6.4 Research methods process
6.4.3 Task 3: Questionnaire Design and Development
The researcher has selected this method based on the advantages of the questionnaire which have been listed earlier in this research. The questionnaire is selected as an appropriate method in order to examine the long list of selected EUFs. These factors have been selected based on literature about the PDS and UCD. The listed factors were also provided based on the researcher’s knowledge as well as discussion and development with the supervisor. The literature review stage was the foundation of building and creating the survey contents. It has meant that the questionnaire has been divided in to seven parts. The first part has provided an overview about the research and idea. Then the six As and their EUFs were listed together to be ranked by the architects and practising architects. Then the ar- chitects’ views regarding considering EU needs were requested.
The survey is designed to ask the architects about the main research question which is about the EUFs and their effect on PBD. The detailed question is to determine to what extent the architects are integrating EUFs at various ATTs.
Passive design Human Attributes Passive Design functionality Site, orientation and vegetation (3) Building Form (4) Space Planning (14) Roof (6) Facade and Envelope (16) Passive Design Performance Site perfomance (3) Space performance (7) Thermal Comfort (2) Ventilation (3) Lighting (5) Acoustic (2) Adequacy Consumption and Strategies (5) Passive Design Usability Operbaility (8) Human Behaviour (4) Passive Design Flexibility Future Adaptability (11) Flexibile space (7) Passive Design Reliability Durability (7) Material Reliability (4) Resilient (2) Passive Design Maintainability Standarisation (9) Material (3) Accessability(7)
The first part of the questionnaire, which included six ATTs, has measured their effectiveness on the PDHAs. The respondent is required to give a score to each EUF based on the level of its effective- ness. In Table 6-2, the scale that has been used in the questionnaire is illustrated. It included five scales. ‘Very ineffective’ and ‘ineffective’ were allocated for the factors that are not effective on user UCPBD, whereas ‘neutral’ is for EUFs that have unbiased effectiveness. Finally the ‘effective’ and ‘very effective’ EUFs are described as the highest degree of effectiveness of the EUFs in UCPBD. The sample questionnaire is illustrated in Figure 6:4.
Very ineffective Ineffective Neutral Effective Very effective
Table 6-2: Scale based on EUFs’ effectiveness
Figure 6:4: Sample of the first part of the design questionnaire
The hypotheses used in this task are based on effective levels:
Ax: There is no statistically significant difference between the architects’ perceptions regarding the level of effectiveness of EUFs on PBD.
Ay: There is a statistically significant difference between the architects’ perceptions regarding the level of effectiveness of EUFs on PBD.
The second rate is to test whether the architects are keeping users in their mind when they consider the PDHAs or not. The rate involved three categories, as shown in the following table (6-3):
Never Sometimes Always
Table 6-3: scale based on the level of keeping the
EUFs
in the architect’s mind when designing PBD. The third part was to ask the architects to rank the level of keeping EU needs in their mind during designing each A. The researcher is investigating the perception of architects about keeping EUs in their mind during the design process. This question will be asked in terms of the six As. Figure 6:5 shows a sample of this part.Figure 6:5: The second part of the design questionnaire of the level of keeping the EU in the architect’s mind when designing PBD
The hypotheses used in this task are based on participation consideration levels:
Bx: There is no obvious difference between the architects’ perceptions regarding the considration of EU aspirations in PBD.
By: There is an obvious difference between the architects’ perceptions regarding the considration of EU aspirations in PBD.
The architects were asked to tick the EUFs based on their effectiveness on UCPBD. This method is easy for both the respondents and researcher. In terms of the researcher, the data can be analysed and interpreted easily. For the respondents, the survey is easy to understand and respond to.
The last part of the questionnaire is general information about the respondents. The respondent’s name, contact details, professional role and experience are the contents of the last part, as shown in the figure (6-6).
Figure 6:6: The last part of the design questionnaire collects personal information 6.4.3.1 Sub-Task: Questionnaire Validation
The first draft of the questionnaire was shown to the researcher’s supervisor and colleagues to gain their feedback about its wording, contents and layout. Their suggestions were considered and re- viewed many times in order to make the questionnaire understandable for the target respondents. Then it was pre-tested with the academic and researches who are experts in the area of environmental de- sign. The experts were identified based on their publications and research interests. The comments
responses were received from (Sue roaf, 2011) (Isra, 2011) (Daniel Ryan, 2012). Their comments and suggestions were considered and integrated into developing the questionnaire. This method helps the researcher to confirm whether the factors, descriptions and questions are comprehensive and suitable for the research area.
The previous stage showed that there was a need for some modification of the survey. This was the reason for delivering the first draft to the experts in this area: in order to produce a questionnaire that is clear and understandable for the architects who will complete it. They will be asked to click the lev- el of effectiveness of each factor separately. This will show their perception and the level of their knowledge. The process of designing the questionnaire is shown in Figure 6:7 below.
Figure 6:7: Questionnaire design process (This style adopted from Mohd Rahim, 2011) 6.4.3.2 Sub-task: Questionnaire development
The feedback of the academic experts will be included when developing the questionnaire, in case; their comments match the main aim of the research. In addition to that, the comments which have not previously been considered need to be justified.
6.4.3.3 Sub-task: Select the software
The software had been selected in a way that makes it easy to use for inserting the information. Al- so, it is easy for respondents to move on through it. Various types of survey software were considered, such as 2ask, Survey Monkey and Survey Galaxy and online survey. This research uses Create Sur- vey, as it is available on the university website and it is easy to insert the data.
6.4.3.4 Sub-task: Ethical Approval
An ethical approval application form was sent to the University of Liverpool on 19 March 2012 to gain permission to involve human participants. A request for clarification of some aspects was re- ceived on 28 March 2012. The clarifications were made and the form was resubmitted on 28 March 2012. The researcher received approval to proceed with the data collection on 30 March 2012. A copy of the approval is provided in Appendix C and Appendix B is a copy of the questionnaire.
6.4.3.5 Sub-task: Sample size and Delivering the Questionnaire to the Respondents
In this research the questionnaire was distributed to architects in both fields, academic and prac- tising, who are interested in environmental design and sustainability. These groups have been identified so that their research area is related to passive design, on the one hand. On the other hand, the questionnaire criteria cover the issue of PD, which means the designers should have at least some information or background in PD issues.
Architects with an interest in passive design were randomly selected. This group was considered to take part in the survey. Also, academics from universities worldwide were selected, based on their expertise in environmental design and PD. Their information and contact details were selected from the RIBA website and universities’ websites. 138 questions were sent to 365 architects from both sec- tors, who were selected randomly. The score of the questionnaire was based on 5 points for the first part of the questionnaire, as follows: (1) Very Ineffective, (2) Ineffective, (3) Neutral, (4) Effective and (5) Very Effective. 1 and 2 scores indicated the least effective end user factors in PBD. 3 is a neu- tral effective factor that could be considered to develop the proposal model. 4 and 5 are the effective end user factors that play an essential role in developing this study’s conceptual model. In the follow- ing table, the result of the questionnaire is given that all EUFs have a scale of more than 3, which is the neutral point, as shown in the mean value section. This means all EUFs that have been selected are accepted by the architects. 110 respondents completed the survey. This number of respondents was a good achievement, especially given that many respondents indicated that the questionnaire was too long. The percentage of respondents was 30.13%. This percentage is acceptable as per Akintoye (2000), who referred to the norm rate for survey responses as being between 20% and 30%. This per- centage is considered as an acceptable percentage in cases where the author has no formal relationship with the respondents (Zoomerang, 2010). This means the rate can be increased in cases where the method of delivering the questionnaire is different, such through interviewing the respondents, or in cases where the researcher knows the respondents. 20%-30% is the average response rate and can be considered a realistic percentage (Sherrie, 2010). The typical response rate when using a web survey design should be between 20-30% (Couper, 2000). Addendum (2012) confirmed the same percentage can be classified as a contemporary acceptable standard. Prahalad and Hamel (1990) said that over 20% is an acceptable response rate for email surveys. In terms of email survey, some authors consider 24% is the normal response rate percentage (Sheehan and McMillan, 1999).
The questionnaire was delivered to the respondents who have been identified as three types, as fol- lows: the architects who practice, those who are both academics and practising architects, and the academics. One of the strategies was to find out the architects and academic contacts, through using the architect office information at RIBA website as well as through universities websites. Several ar- chitects around the world are also experts on architectural design. To motivate them to fill in the questionnaire, they were offered entry into a draw to win an iPad. The draw process and winner is il- lustrated in Appendix M.