Data collection via email.

With increasing familiarity in using computer mediated communication (CMC) tools such as electronic mail (e-mail) or chat, conducting interview using CMC broaden the options available to the researcher seeking to generate qualitative data. For this study, email was selected as a data collection method for respondents participating at level one, protocol writing. Email as a form of communication has become

ubiquitous and surveys using email are generally considered to be an economical way of gathering data from a possibly unlimited number of respondents at once, with a global reach. Yun and Trumbo (2000) present six advantages of using email methods of data collection when compared with traditional postal systems:

Research methodology

96  email is faster;

 drawn out postal procedures are avoided;

 it is less liable to be ignored;

 it is considered more environmentally responsible; and

 it encourages responses.

However, these advantages seem to assume an efficient and widespread availability of access which may not be the case for all countries. Within the WCHO, email is an essential means of communication: “E-mail has become a normal part of life for most of us” (WEC International, 2004, p. 133) and the organization has its own security guidelines governing the use of electronic mail internationally.

Utilising electronic mail as a data collection method to generate qualitative data enabled the study to access and incorporate the experiences of participants

contributing from different locations around the world which would not have been possible in any other way. In keeping with the organizational guidelines, files sent were as small as possible and messages sent only when necessary, with some potential recipients currently living and working in remote areas of the world where accessing emails can be complicated, time consuming and very expensive. As email is asynchronous, communication not restricted by location or time, it was anticipated that respondents could choose a time and location that suited them in which to respond, which could increase the response rate. Participants were informed that they could select the questions to which they preferred to respond.

An introductory email with three portable document format (PDF) attachments was sent by the third party using an email address that was recognisable to members of the organization, to avoid automatic deletion. PDF files were particularly practical when sending forms as the format allows documents to be viewed and printed on a wide range of operating systems (cross-platform) in their original design and

formatting. Reading PDF files initially involves downloading a free program that is safe to use and widely accessible via the Internet (C.C.I.T., 2003).

The attachments sent consisted of an information sheet (Appendix A), a consent form (Appendix B), and guiding questions (Appendices C and D). Although some, such

Research methodology

97

as De Vita and Smallbone (n.d), consider that consent has been indicated by the return of the completed questionnaire, a consent form was attached for printing, signing, and returning to the researcher while the information sheet and guiding questions could be printed and retained for the participants‟ own records.

Respondents were given the option of returning their responses by post or by replying to the researcher‟s email address, which, in many countries, can be at the cost of a local call when using a dial-up connection, or at no additional cost when using a broadband connection. All participants but one elected to return their responses via email attachment with the remaining response returned via regular mail.

Privacy is an issue of concern for those taking part in any email survey, as the respondent‟s email addresses would register on the researcher‟s inbox once the response was received. As a result, anonymity could not be assured and this may have deterred some potential participants from returning their responses (List, 2003). However, confidentiality of the returned response could be assured by those involved in collecting the data guaranteeing that information would not be divulged. It was considered that giving the option of returning the response via the postal system may have been be a more acceptable way of guaranteeing confidentiality and increasing response rates (Schonlau, Fricker, & Elliot, 2002). However, as stated above, respondents demonstrated a preference for returning responses to the guiding questions via email attachment.

It is assumed that people within the sample selected had the computer skills necessary to open the email, open the PDF attachment, and then print the consent form for return via post, although it is also possible that this process may have been an unknown procedure for some individuals, resulting in their non-response. Boyer, Olsen and Jackson (2001) note that, “Even people who are fairly computer savvy are not always willing to spend time learning or trying to figure out a new application” (p. 4). Another issue for consideration in sending out the information as email attachments with a covering message was that due to an awareness of the threat of viruses spread through opening attachments some individuals routinely delete attachments from unknown sources without opening them. List (2003) notes that email questionnaires are best used when it is known that the target population are

Research methodology

98

regular email users, which would be appropriate within this organization as frequent email communication is common. The potential for this problem occurring was reduced in this study by using a third party for recruitment of participants with an email address that was widely recognised within the organization as a trustworthy source. Using this method of data collection also reduced the risk of inadvertent multiple submissions, or responses from those not intended to take part in the study. Burns (1994) notes that, “Obtaining a high return on mailed questionnaires can be challenging” (p. 358) and provides some suggestions for increasing the rate of return. Although this study did not employ a questionnaire but rather required a written response to guiding questions and adopted two of the four suggestions adapted for the context, the response rate was lower than had been anticipated. The difficulty encountered with the email format of data collection in this study was the relatively low response rate when compared with that of the interview: from the 250 emails sent 16 responses were received, a response rate of 6.4%. The asynchronous nature of email communication can work as a disadvantage when compared to a face to face interview, as responses can be delayed and then forgotten. Many people within the organization have to cope with a large volume of email so that one that takes time and thought to answer can be relegated as unimportant. Yun and Trumbo (2000) comment that although electronic survey formats can increase rates of response “the overall response rates for e-mail surveys are known to be somewhat lower than paper and pencil surveys” (para. 13), and that some studies report low response rates. Yun and Trumbo (2000) suggest the following possibilities for the lower response rate:

 e-mails are easily discarded;

 emails can easily be overlooked as they do not have a physical presence; and

 e-mail is not anonymous. (para.15)

It is suggested that follow-up emails may increase response rates, however this was not possible during this study as the contact with potential participants was made possible through the goodwill of the third party. However, the responses received in this study, generated texts totalling 17,692 words, with most providing complete rich responses. Yun and Trumbo observe also that respondents “write lengthier and more self-disclosing comments on e-mail open-ended questionnaires than they do on mail survey questionnaires” (para. 23).

Research methodology

99

Once the emailed responses had been received they were saved in a workable format then converted to plain text documents and de-identified by assigning codes in the order in which they were received, resulting in documents labelled PW 1-16. The plain text documents were imported into WEFT QDA (Fenton, 2006) to be analysed in conjunction with the interview data.