Data Collection

The following is a review of the most relevant data collection techniques:

4.7.1.1 Questionnaires

Collis and Hussey (2009) regard questionnaires as being suited to both the positivistic and phenomenological research methodologies, and describe a questionnaire as a set of thoroughly thought out and structured questions designed to draw out reliable responses from a selected group of participants. In a positivistic setting, closed-ended questions suitable for large scale surveys would be designed, which are compatible with computer analysis, while, in contrast, in phenomenological research the questions would be open- ended questions, which are not normally suited to large scale surveys. Questionnaires are also popular, relatively cheap and a less time consuming method of collecting data (Collis and Hussey, 2009).

The following important precautions have been recognised when adopting questionnaires for collecting the data (Collis and Hussey, 2009):

• All participants should be asked the questions in the same way and the researcher should ensure that participants also understand the questions in the same way.

• Participants should know the purpose and context of the questionnaire and this should be made clear in the questionnaire.

• Well-designed questions are vital for the reliability and the validity of the data obtained.

• Questionnaire presentation is also important to encourage the selected respondents to actually take part by completing the questionnaire and can also help with analysing the data at a later stage.

• Accurate instructions should be given as to the manner in which the questionnaire is to be completed and returned.

• The questionnaires should be given unique numbers to enable control, monitoring and follow-up of non-responding participants.

• The questions should be set out logically starting with general topics and tapering to detailed areas. Topics that are more complex should be filtered so that moving forward depends on answers given to previous questions.

Denscombe (1998) states that the data obtained through the use of questionnaires rely on written replies supplied by respondents; and for this reason the type of data obtained is different from those obtained through interviews, observation or document searches, in that data from questionnaire responses fall into two categories, ‘facts’ or ‘opinions’. It is essential that the researcher is aware throughout the process of whether the questions seek facts or opinions (Denscombe, 1998).

Denscombe (1998) clarifies this point further in that questions that seek factual data do not require the respondent's judgement but rather his/her accuracy and honesty in answering the questions. In contrast, questions seeking opinions, views, attitudes or beliefs require the respondents to disclose their own views, feelings and values by making judgements. In practice however, it is likely that survey questionnaires will include both types of questions to search for facts as to what is actually taking place and judgements or opinions about why respondents think things are happening in a particular way (Denscombe, 1998).

4.7.1.2 Interviews

Similar to questionnaires, Collis and Hussey (2009) regard interviews as being appropriate for both the positivistic and phenomenological research methodologies, and define an interview in the context of carrying out social research in terms of selected

individuals or a group of individuals being asked questions in order to learn what they know, do, think or feel about a particular topic. Interviews can be conducted face-to- face, over the telephone or through the internet (Collis and Hussey, 2009).

Interviews conducted in a positivistic setting would tend to adopt the closed questions style, where the questions are pre-prepared, such as in market research surveys. However, in phenomenological research the interview may be unstructured where the questions have not been prepared in advance; or semi-structured where the interview is centred on a pre-prepared set of questions but allowed to flow freely as it is being conducted. Some of the disadvantages of the unstructured and semi-structured interviews include that they are time consuming, difficult to control and difficult to analyse later. Open-ended questions are more suitable for a phenomenological research and it is likely that probes will be used to investigate the subject in more detail (Collis and Hussey, 2009).

Collis and Hussey (2009) suggested appropriate circumstances where unstructured or semi-structured interviews could be used:

• When the researcher needs to establish the interviewee’s basis for forming certain opinions or beliefs;

• When it is an aim of the research activity to attempt to influence the respondent's practices by fully understanding such practices;

• When confidentiality or commercial sensitivity are an issue; and

• When it is felt that the respondent would be less likely to be truthful about an issue except confidentially and in a one-to-one setting.

Another important feature of unstructured or semi-structured interviews is that the questions asked and subjects discussed will be different for each interview depending on the direction the interview takes within the same issue. This feature is called ‘open discovery’ and is considered a strength of this style of interview, although the researcher will need to exercise some control over the emphasis and balance of the emerging issues (Collis and Hussey, 2009).

Several shortcomings have been identified with conducting interviews, generally including (Collis and Hussey, 2009):

• The lengthy process and expense involved;

• Access to suitable participants;

• The issue of confidentiality;

• The difficulty of ensuring that interviews are conducted in the same way, which entails asking as well as posing the questions in the same way;

• Difficulty of ascertaining that participants understand the questions in the same way;

• Effect of the interviewer on the process, which includes biases due to sex, race or class; and

• Difficulty avoiding getting answers based on the interviewee’s expectations of what are considered ‘correct’ or ‘acceptable’ answers.

Notwithstanding the above disadvantages, interviews give the researcher the opportunity to ask complex questions, with follow-up questions to probe the issues further, which is not possible in the questionnaire method; a greater measure of confidence can be placed on the responses than in the questionnaire; and an account can be taken of the participant’s attitude and behaviour and non-verbal communication perceived at the interview (Collis and Hussey, 2009).

4.7.1.3 Observation

Denscombe (1998) considers observation, as a method of collecting data, to be advantageous in that it does not rely on what respondents say they do or think but rather relies directly on what the researcher witnesses first hand as “direct evidence”, and in certain circumstances observing events first hand is the best means of obtaining evidence. Observation research is classified into two main types; systematic observation which studies interactions in settings and mainly deals with quantitative data and statistical analysis; and participant observation which is used by researchers to gain access to the area being researched, either ‘under cover’ to study cultures and practice or openly, and mainly yields qualitative data (Denscombe, 1998).

Collis and Hussey (2009) agree that observation is suitable for both the positivistic and phenomenological methodologies, but state that observation can take place in either a laboratory setting or a natural setting, where a natural setting is defined as that which would still have existed had there been no research being conducted. Observation is performed in two main modes; participant observation where the researcher takes full part in the activity being researched and is able to experience, understand and interpret the practices, values and motives; and non-participant observation where the aim is to witness people’s actions and reactions without the researcher being involved in the setting (Collis and Hussey, 2009).

Collis and Hussey (2009), however, identify some problems with the observation method including the difficulty of controlling variables in a natural setting; issues concerned with ethics, objectivity and visibility; and observer bias when different observers arrive at different conclusions (Collis and Hussey, 2009).

4.7.1.4 Document Search

According to Denscombe (1998), document search can be regarded as a distinct source of data, based either on library desk-studies, archive research or any other documents from which data can be derived. The major sources of data are written sources although visual and audio forms of documents also have a value even if used less in social research. The main sources of written documentary evidence for research include (Denscombe, 1998):

• Books and journals, which are considered the first source of research material for academic research, and the researcher needs to continually assess the quality, validity and relevance of each source.

• Internet and web sites, which are increasingly used; however, there are issues of credibility, authenticity and authorship which are difficult to ascertain so quality control needs to be exercised by the researcher when using internet sources.

• Organisations’ records provide a valuable source of data because of the level of details available, which were originally created to ensure accountability, and include documents relating to policy, management, administration, commerce and transactions.

• Letters and memos, which provide help to clarify events and reasons for decisions taken in organisations, although the drawback is that letters exchanged between people assume a certain level of background knowledge about the subject.

• Diaries, which are important records of events that have already happened, are “retrospective accounts” and highlight people’s thoughts. Diaries have three important features from the research view point: they are a factual log of previous events; they are records of important events and significant incidents; and they provide the writer’s personal interpretation and comments on such events.

• Government publications and official documents, which are to certain extent considered authoritative, objective and factual, and although this is true in certain cases where they contain valuable data and statistics, the researcher must guard against politically motivated publications where the objective is to promote a particular point of view.