One basic fundamental framework required for all research work, whether qualitative or quantitative, is the choice of the specific methods used in any study. Consequently, researchers are expected to be careful and to engage in intensive scrutiny of their methods before embarking on any exercise. The challenge is further compounded by the non-availability of a single method with which to conduct research in the media and cultural industries (Snipe and Spencer, 2000: 2). The subject area, the media and cultural studies, determines the best approach to be employed in carrying out research in the social sciences. Stokes (2003:19) has argued that the object of analysis and the theoretical approach will determine the method to be used. Silverman (2000) noted that the objectives of a study are critical to the choice of research method. This approach is also called research design. Burnham, Lutz, Grant and Layton-Henry (2008:46) defined research design as the logical structure of the research work.
Oluwasina Abidemi Babasola, University of Westminster (2017) 86 | P a g e
This study deployed a mixed-methods approach. This allows for the combination of two or more methods in order to avoid the weaknesses that may be associated with one method. Stokes (2003) described this as a triangulation method. Stokes argued that the idea of triangulation is that one method confirms or reinforces another (Stokes, 2003:27). The triangulation method, as Ritchie (2000: 46) noted, involves “the use of different methods and sources to check the integrity of or extend, inferences drawn from the data”. The triangulation method deployed for this study involves the use of in-depth interviews, the analysis of newspapers, and critical discourse analysis.
3.2.1 In-Depth Interviews
An interview is a conversation between two people with the objective of collecting relevant information for the purposes of research. Interviews are particularly useful for getting the story behind a participant's experiences. The interviewer can pursue in-depth information around the topic. This study uses the in-depth interview, and it was deployed because of its usefulness. Kvale (2006: 841) puts it more correctly:
The interviews give voice to common people, allowing them to freely present their life situations in their own words, and open for a close personal interaction between the researchers and their subjects.
Kvale (1983: 174) notes that in-depth interviews are the best form of approach for qualitative data collections. Kvale (1996: 1-2) opined “if you want to know how people understand their world and their life, why not talk to them?” The qualitative research interviews used for this study attempt to understand the world from the subjects’ points of view, and to unfold the meaning of people’s experiences. Easterby-Smith et al (2012: 128) argued that there are three kinds of interviews: highly structured, semi-structured and unstructured interviews. According to Easterby-Smith et al, researchers ought to know the advantages and disadvantages of each of the methods before choosing the type of interview. The interview method used for this study was semi-structured, as “it often gives a higher degree of confidentiality and the replies of the interviewees tend to be more personal in nature”. Furthermore, it encourages the respondents to express themselves widely on issues raised. Denscombe (2003) and Easterby-Smith et al (2012) noted that interviewees’ answers are open-minded, and this permits them to respond to questions based on their life/work
Oluwasina Abidemi Babasola, University of Westminster (2017) 87 | P a g e
experiences. Indeed, the semi-structured interview allowed this researcher to exercise control over the nature and length of the answers allowed for each interviewee, so as not to lose track of the whole exercise.
This study used the in-depth interview method because it allows the interviewer to identify non- verbal clues from the interviewees. Non-verbal cues, such as voice, intonation, body language, etc., always add to the verbal answer of the interviewee. Besides, Green and Thorogood (2014: 125) argued that one major limitation of interview as a source of data was that ‘they only provide access to what people say, not what they do and it is difficult to know any ‘essential truth’ on their response. The interviewer and interviewee also directly react to what the other says or does during an in-depth interview session (Wengraf, 2001: 194). It is very easy to terminate an interview, if compared to other research methods.
Similarly, in the course of an in-depth interview, a tape recorder may be permitted. Experiences in the field show that using a tape recorder ensures that the interview report is more accurate than it would be by merely writing out notes. The main disadvantage of using a tape recorder is that it is time consuming to transcribe the entire interview. Bryman (2001) notes that one hour of tape takes five to six hours to transcribe.
Indeed, Easterby-Smith et al (2012) listed six practical issues that may affect the outcome of an interview. They include: obtaining trust; being aware of social interaction; using appropriate language; getting access; choosing the location for the interview; and recording interviews. All these were fully observed in the course of the interviews which took place in Abuja, Lagos and Ibadan, three major metropolises in Nigeria.
Data was collected for the study primarily through detailed interviews with select- stakeholders in the anti-corruption sector in Nigeria. They include the former heads of the anti-corruption agencies, politicians, legal practitioners, civil society activists, religious leaders and media practitioners. Interviewees were chosen based on selective sampling. Sampling means the
Oluwasina Abidemi Babasola, University of Westminster (2017) 88 | P a g e
“scientific” process of picking manageable population sizes that would enable a researcher to derive data for his study, as well as drawing inferences that are capable of findings.
Twenty-five persons: two former chairmen of ICPC, one former member of EFCC staff, one former senior official at the Code of Conduct Bureau, two religious leaders, three practising journalists, two veteran journalists, one labour leader, two civil activists, two politicians, two legal practitioners, three staff from the anti-corruption agencies, two retired academics and two federal lawmakers, were selected for the interviews. The interviewees were chosen based on specific traits. These traits include work experience and their position on the integrity issues. This sampling is what, Wimmer and Dominick (2000: 84) have described as the purposive sampling technique. For them, a purposive sample is a “subject selected on the basis of specific characteristics or qualities”. This study deployed the In-Depth Interview (IDI) as the primary source of data collection for the study.
Specifically, Sarantakos (2013: 55) noted that many researchers are opting for mixed-methods approach because the methods offered them the possibility of achieving high standard, validity, popularity and credibility. Although mixed methods research have been criticized by some scholars but it remains an acceptable procedure in social research (Sarantakos 2013: 56).