This section describes and discusses the techniques and methods employed to collect and analyse the data from the initial qualitative exploratory phase of research. It should be noted that the literature review conducted in Chapters Two and Three, and also on an on-going basis throughout all phases of this study, also qualifies as secondary or desk research.
The literature review included the analysis of a variety of textbooks, academic journals, and magazines along with a variety of other documents and web-based material, with the results of that analysis being used to guide, inform, and support this study.
3.4.1 Qualitative Data Collection Methodology
A number of different techniques or methodologies were considered for the collection of the qualitative data for this study with some, such as methodologies using direct
observation, being deemed as unsuitable for use as, whilst they allow researchers to identify and gain an understanding of organisational structures and social roles, they do not allow researchers to gain insights into the opinions an individual holds, why they hold that opinion, or how that opinion was formed or constructed. They also do not allow a
researcher to establish if something is important or otherwise to an individual, or allow that individual to explain why it is or is not important to them. Such methodology would therefore not allow the objectives of this initial phase of research, specifically, to validate and refine the conceptual model and to identify further potential predictors of
environmental based trust, nor gain an understanding of them and their importance.
3.4.1.1 Qualitative Interviews
A family of research methodologies, often referred to as ‘qualitative interviews’ that essentially amount to a conversation between a researcher who asks questions and one or more participants or respondents who answer those questions, would allow a researcher to gain such insights as discussed in the previous Section (Arskey and Knight, 1999;
Gephart, 2004). Qualitative interviews are one of the most commonly recognised forms of qualitative research. They are usually categorised as being either structured,
semi-structured, or unsemi-structured, and allow research participants to share rich descriptions of phenomenon of interest with a researcher (Mason, 2002; DiCicco-Bloom and Crabtree 2006). They are both “an established approach when researching a complex area” (Hughes 2006, p. 117), and are also suggested for use when undertaking exploratory studies
(Saunders et al., 2009). Given the aims of this study, the use of qualitative interviews would be appropriate for the initial phase of research.
Whilst structured interviews are most commonly used to collect quantitative data, semi-structured and unsemi-structured interviews, often described as in-depth interviews, are used to collect qualitative data through the use of open-ended questions. The use of
semi-structured or unsemi-structured interviews allow a researcher to probe more deeply and gain a greater understanding of attitudes and beliefs than would otherwise be possible which, in turn, enables the researcher to contribute knowledge based upon the meaning of the life experiences of participants. Whilst unstructured interviews often have little in the way of a
69
formal agenda and are often conversational in nature, semi-structured interviews follow a specific agenda, with a set of pre-determined questions, but retain enough flexibility to allow the researcher scope to improvise, follow up, dig deeper, and frame follow-up questions based upon the initial answer of the participant. This facilitates natural
opportunities for further discussion that will often develop new themes and address issues that would perhaps otherwise not be raised (Burgess, 1984; Arskey and Knight 1999;
DiCicco-Bloom and Crabtree 2006; Hair et al., 2009).
Given the aims of this phase of research, structured interviews would not be an
appropriate methodology to employ due to their primarily quantitative nature which would not allow the collection of the rich and varied data required. Both unstructured and semi-structured interviews would allow the collection of the required data, however the lack of structure implicit in an unstructured interview was also considered inappropriate, as this phase of research has specific aims and objectives. Semi-structured interviews are therefore considered an appropriate methodology to use for the qualitative phase of this study.
In addition to the use of individual semi-structured interviews, the use of focus groups was also considered and found appropriate, as they also allow the collection of rich and varied qualitative data. Focus groups are a form of group semi-structured interviews, where a moderator initiates and directs discussion using open ended questions usually taken from an agenda, thereby allowing the collection of data through group discussion and
interaction. Individual participants query each other and explain themselves to each other with this interaction, allowing for the collection of more in-depth information and thus a deeper insight and greater understanding than would otherwise be possible. It is this interaction between participants that distinguishes the focus group from other forms of group interview, with a further advantage being that they allow a large amount of rich and varied data to be collected quickly. Both focus groups and semi-structured interviews are conducted using a pre-planned agenda, listing areas of interest for discussion and debate with participants whose profiles have been pre-determined, along with the sampling procedures used to identify and select potential participants (Kitzinger 1994; Kitzinger 1995; Morgan 1996; Morgan 1997; Mason 2002; Saunders et al., 2009).
3.4.1.2 Risks Associated with Semi-Structured Interviews and Focus Groups
Whilst semi-structured interviews and focus groups offer many advantages to a researcher, they also have a number of risks, disadvantages, and potential weaknesses that must be mitigated, as discussed below:
1. Care must be taken when framing questions for use, within either a semi-structured interview or focus group, to ensure that questions have the same meaning to all participants as, if they are poorly articulated, individual participants may interpret the questions differently and therefore effectively answer different questions (Thomas, 2004). In order to mitigate this risk, two pilot interviews were conducted in order to test the research instrument with appropriate amendments being made to the instrument as a result of issues that arose, in order to ensure that it was fit for purpose in terms of both content and procedure (Saunders et al., 2009; Yin, 2009).
2. Additionally, interviews and focus groups, by their nature, are held in unnatural social settings and rely upon self-reported behaviour using verbal communication,
70
which carries an implicit risk related to honesty. Both are also open to bias, in that participants may answer questions in manner they believe the researcher wishes to hear or as a result of a desire to conform socially in the presence of others,
particularly where issues are being discussed where there are ethical sensitivities (Kitzinger 1994; Morgan 1996; Morgan 1997; Hair et al., 2009; Yin 2009). To mitigate these risks, participants were informed at the outset of each interview or focus group that there were no right or wrong answers to any of the questions, and that the answers given by any participant to any questions would be valid, and of interest, whatever that answer may be.
Two further risks are specific to focus groups:
3. Whilst the moderator of a focus group has a level of control and flexibility that allows wide ranging interaction and discussion covering many subjects, that flexibility and control could also restrict discussion to specific subjects, thereby placing artificial limits on both the discussion and resultant data. This was mitigated by taking care during both focus groups to ensure that this did not occur, and that participants were able to raise and discuss all issues relevant to the subject.
4. Some participants may prove reluctant to engage in discussion concerning a subject that is personally sensitive to them in front of others (Kitzinger 1995;
Morgan 1997). This risk posed particular issues given the subject of this study, and was mitigated by reassuring potential participants during the recruitment process that sensitive subjects would not be discussed, that there was no obligation for them to discuss anything that made them feel uncomfortable in any way, and that if there was an issue which they would like to discuss with the researcher alone, away from the group forum, that this could be facilitated and they should make their desire known by approaching the researcher privately.
5. Finally, there is a need for the researcher to be mindful of the need to remain objective and unbiased during each interview and focus group, and not to project their own values, beliefs, or assumptions onto the participants, as this could create bias within the data. However it should also be noted, given the complex subject area of this study, that there was a need to remain both informative and willing to provide further unbiased information to participants when requested.
3.4.2 Research Integrity and Credibility
There is little point in conducting research if the findings and conclusions lack integrity or are not credible. The concepts of replicability, validity and reliability are used by
researchers to ensure both.
Replicability concerns whether or not a study can be reproduced, and requires a researcher to detail the procedures that they have used when conducting any particular study.
Replicability allows confidence in a field of study, and is highly valued by many researchers in the social sciences (Bryman and Bell, 2011). In detailing and discussing the methodology used to collect and analyse data for this study, this chapter provides replicability in that it allows other researchers to reproduce this study by following the methods used.
Validity refers to the integrity and accuracy of the conclusions generated by the research, and ensures that they actually relate to what they claim or appear to be about (Hair et al.,
71
2009; Saunders et al., 2009; Bryman and Bell, 2011), with many authors distinguishing between several different types or classes of validity:
Content or face validity concerns whether or not the construct or research instrument focuses upon the domain of interest or enquiry adequately, and whether or not the real nature of the construct, as it exists in the real world, is captured (Churchill and Iacobucci, 2002).
Measurement or construct validity is primarily applicable to quantitative research and concerns whether or not a construct actually measures what it is supposed to measure and that research findings are about what they profess to be about (Churchill and Iacobucci, 2002; Bryman and Bell, 2011).
Internal validity primarily relates to the issue of causality, and is concerned with assessing whether or not a conclusion of a causal relationship between two or more variables is justified (Churchill and Iacobucci, 2002; Bryman and Bell, 2011).
External validity, sometimes referred to as generalisability, relates to the issue of whether or not the findings of a particular study can be applied to another setting or context (Churchill and Iacobucci, 2002; Saunders et al., 2009; Bryman and Bell, 2011).
Ecological validity addresses the issue of whether or not findings from social science research are applicable to participant’s everyday natural social setting (Bryman and Bell, 2011).
Reliability refers to the extent to which the methodology used in a particular study will yield consistent and stable results, conclusions, or findings over time, and that those findings are repeatable (Churchill and Iacobucci, 2002; Saunders et al., 2009; Yin 2009;
Bryman and Bell, 2011), with the following three criteria for assessment of reliability being suggested by Easterby-Smith et al., (2012):
Will the measures yield the same results on other occasions?
Will similar observations be reached by other observers?
Is there transparency in how sense was made from the raw data?
Whilst some concepts outlined above are often applicable to quantitative research only, the concepts of reliability and validity also apply to qualitative research but in differing ways, and with different authors often proposing and using different terminology (Bryman and Bell, 2011). For example, Lincoln and Guba (1985) propose the concept of
trustworthiness as a criterion for assessing qualitative research which has four components:
Credibility, which is a counterpart to internal validity and considers how believable findings are.
Transferability, which is a counterpart to external validity and considers the degree to which findings apply to different contexts.
Dependability, which is a counterpart to reliability and considers how likely the findings are to apply at other times.
Confirmability, which considers the objectivity of research and considers whether or not the researcher has allowed their values to intrude into the research and results to a high degree.
72
The concepts of validity and reliability, including application of the different types or classes of validity that are relevant to qualitative research, will be discussed, where applicable, in more detail later in this section, whilst those relevant to quantitative research will be discussed in more detail in Section 3.5.3 on page 85 of this chapter, where the quantitative methodology employed by this study is presented and discussed in detail.
3.4.3 Interview and Focus Group Protocol
One area of concern when undertaking both in-depth interviews and focus groups, identified earlier, is that reliability (or dependability) issues can arise due to a number of factors, such as respondent bias or interviewer error (Yin, 2009; Hair et al, 2009). In order to mitigate such risks, Yin (2009) suggests that a ‘research protocol’ be produced in order to record and document the research instrument to be used, together with the procedures and general rules to be followed when conducting the research. A protocol for the
qualitative phase of this study was therefore developed using the template by Yin (2009) and can be found in Appendix Three (page: 222).
3.4.4 Ethical Considerations
During the recruitment process, the nature and purpose of the research was explained in full to each volunteer, as was the voluntary nature of their participation and their right to withdraw from the study at any time without giving a reason. Volunteers were also informed that it was the intention to record and then subsequently transcribe the interviews verbatim in a manner that guaranteed their anonymity. A written information guide (Appendix Five, page: 227 and Six, page: 228) containing this information was either e-mailed to each volunteer or given to them prior to their interview or participation in a focus group, and each participant was asked to sign a consent form (Appendix Seven, page:
230) indicating that they had received and understood the document and agreed to participate in the research. Participants were given assurances relating to anonymity and confidentiality, and were informed that all data would be held and disposed of in a secure manner in accordance with the provisions of the Data Protection Act.
As indicated earlier, efforts were also made during the recruitment process to reassure potential participants that they would not be expected to disclose any personally sensitive information, and that they should only disclose information that they felt comfortable disclosing.
Both the qualitative and quantitative phases of research were conducted to the highest possible standards, and followed the ethical guidelines of both the Business School and the Market Research Society code of conduct, with ethical approval being sought and gained from the Business School at all appropriate points before the commencement of data collection.
In addition to protecting the rights of participants, it is hoped that adopting this approach encouraged respondents to be more open and frank with their responses. The research undertaken for this study was not of a sensitive nature and therefore posed no risk of harm to participants.
73 3.4.5 Research Instrument Development
Based upon the literature review carried out in Chapters Two and Three, a discussion or topic guide, including a series of suggested open-ended questions, was developed (see Appendix Two, page: 220 for the final version used) for use during both the semi-structured interviews and focus groups that covered the four main subject areas of interest:
Statutory and self-regulation
The role of redress, guarantees and warranties
Confidentiality and privacy
The attire of the adviser and physical condition of his or her business premises.
The discussion guide was initially reviewed by two independent financial advisers, to ensure that the topics and suggested questions accurately represented the context under examination, thereby helping to ensure both ecological and content validity. In order to further ensure content validity, the questionnaire was then further reviewed by a faculty member and PhD student from a leading UK business school, with amendments to the discussion guide subsequently being made to address issues and concerns that were raised.
Once the amendments had been completed, a small pilot test was carried out consisting of two semi-structured interviews with respondents who met the participation criteria detailed later in this section. In addition to further testing the content validity of the discussion guide, carrying out a pilot test also helps to ensure that participants can understand and respond to the questions posed, that any problems or ambiguities are identified before the main body of research is conducted, and that any other risks and concerns are mitigated and addressed, such as that identified earlier concerning potential differences in understanding between respondents. A pilot study also offers the researcher an opportunity to familiarise themselves with the protocol and procedures to be used when conducting the main study, thereby allowing any problems or issues to be identified and corrected before the main study starts (Saunders et al., 2009; Yin, 2009). In order to facilitate the identification of such problems, issues, and ambiguities, notes were taken during both pilot study interviews, which were also recorded with the consent of the participants. These were subsequently reviewed and analysed and both the research instrument, protocols, and procedures were then amended to mitigate any problems, issues, or ambiguities identified. This process also helped to ensure that all subject areas of interest were addressed.
3.4.6 Sample for Semi-Structured Interviews and focus groups
Participants for both the semi-structured interviews and focus groups were recruited on a purposive, convenience basis from volunteers, with the selection criteria being that they had held a meeting with their financial adviser within the previous 12 months. Volunteers were drawn from the social and professional circle of the researcher, from responses to advertisements placed in local magazines, and, with the help of the team captain, from members of a local cricket club. The recruitment and use of a small purposive sample such as this is typical of qualitative research (Miles and Huberman, 1994).
In addition to ensuring that participants met recruitment criteria in order to enhance reliability (Horvath and Van Birglen, 2015), efforts were also made to enhance the validity of the research by ensuring that the sample matched the wider population in terms of age, gender, occupation, and ethnicity. However, out of 23 participants, it was only possible to recruit 7 females and one non-white British individual, due to a lack of volunteers from
74
these particular groups. It was, however, possible to recruit volunteers from a wide range of backgrounds, occupations, and ages. Full details of the participants can be found in Appendix Four (page 226).
Whilst the sample size exceeded the recommendations of both Miles and Huberman (1994), who suggest a maximum of 15 qualitative interviews be held, and Madden and Perry (2003), who suggest 12, actual sample size was determined during the research process in that further interviews were arranged until a point of saturation was reached, when no further significantly different insights were emerging (Saunders et al., 2009). This process also assists with reliability (Horvath and Van Birglen, 2015). The focus groups and
Whilst the sample size exceeded the recommendations of both Miles and Huberman (1994), who suggest a maximum of 15 qualitative interviews be held, and Madden and Perry (2003), who suggest 12, actual sample size was determined during the research process in that further interviews were arranged until a point of saturation was reached, when no further significantly different insights were emerging (Saunders et al., 2009). This process also assists with reliability (Horvath and Van Birglen, 2015). The focus groups and