Research methods .1 Interviews .1 Interviews

Robson (2011) describes an interview as a research method that involves the researcher asking questions and hopefully receiving answers from the interviewees. An interview is modelled around a conversation, thus involves questioning or discussing issues with people. Franscara (1997) observes three types of interviews, ethnographic, depth and the long interview. Kvale and Brinkmann (2009, p3) describe types of interviews as including, “journalistic interviews, legal interrogations, academic oral examinations, philosophical dialogues, religious confessions, therapeutic sessions and qualitative research.”

64

For this study the researcher will use the qualitative research interviews for data collection. See Table 6 for more interview method review and other methods.

Qualitative research interviews can be conducted in several formats, and for this particular study the researcher had to use a semi-structured interview format for the following reasons. Given the subjectivity of the design profession, a semi-structured interview method is recommended, Stanton and Young (1997). In addition, Blaxter et al. (2001), describe a semi-structured interview as involving two people or more than one subject and/ or more than one interviewer.

Furthermore, Kvale and Brinkmann (2009, p3) describe a semi-structured

interview as “an interview with a purpose of obtaining descriptions of the life world of the interviewee in order to interpret the meaning of the described phenomena.”

As in Moultrie et al. (2006) semi-structured interviews were used to inform the content and the structure of the audit; including errors of omission, commission and organisation of the information. Interviews will be used to gather rich and detailed data on the current state of UCD incorporation in NPD. To improve accuracy, accessibility and quality of the interview Lofthouse and Lilley (2006, p2) suggest that the “researcher should write their notes up as soon as possible after the event.”

Murphy (2001), the interviews will allow interviewees to give own definitions of their experience and practices. They further highlighted areas that the researcher had overlooked, fulfilling a useful “hypothesis generating” function. Semi-structured interviews ensured all required details collected from all instances but enables exploration. The researcher considered five aspects of analysing a semi-structured interview data as suggested by Bernard & Wayne (2010, p67) when selecting techniques for data analysis;

1. What kind of data you have?

2. How much skill is required?

3. How much labour is required?

4. The number and types of themes to be generated.

5. Whether you are going to test the reliability and validity of the themes you provide.

65 3.2.3.2 Survey - questionnaire

Cohen (2011, p256), describes “surveys as gathering data at a particular point in time with the intent of describing the nature of existing conditions, or identifying standards against which existing conditions can be compared, or determining relationships that exist between specific events.” Furthermore, surveys vary in levels of complexity; there are those for frequency counts and those that present rational analysis. Gray (2004), states they are used where large amounts of data have to be collected often from, diverse and widely distributed population. Robson (2011) describe three approaches to survey data collection, self-completion, face-to-face interview and telephone interview.

Also, Robson (2011) observes that a descriptive survey is concerned with providing description of phenomena and valuable in fields with little previous research. Therefore, a descriptive survey will be carried out in this study as data will be described on variables of interest, Cohen (2011). The sampling strategy is driven by the representativeness of sample, access to sample and the need to generalise the findings to industrial designers involved in product customisation Cohen (2011). Additionally the researcher plans to target more than the minimum sample size required for the study, thus compensating for potential fluctuating response rate.

Cohen (2011) and Robson (2011) view some of the challenges in surveys as emanating from; “poor sampling, poor question and wording, incorrect or biased responses (they want to be seen in good light), and low response or non-response.” However, Robson (2011) describes some of the advantages of conducting a survey as including; good for studying attitudes, values, beliefs and motives, questionnaire can be standardised for easier analysis, efficient, allows anonymity and can be generalised. In addition to sampling, question wording and answer coding are important to getting the most out of a survey study.

3.2.3.3 Checklists

This is a set of questions or guides used to compare designs or evaluate the proposed product. Hundal (2002) describes a checklist method as providing a methodological instrument in assisting the decision making in the design process.

Compared to interviews, they are designed to reduce pressure on the person

66

being interviewed, thus allowing them to focus on the problem at hand. Further, it identifies procedures to be taken by a designer in NPD and helps formulate a strategy creation for benefit of the company and the user. The problem is making the checklist comprehensive and correct.

67

Table 6: Comparison of methods (adapted from Okoli and Pawloswski (2004))

Evaluation criteria Survey Task Analysis Focus groups Interviews

Summary of

This qualitative method, the person being observed can be aware or unaware they are being observed. The researcher takes down the notes.

They bring together a selection of participants to contribute in a two way debate on a particular set of issues.

It is a method for collecting qualitative data.

An interview is modelled around a

conversation, thus involves questioning or discussing issues with (1 or more)

person(s).

Representativeness of sample

use of sampling

techniques. I.e. random.

The findings are subjective to the situation under investigation.

Targeted selection of participants. Sample size too small to be representative.

Targeted selection of participants. Sample size usually too small to be representative.

Sample size analysis to determine an appropriate size.

Sample size is usually small and task

specific. 3 – 5 analyses are sufficient. Between 5 and 12 people. One or more.

Individual Vs.

Group response and ability for participants to

influence each other Averages of individual interviews.

Reliability and

Researcher skill and subjective to the level of interacting between the observer and the person being observed.

Limited number of questions (max 10). Needs to be carefully managed to get reliable results.

This is assured by pretesting and conducting.

Construct validity Careful survey design and pretesting.

Subjective to the researcher’s skill and interpretation of the observations.

Needs to be carefully planned. The researcher needs assistants and facilitation skills to carry out the study effectively.

Careful survey design, pretesting and the use of appropriate interview techniques.

Anonymity

Respondents are also often anonymous to the researcher.

The person being observed can be

anonymous to the researcher. Depends on objectives of the study.

The participants are aware of each other. Respondents anonymous to each other, but never anonymous to the researcher.

Non-response issues

Needs contingency for

non-response. Low non response. Low non response. N/A. possible when setting-up an

appointment.

Participant dropout High participant drop-out.

Depends on the approach Low participant drop-out. Low participant drop-out. Not an issue. Unless there is a need for follow-up.

If the person being observed is not aware of the observer; the data collected is more naturalistic. If aware of the observer then clarification can be sought, thus rich data.

The data is rich and complex. Participants get to feed off each other

Richer data because of multiple interactions and their response revision. Participants tend to be open to follow-up questions.

Example(s) in

Cohen, at al. (2011), Robson (2011), Franscara (1997), Lofthouse and Lilley (2006).

Robson (2011), Stanton and Young (1997), Blaxter et al. (2001), Murphy (2001)

68 3.3 The research approach for the Study

It was evident that the most appropriate way to better understand the PDP in this context was to follow a qualitative approach to data collection. Grounded theory was also an ideal way to probe further and understanding the nature of the problem.

Thus, the studies will be grounded in the data collected and then used to frame the problem. The researcher also believes that every participant has a unique view of the world and is equally important.

Survey questionnaire, interviews, and case studies were the methods selected to collect and analyse data needed in order to explore the research area. The chosen methods were expected to show a picture of reality, useful for thinking clearly about the problem and for trying out alternative solutions, Rosenhead (2001, p154).

Some of the reasons for choosing these methods include;

 Survey Questionnaire: Allowed the researcher to reach more participants within a short time. The questions were standardised for uniformity and easier data analysis. It is valuable in fields with little previous research.

 Interviews: It will allow the researcher to discover areas that were overlooked, from the survey and also to build a better rapport with participating companies for the next study.

 Retrospective Case studies: Provides an example of how the project was actually conducted. Used where the phenomenon is highly subjective and reliant on the context. Although may be harder to generalise. Retrospective ase studies were conducted last in the study to compare how the project was conducted to responses from previous studies. Furthermore, the ISO 13407 was adapted to a preliminary tool for evaluating and improving the use of UCD practices in individual companies.