Data collection methods

The data collection process for the case studies was divided into two parts.

Initially questionnaires were distributed to residents within the defined catchment areas of train stations in 2012. This was followed by conducting in-depth interviews with selected questionnaire respondents in 2014. This combination of quantitative and qualitative methods provides increased insight and capacity to explore a concept (Creswell, 1994; Oishi, 2003;

Taylor, 2005). In addition, it enables the researcher to enhance and elaborate

upon understanding gained from one method by using another method (Creswell, 1994, p.184)¹³.

A major disadvantage can be the temptation to use the qualitative part of the research to match the findings of the quantitative results (Creswell, 1994).

However, interviews can also be seen to help a researcher gather opinions, facts, and stories, and gain an insight into the experiences of others from the

‘inside’ (Oishi, 2003, p.173). Interpretations can be made, and conclusions drawn from quantitative and qualitative methods while comparing the results from both methods (Taylor, 2005), helping to find out whether the results are congruent or incongruent with each other (Taylor, 2005).

A questionnaire comprised of 18 questions was designed, targeting resident perceptions of the physical and social aspects of a desirable dense neighbourhood within close proximity of train stations. Initial questions investigated attitudes to the current character of the area (understanding the current issues of a neighbourhood). Further questions targeted residents’

perception of preferred dense development (physical and social features) in the area, corresponding to the dimensions depicted in Desirable Dense Neighbourhood framework (Figure 4.1). The aim was to study the extent of community trade-offs between housing, location and lifestyle. The features that were asked about were derived from housing and great neighbourhood literature as discussed in the previous chapter. Appendix A includes the questionnaire format.

The reasons behind residents’ choices were also probed to understand the cultural characteristics of the areas. In some questions residents were asked to explain the reasons behind their choices in a few words; those words have been used as qualitative data to support some results from the quantitative

13 It is called ‘dominant-less dominant design’ model by Creswell.

questions. To validate the questionnaire results mathematically, a margin of error (statistical confidence), has been calculated using R software¹⁴.

The data collection strategy employed for the questionnaire stage used random selection (Figure 4.3). A random sample of people living in train catchment areas were targeted to allow generalisations to be formed for each case study. Addresses were randomly selected from ‘Nearmap’ and Google map websites, and questionnaires were sent via post. Prior to the major survey, two smaller scale pilot studies were conducted. Such pilot studies have the benefit of identifying potential confusion and possible problems in conducting the major survey and allow for further adaptation or redesign (Litwin, 2003). The pilot phase of the study comprised the sending out of 100 questionnaires to Warwick and Victoria Park TOD areas (50 each) to test the question format, flow and the response rate. 17 out of 100 responses from the pilot study distribution showed that in order to get more responses other methods such as online questionnaire distribution had to be included. Some questions were also revised to generate more quality responses.

To allow for statistically significant conclusions, a target ‘response size’ of 300 was established (chapter nine, aggregated data of all case studies).

2070 questionnaires were sent out to the three case studies in October 2012 and 296 responses were received back. Of the 296 responses, 163 were from Canning Bridge (total questionnaires sent: 893), 79 from Cannington (total questionnaires sent: 739) and 54 from Wellard (total questionnaires sent: 438). Almost 14.3 per cent of the distributed questionnaires elicited a response. The second part of data collection, the interview stage, was designed to obtain deeper information on a particular issue¹⁵ raised from the outcomes of the questionnaire. Hence, random sampling was replaced with

14 For example, where dwelling types or features are compared, the alternative hypothesis is one-sided (examining the confidence in one dwelling type or feature, being more selective than the other). The reported p-values are the probability of null hypothesis (complement of alternative hypothesis) (Dalgaard, 2 008). For example, if it was intended to measure the probability of medium density being more preferred than low density and the p-value is 0.007, this means that 99.3 per cent of any other studies of the population will show that medium density is more desirable than low density.

15 Disagreement to social diversity, the socio-psychological aspect of a dense neighbourhood.

stratified sampling, used to interview the respondents who asserted their disagreement with the feature.

Of the 296 questionnaire respondents¹⁶, 121 people left their contact details indicating their willingness to further contribute to the research process.

While the number was high, the respondents who disagreed with the particular feature (diversity) hardly left any contacts. Therefore, it was decided to widen the target group and include the ones who had positive views towards the feature. Of 121, only 15 persons were willing to allocate their time for interviews. Many emailed that they moved their home or didn’t reply or answer their phones. Finally, 15 interviews were conducted across the case study areas as follows: Canning Bridge 6, Cannington 5 and Wellard 4¹⁷. Prior to the interviews taking place, two pilot interviews were conducted from the Warwick area to test the order, comprehensibility and format of the interview schedule. Each interview was conducted at the work place of the interviewee or local library wherever and whenever was suitable for the interviewees. The duration of the interviews varied between 30 minutes to one and half hours and included 12 open-ended questions.

Interview themes were designated to probe interviewees’ perception and opinion towards ‘social diversity in their neighbourhood’, their attitudes towards their current neighbours, their inclination towards informal and formal socialising at the neighbourhood level, their perception of new neighbours and inclination towards local street informal socialising events. Appendix B includes the interview themes.