CONSULTATION WITH AUTHORITATIVE SOURCES OF INFORMATION There are three categories of specialists whose experiences and knowledge base have been accessed by the researcher in this research study. These are as follows:
DSR officials;
Stakeholders that work with the DSR; and
Members of the public/beneficiaries.
These categories have been accessed as they are all critical stakeholders within the service delivery process of the DSR, involved in the communication and information- sharing paradigms in different formats.
RESEARCH TECHNIQUES
Mouton (2002:36) describes research techniques as the tools of the researcher. These tools define the manner in which the researcher is to conduct the research study. These tasks, and their relevance to the different stages of the research investigation, are discussed below:
4.12.1 Sampling Method and Research Instrument
sampling is to choose a set of units that are representative of a population so that the results can be generalized to that population. To ensure representativeness of the sample, probabilistic and purposive sampling may be undertaken. In probabilistic sampling, each unit of the population has the same probability of being included in the sample, whilst in purposive sampling the units are selected based on chosen criteria applicable to the specific population group.
The study falls within the non-random sampling design as it includes all members of the target population, i.e. all members form part of the stakeholder group of the DSR in the period under study.
Burnham et al. (2004:90-91) maintain that the advantage of quota sampling is the researcher can choose any person who fits the selected criteria. This sampling method is quicker, less expensive and more efficient, with its non-random nature placing in question the drawing of inferences from the results.
Neuman (1997:222) maintains the relative homogeneity and heterogeneity of the population should be influenced by the size of the sample, as well as by the degree of reliability for the purposes of the investigation. Reliability infers that if the test instruments were consistent, the same results are likely to be found should the test be repeated.
The area of study covers the Province of KwaZulu-Natal, incorporating the eleven districts illustrated in Figure 3.1. The respondents identified in Table 8.2 forms part of the convenience sampling approach. The identification process of respondents from the public form part of the random sample approach. Cooper et al. (2006:414) random sampling is a method in which each population element is known and has equal chance of selection. Through simple random sampling the researcher will be able to reach the required number of research participants.
The targeted respondent population of the DSR is 110 with the external stakeholders targeted being 40, bringing the total targeted population to 150. The homogenous nature
of the target respondents allows for a degree of choice of respondents.
The sample study comprised the following three target groups as primary technique:
Focus Groups: 3 groups totalling 10 respondents;
Questionnaires: a total of 123 questionnaires were distributed with 95 positive responses, and
Interviews: a total of 52 interviews were sought, with 44 responses received.
The secondary techniques adopted consisted of literature reviews, policy reviews and documentation reviews.
Research Instruments
The concept of triangulation is used in research where multiple sources of data are collected and analysed to ascertain their convergence to a particular theory (Leedy &
Ormrod 2010:99). Malterud (2001:483) states the aim of triangulation is to gain insight in the understanding of complex phenomena. Maree (2007:39) believes that this concept promotes interpretive validity and the extent to which the conclusions based on qualitative data are supported by the quantitative instruments used. This study will use the research instruments of questionnaires and interviews. The three research instruments used are discussed below:
4.12.1.2.1 Focus Groups
Focus group discussion will also be conducted by the researcher. Members of these focus groups will be selected from a wider population so as to provide their opinions about the manner in which the DSR communicates with its beneficiaries. The three targeted focus groups comprise of:
Two groups of sports officers as they are the interface of the department on service delivery to the public. These two groups total 8 officials; and
One group of senior management, comprising of two officials, who are the decision-makers within the department.
Morgan (cited in Babbie & Mouton 2007:292) maintain that focus groups allow the researcher greater observation opportunity to the phenomenon under study. The researcher is able to determine responses personally as compared to deducing such inferences from the data-gathering process.
Keyton (2011:292) explains focus groups as a qualitative method in the communication discipline where the facilitator-led group discussion allows for data collection from a group of participants about a particular topic within a limited period of time.
Neuman (1997:253) views focus groups as a special qualitative research technique where people are informally interviewed in a group discussion setting, allowing people to express themselves freely without any member dominating the discussion. Kitzinger (cited in Burnham et al. 2004:106) identifies the distinguishing feature of focus groups to interviews as being the interaction of group members as part of the research data.
The focus group technique allows the stimulation of discussion to allow respondents to discuss their own views and associated experiences that may not otherwise be disclosed.
However, the following limitations of the focus group approach must be noted:
As a result of its smaller numbers, it limits the generalisations that can be made from the responses;
A few dominant group members may distort the results;
The focus group facilitator, who may be the researcher, would be responsible for how the data will be analysed and presented; and
There is no way of knowing the extent of the representation of the group to the population it represents (Burnham et al. 2004:111-112).
The researcher maintains that this factor would not adversely impact on the research study as the triangulation method, incorporating the use of questionnaires and interviews, will minimise the possibility of this limitation impacting negatively on the research study.
4.12.1.2.2 Questionnaire
The main research instrument used was the questionnaire. Leedy et al. (2010:189) defines a questionnaire as an effective and convenient method of obtaining responses to both structured and unstructured questions. Despite the criticism that questionnaires may sometimes be misused as an instrument because of poor construction, they generally have some specific positive qualities when compared to other methods of data collection.
When compared to the interview technique, questionnaires require much less time for completion and are thus more efficient. Questionnaires can also be administered personally or from a distance, via mechanisms such as email, mail or post (Gay & Diehl 1992:243).
Whilst mailed surveys are the most cost-effective data collection method as it causes minimal inconvenience to respondents, this method has a low response rate because of delays in delivery, response and return time.
The process of triangulation was used to compile the two questionnaires used to access data using the quantitative method, as well as the interview questions using the qualitative method. Both these questionnaires were identical in nature but drafted to suit both the department officials (Annexure 1) and stakeholders to the department (Annexure 2). The researcher also sought to determine relationships between a quantitative and qualitative data through an interpretive and evaluation approach to arrive at an understanding of the phenomena investigated.
4.12.1.2.3 Interviews
Babbie (cited in Tshabalala, 2008:64) interprets the interview as an oral exchange of opinions between the interviewer and an individual or a group of individuals. The author further states that interviews allow a degree of control over the interaction environment, which strengthens the quality of the data used.
Sharma (1996:137) believes that the personal interview method enjoys greater potential than mail or telephonic surveys, viz,
Most accurate;
Generate the most amount of data;
Highest response rate;
Most flexible method;
Maximum control over sample respondents; and
Optimal questionnaire return rate.
Henning et al. (2004:53) regards the interview as an instrument of gathering data which yields information reflecting the life experiences of people if conducted under the principles of objectivity and neutrality by the interviewer. Interviews assist with the understanding of the subject matter as it allows for flexibility, observation and control of the environment. The advantages of interviews are that it creates great flexibility and adaptability and the interviewer is in control of the interview. However, interviews can also be costly and time-consuming (Wellman et al. 2002:158). Two sets of questionnaires were compiled to gather information from department officials (Annexure 5.1) and department stakeholders (Annexure 5.2). The content of both these questionnaires was essentially the same as both probed the very same areas of investigation.
Figure 4.2 below depicts the methodology adopted for information-gathering.
Figure 4.2: Combined Approach to Information-Gathering
Author’s Perspective
Research Methodology Quantitative
•Questionnaires
Qualitative
•Interviews
•Observation
This use of the mixed method approach had been utilised for the inclusion of responses from different target groups. This approach depicts the use of the qualitative and quantitative data collection methods adopted for this study, which together integrate the responses.
Questionnaires and interview questions will be drafted to present to the target respondents identified in the table in Table 4.4 below. Guidance in the drafting process will be provided by an experienced statistician to maximize validity and quality of questions posed, with overall direction and academic guidance being provided by the supervisor within the locus and focus of the Discipline and study of Public Administration.
Table 4.4: Composite List of Targeted Respondents
No Stakeholder Entity No. Targeted Total No. of
Target Group
1 Internal DSR Officials 110 169
2 External Other government departments 13 (incl OTP) 13
Federations (priority sport) 5 11
Media 22 Random sampling
Public 15 Random sampling
Other (Unions; SITA) 10 Random sampling
Total 175 173+
Table 4.5 below, which depicts the targeted respondents for this research, identifies the DSR officials as critical stakeholders.
Table 4.5: Composite List of Targeted DSR Respondents
No Component No. of Members No. of Target Respondents
1 Ministry 4 1
2 Office of the HoD 8 6
3 Chief Directorate 3 3
4 Directorate 9 9
5 Deputy Directorate 18 16
6 Assistant Directorate 11 10
7 District Heads 11 11
8 Sports Officers 63 28
9 Support Staff 42 26
Total 169 110
The other three critical populations who are stakeholders to the DSR programme are other government entities, the media and the external stakeholders as beneficiaries (public). The purpose of these interviews is to solicit more information on the communication challenges of the department, as well as the expectations of these stakeholders.
Tables 4.4 and 4.5 above list all targeted respondents for both qualitative and quantitative information-gathering. The media and public are identified by random sampling as a direct result of the vast number of these entities present in KZN. The confidentiality of respondents is of paramount importance to ensure that their rights are respected and protected, and the confidentiality clause is incorporated in the covering letters accompanying the questionnaires and interview questions.
4.12.1.2.4 Validity and Reliability
Validity is different from reliability as validity is achieved when the researcher measures what was supposed to be measured while reliability produces consistency in that measurement. O’Sullivan et al. (2003:107) define reliability as the evaluation of the
“degree of random error associated with a measure.” Hoover and Donovan (cited in Keyton 2011:53) maintain that reliability is achieved when the researchers are consistent in their use of data collection procedures, whilst validity is achieved when the measurement does what it is intended to do. Steyn, Smit, Du Toit & Strasheim (1994:7) identify the following types of measurement:
Nominal (categorical): a classification of responses;
Ordinal: achieved by ranking;
Interval: achieved if the differences are meaningful; and
Ratio: is the highest level of measurement – where difference and the absence of a characteristic (zero) are both meaningful.
Graziano & Raulin (1997:204) purports that threats to validity are reduced by general regulatory procedures, regulation of subject and experimenter effects, control through the
choice and assignment of subjects, as well as control through experimental design. A pre-reliability test will be done on the questionnaires.
Reliability refers to the property of a measurement instrument that causes it to give similar results for similar input. Cronbach’s Apha, as a measure of reliability, was used to analyse the data, together with the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS version 17.0) software. Mathematically, reliability is defined as the proportion of the variability in the responses to the survey that is the result of differences in the respondents, i.e. answers to a reliable survey will differ because respondents have different opinions, not because the survey is confusing or has multiple interpretations. The computation of Cronbach’s Alpha is based on the number of items on the survey (k) and the ratio of the average inter- item covariance to the average item variance:
𝛼 = 𝑘(𝑐𝑜𝑣/𝑣𝑎𝑟) 1 + (𝑘 − 1)(𝑐𝑜𝑣/𝑣𝑎𝑟)
Cronbach’s Alpha is not a statistical test – it is a coefficient of reliability or consistency http:/www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/sas/notes2
DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
The data collated was analysed and interpreted using various statistical techniques which served as tools to search for patterns along a particular perspective. The results were interpreted and presented as qualitative and quantitative responses.