Method of Data Collection .1 Questionnaires

Questionnaires were used as the sole method of data collection. In qualitative research, questionnaires are not one of the prominent methods because they do not reflect the natural reactions of the subjects - i.e. they require the respondents to respond to stimuli [Woods, 2006]. In this study, the questionnaires proved to be useful since certain clearly defined

facts or opinions had already been identified by more qualitative methods. The questionnaires were used to explore how generally these facts apply in the context of SA. In order to ensure that respondents were interpreting items in the way intended, the questionnaires were administered by means of one-on-one interviews carried out by the researcher. The data required related to finding out factual details, seeking responses to firm pre-identified categories. In most ordinal questions, for example, respondents were not given an option to respond indifferently, thereby forcing them to either agree or disagree with the statement forming the question.

In questionnaire design, most data obtained from a questionnaire is usually categorical.

Questions may be dichotomous (yes or no answers), multiple choice (alternative answers listed) or open-ended [Kothari, 2004].

When the choice of categories is only two, the type of categorical data is variously referred to as binary data, dichotomous data, yes/no data or 0-1 data. When more than two categories are offered (for example with marital status with the categories married/single/

divorced/separated/widowed) the type of data is also called nominal data. If the categories defining the response to each question can be ordered or rated, (for example none/minimal/moderate/severe), this type of data is known as ordinal data. Likert scales are a type of ordinal data usually obtained from questions asking an opinion (McNeill &

Chapman, 2005).

In practice, one rarely comes across a case when one questionnaire relies on only one form of question. The various forms complement each other - therefore questions of different forms are included in a single questionnaire. For instance, multiple-choice questions constitute the basis of a structured questionnaire, particularly in a mail survey.

But even so various open-ended questions are generally inserted (to gain a more complete picture of the respondent’s feelings and attitudes) [Kothari, 2004]. It is for this reason that the questionnaires used for this research comprised four types of questions - namely:

binary, nominal and ordinal questions (including Likert scale questions), and open ended.

3.6.2 Administering the Questionnaire

One on one interviews were the preferred method of data collection, with the majority of the questionnaires being administered by means of personal interviews. Where direct contact interviews were not practical, telephone interviews were conducted. “One on one

interviews are a reliable technique for collecting rich and detailed information on human phenomena while allowing a rapport to be built between the interviewer and interviewee.”

[Valentine, 2005]. The interviews were conducted in the conversational form, to allow the interviewee flexibility to discuss information without feeling interrogated. Although a questionnaire was utilised, respondents were allowed the opportunity to explain further their reasons for selecting a particular answer in the questionnaire. This freedom contributed to identifying the context in which the response had been given and helped to enrich the data collection and justify the rationale behind the interviewee’s selection of a particular answer. Furthermore, this allowed the interviewer to probe responses for more clarity. By explaining the question, the researcher ensured that all respondents fully comprehended the questions and the answers given were consistent.

The in-depth interviews, as explained by Valentine [2005], are known to have some inevitable short-comings, despite being praised for their strengths. One of the criticisms this type of interview has received is that bias can be created by the interviewer and this can influence the respondents’ answers. Interviewers are often influenced by their own opinions or position on the subject matter, thus impacting negatively on their objectivity. To avoid this bias the researcher maintained objectivity on the subject and avoided asking leading questions, but rather, questions as stated in the questionnaire. The researcher furthermore, ensured that clarification of the questions did not lead the respondent in a particular direction.

The questionnaires are useful in giving direction to the interviews and their strength is embedded in their ability for various statistical analyses to be drawn from the numerical data collected. Valentine [2005] concurs that questionnaires are useful in collecting various primary data about many variables (e.g. behaviour, attitudes and opinions of people). In this research, the purpose was to determine the perceptions of the respondents on the South African CDM market.

Closed-ended questions were used in order to cater for statistical analysis of the results. With questionnaires, respondents have freedom to give honest answers without feeling embarrassed. However, Valentine [2005] voices scepticism towards questionnaires, citing that they tend to take the form of rigid questions and drive respondents’ answers towards limited categories which might not be an exact reflection of what they want to say.

“Questionnaires come short in terms of apprehending the complexity of the respondents’

views. The explanatory power of questionnaires is thus very limited. As a consequent, the information generated with this technique is not detailed; instead, it may be shallow”

[Valentine, 2007]. These flaws were addressed by administering the questionnaire in a form of an interview, where each respondent had an opportunity to elaborate on their choice of answer. The interviews were recorded and later transcribed and the additional information volunteered by the respondents became useful for the discussion of the results.

3.7 Validity

Validity is an important aspect in research. McNeill and Chapman [2005] describe validity as the problem of whether the data collected is a true picture of what is being studied and whether it is really definitive evidence as it claims to do. In other words, whether the process implemented to collect data has collected the intended data successfully. McNeill and Chapman reckon the problem arises particularly when the data being collected seems to be a product of the research method used rather than the actual data being studied. Validity also includes correctness of interpretation of results and conclusions drawn, quality assurance of the data analysis method is critical to ensure validity. In this study, the researcher consulted experienced researchers to test the data analysis method.

To ensure validity of the results, the researcher took care to strike a balance between probing the respondents for clarification and avoiding leading the respondent towards a certain direction. The respondents were allowed to expand on their opinions of the subject.

Because of the competitive nature of the carbon trading business, some respondents may have reserved information that might compromise their business standing in the carbon markets. The researcher mitigated this bias by asking general questions that did not require specific details of particular deals. Lack of knowledge about carbon trading and carbon markets, especially with municipal officials, may have resulted in some of the respondents guessing answers. This would create bias in the research since the respondents would have given answers that sounded correct even if the answer was not the true reflection of the situation or their opinions. In this respect the validity of the answers was ensured by clearly explaining the questions to the respondents.

3.8 Ethics

To address the subject of ethical consideration in research, the researcher explained the purpose of the research to the respondents in a form of a letter (Annexure A), which was sent to the respondents prior to the interview. The letter also explained that the respondents’

confidentiality would be safeguarded at all times. The results have been presented as collective rather than as individual responses and the names of respondents and their company’s names are not mentioned in the final write up of the study.