3.2 Data gathering instruments
3.2.1 An Overview
Denscombe (2000:85) advocates the use of two or more methods
of data collection to enhance the validation and reliability of data, arguing
that the use of multi method approach allows findings to be corroborated or
questioned by comparing data produced by different methods. Determining the
impact of the results of any research work is dependent upon two concepts:
validity and reliability (Last 2001). Essentially, validity entails the
question, «Does your measurement process, assessment, or project actually
measure what you intend to measure?» Best (1989) defines validity as that
quality of data gathering instrument that may enable it to measure what it is
supposed to measure. Aldridge and Levine (2001; 183) define validity as
whether a measuring instrument indicates success in measuring what
it is designed for. Content validity is defined as an approval to establish the
validity measurements including assessing the logical relationship between the
proposed measure and the theoretical definition of the variable (Sullivan et
al.1989). Reliability, on the other hand, addresses whether repeated
measurements or assessments provide a consistent result given the same initial
circumstances (NATCO, The
Organisation for Transplant Professionals: 2009). Sullivan et
al. (2000:218) say reliability refers to the ability of a measure to
yield consistent results each time it is used?. Similarly Aldridge and Levine
(2001) define it as a measure of the extent to which the results of an
indicator or test are consistent over time. Internal validity encompasses
whether the results of the study are legitimate because of the way the groups
were selected, the data was recorded or the analysis was performed. External
validity, often called generalizability?, involves whether the
results given by the study are transferable to other groups (i.e. populations
of interest) as postulated by Handley (2009:1). This research intends to
achieve both internal and external validity of results through following a
proper study design and strict protocol execution.
A common threat to internal validity is reliability. Russ -
Eft (1980: 37) defined reliability as the degree to which the results are
attributable to sources of variance. This research tries to overcome the risks
associated with reliability by reviewing and thoroughly checking the research
instruments and employing consistency checks. The instruments of data
collection to be used are interviews, focus group discussions, questionnaires
documentary analysis and observational schedules.
3.2.2 Structured in-depth Interviews
Bryman and Bell (2003: 115) define an interview as the
soliciting of information by the interviewer from the interviewee. Saunders et
al. (1997) citing Kahn and Cannell (1957) describe an interview as a
purposeful discussion between two or more people. Interviews are meant to
elicit primary data responses through direct questioning, (Wegner, 1993).
It is the most common form of data collection in any social
survey such as elicit different people?s opinions on a subject such as the
socio-economic impact of foreign aid on development. According to Fraenkel and
Wallen (1996), the advantages of using the interview technique approach are
that the respondents can expand on areas of interest and can use non-verbal
cues such as expression to emphasize their responses. In this study, several
respondents were lined for interviews. These include: the Head of State (or his
spokesperson), donor representatives, relevant ministry officials, sector
coordinators and community leaders.
| 
