approach them. In this respect, my Saudi background was a great benefit as I was able to approach organisations and particularly individuals of high status with absolute consideration for the appropriate rules of social etiquette. In addition, my language competency as an Arabic speaker prevented this barrier from impacting negatively on the data collection. Furthermore, my affiliation to a reputable Saudi university as an academic member of staff also helped. Methodological triangulation was a useful tool in ensuring I collected data from different angles and sources (Bryman, 2003).

During the data collection field trip, different techniques for recruitment were used to get access to the research participants. Firstly, the researcher used an official approach through the use of official letters13 directed to the targeted organisations. Secondly, the researcher adopted the door knocking technique to get access in the field. This meant going to the interviewees’ or focus groups’ place of work and knocking on doors to see who was available.

11

As will come in section 7.3 in the recommendations section of the Conclusion Chapter, one of the suggestions will be the entering of the statistics in the internet, and making them available online for those interested in the topic.

12 _{In addition, I got the approval from my sponsor (the Saudi Cultural Bureau in London).} 13

The researcher designed a letter written in Arabic which explained the study focus and the reason behind the empirical works and the potential benefits of the study for the Saudi society in the fight against substance abuse.

131

The researcher would then briefly explain the study's focus and would request an interview. This was the only way the researcher found to reach some of the participants because of the lack of response to telephone and email requests. However, technology was used in the arrangement of the interviews and with other data collection method, especially mobile phone contact and emails. All the participants were carefully informed about their rights and were told how the data would be used14.

Probably the greatest collective challenge to this research were the gatekeepers. Gatekeepers were critical for enabling access to almost all of the research participants, especially interviewees and focus group members. It was essential to approach those with authority officially or through personal contact in order to provide access to the field. The researcher mobilised personal and professional relationships and contacts to approach the gatekeepers, who were managers in most cases. This technique was successful to some extent in a culture like the Saudi’s, where family and extended family networks are still important. The geography of Saudi Arabia as a big country challenged the data collection phase of this thesis, especially when the interviewees agreed to meet and were not located in the same city as the researcher. Therefore, careful time management and planning was required. For example, the interviews and focus groups in Riyadh were scheduled to take place over a one month period. Finally there were cultural considerations in conducting empirical work about this sensitive topic in Saudi Arabia.

These cultural considerations related to the nature of the participants’ involvement. To some extent, these elements exist in other Middle Eastern countries, but to various degrees (Wahsheh, Geiger, & Hassan, 2012; Wilkins, Gladys, Margaret, & Elzubeir, 2002). Illicit drug use, drinking of alcohol and out- of-wedlock sexual activities are unlawful and are regarded with antipathy in Islamic culture. Broaching such subjects required care (Ibid). In particular, there were ethical issues surrounding the anonymity of the research participants to avoid any unintended consequences15. Therefore, the researcher informed the

14

Further information about the ethics and quality of the methodology will come at section 4.6 of this chapter.

132

interviewees about their rights to withdraw or classify some details. Each participant in this study signed an informed consent (written in Arabic) before participating16.

Another cultural issue was the reflection of the culture of honour17 in the data collection. Reputation, values and honour are important in Saudi culture (Long, 2005a; Wahsheh et al., 2012; Wilkins et al., 2002). So, besides the anonymity of the participants, the researcher also had to consider the social etiquette of approaching participants, especially females. This had to be done through official contacts with their organisations. Although there were no female employees in the drug abuse prevention sector, cultural considerations were nonetheless helpful in assuring female participation in the focus groups.

The last challenge to be faced in conducting interviews was the lack of familiarity among interviewees with the purpose of qualitative interviews. Most of the interviewees did not understand the value of an interview18 with exception of those who held higher education degrees. Therefore, the researcher made a concerted effort to explain in advance to each interviewee the purpose, focus and duration of the interview and how this data would be used. Such a step relaxed potential participants’ unease and significantly increased the rate of participation and engagement.

As a result, the fieldwork trip to collect data between September 2012 and February 2013 resulted in twenty-seven semi-structured interviews based on the three sampling techniques mentioned earlier, using the criteria of

16

A copy from the Arabic informed consent and a translation copy are attached at the end of this thesis in appendix one.

17

Honour (reputation) refers to the value system governing social interactions, social situations and social relationships in Saudi Arabia. Honour is the collective reputation of the entire family (tribe) and it is inherited and should be protected by avoiding wrongdoings which could bring shame to the family (or tribe). Both Shame and Honour are central values to the morals system in Saudi Arabia. For Mitchell, “Honour defines prestige or reputation, and so the honour and shame system is linked to the political system of patrons and clients. It defines people’s – usually men’s – trustworthiness, and therefore their status as good and reliable patrons or clients” (2002, p.423). One of the social behaviours the Saudi should avoid to prevent damage to their reputation is the use of alcohol and/or illicit drug abuse. The sensitivity of this topic is acknowledged by Thomas (2013). Therefore, it is an issue related to the protection of honour and is very sensitive. Further details about honour will come in the next chapter. 18

The lack of popularity of qualitative methodology may be attributed to the little done in this area by the Saudi universities to promote alternative research methods, which needs further attention from Saudi educational institutions.

133

purposive sampling. This was a significant number of participants and, in the researcher’s view, approximated the saturation point at which more data would have been superfluous. This point is described by Daymon and Holloway (2002) as the moment at which the interviewer cannot find new ideas, thoughts or insights from interviewees’ responses. Indeed, it is a useful guide to help the researcher decide when to stop (Ibid). The researcher achieved good geographical diversity within the sample from the central, western, south- western, and eastern regions of Saudi Arabia, an additional indication that sufficient data had been collected. Table 4.2 (below) summarises the information about interviewee anonymity. It is important to say that getting access to Saudi Arabia's drug abuse control system and other governmental bodies to gather reliable qualitative data was a major achievement.

In Table 4.2 below, the interviewees will be referred to as participants instead of interviewees to meet the language difference between Arabic and English19. The interviews in the table below were organised based on the date of the interview chronologically. The table aims to inform the reader about the circumstances in which these interviews were conducted, the sampling techniques and the participant’s relations to the topic of the study. Finally, the average of each semi-structured interview was between one and two hours and in some cases three hours. Indeed, the researcher had to interview some participants over two different days to complete the interviews, because of their busy schedule, or due to emergency calls during the interviews which meant participants had to leave and the discussion was continued at a later stage.

19 _{Since, those participated in the study perceived themselves as participants in the study more than} interviewees, so the participant term will be used.

134

Anonymous Date Sampling Technique

Description

Participant 1 18 and 24/9/2012

Purposive He is active in public issues through his roles in academia as an associate lecturer as well as through his daily column in one of the Saudi national newspapers.

Participant 2 24 and 26/9/2012

Purposive He is a Saudi broadcaster, and is considered as one of those who witnessed the early days of Saudi broadcasting in the 1960s. He also has experience with the Saudi Ministry of Culture and Information. Above all, he is a social activist in public and social matters. He currently holds a teaching post at a university.

Participant 3 25/9/2012 Purposive He worked for over fifteen years in addiction treatment as a Psychiatrist. However, he shifted career towards the health NGO sector in the Western region of Saudi Arabia.

Participant 4 26/9/2012 Snowballing through participant 3

He works as health advisor and promoter at a health promotion NGO in Saudi Arabia.