5.3 Population and sample
5.3.2 Data collection
5.3.2.1 Data collection using questionnaires
Welman and Kruger (2003) indicate that a questionnaire is defined as a data collection technique in which each person is asked to respond to the same set of questions in a pre-determined order (Neuman, 2000:261). Data collection techniques include:
· Non-scheduled, unstructured interviews;
· Non-scheduled, structured interviews;
· Scheduled, structured interviews; and
· Non-personal data collection such as self-administered and mailed questionnaires (Saunders et al., 2000:214).
In this study, questionnaires were used to collect data in order to minimize bias and allow for independent responses. Structured questionnaires were utilized because, as Brynard and Hanekom (1997:38) note, they can be used at the site of the interviews. It is important to give respondents clear instructions on how to complete the questionnaire. This allows respondents to apply their minds to the questions.
A different questionnaire was designed for each of the four groups:
· The EPWP Management from both the Provincial and Regional Offices,
· Operational teams from both Provincial and Regional Offices i.e. the EPWP Development Workers,
· The EPWP beneficiaries from the various regions; and
· Foremen of the EPWP projects.
The questionnaire for the EPWP beneficiaries was translated into IsiZulu to accommodate project members’ language preference. Where necessary, questions were clarified during the administration process to ensure clear understanding and accommodate participants’ level of education, as the study included rural areas where many inhabitants are semi-literate or illiterate.
In total 124 questionnaires were distributed and 94 were returned. The reasons for some questionnaires not being returned included staff turnover and the unavailability of EPWP-defined projects at the time of the study.
a) Development of the questionnaire
The following guidelines provided by Bless and Higson-Smith (2000:113) were taken into consideration in the development of the questionnaires:
· The needs, interests and problems of respondents must be considered;
· The time and venue must be convenient to respondents;
· The environment should allow for some privacy;
· The language and vocabulary used should be adapted to the respondents’
level of understanding;
· Questions should be simple, short and easy for respondents to understand and answer;
· Leading questions should be avoided;
· Double-barrelled questions should be avoided and divided into two separate questions;
· Questions should be unambiguous and avoid being too vague or general;
· The flow and length of the questionnaire should encourage and sustain the interest of the reader;
· The intended responses should be easy to edit and encode; and
· Response set, which is the tendency of respondents to answer all questions in a specific direction regardless of the content of the questions, should be avoided.
An informed decision was taken to use questionnaires as a data collection method based on the advantages and disadvantages identified by Denscombe (2007:169) and Davids et al. (2005:177), respectively, reflected in Table 5.2:
Table 5.2: Advantages and disadvantages of a questionnaire
Advantages of a questionnaire (Denscombe, 2007:169) Disadvantages of a questionnaire (Davids et al., 2005:177)
· Questionnaires are economical;
· They are easier to arrange than personal interviews;
· Questionnaires supply standardized answers with little scope for data to be affected by
‘interpersonal factors’;
· They encourage pre-coded answers which allows for speedy collation and analysis of data; and
· There is data accuracy particularly with surveys that use the internet; the human error factor is eliminated.
Davids et al. (2005:177) add the following Advantages:
· A large percentage of respondents over a large geographical area can be covered;
· It is relatively easy to select the respondents;
· Anonymity is assured, which helps respondents to be open and honest in their answers;
· Bias against the researcher, which can happen in a face-to-face interview, is avoided in a “faceless”
questionnaire; and
· The respondent has more time to reflect on the questions than during an interview.
· The researcher is not present to explain a question if there is a misunderstanding;
· It assumes that respondents are literate and sophisticated; and
· Different languages in the same area or population, as well as literacy levels, can create a problem.
The objectives of the study were kept in mind during the construction of the questionnaires. The literacy and intellectual levels of the respondents as well as the length of the questionnaire were also considered; however, the questionnaire had to be long enough to incorporate all the key questions pertinent to the study. During the design stage, amendments were made to the respective draft questionnaires until all questionnaires were approved as authentic documents to collect data.
b) Questionnaire structure and design
The respective questionnaires for the EPWP Beneficiaries, Foreman, the EPWP Operational Staff and Management, comprised the sections indicated in Table 5.3.
Table 5.3: Questionnaires
Questionnaires Sections EPWP
Beneficiaries
Foreman EPWP Operational Staff
EPWP
Management Section A Demographic
details
Demographic details
Demographic details
Demographic details Section B EPWP
Knowledge/Under -
Standing
EPWP
Knowledge/Und er-
Standing
EPWP
Knowledge/Under -standing
EPWP
Knowledge/Un der-
standing Section C Customer
Expectations
Customer Expectations
Customer Expectations
Customer Expectations Section D EPWP Impact EPWP Impact EPWP Impact EPWP Impact Section E Training
Received
Training Received
Capacity to Manage EPWP
Capacity to Manage EPWP Section F EPWP
Management
EPWP
Management
EPWP
Management
EPWP
Management
i) Structure of the questionnaires
The questionnaires were divided into separate sections and all questions were coded. Coding is the process of converting raw information or data into another form for analysis. It involves the systematic reorganization of raw data into a format that is machine readable (Neuman, 2000:506). Coding was therefore critical for analytical purposes. Closed and open-ended questions were used and the respondents were requested to respond to all questions.
ii) Open-ended questions
According to Neuman (2000:515) an open-ended question is one to which respondents are free to offer any answer. O’Sulivan and Rassel (1999:437) concur and add that an open-ended question is a type of survey question in which respondents are required to provide their own answers without the researcher providing a list of possible answers. Answers to open-ended questions provide rich detail that puts a mass of collected data in context (O’Sullivan and Rassel, 1989:151).
Bless and Higson-Smith (2000:122) state that researchers ask open-ended questions for at least five reasons, namely:
· They help a researcher identity the range of possible responses;
· They avoid bias that a list of responses can introduce;
· They yield rich, detailed comments;
· They give respondents a chance to elaborate on their answers; and
· Respondents can answer some questions with a few words rather than selecting an answer from a long list of possible responses.
The EPWP is a Provincial programme which is managed at different levels.
Open-ended questions were therefore used to enable respondents to express their own views on the management of the programme, propose solutions and make inputs in the form of recommendations for the future.
iii) Closed-ended questions
With closed-ended questions, respondents are given a list of possible answers and requested to select an answer or answers from the list (O’Sullivan and Rassel, 1999:492). Neuman (2000:505) adds that closed-ended questions require respondents to choose from a fixed set of answers. This offers the respondent the opportunity to select (according to the instructions) one or more response choices from a number of choices provided. According to O’Sullivan and Rassel (1999:214), the reliability and operational validity of closed-ended questions partially depends on the list provided while another type of closed- ended questions requires the respondents to rank or rate items.
In light of the following advantages cited in De Vos (2002:180), closed questions were also used in this study:
· The results of the investigation can emerge fairly quickly;
· The respondents have a better understanding of the meaning of the questions; and
· The questions can be answered within the same framework and responses can be more easily compared with one another.
The study questionnaires (containing both open and closed-ended questions) were constructed and distributed to all respondents using different techniques which included:
· Going into the field to meet the respondents and administer the questionnaires (beneficiaries);
· E-mailing questionnaires to the respondents; and
· Hand delivering questionnaires to the respondents.
The data were thereafter analysed using the SPSS programme.
iv) Likert scaling
Likert scales are often used in survey research in which people express attitudes or other responses in terms of several ordinal-level categories that are ranked along a continuum (Neuman, 2000:513). This type of scaling is often used to measure the opinions or attitudes of individuals. If used in an interview or survey, respondents are asked to indicate the degree to which they agree or disagree with each statement on a rated scale. The scale may have only two choices (Agree/Disagree), or it may have more choices, allowing for an indication of the level of agreement or disagreement (O’Sullivan and Rassel, 1999:298). Five categories are commonly used as rating values:
· 1 - Strongly Disagree
· 2 - Disagree
· 3 - Neutral (undecided)
· 4 - Agree
· 5 - Strongly Agree
For the purposes of this research, the Likert scale was used to establish where most of the respondents stand on the issue of capacity to manage the EPWP and EPWP’s management ability.
The respondents marked 1 if they strongly disagreed with the statement, 2 if they disagreed with the statement, 3 if they were undecided/neutral, 4 if they agreed with the statement, and 5 if they strongly agreed with the statement.