EVALUATION OF THE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

No research method is perfect and the researcher is well aware of that fact. For this research project, evaluation of research methods is required. Evaluating research refers to reliability and validity of a research design. Research investigates ideas and uncovers useful knowledge. It is personally rewarding and socially beneficial. But distorted research causes real harm and deserves strong censure (Litman, 2012). Good research reflects a sincere desire to determine what overall truth is. A good research document empowers readers to reach their own conclusions.

It should be noted that the researcher used content validity to support the validity of this study, where research instruments were given to relevant people, including researcher’s supervisor to know where the shortfall may be in terms of the instruments variables in achieving what it aims to measure (Maponya 2004; Litwin 1995:33; Heath 2005). As suggested by Maponya (2004) and Yin (2003), to enhance constructive validity, multiple sources of data such as the questionnaire and the focus group interviews were used in the study.

The extent to which results are consistent over time and if the results of a study can be reproduced under a similar methodology, then the research instrument is considered to be reliable (Golafshani 2003; Joppe 2000). In order to enhance reliability on this study, the researcher recorded every step that was taken during data collection enough to justify similar results should another researcher embark on same study.

Having noted the above, this study had its fair share of challenges and shortcomings when conducting research. Ngulube (2005) notes that response rate is a concern for most surveys, however ability to report on it reflects the quality of the survey. As mentioned under sample size the area of study which is the Department of Defence is consisted of a number of divisions and offices across South Africa. With Defence Intelligence division and Corporate Staff Division as the study subjects for this research, it was difficult on researcher to deal with more than one directorate not to mention division. While the researcher battled to convince the population on the importance of their participation within DI of which the researcher is employed at, it was also difficult to travel across to DOD HQ Unit and Directorate Geospatial Information, a directorate under DI both which are about 10 km apart from one another and from DI. This impacted on the distribution of questionnaires and execution of interviews as well.

It is worth mentioning also the time spent on waiting for authority to carry the research using survey and interview was a bit longer because the executive members involved and responsible for the

divisions and subdivisions were constantly out of the office due to official responsibilities. Thus the target time of which the researcher expected to reach was always a challenge to meet. This affected the time span of this project. Many respondents were not too used to the research methods such as questionnaires hence they were wary of participating. This to an extent made up for reasons why some respondents never returned their questionnaires. This challenge was experienced more at the Defence Corporate Services where surveys were distributed through the Director Corporate Communications.

However many employees had other reasons not to respond to the surveys. Senior staff members were at the centre of targeted respondents in this regard; however it proved futile to most of them as they were forever engaged or on official trips outside their work stations. Some respondents abstained from answering certain questions and this proved difficult for researcher to make a comprehensive analysis on the answers. Investigation revealed that this effect was as a result of paranoia from respondents about participation in subject that is close to home, fear that what they say will later be used against them, that the deep rooted racial fears and misconceptions will be revealed especially in as far as sharing knowledge is concerned. All these problems exposed the deep manifested individual egos and class entitlement that lies in the Department of Defence. What was also evident was lack of knowledge in the knowledge management field. Though some were not so well educationally advanced, many respondents misjudged knowledge management for information management.

Thus leading to lack of interest and will to participate in the study was eminent to some respondents. However researcher has come to realise that Librarians and Information Managers are more familiar to the topic and its practices, hence their direct and clear answers. One of the challenges experienced was that distribution of questionnaires through e-mail was impossible as it is against security policy to have military designated addresses for each employee. Most of the employees who are active on e-mail are either subscribed to private and personal e-mail systems like google.com and webmail. It would have been easier if there was an electronic system to trace all employees for electronic communication.

Importantly this study employed the mixed and triangulation techniques in conducting this research and data collection. The emphasis was to reduce bias by integrating theories, methods, data sources and researchers with complementary strengths and non-overlapping weaknesses. And indeed it did help as the method provided a leeway for balance, reliability and trustworthiness of the findings. On a general level, the motivation to mix methods in research is the belief that the quality of a study can be improved when the biases, limitations and weaknesses of a method following one approach are counterbalanced, or compensated for, by mixing with a method belonging the other approach (Tashakkori & Cresswell 2007; Ngulube et al., 2009).