Sampling strategy

The sampling strategy is mainly for the purpose of selecting elements for a population concerned with the research topic in order to develop a reliable conclusion about the population and the research topic (Coper & Schindler 2011). In general, the sampling strategy always depends on the methods chosen and availability of the resources (Kemper et al. 2003). A sampling unit in the population is drawn from a sampling frame or target population that can be accessed in order to collect the required data (Creswell 2012). Therefore, the reliability and validity of the research outcome depends on the appropriate selection in the sampling frame.

In this mixed method research, non-probability sampling for the qualitative phase is used with different sizes of samples depending on the research question and the unit of analysis. However, the main focus will be deriving depth and extensive information across both phases to address the research questions (Teddlie & Tashakkori 2009, p. 181). Convenience sampling, one of the non-probability sampling techniques in qualitative sampling (Teddlie & Yu 2007), was used for this qualitative phase. The intention of convenience sampling is to select the eligible participants who are willing and available to be interviewed within the sampling frame (Klassen et al. 2012). Convenience sampling is carried out by locating potential respondents who meet the required criteria and selecting them on a first-come-first-served basis until the sample size proportion is full (Robinson 2014).

The population targeted was from top-level management, especially from dry ports, seaports, government bodies including the Ministry of Transportation and Malaysian Marine Department, and Malaysian Railway. The position of the participants relevant to the research topic and the accessibility to them were considered when finalising the

155

sampling list. Moreover, consultation with senior officials from the Ministry of Transportation was carried out to validate the sampling list.

Through the convenience sampling technique, a total of 14 participants from seaports, the rail operator, dry ports and government bodies were selected. Their contacts were available through the Malaysian Ministry of Transportation’s public website. All participants,

consisting of key senior officers and managers, are knowledgeable about Malaysian dry ports development and familiar with policies related to seaports and inland freight facilities development.

Among the 14 samples, four Malaysian dry port operators were recruited from the four dry ports in Malaysia, i.e. NIP, SIP, ICT and PBCT. Of note is that in these dry ports, participants were limited to only the four respective managers. The reason for this is that the four dry ports had few staff and the other employees were unable to provide valid and reliable information from a strategic, managerial perspective due to their operational position and being not knowledgeable about the research topic.

There were two participants recruited from government bodies, namely the Ministry of Transportation and Malaysian Marine Department. One participant was an official from the National Port Division, Ministry of Transportation, while the other was an authorised person from the Maritime Transportation Division, Marine Department. Participants from the aforementioned government bodies were responsible for policy making and strategic development of the nation’s federal seaports and maritime transportation. According to the Malaysian Marine Department (2016), these managers were the key people responsible for improving the quality of the nation’s maritime transportation to align with international trade standards.

156

One participant was recruited from the national sole rail company, Malaysian Railway, to provide significant insights about rail freight systems including seaports and dry ports within and beyond the Malaysian region.

Three participants were recruited from seaport authorities, one each from Port Klang Authority, Penang Port Commission and Johor Port Authority respectively. These are the authorities which administer major Malaysian container seaports. The other three seaport authorities, i.e. Malacca Port Authority, Kuantan Port Authority and Bintulu Port Authority, were not considered for this research as they only handle an insignificant amount of containers.

The four participants from seaport operators were from Westport, PTP, Northport and Penang Port, sampled from a total of 14 seaport operators. These seaport operators were selected based on their role and performance in container operation. Based on MOT (2015), these seaports are leading container seaport operators in Malaysia. The total sample size recruited for this qualitative phase is 14 as shown in table 5.2.

All 14 participants were selected due to their significant profile in maritime transportation, container operations and involvement in the Logistics and Trade Facilitation Master Plan (2015–2020) which is designed to improve inland freight facilities in order to enhance the national trade facilitation mechanism.

157 Table 5.2: Sampling frame for qualitative phase

Participant Convenience sampling strategy Population Sampling size

Dry port

operators Selecting from dry ports operators in Malaysia 4 4

Ministry of

Transportation Selecting from Port Division 1 1

Marine

Department Selecting from Maritime Transportation Division 1 1

Malaysian

railway Recruiting from the Malaysian Railway operator 1 1

Seaport

authorities Port Klang Authority, Penang Port Commission and Johor Port Authority (major seaport authorities)

6 3

Seaport

operators Westport, Northport, Penang Port and PTP( seaport operator administered by main seaport authorities)

11 4

Total 24 14

Based on their engagement with the government’s current agenda, valuable experience, involvement in policy making, strategic planning, dry port operations, container freight transportation and seaport operations, the selected samples possess significant capabilities to provide reliable insights, valid views, opinions and explanations in regard to their responses to the SRQ 1 and SRQ 3.