4 Chapter Four – Review of Decision Making Frameworks
5.3 Evaluation of selected qualitative data collection methods for stage one
The decision on which data collection techniques to use is largely dependent on the nature of the research questions being asked and the competence of the researcher. The first stage of research in this thesis aimed to examine local authorities’
understanding of urban freight movements and the consideration given to freight in urban transport planning and policy decision making, as per the first research aim. In addition, it reviewed current urban TDM measures and policies to determine which are responsible for the greatest conflicts between the goals of policy makers and logistics operators. It was felt that gaining understanding required qualitative and flexible investigation whereas investigating current policies should be done as a pre-interview questionnaire. Therefore, semi-structured interviews together with a pre-interview questionnaire were used in the first part of this study. The remainder of this section (5.3) will discuss in more detail, the data collection methods that have been chosen for stage one of this study.
5.3.1 Questionnaires
Questionnaires are a structured method of data collection, which enable researchers to determine both the questions asked and the range of possible answers to be provided, as often the researcher is not present whilst the questionnaire is completed (Munn and Drever, 2004), therefore removing the potential for interviewer bias. Gillham (2000, pp.1-2) explains that as a method of collecting qualitative data, questionnaires are “of most value when used in tandem with other methods”. This is mainly because
researchers can have greater confidence in the findings if there is consensus amongst the results from different methods.
Many advantages of using questionnaires to gather research data have been cited. According to Gillham (2000) the greatest saving is in time, since a thousand
questionnaires can be easily distributed in the time required to conduct two semi- structured interviews. It is also possible that those individuals targeted for an interview may not be readily available or willing to participate in an interview, therefore a
questionnaire can be relatively low cost to administer and a quick method of eliciting information. The pre-determined nature of a questionnaire can also simplify the coding and analysis process; similarly with all respondents receiving the same questions a degree of standardisation can be achieved. Using questionnaires also has the advantage of allowing respondents to complete them at their own convenience and maintaining respondent anonymity. Although this can cause problems for the researcher as they are unable to identify who has responded, and therefore will not know who to send follow-up prompting letters to (Gillham, 2000; Munn and Drever, 2004). However, this can be resolved in a number of ways, for example by
guaranteeing confidentiality and promising feedback, which requires contact details to be included in the reply, or alternatively by entering the respondents into a prize draw to help maximise the return rate (Munn and Drever, 2004).
Whilst questionnaires have the benefit of being a neat data collection technique that is relatively easy to analyse; for the respondent they are often boring and become frustrating or tedious to complete (Gillham, 2000). Since researchers do not know the reasons behind the selected responses, or what answers may have been given if respondents were able to answer outside of the pre-determined options provided, questionnaire data is often regarded as necessarily superficial (Munn and Drever, 2004).
Gillham (2000) highlights some other disadvantages of using questionnaires, such as the typically low response rate of approximately 30% on average, as many will be completed hastily with little consideration over responses. Similarly, it can be very
difficult to motivate people to respond to a questionnaire. Furthermore, without an interviewer present misinterpretations cannot be corrected, and respondents are free to select the order in which they answer the questions, effectively resulting in a different questionnaire being answered. However, respondents’ answers are free from potential bias since the questionnaire is completed on their own without the presence of an interviewer (ibid).
In contrast, interviewing allows people to reflect on their responses and encourages interviewees to provide a fuller response, where a questionnaire assumes people have ready answers to the questions (Gillham, 2000). Semi-structured in-depth interviews also provide maximum opportunity for ideas between the researcher and the participant to be conveyed completely and accurately (Cannell and Kahn, 1968, p554) that survey questionnaires cannot deliver.
5.3.2 Interviews
An interview may simply be defined as a purposeful conversation that is used to collect information from selected participants (Berg, 2007).The essence of a qualitative
interview lies in conversation (Kvale, 1996) and hence obtaining good data is reliant upon both the skills of the researcher at questioning and listening, as well as the respondents’ ability to provide relevant answers (Rubin and Rubin, 1995 and Warren, 2001). Taylor and Bogdan (1998) explain that qualitative interviewing has been described as nondirective, unstructured, open-ended, and non-standardised; and as such the term in-depth interviewing is often used to refer to the method. Qualitative interviews are similar to standardised survey interviewing; however the purpose is very different. Whereas a survey interview may seek to “derive interpretations…facts or laws, from respondent talk” (Warren, 2001), an in-depth qualitative interviewer is focused on understanding experiences and situations from the perspective of the respondent, as expressed in their own words (Taylor and Bogdan, 1998). It is worth noting that qualitative interviews are often chosen by researchers when their “concern is with establishing common patterns or themes between particular types of
respondents” (Warren, 2001).
There are various forms of interviewing that can be adopted for a variety of different uses. The most frequently referred to is individual interviewing that is conducted through an in-person (face to face) verbal exchange (Fontana and Frey, 1994). Often interviews follow one of three major formats or structures, which Berg (2007) identifies as – standardised (formal or structured) interviews; un-standardised (informal or non- directive) interviews; and semi-standardised (semi-structured or focused) interviews. Figure 5-1 summarises the main differences between the three types of interview
Un-Standardised Interviews
- Completely unstructured. - No set order to questions. - No set wording to any questions. - Level of language may be adjusted. - Interviewer may answer questions and
make clarifications. - Interviewer may add or delete questions
between interviews.
Standardised Interviews
- Most formally structured. -No deviations from question order. - Wording of each question asked exactly as
written.
- No adjusting of level of language. - No clarifications or answering of questions
about the interview. - No additional questions may be added. - Similar in format to a pencil-and-paper
survey.
Semi-standardised Interviews
- More or less structured. - Questions may be reordered during the
interview. - Wording of questions flexible. - Level of language may be adjusted. - Interviewer may answer questions and make
clarifications.
- Interviewer may add or delete probes to interview between subsequent subjects.
structure, although the main distinguishing feature between them is the level of rigidity in their structure (ibid).
Figure 5-1 Types of interview structure by level of formality (Adapted from: Berg, 2007)
All research methods and techniques for data collection have their strengths and weaknesses. Qualitative in-depth interviews are particularly appropriate under the following circumstances: when there are relatively clear and well defined research questions; when it may be difficult or not possible to access particular settings or individuals; when there is limited time available to collect information that would otherwise have been gathered through participant observation; and if the objective of the researcher is to understand a wide range of settings or people that contribute towards the establishment of general theories (Taylor and Bogdan, 1998).
Some common weaknesses are mentioned by Taylor and Bogdan (1998) citing Becker and Geer (1957). The reliability of the responses can be difficult to determine since people respond differently under different circumstances and therefore an interview may elicit an unreal response. A second limitation is that of misinterpreting a
respondent’s use of language leading to the interviewer making assumptions that may be incorrect; only through researcher participation could some of these issues be avoided or at the very least minimised. However, Taylor and Bogdan (1998, p92) recommend “getting to know people well enough to understand what they mean, and creating an atmosphere in which they are likely to talk freely” as a possible way towards overcoming these limitations. In this case such an approach was not feasible due to the limited timescale for recruiting and meeting participants.
Another factor to consider when using interviews as a method of gathering research data is the choice of mode, either in-person or by telephone. Shuy (2001) explains that there are particular advantages and disadvantages associated with conducting
telephone interview can prove a cost-effective way of obtaining a complete interview (Shuy, 2001), mainly due to the speed of questioning that tends to be higher over the telephone as respondents provide shorter answers to open ended questions (Sykes and Collins, 1988); which results in telephone interviews taking approximately 10-20% less time to conduct (Groves, 1978, 1989). However, Lavrakas (1993) points out that interview topics involving complex issues are easier to conduct in-person, as it helps to avoid impatience and fatigue associated with long duration telephone conversations, and helps interviewers to achieve more accurate responses (Shuy, 2001). The visual indication from a face to face interview also encourages respondents to provide more thoughtful and explanatory answers, resulting from the contextual naturalness which leads people to talk more openly and at ease (Shuy, 2001). Groves (1979) also argues that interview respondents prefer to be questioned in person as opposed to over the telephone, which has the potential to lead to higher response rates.
Shuy (2001) recommends that researchers use the following nine criteria to help assess the most appropriate mode (telephone or in-person) for their interviews:
1. Type of interview to be conducted (e.g. research; polling; journalistic; medical etc.)
2. The type of information desired (e.g. demographic; personal; sensitive). 3. Interviewee’s attitudinal variability; safety and workload.
4. The requirement for consistency and uniformity amongst multiple interviewers. 5. Participant’s social variability (e.g. age; gender etc.)
6. Need for response and setting to be contextually natural.
7. The ability for participants to respond without being influenced by the questions. 8. Complexity of the issues and questions.
9. Economic, time, and location constraints.
In this case the preference was for in-person interviews wherever possible, with
telephone interviews being used when participants were unable to meet in person. This was particularly useful for some of the freight operators who were included in the participant sample; due to the mobile nature of their role as transport managers based at multiple locations around the UK, which made arranging a suitable venue for an interview more complex.