Criterios contables críticos

In the approach and the research design planning, a number of limitations were identified with the intention of mitigating their influence over the study. One of the first of these limitations repeatedly

159 appeared throughout the process of selecting potential respondents for the interviews. Those older people who are most interested in volunteering for interviews around technology and ICT-related affairs were also the same people who have been actively involved in engaging with ICTs more regularly and more enthusiastically than others. Whilst not all of these volunteers were skilled in the use of digital technology, a great many possessed a high level of skill and technology acumen in dealing with challenges relating to the trust and use of ICTs. It was observed that on several occasions some volunteers’ enthusiasm to be involved in the study overshadowed their honesty and truthfulness in acknowledging their more highly developed and regular ICT interactions. The ideal respondents needed to match the profile of a novice or beginner in the use of ICTs. Thus those volunteers who were already working in part-time paid capacities as ICT trainers were ineligible and inappropriate candidates to be interviewed. Whilst it might not be possible to know if a person successfully and deliberately falsified their individual statements about their ICT skill and knowledge, the qualifying questions were useful in establishing a baseline of suitable respondents. One of the participating associations initially wanted to only put forward a sample group of people who were actively involved in a training program that was in place. By asking for a large sample group rather than a small one, and by randomly choosing from a large sample, it was possible to mitigate against the enthusiastic attempts by associations to take a deliberative approach to the acquisition of suitable interview candidates.

The choice of participants was derived through associations of older people, and then a process of randomisation was used to finalise the respondents for the interviews. The four associations were chosen in order to attract a range of participants from different socio-economic, different geographic, and different educational backgrounds. Since the sample was purposive in nature (ie it specifically targeted novice ICT users within a specific age range), the random selection of participants to a smaller sample size is a useful strategy to reduce bias.

A rich diversity of people within the respondent group was desirable, since a determination of trusted technology use would need to cater for a range of backgrounds, where mandates, impositions and obligations have a different meaning between one locality and another. It was important that a range of diversity in user-technology could also be achieved. The literature on technology choices suggested that older people consistently hold expectations about the longevity of technology products that were

160 unrealistic compared to the rest of society (Haddon, 2000, Xie, 2003). One limitation in this regard is that some older people cannot afford the cost of technology. Thus whilst attempting to draw from a rich and varied sample, it is likely that some exclusions take place because there are older people who have no understanding of digital technology owing to the prohibitive cost of its purchase and interaction.

The duty of investigators, in interpretive studies, is to sidestep imposing their own constructions and to be accurate to the sagacity given by the participants (Blackledge & Hunt, 1985; Kumar, 2011).

However, cultural norms and/or bias of the investigator can sway what is asked and what is heard (Rubin

& Rubin, 2005). One limitation that restricts the quality of the responses is the very jargon-laden terminology which pervades digital technologies. The computer science field uses many acronyms, and also uses words and terms that may not be in common use in everyday language, but which are saturated into many discussions involving digital technologies. The need goes beyond simply explaining acronyms from ICT to Information and Communications Technology. During several semi-structured interviews, it was necessary to explain some terms and acronyms to assist a respondent in their answer.

Such explanations are problematic for at least two reasons. The first is that some respondents may pretend to understand words that appear to them as jargon, yet have little or no idea as to their meaning.

This may add to responses that are cautious and may prevent the revelation of something important. The second challenge is that by the researcher introducing some terminology from within a known digital technology vocabulary, the researcher is also introducing cultural norms and bias to the interview process. These limitations were, in part, addressed by informing each respondent that they could ask about any word, term or acronym that might have been unclear. The second point of address was in scrutinizing the interview questions and having them tested on a small group of older people before the interviews were conducted. This small group were able to identify a range of terms that were either ambiguous or unknown by those checking the questions.

This was in line with the limitation being identified in the literature review in the first research phase. In a study of this nature, bracketing and suspending judgements or assumptions can be used to highlight the subjective meanings of the participants’ actions (Christ & Tanner, 2003; Denzin &

Lincoln, 1994). The investigator’s task was to interpret by what means others understood their domain and to think through the meanings behind their actions (O'Donoghue, 2007).

161 An interpretive approach such as the one described here has the potential for personal bias (Guest, et al., 2013). In order to reduce this effect a reflexive process was included in the approach to evaluate bias during the data interpretations (Bednall, 2006). This was established through maintaining a research-focused reflective journal, which recorded considerations to after each interview. This journal kept a record of observations, discernments, and interpretations of the material offered by each respondent (Gall, Gall and Borg, 2007). It allowed for further comparisons from one respondent to another in areas of commonality, or opposition. The journal included an analysis of each interview process, developing an understanding of relevant background and circumstantial information that was either apparent or observed. The journal was a useful assistant in the recall of specific details and explanations from respondents during each interview. These details made for connections and linkages to other information that might otherwise have remained in isolation.

An additional limitation was the use of associations for the purpose of acquiring respondents for the interviews. The interview respondents were drawn from four seniors associations, however the question could be asked as to whether associations are appropriate places to draw respondents from, and whether they would provide a sample of people from a wide and varied sample of older people for this study. It could be argued that since associations are inclusive organisations that deliberately share information across a range of older people’s interests, this study cannot be seen as representative of all older people, some of whom may lead very secluded and lonely existences. Older people who are members of associations are by definition of their association membership more active than others.

This study is an example of purposive sampling, since the choice of older people was deliberate in terms of looking for respondents who met the inclusion and eligibility criteria for this study (Patton, 2002). In this case, a sample included older people within a specific age range who were retired. The eligibility criteria were operationally enforced in order to bring about a specific sample group of respondents (Bernard, 2000). Thus purposive sampling techniques cannot be seen as being representative of all older people (Patton, 2002).

The sample group of respondents were all volunteers. As a cohort, the respondent sample was found to be assured, coherent and articulate. They volunteered and attended at specific times, indicating a level of mobility, freedom, and availability. This suggests that there could be some respondents who

162 have been excluded or marginalised from this study. This study is limited in that it did not interview people with mobility or accessibility issues, and it did not specifically include older people using assistive technologies. There are older people who may have been unavailable, or who lacked the confidence or desire to participate. This study, therefore, is not accurately characteristic of all older people and their interactions with trust and technology.

This study included interviews that took a significant time to complete. The shortest interview took 24 minutes and the longest interview took 58 minutes. The length of time each interview took meant that the interview process may have precluded some older people from being involved on the basis of time. Thus the study was limited to those people in both reasonably good health and with a reasonable amount of mobility. Availability was a factor in the selection of the final sample respondent group (Seidman, 1991; Guest et al, 2013). In some cases, the researcher adopted a method of availability and timing flexibility to reduce the unavailability of respondents who had been initially selected through the original method of sample selection. The limitations in regards to length of time were addressed individually with each respondent. All respondents were asked if they needed a break, or extra time.

There were two instances when time breaks were included so that one respondent could take a comfort break, and so that a different respondent could take a rest. Potential respondents were reminded that interviews would take a portion of time. In the case of initial volunteering, potential respondents were told that the interview would take at least 20 minutes, but that they were not likely to go for more than one hour in duration.

Initial analysis of the data was guided by the research questions. The analyses of the data therefore included the personal bias retained by the researcher, who has previously interacted with older people on matters of online cyber security. In cases where the researcher has been involved in the subject matter of a qualitative study it is important to recognise and mitigate bias that is retained from prior knowledge (Kock, 2004). For example, the interviewer might unknowingly frown when an unexpected answer was given, or where the act of nodding as a respondent answered a question might be interpreted as a seemingly appropriate answer when in fact the interviewer might simply be nodding to acknowledge that the words are understood (Jackson 2009). Thus it is necessary to disclose that there is residual bias that remains connected with this study as a result of the researcher’s previous

163 interactions with older people on issues relating to cyber-crime and trusted online technologies. This limitation was mitigated by asking other people to read and assess the interview questions for any signs of bias or partiality. The interviewer took care to avoid unnecessary eye contact and restrict facial expressions when interacting with interview participants.

5.4 Summary

This chapter explained the way in which the research was designed around a small purposive sample of 28 participants who were interviewed across five areas of interest. These five areas formed segments that gathered information about suage, acceptance trust and technology rejection. The first segment considered suitability, asking questions relating to basic usage, and establishing the limited range of experiences within the participant cohort. The second segment examined a more detailed understanding of usage, looking at online navigational practises, email managemenmt, password behaviours, and both physical and onbline financial transactions. The third segment examined comfort and discomfort around perceptions of trust and new technology, and the usage of financial and transactional systems. The fourth segment considered the acceptance of usage involving other people’s systems, software and hardware. It looked at 3^rd party transactions, and a range of trusted and rejected systems used for financial transactions. The fifth segment explored detailed descriptions about hypothetical scenarios that examined trust and rejection under difficult or uncertain practises involving change and acceptance of online systems.

A description of the research design and techniques for this study was incorporated. It included descriptions about participant information, ethics, data collection and the processes adopted to analyse the data that was obtained.

In the closing parts of this chapter, the limitations that pertained to this study were explained and clarified. This study aimed to capture and to understand the knowledge, norms, practices, and experiences of older citizens in the adoption, interaction and rejection of technology pertaining to trust

164 and trusted relationships. This required the investigator to obtain the perceptions of older people by means of a descriptive process involving the acquisition of rich understandings using insights, discernments, and observations. The next two chapters present the results of the data collected, and present those results in the form of a set of findings based on interviews with older people.

165 6 CHAPTER 6 DATA AND RESULTS FROM INTERVIEWS