3. Chapter 3: Research Methodology
3.3 The research approach adopted
As mentioned above, research methodology revolves “around two major approaches, namely qualitative and quantitative” (Powell, 1999:3). A quantitative study measures “a phenomenon using numbers in conjunction with statistical procedures to process data and summarizes results” (Locke, Silverman and Spirduso, 1998:123). On the other hand, “qualitative research is conducted in a natural setting; it is concerned with viewing experiences from the perspective of those involved and attempts to understand why individuals react or behave as they do” (Glazier and Powell, 1992:6). The major attraction of the qualitative approach is that it is the oldest type of research that can describe, predict and explain a research phenomenon (Locke, Silverman and Spirduso, 1998:124). In addition, the qualitative paradigm has proved
“a significant part of the foundation on which the social sciences have been erected” (Locke, Silverman and Spirduso, 1998:124).
Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2007:17) indicated that “qualitative and quantitative strategies are respectively characterised as inductive and deductive testing of theory. The inductive approach (qualitative) begins by gathering information from respondents and develops this information into themes”. On the contrary, “a deductive approach (quantitative) involves carrying out research with reference to ideas inferred from existing theories”. The aim of quantitative methods is to “determine whether the predictive generalisations of a theory are true” (Walliman 2011:13 and Silverman 2010:8). Conversely, “a study based upon qualitative research methods has the purpose of understanding a social or human problem from multiple perspectives” (Punch 1998:233). Moreover, “qualitative research is carried out in a natural setting and involves a process of building a complex and unified understanding of the subject matter under investigation” (Tashakkorri and Teddie 2009:219).
Creswell (2003) and Mahoney and Goertz (2006:233) explained that
a quantitative approach primarily yields statistical data using strategies of inquiry such as experiments and surveys. Quantitative research mainly involves the use of structured questionnaires in which the response options are pre-coded and a large number of respondents are involved.
Silverman (2010:13) noted “that a quantitative research approach obtains data which is statistically relevant and is usually used to answer questions such as how many, where from and how much amongst other questions”.
In contrast,
a qualitative research approach mainly gives answers to the question of why and involves collecting data by observing what people say and do. Unlike the quantitative research approach, qualitative methods yield non-numerical data that provide depth and detail through description of situations and observed behaviours in order to generate patterns, themes and ideas (Punch 1998:234).
However, Lund (2005:120) observed that “qualitative methods are subjective. Despite that weakness of subjectivity, many studies that have sought descriptive data have used qualitative methods because they are able to generate ideas and concepts with in-depth focus and knowledge of the researcher’s problem” (Tuli, 2006:101). The qualitative research approach is “therefore mainly used for brainstorming and testing new ideas”.
The assumptions, purposes, and methods of the two approaches also differ (Burns, 2000:39).
The purpose of qualitative research “is to contextualize and interpret results using induction to derive explanations based on observed phenomena. On the other hand, the quantitative approach generalizes and predicts findings based on the use of formal instruments such as questionnaires” (Gorman and Clayton, 1997:28).
However, there are situations and topics in research that are “better served by a marriage of two traditions” (Bryman, 1988:173). The approaches can be used together to demonstrate concurrent validity (Cohen, Manion and Morrison, 2000:112). The use of two or more methods to study a phenomenon is called triangulation (Cohen, Manion and Morrison, 2000:112).
Hussein (2009:2) advised that “good research practice obligates the researcher to triangulate and identified four types of triangulation, namely; data triangulation, investigator triangulation, theory triangulation and methodological triangulation”. Data triangulation
using several data sources for validation purposes; for instance, including more than one individual as a source of data. Investigator triangulation is described as the use of more than two researchers in any of the research stages in the same study. It involves the use of multiple observers, interviewers, or data analysts in the same study for confirmation purposes. Theoretical triangulation is defined as the use of multiple theories in the same study for the purpose of supporting or contesting findings since different theories help researchers to see the problem at hand using multiple lenses.
Methodological triangulation means that a researcher uses a variety of methods to study a single problem, with different sources (Terreblanche, Durrheim and Painter, 2006:380).
Methodological triangulation was used in this study.
Methodological triangulation refers to “the use of multiple methods in the examination of a subject under study” (Jick 1979; Lund 2005 and Thurmond 2001). The basis for methodological triangulation is that the flaws of one method are neutralised by the strengths of another. Olsen (2004:18) and Hussein (2009) observed “that by combining methods, the research can achieve the best of each while overcoming their unique deficiencies”.
Jick (1979:606) communicated “that methodological triangulation is supposed to support a finding by showing that independent measures of it agree with it or at least do not contradict it”. Contrary to Jick (1979:606), Hussein (2009:9) explained that “it is not only possible for data to be inconsistent but to actually contradict. When several methods have been used, researchers sometimes obtain a data bank with opposing views”. However, “obtaining inconsistent and or contradicting results should not be perceived as a weakness or a drawback”. In fact, “not only convergent findings but also inconsistent and contradictory findings can help the researcher’s efforts to understand the subjects under study” (Marty, 2008:32). It is the “responsibility of the researcher to make sense of the evidence gathered regardless of what the outcome is. In other words, whether the data converge, is inconsistent, or contradictory, the researcher must attempt to construct explanations for the data and about the data” (Hussein, 2009:5). Methodological triangulation is therefore “a technique which provides more and better evidence from which researchers can construct meaningful propositions about the subject under the spotlight. As such, triangulation becomes a device for enhancing the credibility and persuasiveness of a research account”.
Many studies advocate methodological triangulation because it bridges issues of reliability and validity (Levine, 2000:25). Morse (1991:121) argued that “using both qualitative and quantitative methods could contribute to a better understanding of the concepts under study”.
Nsibirwa (2007:49) states that “using a number of methods allows you to triangulate the research and this makes it more robust and valid”. The “utilization of different methods allows the researcher to overcome factors lacking, particularly when using a single method of research”. Babbie and Mouton (2001:275) also underscore the issues of validity and reliability stating that “triangulation is generally considered to be one of the best ways to enhance the validity and reliability of research done”. However, Creswell (1994:7) advised against using both methods in a single study because the whole exercise can be “expensive, time-consuming and lengthy”.
The current study adopted a methodological triangulation approach by collecting data using both quantitative and qualitative data collection methods. In an effort “to enhance the validity and reliability of the research findings, the current research deemed it necessary to employ both qualitative and quantitative research techniques”. Supporting that notion is Hussein (2009:8), Thurmond (2001), and Lund (2005) who emphasised that “triangulation is typically perceived to be a strategy for improving the validity and reliability of research”. The triangulation technique of “using both qualitative and quantitative methods of data collection was chosen because it permitted weaknesses inherent in qualitative methods to be neutralised by quantitative methods and vice versa” (Levine, 2000:25).
De Vaus (2001:3) is of the opinion that “researchers have to pay particular attention to research design as it determines the success of a research project”. The research design used is discussed below.
3.4 Research design
A research design is “a plan of how a researcher methodically collects and examines the data necessary to answer the research questions” (Babbie and Mouton, 2001:74). Coolican (2004:19) explained that “research design refers to the steps that researchers pursue to complete their study from the beginning to the end”. De Vaus (2001:9) noted that “a research
research design”. De Vaus (2001:9) further explained that “the function of a research design is to ensure that evidence obtained enables the researcher to answer the research question”.
There are different types of research designs “that researchers may adopt as guides during their studies”. The choice of a research design by a researcher mainly depends on the nature of the research. Babbie and Mouton (2001:75) recommended that “attention has to be given to the research question and the research problem”. Durrheim (2006:37) emphasised that
“when designing the study, a researcher must be guided by the purpose of the research, the theoretical framework informing the research, the context within which the research is to be carried out, and the research instruments engaged to collect and analyse the data”. Given this, the present study deemed it appropriate to employ the survey research design.
3.4.1 The survey research design
Glasgow (2005:4) indicated that “survey research is essentially known for producing less detailed data but can be applied over a broad area”. Owens (2002:9) explained that “surveys are concerned with collecting data directly from people about occurrences, incidences of events, and instances in varying circumstances and situations”. De Vaus (2001:10) noted that
“surveys are descriptive in nature for they seek to make sense of the situation being studied from a descriptive point of view”.
A descriptive survey was used in this study. The survey facilitated the gathering of data about preservation of and access to records at the KZN Archives. Surveys “differ in terms of their scope: there are large-scale surveys such as a national census and smaller-scale surveys that look at a particular community” (Nsibirwa, 2007:51). The current study used a smaller-scale survey in that the “community” was the KZN Archives and its staff. The researcher was also influenced in his choice of the design given that related studies such as those of Ngulube (2007) and Nsibirwa (2007) “used the survey design to gather their data”.