Research Methods

The term methods of data collection can be found in the literature interchangeably with research methods or data collection techniques. A variety of data collection methods is available such as questionnaires, interviews, observation techniques, the analysis of past documents and simulation. Data collection methods can be identified according to the type of data (i.e. qualitative data or quantitative data) produced. For instance, Blaikie (2000) attempted to indicate data collection methods that produce quantitative data: structured observation, questionnaire (self-administered), structured interview, content analysis of documents and quantitative data: observation (participant unstructured), interviews (semi-structured and unstructured), oral/ life histories, focus group interviews, content analysis of documents. The choice of a method may depend upon the purpose of the study, the resources available, skills of the researcher (Kumar, 1999) and the advantages and disadvantages of each method.

2.4.2.1 Questionnaires

Questionnaires collect data by asking people to respond to exactly the same set of questions (Bernard, 2000). Questionnaires can be used in descriptive or explanatory research (Saunders et al., 2007). The same author noted that the choice of questionnaire influences a number of factors in a research. These are:

 characteristics of the respondents;

 importance of reaching a particular person as respondent;

 importance of respondents‟ answers not being contaminated or distorted;

 size of sample;

 types of questions needed to ask to collect data;

 number of questions needed to ask to collect data;

 time availability to collect data;

 financial implications of data collection and entry; and

 ease of automating data entry.

A questionnaire may be self-administered or it may be administered over the phone, in person or web-based (Bernard, 2000). Moreover, types of questionnaires can be classified by way of administering: mailed questionnaires (post or emails) (Fellows and Liu, 2008), collective administration and administration in public places (Saunders et al., 2007). Each of these methods has its own merits and drawbacks. The questionnaire method offers greater anonymity in terms of collected data and is less

expensive (Kumar, 1999; Sekaran, 2002). However, the questionnaire method has its own drawbacks such as limited application, low response rates, self-selecting bias, lack of opportunities to clarify issues, limited opportunities for spontaneous responses, and also a possibility of consulting others in terms of providing responses (Kumar, 1999;

Saunders et al., 2007).

2.4.2.2 Interviews

An interview can be described as a „purposeful conversation‟ (Bogdan and Biklen, 1982). The interview method allows the researcher to collect data interacting person to person between two or more individuals with a specific purpose in mind (Sekaran, 2002). Thus, interviews can be most appropriate for complex situations, visual demonstrations are required and instant feedback is desirable (Kumar, 1999).

According to King (1994), the interview method is best suited where:

 a study focuses on the meaning of particular phenomena to the participants;

 individual perceptions of processes within a social unit are to be studied prospectively using a series of interviews;

 individual historical accounts are required of how a particular phenomenon developed;

 exploratory work is required before a quantitative study can be carried out; and

 quantitative study has been carried out, and qualitative data are required to validate particular measure or to clarify and illustrate the meanings of the findings.

Moreover, the interview method provides advantages such as high response rate, the usefulness of gathering in-depth and supplementary information, and the opportunity to explain questions/further clarifications (Kumar, 1999). However, the interview method has its own demerits such as being time-consuming, expensive, the quality of data/information gathered depending on the quality of interaction and quality of interviewer, and the fact that the researcher/interviewer may be biased (Kumar, 1999;

Sekaran, 2002; Saunders et al., 2007). Interviews can be classified into three forms:

structured interviews, semi-structured interviews and unstructured interviews (Fellows and Liu, 2008).

In an unstructured interview the interviewer does not enter the interview setting with a planned sequence of questions to be asked of the respondent. Unstructured interviews are usually conducted in order to “obtain definite ideas about what is, and is not

important and relevant to particular problem situations” (Sekaran, 2002, p.236).

Interviewing is a flexible method to conduct where the interviewer briefly introduces the topic, raises questions without using predetermined questions and records the replies of the respondent (Fellows and Liu, 2008). The main purpose of the unstructured interview is to bring out some preliminary issues to the respondents and probe into several factors in the situation that might be central to the broad problem area. This helps the researcher to determine variables/issues that may need further investigation (Sekaran, 2002). However, unstructured interviews provide in-depth information where it may difficult for analysis compared to structured interview information (Kumar, 1999).

Semi-structured interviews have a degree of structure in implementation which can be achieved by constructing an interview schedule (Sekaran, 2002). Semi-structured interviews are more formal than an unstructured interview in that there are a number of specific topics around which to build the interview (Naoum, 1999). Thus, at least in part, all interviewees receive some questions in common. Also, semi-structured interviews allow flexibility to the interviewer to make maximum use of the opportunities offered to enrich the data: interviewer can formulate question while carrying out the interview; and enable the use of a theoretically informed interview pro-forma to build structure into the data collection process (Fellows and Liu, 2008).

In a structured interview, the interviewer asks predetermined questions as specified in the interview schedule. The structured interview seeks high levels of reliability and repeatability (David and Sutton, 2004). Thus, the same questions set a use for every respondent in the same manner. Therefore, structured interviews provide uniform information allowing comparisons to be made (Kumar, 1999). In most instances, findings of structured interviews allow the researcher to describe or quantify certain phenomena, or identify a specific problem, and evolve a theory of the factors that influence the problem or find answers to research questions (Sekaran, 2002).

Interviews can be conducted face to face, or can be telephone and computer based.

The literature emphasises that the appropriateness of each method in different circumstances depends on their advantages and disadvantages (Sekaran, 2002;

Novick, 2008). Table 2.3 summarises some of the advantages and disadvantages associated with interview conducting methods. Bugher (1980) noted that the person-to-person interview is best for obtaining in-depth opinions as people are remarkably honest and frank when asked their opinions within a context that is properly structured:

when the respondent knows the purpose of the interview; when the questions are

properly worded; and complete anonymity is guaranteed with respect to the interviewee's responses.

Table 2.3. Advantages and disadvantages of types of interview conducting methods (Compiled from literature)

Advantages Disadvantages

Face to face

 Can establish rapport and motivate

 Enable to clarify questions, clear doubts, and new questions

 Able to capture nonverbal cues

 Possible to use visual aids to clarify issues

 Consumes personal time

 Expensive when wide geographic region is covered

 Interviewers need to be trained

 Can introduce interviewer bias

Telephone  Decreased cost and travel

 Ability to reach geographically dispersed respondents

 Increased interviewer safety

 Decreased space requirements

 Ability to take notes unobtrusively

 Permit more anonymity

 Allow respondents to feel relaxed

 Able to disclose sensitive information

 Limited telephone coverage

 Absence of visual or nonverbal cues

 Risk of unilateral termination of the interview without warning or explanation

 Lower response rates

 Short interview duration compared to face to face interviews

 Enhanced accuracy of collected data due to software usage

 Helps sequencing interview questions

 Requires computer literacy

 Respondents must have access to the facility

 Entails heavy initial investment

Source: Sekaran (2002) and Novick (2008)

2.4.2.3 Observations

Observations can be explained as a purposeful, systematic and selective way of watching and a selective way of watching and listening to an interaction or phenomenon as it takes place (Kumar, 1999). Saunders et al. (2007) stated that observation can be used to get the root of „what is going on‟ in a wide range of social settings. There are two types of observation: participant observation and non-participant observation. Participant observation is a method, which the researcher participates in the live and activities of those whom researcher studying (Sekaran, that the observing sample may change their behaviour becoming aware that they are

being observed, observations may observer biased and interpretation may vary depending on the observer (Kumar, 1999; Saunders et al., 2007).

2.4.2.4 Analysis documents

Analysis documents could involve document sources such as government and semi-government publications, past research, personal records and mass media.

Disadvantages associated with analysis documents could be validity and reliability issues, personal bias, the availability of data/documents and in some instances they may not be available in the required format (Tan, 2002).