METHODS OF DATA
COLLECTION
The
task of data collection begins after a research problem has been defined and
research design/ plan chalked out. While deciding about the method of data
collection to be used for the study, the researcher should keep in mind two
types of data viz., primary and secondary. The primary data are those
which are collected afresh and for the first time, and thus happen to be
original in character. The secondary data, on the other hand, are those
which have already been collected by someone else and which have already been
passed through the statistical process. The researcher would have to decide
which sort of data he would be using (thus collecting) for his study and
accordingly he will have to select one or the other method of data collection.
The methods of collecting primary and secondary data differ since primary data
are to be originally collected, while in case of secondary data the nature of
data collection work is merely that of compilation. We describe the different
methods of data collection, with the pros and cons of each method.
COLLECTION OF PRIMARY DATA
We collect primary data during the course of doing experiments in
an experimental research but in case we
do research of the descriptive type and perform surveys, whether sample surveys
or census surveys, then we can obtain primary data either through observation
or through direct communication with
respondents in one form or another or through personal interviews. This,
in other words, means that there are several methods of collecting primary
data, particularly in surveys and descriptive researches. Important ones are:
(i) observation method, (ii) interview method, (iii) through questionnaires, (iv)
through schedules, and (v) other methods which include (a) warranty cards; (b)
distributor audits; (c) pantry audits; (d) consumer panels; (e) using
mechanical devices; (f) through projective techniques; (g) depth interviews,
and (h) content analysis. We briefly take up each method separately.
Observation Method
The observation method is the most commonly used method specially
in studies relating to behavioural sciences. In a way we all observe things
around us, but this sort of observation is not scientific observation.
Observation becomes a scientific tool and the method of data collection for the
researcher, when it serves a formulated research purpose, is systematically
planned and recorded and is subjected to checks and controls on validity and
reliability. Under the observation method, the information is sought by way of
investigator’s own direct observation without asking from the respondent. For
instance, in a study relating to consumer behaviour, the investigator instead
of asking the brand of wrist watch used by the respondent, may himself look at
the watch. The main advantage of this method is that subjective bias is
eliminated, if observation is done accurately. Secondly, the information
obtained under this method relates to what is currently happening; it is not
complicated by either the past behaviour or future intentions or attitudes.
Thirdly, this method is independent of respondents’ willingness to respond and
as such is relatively less demanding of active cooperation on the part of
respondents as happens to be the case in the interview or the questionnaire
method. This method is particularly suitable in studies which deal with
subjects (i.e., respondents) who are not capable of giving verbal reports of
their feelings for one reason or the other However, observation
method has various limitations. Firstly, it is an expensive method. Secondly, the
information provided by this method is very limited. Thirdly, sometimes
unforeseen factors may interfere with the observational task. At times, the
fact that some people are rarely accessible to direct observation creates
obstacle for this method to collect data effectively. While using this method,
the researcher should keep in mind things like: What should be observed? How
the observations should be recorded? Or how the accuracy of observation can be
ensured? In case the observation is characterised by a careful definition of
the units to be observed, the style of recording the observed information,
standardised conditions of observation and the selection of pertinent data of
observation, then the observation is called as structured observation. But
when observation is to take place without these characteristics to be thought
of in advance, the same is termed as unstructured observation. Structured
observation is considered appropriate in descriptive studies,
whereas
in an exploratory study the observational procedure is most likely to be
relatively unstructured.
We
often talk about participant and non-participant types of observation in the
context of studies,
particularly
of social sciences. This distinction depends upon the observer’s sharing or not
sharing the life of the group he is observing. If the observer observes by
making himself, more or less, a member of the group he is observing so that he
can experience what the members of the group experience, the observation is
called as the participant observation. But when the observer observes as
a detached emissary without any attempt on his part to experience through
participation what others feel, the observation of this type is often termed as
non-participant observation. (When the observer is observing in such a
manner that his presence may be unknown to the people he is observing, such an
observation is described as disguised observation.)
There
are several merits of the participant type of observation: (i) The researcher
is enabled to
record
the natural behaviour of the group. (ii) The researcher can even gather
information which
could
not easily be obtained if he observes in a disinterested fashion. (iii) The
researcher can even verify the truth of statements made by informants in the
context of a questionnaire or a schedule. But there are also certain demerits
of this type of observation viz., the observer may lose the objectivity to the
extent he participates emotionally; the problem of observation-control is not
solved; and it may narrow-down the researcher’s range of experience.
Sometimes
we talk of controlled and uncontrolled observation. If the
observation takes place
in
the natural setting, it may be termed as uncontrolled observation, but when
observation takes place according to definite pre-arranged plans, involving
experimental procedure, the same is then termed controlled observation. In
non-controlled observation, no attempt is made to use precision instruments.
The
major aim of this type of observation is to get a spontaneous picture of life
and persons. It has a tendency to supply naturalness and completeness of
behaviour, allowing sufficient time for observing it. But in controlled
observation, we use mechanical (or precision) instruments as aids to accuracy and
standardisation. Such observation has a tendency to supply formalised data upon
which generalisations can be built with some degree of assurance. The main
pitfall of non-controlled observation is that of subjective interpretation.
There is also the danger of having the feeling that we know more about the
observed phenomena than we actually do. Generally, controlled observation takes
place in various experiments that are carried out in a laboratory or under
controlled conditions, whereas uncontrolled observation is resorted to in case
of exploratory researches.
Interview Method
The interview method of collecting data involves presentation of
oral-verbal stimuli and reply in
terms of oral-verbal responses. This method can be used through
personal interviews and, if possible, through telephone interviews.
(a) Personal interviews: Personal interview method requires
a person known as the interviewer
asking questions generally in a face-to-face contact to the other
person or persons. (At times the
interviewee may also ask certain questions and the interviewer
responds to these, but usually the
interviewer initiates the interview and collects the information.)
This sort of interview may be in the form of direct personal investigation or
it may be indirect oral investigation. In the case of direct personal
investigation the interviewer has to collect the information personally from
the sources concerned. He has to be on the spot and has to meet people from
whom data have to be collected.
This method is particularly suitable for intensive investigations.
But in certain cases it may not be possible or worthwhile to contact directly
the persons concerned or on account of the extensive scope of enquiry, the
direct personal investigation technique may not be used. In such cases an indirect
oral examination can be conducted under which the interviewer has to
cross-examine other persons who are supposed to have knowledge about the
problem under investigation and the information, obtained is recorded. Most of
the commissions and committees appointed by government to carry on
investigations make use of this method.
The method of collecting information through personal interviews
is usually carried out in a
structured way. As such we call the interviews as structured
interviews. Such interviews involve
the use of a set of predetermined questions and of highly
standardised techniques of recording. Thus, the interviewer in a
structured interview follows a rigid procedure laid down, asking questions in a
form and order prescribed. As against it, the unstructured interviews are
characterised by a flexibility of approach to questioning. Unstructured
interviews do not follow a system of pre-determined questions and standardised
techniques of recording information. In a non-structured interview, the interviewer
is allowed much greater freedom to ask, in case of need, supplementary
questions or at times he may omit certain questions if the situation so
requires. He may even change the sequence of questions. He has relatively
greater freedom while recording the responses to include some aspects and
exclude others. But this sort of flexibility results in lack of comparability
of one interview with another and the analysis of unstructured responses
becomes much more difficult and time-consuming than that of the structured
responses obtained in case of structured interviews. Unstructured interviews also
demand deep knowledge and greater skill on the part of the interviewer.
Unstructured interview, however, happens to be the central technique of
collecting information in case of exploratory or formulative research studies.
But in case of descriptive studies, we quite often use the technique of structured
interview because of its being more economical, providing a safe basis for
generalisation
and
requiring relatively lesser skill on the part of the interviewer.
We
may as well talk about focussed interview, clinical interview and the non-directive
interview.
Focussed
interview is meant to focus attention on the given experience
of the respondent and its
effects.
Under it the interviewer has the freedom to decide the manner and sequence in
which the
questions
would be asked and has also the freedom to explore reasons and motives. The
main task of the interviewer in case of a focussed interview is to confine the
respondent to a discussion of issues with which he seeks conversance. Such
interviews are used generally in the development of hypotheses and constitute a
major type of unstructured interviews. The clinical interview is
concerned with broad underlying feelings or motivations or with the course of
individual’s life experience. The method of eliciting information under it is
generally left to the interviewer’s discretion. In case of non-directive
interview, the interviewer’s function is simply to encourage the respondent
to talk about the given topic with a bare minimum of direct questioning. The
interviewer often acts as a catalyst to a comprehensive expression of the
respondents’ feelings and beliefs and of the frame of reference within which
such feelings and beliefs take on personal significance.
Despite
the variations in interview-techniques, the major advantages and weaknesses of
personal
interviews
can be enumerated in a general way. The chief merits of the interview method
are as
follows:
(i)
More information and that too in greater depth can be obtained.
(ii)
Interviewer by his own skill can overcome the resistance, if any, of the respondents;
the
interview
method can be made to yield an almost perfect sample of the general population.
(iii)
There is greater flexibility under this method as the opportunity to
restructure questions is
always
there, specially in case of unstructured interviews.
(iv)
Observation method can as well be applied to recording verbal answers to
various questions.
(v)
Personal information can as well be obtained easily under this method.
(vi)
Samples can be controlled more effectively as there arises no difficulty of the
missing
returns;
non-response generally remains very low.
(vii)
The interviewer can usually control which person(s) will answer the questions.
This is not
possible
in mailed questionnaire approach. If so desired, group discussions may also be
held.
(viii) The interviewer may catch
the informant off-guard and thus may secure the most spontaneous reactions than
would be the case if mailed questionnaire is used.
(ix) The language of the
interview can be adopted to the ability or educational level of the person
interviewed and as such misinterpretations concerning questions can be avoided.
(x) The interviewer can collect
supplementary information about the respondent’s personal characteristics and
environment which is often of great value in interpreting results.
But there are also certain
weaknesses of the interview method. Among the important weaknesses, mention may
be made of the following:
(i) It is a very expensive
method, specially when large and widely spread geographical sample is taken.
(ii) There remains the
possibility of the bias of interviewer as well as that of the respondent; there
also remains the headache of supervision and control of interviewers.
(iii) Certain types of
respondents such as important officials or executives or people in high income
groups may not be easily approachable under this method and to that extent the
data may prove inadequate.
(iv) This method is relatively
more-time-consuming, specially when the sample is large and recalls upon the
respondents are necessary.
(v) The presence of the
interviewer on the spot may over-stimulate the respondent, sometimes even to
the extent that he may give imaginary information just to make the interview
interesting.
(vi) Under the interview method
the organisation required for selecting, training and supervising the
field-staff is more complex with formidable problems.
(vii) Interviewing at times may
also introduce systematic errors.
(viii) Effective interview
presupposes proper rapport with respondents that would facilitate free and
frank responses. This is often a very difficult requirement.
Pre-requisites and basic tenets
of interviewing: For
successful implementation of the interview method, interviewers should be
carefully selected, trained and briefed. They should be honest, sincere,
hardworking, impartial and must possess the technical competence and necessary
practical experience. Occasional field checks should be made to ensure that
interviewers are neither cheating, nor deviating
from instructions given to them
for performing their job efficiently. In addition, some provision should
also be made in advance so that
appropriate action may be taken if some of the selected respondents refuse to
cooperate or are not available when an interviewer calls upon them.
In fact, interviewing is an art
governed by certain scientific principles. Every effort should be made to
create friendly atmosphere of trust and confidence, so that respondents may
feel at ease while talking to and discussing with the interviewer. The
interviewer must ask questions properly and intelligently and must record the
responses accurately and completely. At the same time, the interviewer must
answer legitimate question(s), if any, asked by the respondent and must clear
any doubt that the latter has. The interviewers approach must be friendly,
courteous, conversational and unbiased. The interviewer should not show
surprise or disapproval of a respondent’s answer but he must keep the direction
of interview in his own hand, discouraging irrelevant conversation and must
make all possible effort to keep the
respondent on the track.
(b) Telephone
interviews: This method of collecting information consists in contacting
respondents on telephone itself. It is not a very widely used method, but plays
important part in industrial surveys, particularly in developed regions. The
chief merits of such a system are:
1. It is more
flexible in comparison to mailing method.
2. It is faster than
other methods i.e., a quick way of obtaining information.
3. It is cheaper than
personal interviewing method; here the cost per response is relatively low.
4. Recall is easy;
callbacks are simple and economical.
5. There is a higher
rate of response than what we have in mailing method; the non-response is
generally very low.
6. Replies can be
recorded without causing embarrassment to respondents.
7. Interviewer can
explain requirements more easily.
8. At times, access
can be gained to respondents who otherwise cannot be contacted for one reason
or the other.
9. No field staff is
required.
10. Representative
and wider distribution of sample is possible.
But this system of
collecting information is not free from demerits. Some of these may be
highlighted.
1. Little time is
given to respondents for considered answers; interview period is not likely to
exceed five minutes in most cases.
2. Surveys are
restricted to respondents who have telephone facilities.
3. Extensive
geographical coverage may get restricted by cost considerations.
4. It is not suitable
for intensive surveys where comprehensive answers are required to various
questions.
5. Possibility of the
bias of the interviewer is relatively more.
6. Questions have to
be short and to the point; probes are difficult to handle.
Reference : C.R.Kothari
0 Comments