Mixed Method Questionnaire Survey

A questionnaire survey supports “a research strategy involving the collection of data from a range of respondents” (Punch, 2012, p. 156). Veal (2005) also notes

that most businesses use a questionnaire survey as the primary instrument for gaining information. The main body of the questionnaire was divided into four sections that mirrored the research fields of this study. A copy of the survey questionnaire is provided at Appendix 1.

The survey contained 39 questions, 36 of which related to the primary data collection questions.11 The majority of survey questions aimed to produce quantitative data that could be measured and analysed for trend and statistical purposes. In addition, most questions also asked respondents to provide qualitative opinions or statements to support the rating they provided. These qualitative responses provided a valuable source to determine themes and trends related to the SR questions, and to the overall research topic generally.

Respondents’ Information. In this introductory section respondents were asked to provide their name, position and contact phone number. They were also asked to provide permission for their answers to be attributed to them or to remain anonymous. Forty-four percent of respondents preferred to have their responses remain anonymous. Finally respondents were asked if they performed a leadership or management role in their organisation when a CDEM event occurs, to which 88% indicated they did.

Selection of Respondents. In determining the range and skill-sets of potential respondents, a conscious decision was made to target a majority of personnel who were directly or closely connected to the wider CDEM sector.12 A wide cross-section of staff from the three levels of CDEM (national, group and local) made up 68% of respondents. This high percentage was deliberate as these people are considered to have the expertise and detailed knowledge of CDEM practices and procedures to provide authoritative comments. The remaining

11

The three initial questions of the survey gathered information related to the respondent’s name, employment position and preference for anonymity.

12

The wider CDEM sector for this thesis is defined as CDEM officials, NZ Police, NZFS, NZDF, MoH and relevant NGOs.

32% of respondents were made up of OGAs (24%), NGOs (4.5%), and commercial sector (3.5%). Of the government agencies, most of the respondents were prominent people from CDEM’s supporting agencies – NZP, NZFS, NZDF and MoH. These people were considered to have first-hand experience of emergency management, many having been directly involved with the Christchurch earthquakes disaster response effort. Commercial industry respondents included a chief executive of a prominent Chamber of Commerce, and senior staff of LGs responsible for the provision of electricity, water and communications. The NGO respondents included senior management of the New Zealand Red Cross (NZRC), who provide significant welfare support to people affected in a disaster, and St John’s Ambulance, who also play a critical role in any immediate disaster response effort. Logistics managers from FMCG companies, whose job is to maintain a severely interrupted supply chain, were also included in the survey. The following table details the categories of respondents and the percentage that each group contributed to the final total of 84 individuals who participated in the questionnaire survey.

CDEM Police NZDF OGA Commercial

Industry NGO Total

Actual

No. 57 5 5 10 3 4 84

% 68 6 6 12 3.5 4.5 100

Table 3.1: Category and Percentage of Respondents

Survey Selection. The survey was conducted by electronic means and communicated by email to prospective respondents. The electronic software product ‘Survey Monkey’, a survey tool that is used widely in academic institutions, was chosen to administer the survey. There were two main reasons for this selection:

1. The tool’s reputation and functionality means it is understood by respondents and can be easily administered.

2. The ability for the author to access a NZDF Survey Monkey account

through the NZDF Command and Staff College.

Conducting the Survey. Initially contact with potential respondents was made via a telephone call seeking their involvement with the study.13 With recent disasters still fresh in many minds it was encouraging to find that most of those contacted were receptive to undertaking the survey. A large number of those contacted were also keen to recommend others who they considered to be appropriate candidates for the study, in particular, people who had been involved with recent events such as the Christchurch earthquakes or the MV RENA maritime disaster. Another method used to identify potential respondents was the inclusion of an introductory message in the email containing the electronic survey link, which invited recipients to reply advising of any other prospective respondents they considered appropriate. At this point the survey entered a ‘viral phase’ with the initial target of 35-40 survey requests growing to a list of 103 people eventually invited to complete the survey. Respondents were given a five-week period by which time 84 completed surveys had been received. This response far exceeded initial expectations and resulted in a response rate of 81.6% of the 103 surveys sent out.

Strengths and Weaknesses of this Survey Approach. Conducting a survey of this type over a range of respondents brought with it some potential positives and negatives. A positive result was the number of respondents who are CDEM sector professionals, many of whom have extensive experience in emergency management. Some respondents brought strong views and robust opinions that can be explained by the passion and commitment this brings to the CDEM sector, especially those who had experienced, first hand, recent disaster events.

13

This had the potential to be perceived as agendas being pushed, but this was not a negative as any agenda being advanced was a result of recent traumatic events that related specifically to the research questions. Another significant positive was that a number of respondents were in senior leadership positions, and that they answered survey questions freely and open to attribution. The ability to connect with experienced professionals, as opposed to conducting a random untargeted survey, resulted in responses of a far higher quality (Bryman, 2008).

From a weaknesses viewpoint, one aspect that needed to be considered carefully was the significant number of respondents directly employed in the three levels of the CDEM community. The high number (68%) of CDEM-sector respondents had the potential to dilute the voices of those responding from other government agencies, the commercial sector, or the NGO community. To mitigate this the analysis was carefully conducted to assess the various groupings and determine where one sector’s voice may have swayed the comparative voices of others. Interestingly, the results provided little evidence that this actually occurred with robust views observed from across the spectrum of respondents. Another weakness that had the potential to occur was the inability to answer some of the questions outside a particular respondent’s area of knowledge. To reduce this effect, the analysis was only focused on actual responses to questions. The functional ability of Survey Monkey was utilised to exclude unanswered responses for quantitative calculations.