EVOLUCIÓN EN EL TRATAMIENTO DE LAS COMPLICACIONES

The questionnaire was printed, double-sided, on A4 size paper. It was eight pages long and had a total of 46 questions. Each questionnaire had a unique code number enabling the researcher to identify where each questionnaire was delivered, thereby facilitating the keeping of a record, during data collection, on a control sheet, as to where it was delivered to and where to collect it from. A copy of the questionnaire is attached in Appendix H. The questionnaire was in English as this is the official language in Mauritius, although French is also extensively used (Republic of Mauritius 2017). Several aspects were taken into consideration when the questionnaire was designed, as these may have serious repercussions on the quality as well as nature of responses (McColl et al. 2001).

These concerned the type of questions, the size of the questionnaire, the details on the questionnaire (Fowler 2002) and the wording of the questions (Bryman 2004; Veal 2011).

Veal (2011) has specified that the questions should be as simple as possible and should be written to avoid jargon, ambiguity and leading questions. He also added that questions should be asked one at a time, as opposed to asking questions which have multi-purpose. These good practices were followed to enhance the quality of the question wording. Overall the questionnaire was designed to have a developmental order and be logical (Gillham 2000) thereby allowing a flow for those reading and filling the questionnaires.

The questionnaire included a few open-ended questions, as suggested Gillham (2000). Open-ended questions are those which, do not have a proscribed set of answers and require respondents to write down their thoughts (Veal 2011). The advantage of including these questions is that the responses by the respondents are not induced by either the interviewer himself or the wording of the questionnaire (Veal 2011). As a result, these responses can offer rich and varied information.

However, the disadvantage of open-ended questions is that their analysis may be a lengthy and laborious process, ending with results which are no more informative than a structured closed-ended question. Another disadvantage is that the response rate for this type of question may be rather low either because respondents are lazy, do not have time, or have literacy problems.

Therefore, it is up to the researcher to judge how many open- and closed- ended questions should be included in a questionnaire (Veal 2011). The questionnaire for the current study was designed with four open-ended questions, namely Q4, Q11, Q12 and Q16.

The questionnaire also included closed-ended questions that provided respondents with a list of answers, requiring them to choose and mark them accordingly. Veal (2011) has suggested that the marking is normally done by ticking the box(es). When the questionnaire was designed for the current study, the researcher asked respondents to mark each box with a cross. Despite this, a few respondents used a tick as opposed to cross to mark the questionnaire. The researcher did not oblige the respondents to put a cross, and the ticks were allowed.

By providing a set of answers to choose from, it was ensured that the respondents had the same set of options to consider. Moreover, Veal (2011) contends that the disadvantages of closed-ended questions are that these may be lengthy, especially for the less literate, and as a result the responses further down the response list can become under-represented. Nevertheless, Saunders et al. (2012) stated that these questions can normally be answered easily and quickly due to a minimum writing required and the answers are fairly simple to compare because the options are pre-set.

The questionnaire was divided in three parts. The first part of the questionnaire was divided into six sections and concerned the respondents’ participation characteristics, the activities performed and their associated religious experiences in the four components of the Festival (the preparation, the journey to and from Ganga Talao, the visit to Ganga Talao and the Char Pahar ki Pooja) and their overall evaluation of participating in the Festival. The design of each section is discussed below:

1. The first section related to the participation characteristics of the respondents during the last Festival. Here, the respondents were asked if they had participated in the Festival (Q1). If they did, they had to keep filling the questionnaire, and if they did not, they were required to move to the last section to answer on their profile. This section included self-coded quantity questions to denote how many years they participated in the Festival between 2010 and 2014 (Q2) and in which year they last participated (Q3). Based on their last year of participation, the respondents were asked an open-ended question on the two most important reasons for participating in the Festival (Q4). Lastly, Q5 was a list question, requiring the respondents to choose with whom they went with the last time they participated in the Festival. This question related to inter-personal authenticity.

Wang (1999) had identified that when family members together go on a trip, their

‘family ties’ are strengthened, making them experience an authentic togetherness.

In the context of the study, the Festival is celebrated not only with family members, but also with friends. Reflecting this, Q5 was a listing question which provided the respondents with a list of options to reflect participation with friends.

2. The second section related to the preparation component of the Festival. This section had a self-coded quantity question, on the number of days the respondents dedicated to their preparation (Q6), as the preparation time for the Festival differs from individual to individual, depending on several factors, for example on the length of fast that one undertook, the building of Kanwar, cleaning of house and so on. Q7 provided the respondents with a list to identify what they did in the lead up to the Festival. This was measured using a nominal scale of ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ to provide data on the proportion of participants who participated in each of the activities they participated in. Q8 used the Likert item rating scale. This is done for collecting opinion data (Saunders et al. 2012), with the responses being able to be quantified (Veal 2011). The questions used a four-point Likert item rating scale, with the options ‘1=Very Important, 2=Important, 3=Less Important, 4=Not Important’, with a last option ‘No View’ being treated in the analyses as a missing value. The option ‘No View’ reflects the responses where the respondents do not know what to answer based on a lack of knowledge (Fowler 2002). For ease of reading, the options for all rating questions were presented in a straight line, as opposed to being presented in a column, because respondents are likely to processes data in this manner (Dillman 2009). Questions on the activities performed by the respondents and the importance questions were also part of the other three components, namely the journey to and from Ganga Talao, the visit to Ganga Talao and the Char Pahar ki Pooja.

3. The third section was concerned with the journey to and from Ganga Talao. It included an open-ended question requiring the respondents to indicate from where they started their journey (Q9) and the reason for choosing their mode of travel (Q11, Q12). Those who travelled by transport were also asked what religious experiences they think they missed out on, had they been walking (Q16). The open-ended questions allowed the respondents to freely give their reasons and/or the augmented religious experiences arising from walking or using other modes of travel and resulting in what they might have lost by not walking, with no influence from the interviewer. Other questions in this section included list questions on how the respondents travelled to the site (Q10), how long it took them to complete their journey (Q13), and the activities they carried out as part of their journey (Q14). Also, a Likert item rating scale was used to determine the importance of the attributes contributing to their religious experiences during the journey to and from Ganga Talao component (Q15).

4. The fourth section related to the respondents’ visit at Ganga Talao. This section used a self-coded quantity question to help determine the respondents’ length of stay at the site during the Festival (Q17). Also, same as the previous sections, it included questions on the activities they performed measured using a nominal scale of ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ (Q18) and the importance questions for their visit to Ganga Talao (Q19).

5. The fifth section dealt with the final component of the Festival, Char Pahar ki Pooja. In this section, the respondents provided responses for whether they attended the Char Pahar ki Pooja (Q20), and how many of the prayers they stayed for out of the four prayers were carried out during the night (Q22). They were also provided with a list of options to choose from relating to where they attended the Char Pahar ki Pooja (Q21) and what activities they did (Q23). For this type of question, it was important to define the answers clearly and meaningfully (Saunders et al. 2012). Keeping in mind that most of the respondents were likely to choose to perform the all-night prayer either at their local temples or at the sacred site, Ganga Talao, the researcher also provided the option ‘other’, in Q21, for those who did not pray at the other two locations. This proved a correct decision as there were some participants who went to pray at another location.

The option ‘other’ therefore allowed the respondent to provide a complete list of answers, with the respondents providing any information which was not included in the set of answers. This section also contained the questions on what activities they carried out during these four-sets of prayers (Q23) and the importance attached to participation in each of the activities (Q24), similar to the other three components of the Festival.

6. The last section was based on the overall evaluation of participating in the last Festival. In this section, a likelihood type rating question was used to examine the outcome of the respondents’ personal feelings that resulted from participating in the Festival (Q25). This question was based on a five-point scale with options ‘(1) Not at all, (2) A little, (3) Moderately, (4) Quite a bit and (5) Entirely’. Next, a five-point semantic differential scale was used to measure their emotions. Each bipolar scale was defined by opposing emotions, for example ‘I felt happy’

opposing ‘I felt sad’. The two opposing emotions were separated by a five-point scale to allow the respondents to reflect their most likely emotions when participating in the Festival. The last three questions in this section (Q27, Q28, Q29), were based on a four-point Likert item rating scale, as discussed above.

The second part of the questionnaire explored the level of agreement with reasons for taking part in the Festival, the respondents’ existential attitudes towards the authentic character of the Festival and site and the potential implications of commoditisation, resulting from a significant increase in the number of tourists, of the Festival and site:

1. In dealing with the respondents’ attitudes towards the extent to which they agreed or disagreed on the reasons why it was important to take part in the Festival (Q30), a four-point Likert item scale, with ‘1=Strongly Agree, 2=Agree, 3=Disagree, 4=Strongly Disagree’, was used. Q31 asked the respondents to rate how important each of the items in a list of fifteen statements were to their view of the authentic character of the Festival during their last participation. A four-point Likert item rating scale was used with ‘1=Very Important, 2=Important, 3=Less Important and 4=Not Important’. This question helped to assess (a) which features of the Festival were perceived as important in bringing about their existential authenticity and (b) which activities needed to be preserved if commoditisation of the site and Festival were to take place.

2. The section concluded with three sets of questions (Q32, Q33 and Q34) to assess the respondents’ attitudes towards the commoditisation of the Festival and its site.

These were based on the level of agreement, using a four-point Likert item rating scale, on the stated outcomes in the likely event of a significant increase in the number of tourist for the Festival.

The third part of the questionnaire sought to establish the profile of respondents, looking at their demographics and psychographics. It consisted of a mixture of different types of questions set to assess who filled the questionnaires. For instance, Q38, Q40, Q41, Q44 and Q45 were based on list questions, Q35, Q39 and Q43 were measured using nominal scale and Q42 and Q46 were self-coded quantity questions. These questions allowed the respondents to provide the answers that best

suited their profile and personal information. These questions were put in the last section of the questionnaire, as suggested by Oppenheim (1992).