73
participation based on their knowledge and experience of the phenomenon being investigated (Sekaran & Bougie, 2013).
Table 4.3: List of participants for framework evaluation
Organisation Expert Type Number of
respondents
Code Organisation A Management Representative 1 Expert 1
Business or system analyst 1 Expert 2
Organisation B Management Representative 1 Expert 3
Business or system analyst 1 Expert 4
Organisation C Management Representative 1 Expert 5
Business or system analyst 1 Expert 6
Organisation D Management Representative 1 Expert 7
Business or system analyst 1 Expert 8
Academia Academic with PhD (from Universities in Tanzania)
1 Expert 9
Academic with PhD (from Universities in
South Africa) 2 Expert 10
Expert 11 Academic with PhD (from Universities
outside Africa)
1 Expert 12
questionnaire was to facilitate the collection of data from a large sample of citizens in order to be able to generalize findings on challenges influencing citizen’s adoption decisions for m- government services. Moreover, the qualitative data for this phase was collected through the use of semi-structured interviews with ICT managers, which was facilitated by instrument 2 (Figure 4.1), the interview guide (Appendix B). The semi-structured interviews allowed the researcher to have some structure in questioning respondents and, at the same time, permitted in-depth probing and querying for further information regarding the practice in provisioning m-government services.
The framework evaluation phase used an evaluation questionnaire (Appendix C), noted as instrument 3 in Figure 4.1. Instrument 3 consisted of both open and closed-ended questions to collect expert opinions on the applicability and relevance of the framework. The evaluation questionnaire consisted of closed questions that captured numerical data followed by open-ended questions that sought an in-depth explanation on the choices made and any data that could have been missed by the close-ended questions.
4.10.1 Questionnaire Designing
A questionnaire is a self-account data collection tool filled by each participant in the survey (Mbwambo, Barongo, & Makuru, 2011; Babbie, 2016). The questionnaire method is chosen due to its ability to efficiently collect data from large samples (Sekaran & Bougie, 2013). In designing the questionnaires for this study, several issues, as outlined by Brace (2018) and Creswell &
Creswell (2017), were taken into consideration. First, the questionnaire questions were aligned with the research objectives as well as the conceptual framework to ensure they captured all the desired variables of the study. There are three kinds of questions that may feature in a questionnaire, namely closed-ended, open-ended, and mixed questions. However, the choice of questions to include in a questionnaire depends on the nature of the research questions. Therefore, while the challenges identification phase questionnaire used closed-ended questions, the evaluation questionnaire had mixed questions that were open-ended questions for qualitative data, and closed-ended questions for quantitative data. Second, for the wording of the questions on the questionnaire, the researcher employed the assistance of a statistician to ensure that the questions had a concise structure, and simple and clear language. Third, to ensure the execution of the two phases, two questionnaires were developed, one for each specific phase of the study.
75
4.10.1.1 Adoption Challenges Identification Questionnaire
In phase1, instrument 1, a questionnaire was developed to collect data on factors influencing citizen adoption of m-government services (Appendix A). The conceptual research framework influenced the choice of questions on instrument 1; that is, the variables and the type of measurement of the variable. Since the research focus is to establish citizen's ratings on the importance of a given variable in their adoption decision-making for m-government services, then closed-ended questions were more suitable. The operationalisation of the variables from the conceptualized framework adopts a richer definition and is context-specific to m-government services, as described in section 3.6.2. The resulting questionnaire had four parts: first, the introduction section that describes the research purpose and aims; second, the informed consent to participate form detailing participants’ rights regarding the research exercise; third, the participant profiling details; and last, the citizen’s perception ratings of their experience with m-government services. Instrument 1 contained closed-ended questions in the form of statements that assessed the importance of each variable in decision-making towards m-government service adoption. The assessment of the variables was by using a 5-point Likert scale, whereby participants were requested to rate their perception, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree, on various statements that measured each variable. The developed questionnaire was then examined by a statistician to gain their expert opinion to ensure the quality of the questions in collecting the desired information for a reliable analysis.
4.10.1.2 Framework Evaluation Questionnaire
Instrument 3, the evaluation questionnaire, contained mixed questions that were open- and closed- ended questions (Appendix C). Instrument 3, the evaluation questionnaire, was divided into four parts, each made up of closed questions followed by open-ended questions, to facilitate data gathering on a specific criterion from among the four assessed; namely, adequacy, relevance, usability, and feasibility. Part A, part B, and part C of the evaluation questionnaire consisted of questions that collected data for assessing the adequacy of the modeled m-government service adoptability problem, the modeled m-government service adoptability solution, and the user- centered m-government service provisioning framework respectively. The adequacy criteria examined the comprehensiveness of the models and the subsequent framework in addressing all the significant issues related to m-government service provisioning and adoption.
Part D of the questionnaire consisted of closed questions followed by open-ended questions that collected data examining the relevance, usability, and feasibility of the framework. Relevance or usefulness criteria assessed the alignment of the framework with existing policies, its contribution to best practices in m-government service implementation, and facilitation on citizens' awareness and involvement in the design, development, and delivery of m-government services. The usability evaluation criteria assessed the efficiency of use, learnability and error-freeness (Nielsen, 1993), hence in this study, data was collected on the ease of use, ease of understanding and ease of communicating the models and the framework among implementing stakeholders, as well as the ease of implementing with minimum changes. Feasibility criteria assessed the perception of the possibility of applying the designed artefact, for which information such as application within existing structures and resources, cost-effectiveness, and the time frame requirement was collected. Moreover, the evaluation questionnaire, through the incorporation of both open and closed-ended questions, is flexible to accommodate additional feedback that may improve the modeling of the problem or the solution and ultimately, the user-centered m-service framework for enhanced m-government service adaptability.
4.10.2 Interview Process Design
Interviews, a data collection method whereby the researcher asks questions and the participant responds, is a useful method for collecting rich and in-depth information about a phenomenon (Babbie, 2016). Interviews fall under qualitative data collection approaches. Depending on the nature of the study and the way the interview discussion unfolds, three types of research processes exist; unstructured, structured, and semi-structured interviews (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2012). An unstructured interview that entails free discussion, not dwelling so much on structures and hierarchy of the discussion, is most appropriate in discovery type of research (Creswell &
Creswell, 2017). In structured interviews, the line of questioning and answers follows a specific structure and hierarchy; the interviewer follows a strict order of questioning guided by an interview guide (Creswell, 2013). The semi-structured interview borrows the best of form from the other two kinds; while following a particular structure and order guided by an interview guide, it allows the flexibility to pursue other sub-topics related to the main line of enquiry (Mbwambo, Barongo, & Makuru, 2011).
In this research, semi-structured interviews were organized with ICT personnel from four participating government organisations to explore their practices in providing m-government
77
services. The semi-structured interviews were carried out through the use of instrument 2, as denoted in Figure 4.1, the interview schedule attached as Appendix B. Similar to the questionnaire development, the reviewed literature on public service provision and related fields informed the structure and questions of the interviews. Furthermore, the interview schedule was then subjected to pre-testing with experts to assess its quality in probing the required information.
4.10.3 Data Collection Strategy
A data collection strategy refers to the entire plan and process for gathering data to be analysed to address the problem statement, the research questions or hypotheses (Creswell & Creswell, 2017).
To offset the weaknesses of one technique as well as to facilitate a holistic approach that aligns with the research objectives, multiple data collection strategies were deployed (Komba, 2012).
Similar to Yonazi (2010) and Komba (2012), this study made use of primary data as the basis of the study findings and secondary data to complement these primary findings. While interviews and questionnaires were primary data collection tools, a review of organisational and scholarly documents served as a technique for gathering secondary data. Prior to data collection, the researcher contacted the relevant authorities to secure the necessary permits, including obtaining gatekeepers’ letters (Appendix D and Appendix E) from participating organisations and the ethical clearance (Appendix F and Appendix G) from the university for the research fieldwork.
4.10.3.1 Primary Data Collection
Instrument 1, for collecting data in the adoption challenges identification phase, was administered directly to citizens. A total of four hundred and twenty-two (422) of the questionnaires were distributed to citizens in the two (2) selected districts, whereby between fifty-one (51) and fifty- four (54) copies were distributed in each of the eight (8) wards (Table 4.1). The self-administered questionnaires were dispensed on a face-to-face basis to citizens that were willing to participate in the research. The face-to-face administration of instrument 1 facilitated immediate completion and, thus, immediate collection of questionnaires due to its ability to respond on the spot to any queries raised (Wilson, 2014). Face-to-face or personal administration of the questionnaires promoted a high response rate due to its ability to facilitate follow-ups and assistance during questionnaire filling (Sekaran & Bougie, 2009). However, conducting face-to-face questionnaire administration is challenging due to traveling costs associated with being in the data collection site and the time spent in administering the questionnaire (Wilson, 2014); thus, the research engaged the services of two research assistants. The research assistants were given an orientation
on the study to facilitate response on the spot to any question during data collection.
The citizens that participated in the quantitative data collection were conveniently identified.
Elements in a conveniently sampled population usually meet a specific practical criterion set by the researcher, including geographical proximity, availability, willingness, and easy accessibility (Etikan et al., 2016). Therefore, strategic places where all categories of people gathered in masses were chosen. Public areas, including bus stops, markets, universities, colleges, malls, cafeterias, places of worship and public offices, were purposively identified as areas for approaching citizens for questionnaire filling because they provided a convenient place for accessing a high volume of people at one time. The participants were, however, recruited based on their willingness and convenience to participate. In the event of scarcity of participants, the researcher and assistants were forced to change the recruitment strategy in terms of the locations and the approach permissible in convenience sampling. Administration and collection of feedback on instrument 1 for the first phase of the research took twelve (12) weeks, and a total of four hundred and seven (407) questionnaires were collected, of which eleven (11) were discarded, leaving three hundred and ninety-six (396) questionnaires for data analysis.
Instrument 3 for the framework evaluation phase was sent out via email to addresses of twelve (12) purposively sampled ICT experts from both the four participating organisations and academics (Table 4.3). The exercise took six (6) weeks of follow-up and collection via email of the filled questionnaires.
The interviews with management and ICT personnel from the four participating government organisations on m-government service provisioning practices also served as a primary data source for this study. A total of sixteen (16) semi-structured interviews guided by instrument 2 were scheduled between the researcher and four (4) management representatives (one from each organisation) and twelve (12) personnel with different roles within the ICT departments. Two (2) of the sixteen (16) interviews had to be conducted telephonically due to the busy nature of the work of the critical respondents. The interviews conducted lasted between twenty (20) to forty (40) minutes per session.
4.10.3.2 Secondary Data Collection
Secondary data refers to already collected or data readily available for analysis (Creswell &
Creswell, 2017). In this study, secondary data collection constituted a review of the literature,
79
including published and unpublished dissertations, online and print journal articles, conference papers, and textbooks, as well as documents such as reports, policies, guidelines, and procedures relevant to either m-government service adoption or provision. The review of the literature and relevant organisational documents proved instrumental in positioning the study findings in terms of interpretation and discussion. Moreover, the secondary data gathered provided a source for discussing the implications of the study findings and the recommended solution.