Data Collection Methods

A study’s credibility depends wholly on the ways in which the data was gathered or collected (Kumar, 2005), which can be either primarily or secondarily (Saunders et al., 2007) depending on the one deemed relevant to the study. This study will use primary data sources to gather information needed to meet the research objectives stated at the beginning of this thesis. Hence, the methods of data collection that make up this source of data will be discussed in this section in line with Kumar’s (2005) view that it is important to have an outline of the methods used to gather data.

The information for this research was generated directly by the researcher based on the areas of interest in relation to stakeholder relationships (Sekaran and Bougie, 2010), which is why the data was collected according to the specific needs of this study (Malhotra & Birks, 2000). The generation of the data according to the researcher’s needs and demands in a purposeful manner is deemed the main advantage of this method of gathering data for research purposes, as it is fit for purpose. There are diverse ways of gathering this kind of data, such as interviews, surveys or questionnaires, focus groups, observations, panels, etc. (Lewis, 2003; O’leary, 2005; Saunders et al., 2007; Hair et al., 2007; Bryman, 2008; Sekaran and Bougie, 2010). This study adopted the use of questionnaires and interviews to gather data needed, but these were first tested with pilot studies before they were administered to the

142 respondents and interviewees respectively. Below is a Table showing the summary of the methods and thoughts guiding the choices made,

Questionnaires Semi-structured Interviews Objective

for use of method

To obtain the perceptions

of Stakeholder

Relationships in the industry at community level.

To gain comprehensive insights from the different stakeholders (NGO, Companies & Community representatives)

Respondent Groups

Members of Host

Communities

NGO, Host Community & Company representatives as well as Community Development Experts

Sampling Approach/ Justification

Purposive Sampling: This approach was taken as a result of the nature of the study which requires a certain level of knowledge of the workings of the industry under study.

Sampling Criteria  Level of education  Well informed to answers survey questions  Some level of connection to the industry aside from being members of the host communities, such as being employees or suppliers of these companies, community and youth leaders, etc.

 Level of authority to represent companies, communities and NGOs

 Access to information relevant to the study

 Experience with regards to the different activities in the industry over the years, either as staff of the companies or NGOs,

leaders of communities and consultants or experts working in areas closely related to community development and CSR. Analysis

Undertaken

Thematic Discourse Analysis: Involving main themes and sub- themes, with the interpretation of the latter helping the discussion of the former

Expected Findings in relation to Research Questions

RQ1: To discover the different features that influence these relationships between stakeholders in the industry.

RQ2: To find out how these are associated with each other by the people in the region.

RQ3: To establish the place of resources in deciding the power balance and dependencies amongst stakeholders in their interactions with each other.

RQ4: To identify the role of agreements as represented by the MOUs and GMOUs in place between the stakeholders in enhancing their relationships with each other.

143

5.4.3.1

Timeline & Process of Data Collection

The data collection lasted for 4months, between October 2011 and January 2012 with the methods used concurrently. This approach was chosen as a way of compensating for the weaknesses inherent in each of these methods of data collection (De Leeuw, 2005) while also ensuring that they were used appropriately to get answers to the research questions for the study. The questionnaires were distributed by the assistants to the respondents based on the sampling criteria given to them as stated above. As part of this dissemination process, the assistants were required to explain what the study was aimed at achieving, assuring them of the confidentiality of the study and providing clarifications where they were needed by the respondents. They later gradually retrieved these questionnaires from the respondents over the 4month period as they became available for retrieval from respondents.

The assistants recruited to assist the researcher with the dissemination and retrieval of the questionnaires were youth leaders in the 4 states under study, with 2 chosen from each state making a total of 8 assistants. They were identified by the researcher with a snowball sampling approach through church, family and conference contacts, and were chosen because of their access to community people as a result of their positions as youth leaders in these communities. As a follow up to their identification and agreement to assist with the process, they were briefed by the researcher on the aims of the study, their role in the process, how they were expected to undertake such roles and the need to get in touch with the researcher without hesitation if there was any need for further clarifications. As a follow up to this, the researcher used the phone

144 numbers they provided to keep in touch and find out how they were faring with process, on the average every fortnightly. They further undertook the dissemination by purposively sampling the respondents who filled out the questionnaires based on their levels of education, access to information and connection to the industry, as reflected on Table 5.1 earlier. The researcher went back to the area to retrieve the returned questionnaires from the assistants, during which time they were debriefed to ensure that they implemented the process according to the briefing they had received. The researcher further supplemented this process by the validation of the questionnaires through a cross-checking of answers to questions against others that were similar, thereby screening out those with variations between them or suspected discrepancies. For instance, Question 6 asks the respondents to identify which of the stakeholders listed that they consider to be either a Primary or Secondary stakeholder, so if a stakeholder picked a group as being both then it invalidated that response. Also, in a case where the respondent answers a follow up question without answering the initial question, such a response is deemed invalid. In addition to these, some questionnaires were invalidated based on similarities in responses given by respondents.

5.4.3.2

Pilot studies

This involved putting the methods and instruments decided upon through tests that will enhance the identification of any challenges or issues that could arise during the actual data collection process and the avoidance of any of such (Denscombe, 2010). This process was aimed at confirming the workability of the methods proposed to be used in collecting data as it makes for an effective

145 use of such methods, since the researcher reviewed them after piloting (O’leary, 2005). The initial plan by the researcher to use focus groups was discarded as a result of the feedback from the pilot interview conducted, as later discussed in detail in the data analysis chapter. Also, the questions asked in the survey instruments were refined in order to make for easier understanding by the respondents, especially considering that they were meant to be of different literacy levels to reflect the representative nature of the surveys. The refinement further resulted in an increase in the number of questions in the survey from eleven to fifteen, while the demographic questions were reflective of the specific states chosen for the study. This process meant that the issues identified were mitigated before the main data collection was embarked upon, reducing the costs that could be associated with making such adjustments while in the field sourcing the data.

5.4.3.3

Questionnaires

These are also referred to as surveys which involves the collection of data by asking different individuals questions about an issue of interest (O’leary, 2005), thereby generating data through the responses to the same set of questions from different people (Saunders et al, 2007). For effectiveness, any researcher using it must be very clear about what information is anticipated in terms of variables (Sekaran and Bougie, 2010) which in this case comes out of literature. This method of data collection is said to be the most effective when it comes to large numbers of respondents (Hair et al., 2007), making it appropriate for this study in terms of the members of the host communities.

146 There are different types of questionnaires which are mostly determined by the modes of dissemination or administration employed in the research. Hair et al (2007) posit that the various types can be broadly grouped into those administered by an interviewer and the ones self-completed by the respondent. This research has applied the face to face disseminated self-completed questionnaires in gathering data from respondents, though these were disseminated with the aid of assistants. The reason for this choice has to do with its convenience as it does not require the researcher to be there in person, while it makes it possible to cover a wide geographic area quickly (O’leary, 2005). The dissemination of these questionnaires were done with the help of assistants recruited by the researcher and briefed on the importance of ensuring that members of communities were reached and guided in filling out the questionnaires, where they have questions. These respondents were to be randomly picked in order to give every member of the community a chance to get their opinion heard on the relationship between stakeholders in the industry. At the end of the dissemination and retrieval process, the assistants were asked how they went about it and they gave reassurances of carrying out the assignment according to the instructions given by the researcher during the briefing. These questionnaires were disseminated to members of the community only, which was done in order to get their views about the nature of stakeholder relationships in the industry.

Also, there is the need to give consideration to the structure of the questions asked in the survey instruments as these could be influential to the kind of responses given by respondents, especially when the instruments are self-

147 completed as in this case. The questions could be either closed-ended which is used when respondents are given multiple choices from which to select their answers (Saunders et al., 2007) or open-ended in nature which means the respondent is given some liberty to give more information (Sekaran & Bougie, 2010). Quantitative questions were asked in order to give a background to the qualitative ones which were meant to explore the meanings that are in such data. The design of the questionnaires to be more open-ended and qualitative in nature is influenced by the nature of the study which targets an examination of stakeholder relationships in the Nigerian oil industry. The piloting of the survey instrument resulted in the final copy of questionnaire taken to the field, both of which copies are attached herewith as Appendices II & III. The reliability of the questionnaires used for the study was confirmed by the researcher by ensuring the consistency of the responses of respondents across different questions asked (Saunders, et al, 2009). This further strengthened the validity of these instruments as measured by the areas covered by the literature earlier reviewed by the researcher as well as the data gathered from interviewees. The table below gives a brief on the rationale behind the questions making up the survey instruments (Appendix III) used for the surveys undertaken as well as their link to previous literature. The table indicates the question numbers, the main concepts or themes as contained in the questions asked, an explanation of what the objective of asking these questions were and the previous literature to which they are connected.

148

Question No.

Concept, Theme

Remarks Previous Literature

2 Stakeholders To identify stakeholders

of the industry

Freeman, 1984; Brenner & Cochran, 1991; Starik, 1994; Mitchell et al, 1997; Jonker & Foster, 2002; Phillips, 2003; Driscoll & Starik, 2004; Fassin, 2009; Cummings & Patel, 2009.

4 Influence;

Interest

To see how the different

stakeholders are

affected as well as how they affect activities in the industry.

Freeman, 1984; Kotter & Heskett, 1992; Clarkson, 1994; Carroll, 1996; Wolfe & Putler, 2002; Neville et al, 2004.

6 Primary &

Secondary Stakeholders

How the stakeholders

are categorised by

respondents, with

reasons for their

answers.

Savage et al, 1991; Mitchell et al, 1997; Phillips, 2003; Fassin, 2009.

7 Stakeholder

Relationships

To check how

stakeholder relationships

are defined in the

industry.

Freeman, 1984; Williamson &

Winter 1991; Hill & Jones, 1992; Rowley, 1997; Frooman, 1999;

Freeman & McVea, 2001;

Jahansoozi, 2006.

8, 9, 10 Nature of

Stakeholder Relationships

The views of

respondents about the nature of stakeholder

relationships in the

industry.

Hummels, 1998; Frynas, 2001; Wheeler et al, 2002; Douglas et al., 2004; Eweje, 2007; Watts, 2008; Davis, 2009; Idemudia, 2010.

11, 12 Stakeholder

Relationship Management

To discover who has

responsibility for the

management of the

relationships between

stakeholders and how that has been done so far.

Savage et al, 1991; Hill & Jones, 1992; Campbell & Alexander, 1997; Agle et al, 1999; Key, 1999; Frooman, 1999; Freeman & McVea, 2001; Freeman & Phillips, 2002; Wolfe & Putler, 2002; Phillips, 2003; Jamali, 2008; Fassin (2009

13, 14 Good & Bad

Stakeholder Relationships

To obtain examples or indicators of the nature of stakeholder

relationships in the region.

Ikelegbe, 2001; Frynas, 2005;

Akpan, 2006; Eweje, 2007; Watts, 2008; Davis, 2009; Ojo, 2009; Idemudia, 2009; Idemudia, 2010.

Table 5.2: Justifications for Survey Questions

5.4.3.4

Interviews

This data gathering method involves question and answer sessions between two or more persons, even as a researcher gathers data for a particular study (O’leary, 2005; Hair et al., 2007; Saunders et al, 2007). The main reason for the

149 choice of this method for the gathering of data is the interaction that takes place between the interviewer and the interviewee through human influences such as voice inflections, wording and interpretation that aid understanding if properly managed (Sekaran and Bougie, 2010, p. 186). Also, this method is seen as being very good for obtaining rich empirical data, mostly if the topic of interest is not one that can be deemed to be regular (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007) which is exactly what this study hopes to achieve too. In addition, there is the possibility of having a standard that is used for all interviewees, while giving the study the ability to focus on the specific topic of attention in depth (Potter, 2004).

The administration of interviews could be face to face, over the telephone or online, while the questions could be either structured or unstructured (Sekaran & Bougie, 2010); semi-structured or in-depth in nature (Hair et al, 2007). The semi-structured interview is used in this study and was conducted face to face as well as over the phone mainly, with the use of emails in a few cases when the other two modes of administration were not possible. The choice of how to conduct these interviews were influenced by factors such as convenience, costs, duration, and these were considered with the interviewees as part of negotiations (Hair et al, 2007). The face to face interview makes for clarification of questions by the interviewer, while the responses are also understood properly (Sekaran and Bougie, 2010). The telephone interview is convenient and minimises the cost associated with travelling as in the case of face to face interviews; while Bryman (2008) has hinted that it also could result in more data as respondents are keen to talk more and freely too. Internet interviews share

150 the freedom that comes with telephone interviews which is responsible for respondent discretion in answering questions, without the influence of the interviewer (Saunders et al, 2007).

One difference between the data gathered from face to face compared to telephone and internet interviews was the added benefit of matching the body language of respondents with their response to questions (Sekaran and Bougie, 2010; Saunders et al, 2009). Also, the first two methods of administration got open-ended and detailed responses as compared to the latter where interviewees were direct in answering questions (Bryman, 2008), even as they gave well thought out responses to questions (Saunders et al., 2009). The different data gathered from the field impact the analysis undertaken. The brief responses were used more for the validation of the others, thereby providing depth to the discourse being undertaken.

The conduct of the semi-structured interviews was guided by an interview schedule (see Appendix IV) which contained general questions that led to other questions as the interview progressed (Bryman, 2008). This led to flexibility which is a key peculiarity of this method as it offers the interviewer the ability to come up with follow up questions that were not originally on the interview schedule, resulting in an illumination of issues that might be relevant to the study (Hair et al., 2007). The conduct of interviews with company representatives, NGO representatives, community leaders, youth leaders and experts were guided by a few questions adapted out of literature review. Nevertheless, the interview schedule used was not rigid, but rather it was slightly adapted according to the particular individual or stakeholder group being

151 interviewed (Saunders et al, 2007). This flexibility was an added advantage of this method as it aided the aim of this research which is the examination of stakeholder relationships, through the pursuance of the different insights revealed by the answers of interviewees to questions (Hair et al., 2007). Considering the flexible nature of this method, it became expedient that the interviews be audio –recorded in order to avoid any loss of critical and valuable data (Saunders et al, 2007). The recorded interviews were further transcribed into texts with the help of a few assistants to ease the process of analysis (Hair et al., 2007; Saunders et al, 2007). Every interview that was transcribed was reviewed by the researcher afterwards to be sure that all typographical and transcription error had been corrected (Saunders et al, 2007). The transcribed interviews were named using codes that could be easily identified by the researcher, yet ensured that the interviewees could not be recognised, in line with confidentiality requirements.

The table below gives a brief on the rationale behind the questions making up the interview schedule (Appendix IV) used for the semi-structured interviews data collection as well as their link to previous literature. The table indicates the main concepts or themes as contained in the questions asked during the semi- structured interviews, an explanation of what the objective of asking these questions were and the previous literature to which they are connected.

Concept, Theme Remarks Previous Literature

Stakeholders To identify stakeholders of the industry as well as find out if any stakeholder is deemed to be the most

Freeman, 1984; Brenner & Cochran, 1991; Starik, 1994; Mitchell et al, 1997; Jonker & Foster, 2002; Phillips, 2003;

152 important. Driscoll & Starik, 2004; Fassin,

2009; Cummings & Patel, 2009. Nature of

Stakeholder Relationships

The views of respondents about the nature of stakeholder relationships in the industry.

Hummels, 1998; Frynas, 2001; Wheeler et al, 2002; Douglas et al., 2004; Eweje, 2007; Watts, 2008; Davis, 2009; Idemudia, 2010.

Stakeholder Relationship Management

Find out who has responsibility for the management of the relationships between stakeholders and how that has been done so far.

Savage et al, 1991; Hill & Jones, 1992; Campbell & Alexander, 1997; Agle et al, 1999; Key, 1999; Frooman, 1999; Freeman & McVea, 2001; Freeman & Phillips, 2002; Wolfe & Putler, 2002; Phillips, 2003; Jamali, 2008; Fassin, 2009.

Agreement, Contract

Any agreement or contract between parties and how those have been kept over

In document Stakeholder Relationships in the Nigerian Oil Industry (Page 141-153)