and generalisation.
127
For example, two respondents directly challenged the assumption in question 15 that any such quantity might be specified and suggested it was the wrong question to ask; one pointed out that it depended on context the other pointed out the need to consider liquidity in the securities in question. Other interview participants were not slow to correct the researcher’s assumptions where they detected ignorance, and in cases where potentially sensitive data such as the value of transactions was requested, several simply pointed out that they considered it inappropriate to comment (in which case the researcher did not press for a response).
The 17 open-ended questions are listed below:
1. How would your use of various media types/ information sources change during times of market volatility/ crisis?
2. How would your use of various types of information/data change during times of market volatility/crisis?
3. How far does the volume/scale (i.e. $$$ value) of investment transaction affect your use of various media types/ information sources?
4. Under what circumstances might you second-guess/ double-check an information source you normally consider reliable? (Or trust a source you normally consider unreliable?) 5. If your trading involves either managing funds for third parties or investing in funds
managed by third parties, how does this affect your use of media types/ information sources?
6. Briefly comment on how your trading/ analysis activities have been affected by the emergence of new information technologies (e.g. computers cellphones, internet, etc.) 7. Briefly comment on how the financial markets as a whole have been affected by the
emergence of new information technologies (e.g. computers, cellphones, internet, etc.) 8. What types of media/ information sources do you most need to access in real time (i.e. zero
time delay/ continuous monitoring) and why?
9. What types of information/data updates do you most need to access in real-time (i.e. zero time-delay/ continuous monitoring), and why?
10. How far does the importance you ascribe to a particular media type/ information source depend on the significance ascribed to it by other market actors (i.e. that other
traders/analysts take notice of it) ?
11. How far does the importance you ascribe to a particular type of information/data depend on the significance ascribed to it by other market actors (i.e. that other traders/analysts act on it) ?
12. If you were able to gain access to a currently unavailable type of media/source and/or a
currently unavailable type of information/data, which would have the most impact on your
ability to trade/ analyse successfully (and why)?
13. There are often several competing media/ information sources of each type (e.g. Wall St. Journal & Financial Times; Reuters & Bloomberg, etc.). What factors determine whether you prefer one medium/source to another of the same type?
14. What types of data/ information have the greatest potential to precipitate trends of trading activity and ‘move the market’ ?
15. To what extent do high-volume ($$$ value) trading transactions have the potential to precipitate trends of trading activity and ‘move the market’? (And how large would they have to be?)
16. In trading/analysis activity, how important is it to have access to information/data not currently available to other market actors, compared with having access to the information/data which is available to other market actors?
17. When making recommendations or decisions about buying/ selling/ rating various
securities, is it important that your rationale/criteria be shared by other market actors, or is it important that your rationale/ criteria diverge from others (i.e. a ‘contrarian’ approach)? The wording and sequencing of questions given to respondents was a potentially important consideration in the construction of the questionnaire. The length of the instrument was recognised as having the potential to inhibit completion of the entire questionnaire. Given that interviews were also planned, it was decided to place the open-ended section at the end The quantitative scales indicating the perceived importance and objectivity of the various media/information sources were considered to be of primary importance, so these were located first. Note that the sequence invited respondents to complete scale responses to the perceived importance of the various media before completing the section on perceived objectivity. The reason for this was to maintain a distinction in the cognitive frames used by respondents and also to commit them to rating importance without direct comparisons with objectivity128. The listing of media/sources and information types to be rated
128 In practice, it would have been possible for respondents to go back and check their initial responses, but
was also loosely sequenced in order to help encourage respondents to frame their responses in the context of roughly comparable media (e.g. the subcategories of print media and online media were juxtaposed on the form, as were different forms of discussion with market contacts). This was intended to help ensure that any differentiation in perceived importance or objectivity were explicitly recognised. For example, the juxtaposition of general interest newspapers and financial/business newspapers would cue the respondent into a response contextualised by their ratings for other similar media129. Interestingly, the missing cases in the quantitative data set stemmed primarily from the section on information types. Because this followed the two ratings of media importance and objectivity, it is likely that this reflected respondent fatigue rather than confusion or a lack of access/relevance.