CHAPTER 6: DATA ANALYSIS AND PRSENTATION OF RESULTS
6.2 RESPONDENTS’ DEMOGRAPHICS
In terms of sample demographics, the respondent characteristics varied widely. This section presents the relevant personal data of the respondents including their gender, age groups, job positions, educational qualifications and economic well-being, among other factors.
6.2.1 The Descriptives for Customers
Table 6.1: Customer Respondents’ ProfileDemographic Variable Frequency Percentage
Gender Male Female Total
143 108 251
57.0 43.0 100.0 Age group of Respondents
16 - 24 years 25 - 34 years 35 - 44 years 45 - 54 years 55 years or older Total
Mean = 38.90, s.d. = 6.253
40 56 66 59 30 251
15.9 22.3 26.3 23.5 12.0 100 Highest Level of Education
Junior certificate
Secondary school certificate High school certificate Post-secondary diploma(s) Bachelors degree(s) Post-graduate degree(s) Total
12 10 25 65 112 27 251
4.8 4.0 10.0 25.9 44.6 10.8 100.0 Area of Residence
Urban Rural Peri-urban Total
109 48 94 251
43.4 19.1 37.5 100.0 Economic well-being
Poor
Below average Average Above average Flourishing Total
4 16 169 56 6 251
1.6 6.4 67.3 22.3 2.4 100.0 Household Size
“I stay alone”
2 members 3 members 4 members 5 members
More than 5 members Total
Mean = 4.80, s.d. = 1.2545
5 14 19 35 92 86 251
2.0 5.6 7.6 13.9 36.7 34.3 100.0 Respondent's role in the family
Initiator Buyer
Decision-maker / Decider Influencer
Gatekeeper Total
38 76 60 73 4 251
15.1 30.3 23.9 29.1 1.6 100.0
Table 6.1 shows that male representation dominates with 57% while female respondents trail behind with 43%. The table also shows that the distribution of the age follows a normal distribution with the 35–44 age group being the dominant one (26.3%), followed by the relatively old generation of 45–54 years (23.5%) and the younger generation (25–34; 16–24) following closely at 22.3% and 15.9%
respectively. The economic well-being of the respondents is modally average. The majority of the respondents have post-secondary diplomas and bachelor’s degrees (70.5%). The table reveals that respondents are varied in terms of their ages. The preferred areas of residence seem to be the urban (43.4%) and peri-urban areas (37.5%), with the remainder (19.1%) indicating that they reside in the rural areas.
As reported in Table 6.1, an average size of the respondents’ households is made up of 5 members while households of more than 5 members commanded 34.3%. The respondents’ roles in the family are modally “buyers” (30.3%), followed closely by “influencers” with a frequency of 29.1%.
6.2.2 The Descriptives for Research Institutes’ Respondents
Table 6.2 shows that male representation also dominates within research institutes’ staff respondents with 61%, while female respondents constitute 38.9% of the respondents. The technical department has the highest number of hits (38) making up 42.2% of the total research institutions surveyed. Sales and marketing, together with the Business Development Units account for 36.6% of the institutes’
departments. The Production and Public Relations departments each have 10 respondents constituting 11.1% of the departments surveyed at research institutes.
Table 6.2: Research Institutes’ Respondents’ Profile
Demographic Factor Frequency Percentage
Gender Male Female Total
55 35 90
61.1 38.9 100.0 Respondents’ Department
Sales and Marketing Production
Business Development Technical
Public Relations Total
14 10 18 38 10 90
15.6 11.1 20.0 42.2 11.1 100.0 Length with Research Institute
Less than 1 year 2 to 5 years 6 to 10 years 11 to 15 years More than 15 years Total
Mean = 8.74, s.d. 1.1951
15 23 32 10 10 90
16.7 25.6 35.6 11.1 11.1 100.0
Table 6.2 also reports that the average length or experience of the respondents within their respective institutes is 8.74 years. Most of the respondents in this sample (57.8%) have more than five years of experience with their institutes, which may indicate that the respondents are quite experienced in their various areas of specialization.
Attributes related to the research institutes were considered an essential part of the study’s analysis to classify participating institutes4.
Table 6.3: Research Institutes’ Attributes Profile
Attribute
Public Private Total
Frequency %age Frequency %age Frequency Overall %age
Research Institutes’ Sector of Respondents 48 53.3 42 46.7 90 100.0
Availability Of Commercialization Units / Depts.
Yes No Total
17 31 48
35.4 64.6 100.0
33 9 42
78.6 21.4 100.0
50 40 90
55.6 44.4 100.0 New Product Introduction within the last 12 - 24
months Yes No Total
20 28 48
41.66 58.34 100.0
31 11 42
73.8 26.2 100.0
51 39 90
56.7 43.3 100.0 Categories of TIs Commercialized
Electronic gadgets Agricultural inputs Food items and herbs Farming Implements Building Materials Auto parts and accessories Total
2 10 11 4 2 7 36
5.56 27.78 30.56 11.11 5.56 19.44 100.0
4 21
9 7 4 3 48
8.33 43.75 18.75 14.58 8.33 6.25 100.0
6 31 20 11 6 10 84
7.14 36.90 23.81 13.10 7.14 11.90 100.0 Researcher Attitude towards innovation
Willing Reluctant Demotivated Not sure Total
22 7 8 11 48
45.8 14.6 16.7 22.9 100.0
12 8 13
9 42
28.6 19.0 31.0 21.4 100.0
34 15 21 20 90
37.8 16.7 23.3 22.2 100.0 Commercialization State
Excellent Good
Above average Average Poor Total
4 7 5 13 19 48
8.3 14.6 10.4 27.1 39.6 100.0
0 1 11 11 19 42
0 2.4 26.2 26.2 45.2 100
4 8 16 24 38 90
4.4 8.9 17.8 26.7 42.2 100.0
Table 6.3 reveals that 53% of the responses derive from public research institutes staff while 46.7% of the responses come from private research institutes. Commercialization Units or departments do exist in 50 (55.6%) of the research institutes, with the majority (66%) of these units being found in the private sector, compared to 17 (34%) in public research institutes.
______________________
4In the interests of confidentiality and in compliance with the requirements of the University of KwaZulu-Natal Research Ethics guidelines, the names of research institutes, respondents, and locations have been withheld and are replaced with an anonymous unique identifier [in brackets] when mentioned in direct quotes, especially in the qualitative results section.
The table also clarifies that 56.7% of the research institutes have introduced a new product within the past 12 to 24 months, the majority of such firms being private research institutes, constituting 61%.
However, 43.3 % have not introduced a new product, 72% of these being public institutes.
Agricultural inputs top the list of the new products commercialized, with 36, 90% while electronic gadgets and building materials represent the least commercialized group of TIs with 7.14% each. In terms of researcher attitude towards innovation, the majority in the public sector (45.8%) is generally willing while the majority within the private sector (31.0%) is rather demotivated, though 28.6%
indicate that they are willing. On average, the majority (37.8%) across all sectors indicate willing researcher attitudes towards innovation. It is apparent from Table 6.3 that the aggregate majority (42.2%) describe the commercialization state of Zimbabwe’s technological innovations as generally poor. Only 4 (4.4%) describe the state of commercialization as excellent while 26.7% describe the state as average, i.e. neither poor nor good.
Table 6.3 also reveals that even though the majority of the respondents (56.7%) indicate that their institutes introduced some new products to the market, there remains 43.3% whose institutes have not introduced any new product within the past 12 to 24 months. The majority of such institutes (72%) are the public research institutes.
In order to establish how the respondents perceived the rate of New Product Development (NPD) in their respective institutes, respondents were asked how they rated the NPD state. Table 6.4 shows the results.
Table 6.4: Views on rate of NPD
Response Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Poor 21 23.3 23.3 23.3
Average 33 36.7 36.7 60.0
Above average 19 21.1 21.1 81.1
Good 17 18.9 18.9 100.0
Total 90 100.0 100.0
The majority (36.7%) of the respondents affirm that the NPD rate is average, followed by 23.3% who rate the NPD rate as poor. This is followed closely by 21.1% who feel that the rate is above average while 18.9% rate NPD as good.