Questionnaires

Questionnaires can help to ensure that the issues of reliability and validity are

addressed. Through careful wording and the piloting of questions the objectives of the research can be met. To ensure the validity, clarity and practicability of the

questionnaire, it was piloted with a small group of people, with the instructions,

questions, design, layout and order of the questions, amended as appropriate (Clough and Newton, 2007).

Questionnaires remain one of the most widely used and versatile research techniques (Blaxter et al, 2006). The questionnaire was used, in this study, as the main vehicle through which to elicit information for the principal research questions, from an identified group of people. Although questionnaires are associated with survey data, and thus the positivist tradition, the use of open and closed questions allowed discursive responses in order to produce richer data.

73

One of the key advantages of questionnaires is that they can be administered to a large number of people at the same time (Fraenkel and Wallen, 1993; Denscombe, 2003). This was achieved via the use of ‘Lime Survey’. This allowed a large amount of data to be gathered at low cost and in a short period of time (Robson, 2002). The

questionnaire administered for this research project was self-completed questionnaire. As I was not present, it was believed that this would help mitigate the impact of

researcher presence thus reducing bias in the answers provided (Bryman, 2008). Furthermore, as this research investigates a sensitive issue, the use of a self-completed questionnaire allowed for greater levels of privacy (Braun and Clarke, 2013). However, due to the absence of the researcher, it was imperative that the questionnaire was easy to follow and the questions straightforward. Therefore, time was needed in piloting and drafting questions (see page 76 for further discussion of the questionnaire pilot).

The questionnaire compiled on ‘Lime Survey’ included a number of sections composed of both closed and open-ended items with the former forming the majority (see

Appendix 3 for an example questionnaire). A Likert scale was centripetal to the online questionnaire. This was deemed necessary as, in order to meet the aim of the research, a measurement of attitudes was necessary. In a Likert scale, researchers create items that are worded to evoke a response on a spectrum such as strongly disagree to

strongly agree. Each response along the continuum is allocated a score. In this way, attitudes are perceived as straight lines and so measurement allows the researcher to locate an individual somewhere on a linear continuum from highly positive, through neutral, to extremely negative. Although this might be a simplistic notion, it is a useful activity, to allow comparisons to be made against different groups.

The validity of data gathered via direct methods of attitude measurement is

subject to a number of threats. First, there are issues with the actual use of scales to measure attitudes. Differences in item presentation can impact on responses. The use of five responses can often result in the middle value being selected. ‘Respondent Sensitisation’ is highlighted by McCaig (2003) as being a further threat. This is where a

74

transient attitude is created in the respondent, due to the statements/scale provided. However, the researcher interprets this as a meaningful and stable attitudinal response. A further major limitation is that some respondents can change their responses to

present themselves in a more favourable light. For McCaig (2003), this is called ‘Respondent Reactivity’ and is particularly the case in relation to sensitive or contentious issues where a respondent may not wish to be perceived as being discriminatory or prejudicial. The knowledge of these issues and the knowledge that measures can be taken to reduce these threats (for example, confidentiality and anonymity) impacted upon the design of the scales used in this study.

When considering the measure of attitudes, the work of Oppenheim (1978) was

carefully considered. Oppenheim stressed that we should not come to expect too much from attitude scales but should remember that their main purpose is to divide people into groups, to place them on a continuum in relative not absolute terms (McCaig, 2003). In this study, the attitude scales were used a starting point within Phase 1 of the data collection process, from which qualitative methods were employed to gain greater insights.

Whilst the use of closed question types such as those used on a Likert scale are easy to use, score and code for analysis, such questions can be limiting and may not be allow the researcher access to information that was unanticipated (Fraenkel and

Wallen,1993). Standardised questions may also help alleviate bias but questions need to be clear so responses are not superficial. Where closed questions were used, for some questions, an option for alternative responses was provided. Open-ended questions encouraged direct quotations, allowing respondents to freely compose responses which they considered appropriate (Sommer and Sommer, 2002; Patton, 2002). A perceived advantage of this is that it affords the respondents an opportunity to make a truer assessment of what he or she really believes/thinks:

75

Direct quotations are a basic source of raw data in qualitative inquiry, revealing respondents’ depth of emotion, the ways they have

organised their words, their thoughts about what is happening, their experiences and their basic perceptions (Patton, 2002, p.21).

It still remains though that whilst questionnaires are good at providing descriptive information they do not always elicit deeper explanations and thus data can be ‘thin’ (Braun and Clarke, 2013). The researcher has to be mindful of the need to provide a suitable framework through which participants can respond in a way that represents their views, of the phenomena being studied, accurately and thus must strive to avoid entering the research field:

With preconceptions that prevent them from allowing those studied to ‘tell it as they see it’ (Denzin, 1988, p.21).

A further limitation of the use of questionnaires, linked to this point, is provided by Munn and Drever (1990) who assert that information gathered by using questionnaires can be superficial as there is no interviewer to interpret or explain the meaning of questions or to probe responses. This lack of flexibility is also seen as a cause for concern by Braun and Clarke (2013) who suggest that because questions are rigid they cannot be probed or extended in order to ensure understanding. Additionally, questionnaires, compared to other methods of data gathering, can have a relatively low return rate (Robson, 2002; Rose and Grosvenor, 2001; Sharp, 2009). Judd, Smith and Kidder (1991) suggest that the anonymous nature of many questionnaires can help to negate this low response rate compared to other methods were anonymity is not guaranteed. As such, complete anonymity was assured.

Using the checklist provided by De Vaus (1992) much consideration was given when designing the questionnaire. The layout of the questionnaire needed to allow for easy of navigation, primarily to avoid cognitive overload as well as ensuring that not too many questions were asked which may result in “respondent fatigue” (Bryman, 2008, p.219).

76

Dillman (2000) highlights the importance of using an attractive layout and warns against using strategies to make the questionnaire seem shorter than it actually is, such as reducing margin sizes and space between questions.

The use of Lime Survey served to mitigate the issues detailed above. The nature of the software allowed for questions to appear, on screen, one at a time. As a result of its binary structure, should questions generate particular responses, further questions were then raised/omitted as appropriate. This ensured that respondents did not answer questions that did not relate the previous answer given thus ensuring that unnecessary data was not collected.

In developing the questions, leading or presumptive questions were avoided. This is important in order to ascertain participant’s perspectives without them being influenced by the researcher. Owing to the inherent, sensitive nature of the study, this may also lead to issues of under or over reporting by participants therefore completeness and accuracy of responses may suffer, as stakeholders might ignore questions they do not wish to answer or tick the box that seems to be the 'right' or politically correct answer.

The questionnaire was piloted with a small number of participants from each sample group. The use of different people to sample the questionnaire, from the different sample groups, was deemed necessary as there were slightly different questions for each group. The pilot revealed that there were several issues with the first

questionnaire administered. Such issues, which were addressed, included:

1. An overlap of age boundaries meaning respondents did not know which age group to select as their age fell into two.

2. Omission of HND/HNC as qualifications

3. In the section requiring participants to identify their relationship with people they knew with dyslexia, ‘knowing a child in their

77

In summary, whilst there are a number of disadvantages associated with this research method, questionnaires still presented themselves to be the best tool through which to target a large sample, at low cost and through which to allow comparisons to be drawn.