Methodological Techniques

The type of methodological techniques that a researcher employs are informed by the research problem that is being investigated and the nature of the information that the researcher seeks to generate. Different research methods provide an understanding of different observable circumstances and are used for different reasons (Deetz 1996).Thus, the choice of methodology employed must be suitable to the specific phenomenon of interest. By concentrating on the subject under investigation, rather than the research method, more appropriate methodologies can be selected (Falconer & Mackay 1999). In the case of this research, a combination of methodological techniques was utilised for investigating the research questions and generating the required data. In particular, the triangulation of research methods was adopted, as this represents one way to maximise the validity, strength and interpretative potential of the research by drawing upon different sources, methods and perspectives, rather than choosing one single method to generate data, thus

114

hopefully decreasing investigator‟s biases (Denzin 1970). Denzin identified four basic types of triangulations and these have been presented in Figure 4.1 below.

Figure 4.1: Types of Triangulation

 Data triangulation: this is the process of gathering data through the combination of several sampling methods (including gathering layers of data at different times, in different social settings and from different people).

 Investigators triangulation: this involves the use of multiple researchers in an investigation.

 Theoretical triangulation: this involves the use of more than one theoretical scheme in interpreting data.

 Methodological triangulation: this refers to the use of more than one method (like interviews, observations, questionnaires, and documents) for gathering data.

Source: Denzin 1970

In the case of this study, the fourth of these methods was utilised in addressing the research objectives. In particular, the combined use of qualitative and quantitative research methods was adopted, the specifics of which are discussed in the following section.

Quantitative vs. Qualitative Research Methods

Before attempting to make further justification for using a combination of methods for this study, a general discussion concerning the strengths and weaknesses of quantitative and qualitative methods shall be highlighted briefly. On the one hand, quantitative research are best known as logical positivism and post-positivism, based on the notion that true objectivity as an external observer is possible (see: Morgan and Smircich, 1980 and Ospina 2004). It emphasises the view that data and its analysis are value free and argues that data do not change because they are being observed. Quantitative research methods tend to produce studies concerned with the counting and measuring of events and the analysis of causal relationships

115

between variables in terms of numerical data (Smith, 1988). Qualitative methods, on the other hand, are based around the theoretical assumptions of the interpretative and constructivist paradigms, which argue that social reality is constructed and sustained through the subjective experience of people in social settings (Morgan, 1980). Qualitative research involves the process of accurately describing, decoding, interpreting and assigning meaning to phenomena in their natural social contexts (Fryer 1991). The interpretative paradigm is primarily concerned with investigating the complexity, authenticity, contextualisation and shared objectivity of the investigator and investigated (Fryer 1991). Figure 4.2 provides a brief description of major strengths and weaknesses of both research methods.

When conducting qualitative research, the investigator seeks to gain a holistic picture of the issue under investigation. According to Stainback and Stainback (1988), an elaborate account of events, processes, and philosophies occurring in natural settings is often required to make accurate situational decisions. Unlike quantitative research methods, qualitative methods of research are mainly concerned with the reasons behind the various spheres of human behavior. Specifically, the why and how of decision making, as compared to the what, where, and when of quantitative research methods.

Despite these differences between qualitative and quantitative methods, according to Van (1983) they should not be seen as polar opposites. The combined use of qualitative and quantitative research methods provides a richer contextual basis for interpreting and validating research findings than the use of either alone (Cook and Reichardt 1979; Light and Pillemer 1982; Maxwell et al, 1986, Van Maanen et al, 1982; 1983). As Maxwell et al (1986) argue, the combined use of both approaches introduces both testability and context into research. The decision to use a combination of approaches for this study was informed by the view that the collection of different kinds of data by different methods from different sources provides a broader coverage and more holistic understanding of the subject under investigation, which perhaps may be difficult to achieve through one single method (Bonoma 1985).

116

Figure 4.2: Strengths and Limitations of Quantitative and Qualitative methods

Strengths and Limitations of Quantitative Methods

Strengths

 Accuracy via quantitative and reliable measurements.

 Through sampling and design there tends to be greater control of the research process.

 Through the use of controlled experiments, causality statements can be produced.

 Robust analyses through statistical techniques.

 Replicable.

Limitations

 Due to the complexities surrounding human experience, the control of all variables tends to be difficult.

 The interpretations of individuals‟ unique experiences and construction of meanings, as well as actions, are

not adequately accounted for.

 Due to restrictions and controlling of variables, quantitative approaches can tend to produce trivial results of

little consequence.

 There remain questions over issues of objectivity, because the investigator is subjectively involved in the

formulation of research questions and in the interpretation of the results.

Strengths and Limitations of Qualitative methods

Strengths

 The researcher gains an insider‟s view of the field, as a result of close involvement, thus permitting access

to subtleties and complexities that are often missed.

 Qualitative methods provide the means for describing possible relationships, causes, effects and dynamic

processes.

 The use of a more descriptive and narrative method of qualitative research encourages the exploration and

identification of other types of knowledge that might otherwise be unavailable.

Limitations

 There are criticisms over difficulties in utilising conventional standards, reliability and validity resulting from the subjective nature of qualitative data and its origin within single contexts.

 The data collection, analysis and interpretation process is often time consuming.

 The investigator‟s presence and involvement in the subject of investigation often has a profound effect.

 The process of selecting findings often encounters problems relating to anonymity and confidentiality

issues.

117

Despite these differences between qualitative and quantitative methods, according to Van (1983) they should not be seen as polar opposites. The combined use of qualitative and quantitative research methods provides a richer contextual basis for interpreting and validating research findings than the use of either alone (Cook and Reichardt 1979; Light and Pillemer 1982; Maxwell et al, 1986, Van Maanen et al, 1982; 1983). As Maxwell et al (1986) argue, the combined use of both approaches introduces both testability and context into research. The decision to use a combination of approaches for this study was informed by the view that the collection of different kinds of data by different methods from different sources provides a broader coverage and more holistic understanding of the subject under investigation, which perhaps may be difficult to achieve through one single method (Bonoma 1985). It also helped in managing certain challenges posed by cultural, linguistic, business practise, and communication differences of respondents and interviewees and the particular challenges involved in conducting research into such a sensitive issue as corruption.