Designing of the Questionnaire for Quantitative and Qualitative Data

Unlike the focused interviews, the questionnaire has limited capacity to explore variables. For in depth details researchers rely on interviews data collection tools. It is important in the construction of questionnaires to consider question content, to ensure clarity and to check for usefulness of purpose (Walker, 2003). Moreover, in order to avoid ambiguity, my questions were specific and logically ordered.

Therefore, a limited number of clear options were given to the sample women using closed questions in the semi-structured questionnaires. They were able to easily tick boxes and thus save time when filling out the whole questionnaire. However, open-ended questions

93

were also incorporated to obtain in-depth information about which there was no clear data available (see Appendix V: for all sample questionnaires).

Simmons (2001) and Oppenheim (1992) suggest that designing a schedule of questions requires prior reading, designing, and checking the compatibility with and relevance to the study objectives. The questions were checked repeatedly to see whether they could produce the required results. If anything was missing, or if gaps remained between the questions and the determined objectives then the whole study would fail to produce reliable results. All questionnaires were scrutinised repeatedly to take out any repetition. Sapsford (2000) suggests that extreme care should be taken in removing any kind of repetition from the questions, because it irritates the respondents and can result in superficial data being obtained. Extreme care was taken concerning the length of questions. The long questions were split into sub-questions so that the respondents might not feel confused and viable original data might be obtained.

Filter questions (see question 4 of Appendix V, sample Initial Questionnaire), were used to ensure relevance among the related questions and to facilitate a good response. Cohen et al. (2007) suggest the use of filter questions in the questionnaire for collecting relevant, simple and reliable data. Foddy (2003: 101) also recommends their use and defines it as ‘a question or a question component that is explicitly offered to a respondent, either to establish the relevance of the question to the respondent, or to emphasise that it is acceptable for the respondent not to answer the question’. The number of questions was reduced to a manageable length by removing any irrelevant questions. Over-lengthy questionnaires also irritate the respondents particularly when filled out by the respondents themselves and not the researcher.

Moser and Kalton (1993) and De Vaus (2001) hold that the questionnaire needs to be shorter than the one used in face-to-face interviews. Respondents invariably prefer shorter questionnaires. Longer questionnaires produce a smaller return rate and poor quality data. Intense care was taken not to waste my sample women’s time but also not to make the questionnaire imperfect to the extent that it might lose credibility and worth in terms of attaining relevant data (De Vaus, 2001). A very small number of questions were left open- ended because these questions are best suited to interviews.

During the planning, impractical questions were removed because their inclusion might have disturbed the whole data and its analysis. The questions were put in a more

94

logical order in the questionnaire so as to guide the sample women smoothly from one to the next. According to Moser and Kalton (1993) as well as Buckingham and Saunders (2004), confused and clumsy questions severely affect the return rate. At the top of each schedule, a brief introduction was given assuring the sample women that their responses would be treated with utmost confidentiality. I was at pains to show the sample women that I am aware of the significance of this issue and did not want them to feel any hesitation in responding the questions openly.

It is recommended that personal questions relating to age, income and children are included in the questionnaire (Moser and Kalton, 1993) while some (Oppenheim, 1992; Sapsford, 2000; Frazer and Lawley, 2000) suggest their inclusion but only at the end of the questionnaires. However, there are no hard and fast rules about their exact placement; therefore, I put such questions at the beginning of the questionnaires. The personal questions were structured with great concentration so as not to arouse any negative sentiments on the part of the sample women. I tried my best to feel at ease with my sample women before embarking upon answering the rest of the questions and to feel familiarity with the questions. Only those personal questions which were of importance and relevance to the study were included. In that part of the questionnaire, the respondents were not restricted to a particular option, despite Sapsford’s (2000) assertion that factual questions need to be presented in a direct way, that the respondents may not feel any hesitation in answering them. I piloted these questionnaires on ten students of a different fifth college before using them for the purpose of the study, as suggested by Sapsford (2000). In April 2008, prior to the initial survey, I conducted pre-testing of the research instrument. This was done to detect any defects in the design of the questionnaire and interview instruments to avoid distortion, bias and invalidity in the findings. The twenty women students were selected by random sampling from a college other than my sample colleges. For the process of pre-testing the research instruments to validate the framework of the inquiry, I received 100% return for my initial and post- surveys questionnaires and 90% return for the audit survey. These high returns were because the initial questionnaires were completed in my presence in colleges and for the post survey, the college insisted the sample women fill in the questionnaire before getting their final results. Although Cohen et al. (2007) warn that it is very difficult to get a good return of questionnaires; I proved that a researcher has to make strenuous efforts to get a good return.

95 3.12. The Semi-Structured and Focused-interviews

The core of this doctoral study is these interviews, which make it a unique study. My initial survey included semi-structured interviews and my post-survey exercise included four in-depth focused interviews (one students from each college) respectively. I had planned that if my sample women who completed the initial structure-interview questionnaires were not willing to be interviewed, then I would select at random from the available students for my focused-interviews, but no such problem arose during the post-survey exercise. The majority of the students expressed their interest in giving a focused interview. Three interviews were conducted in Pukhtu and one was conducted in Urdu.

Feminist researchers find interviewing appealing for reasons over and above the benefits noted by social scientists, which defend qualitative methods against positivist criticism (Reinharz, 1992:19). Reinharz further added that interviewing offers researcher’s access to people’s ideas, thoughts and memories in their own words rather than in the words of the researcher. This asset is particularly important for the study of women, because in this way, learning from women is an antidote to centuries of ignoring women’s ideas altogether, or having men speak for women (Reinharz, 1992:19-20).

I was conscious that semi-structured-interviews are useful where the content and procedures are determined by a means of an interview schedule and the interviewer is left with leeway to make modifications (Cohen et al., 2010), whereas the focused interviews allow the interviewer to play a more active role in eliciting information from the respondents. In a semi-structured-interview, the exchange between the interviewer and interviewee is similar to a teacher questioning a student. Questions are prepared in advance and require brief answers with limited elaboration, while semi-structured interviews may include some pre- planned questions, but interviewees are given more latitude in their responses (Cohen et al., 2007:373). And interviewers typically ask open-ended questions that require detailed explanations. The focused interview method (most commonly known as the focused group method), was originally formulated for use with both individuals and groups (Cohen et al., 2007). An explicit objective of the focused interview is to test, appraise, or produce hypotheses about a particular concrete situation in which the respondent(s) have been involved (e.g., a shared event or salient experience) (Bell, 2002:31). The focus of the interview is circumscribed by relevant theory and evidence and involves skilled facilitation of the process (in a one-on-one or group forum) using an interview guide. So, optimal use of the

96

method involves an appreciation of the paradox involved in balancing the quest for authentic subjective information through free-flowing discussion (Bell, 2002). This focused interview gave life to my thesis and voice to my silent sample women. The tone of voice, facial expressions, and even the hesitations of my sample women provided further valuable information that a purely written response might possibly have concealed (Bell, 2002). In the focused interviews, I tried to build-up an atmosphere of confidence between myself and my sample women. To achieve this, I developed a friendly atmosphere by establishing a tension-free and relaxed environment (the use of mother-tongue for conversation was the main tool for creating such an atmosphere), as Kumar (2005) warned that the responses will be biased and superficial otherwise. To encourage in-depth responses, I followed Gilbert (2001:128) by using ‘prompting’ and ‘probing’ questions. ‘Prompting’ questions persuade the respondents to produce the required answer and by probing questions, they are persuaded through follow-up questions to provide a fuller response (probing is a key skill in interviewing; to carry it out in the field, Gilbert suggested that the researcher must prepare an interview guide that can help in remembering the questions to be asked).