Método para la validación de la propuesta

A research paradigm is characterised by a research stance (deductive / inductive), a research strategy and is associated with particular methods of data collection and data analysis. There are two basic research strategies in the field of social science:

quantitative and qualitative. Apart from the fact that quantitative strategy involves collection and analysis of numerical data which a qualitative strategy does not, there are other important differences which can have substantial implications when a particular strategy is chosen over another (Bryman 2004; Bryman 1988). Further, it has been argued that an important feature of paradigms (quantitative and qualitative research strategies are often considered as paradigms (Bryman 2004, Fielding and Fielding 2008)) is that they are incommensurable – that is, they are inconsistent with each other because of their divergent assumptions and methods. However, Bryman (2004) warns against hammering a wedge between them too deeply. This is because in practice, he states, there are examples of studies in which qualitative research has been employed to test rather than generate theories and vice versa. He further states that many authors recommend combining the two research strategies (multi-strategy research) as, it is thought that combining the two research strategies may allow them to capitalise on the strengths and offset the weaknesses of both strategies. Further, multi-strategy research facilitates ‘triangulation’ which entails the use of quantitative research to corroborate qualitative research findings or vice versa. In this study, quantitative data is used to inform the qualitative study and to support its findings, where possible.

The idea behind triangulation is that data produced through applying different methods can be compared in order to confirm or disconfirm each other’s results (Barbour 2008).

In addition to corroborating the findings, triangulation also enhances the validity of the findings where each method is associated with compatible ontological and epistemological perspectives (Blaikie 1991 cited in Fielding and Fielding 2008) and scope and depth of understanding (Fielding and Fielding 1986, Denzin and Lincoln 2000, and Fielding and Schreier 2001 cited in Fielding and Fielding 2008), and hence the rigour of the research (Fielding and Fielding 2008). Further, according to Hammersely (1996 cited in Bryman 2004) it can also be employed in a

‘complementary’ order so that different aspects of an investigation can be dovetailed.

Fielding and Fielding (2008) further describe that triangulation can use multiple methods, data sources, investigators, and methodological and theoretical frameworks;

and that methodological triangulation has two variants: ‘within-method’ where the same method is used on different occasions and ‘between-method’ where different methods are applied to the same subject. This research belongs to the ‘between-method’ variant.

They further argue that triangulation prompts in researchers a more critical stance towards their data and that it enables qualitative researchers to adopt the stance often characteristic of the quantitative researcher, for whom conclusions are always ‘on test’

and whose relationships to the data is not uncritical ‘immersion’ but measured detachment. They argue that the value of triangulation lies more in ‘quality control’

than any guarantee of validity and that triangulation promotes more complex research designs that oblige researchers to be more clear about what relationships they seek to study, what they will take as indicators of these relationships and so on. Finally, they argue that our knowledge about the objective truth is always partial and incomplete and a fuller understanding is gained - although not necessarily more objective or more valid than when gained using only one research method - by tackling the research question in several ways; and that expanding the sources of knowledge on which we can draw by using different methods and approaches we can make it less partial and incomplete.

From the above, it was realised that a multi-strategy or multi-method research would be useful in more than one way. Of particular importance were the strong points of the individual research strategies. A quantitative research strategy is associated with ‘hard’

and ‘reliable’ data which can be subjected to the criteria in social research – reliability, replication, validity and trustworthiness (Bryman 2004). Further, as there is virtually no contact of the researcher with the subjects, the findings have virtually no influence of the researcher. On the other hand, a qualitative research strategy is associated with

‘rich’ and ‘deep’ data and there is considerable contact of the researcher with the subjects. This research strategy, thus, facilitates exploring various aspects of a research question by looking at the research question from the ‘eyes of the subject’ and is particularly associated with generating a theory and as such with the inductive stance which this research has adopted.

Given the inductive stance of the research and the interpretivist / constructionist

normally associated with a qualitative research strategy, the choice of the qualitative research strategy was obvious and it was expected that it would yield ‘rich’ and ‘deep’

data. The research used one-to-one interviews and focus group discussions for supporting the qualitative research strategy. While one-to-one interviews are generally known to be better suited to eliciting detailed contextualised histories, focus groups are known to be useful when it comes to investigating why participants think as they do.

Thus, focus groups are known to have the capacity to reflect issues and concerns salient to participants rather than closely following the researcher’s agenda. This means that the resulting data can yield surprises (Barbour 2008).

Furthermore, as with the quantitative / qualitative research strategies, despite generally being positioned on opposite sides of the positivist-interpretivist / constructionist divide, several researchers have argued that focus groups and surveys are useful complementary methods and should not be seen as mutually exclusive approaches (Barbour 2008). Barbour (2008) also states that there are examples of mixed methods approaches that used focus groups following the quantitative phase of research to illuminate results, that is, to transform these into ‘findings’ by furnishing explanations, particularly with regard to surprising or anomalous associations identified in the first part (quantitative) of the study. This was certainly the case in this research, as will be explained in Chapter 8.

However, initial attempts to gather qualitative data by conducting focus group discussions, as detailed in section 4.7.2 were not satisfactorily successful. While these data gathering efforts were ongoing, during a meeting with the Stirling Council in relation to this research a possibility of collecting data with their help was discussed.

Stirling Council suggested a postal survey in addition to focus group discussions.

Therefore, a questionnaire was designed for collecting data using the postal survey method. There are several benefits of using this method as Bryman (2004) argues:

postal questionnaires are cheaper and quicker to administer, they eliminate the effect of the researcher on the researched people or subjects, are convenient for both the researcher and the subjects, the questions are presented to the subjects in a consistent manner and most importantly they generate large volumes of hard and reliable data.

Section 4.5 provides further details on how the postal questionnaire was designed and

normally associated with testing of theories rather than generating theories, thus, was used in this research to facilitate an inductive stance.

Thus, in addition to the benefits to the research pertaining to the strengths of the individual research strategies and the associated research methods, combining these for this research was expected to facilitate corroboration of the findings (‘triangulation’). It was also anticipated that the research methods could have specific findings associated with them individually and that these findings could complement each other.

As listed in section 4.4, six agencies were chosen for investigation and to elicit etic perspective in relation to the various aspects of communicating flood risk to the communities living in areas identified by them and the media they used for such communication. The aspects under investigation included their current and future efforts and their understanding of flood risk communication – their professional mindset as an agency responsible for effective flood risk communication to the communities living in areas identified to be at risk of flooding as identified by them. Although it was possible to send out a questionnaire by email or by post, it was thought useful to interview the officers of the agencies. The main reason behind this thinking was to carry out the investigation with due understanding of the perspectives of the agencies – details of which were not available in the literature review. Further, conducting an interview with one officer from each of the identified agencies was thought to be manageable during the research due to their small number. Therefore, interviews were conducted to collect data from the identified agencies. Accordingly, tailored interview guides were prepared for interviewing the agencies and are detailed further in section 4.8. The findings from the interviews were intended to compare and contrast with those derived from the data collected through postal surveys, interviews and focus group discussions which constitute the emic perspective of the communities living in flood risk areas as identified by these agencies.

The details of the data collection exercise are presented below in sections 4.5 to 4.8. In particular section 4.5 details the postal survey exercise including design of a preliminary postal questionnaire, conducting pilot survey and finalising the questionnaire in view of the suggestions and comments received, posting the questionnaire and recording the

Sections 4.6 and 4.7 present details of the one-to-one interviews and focus group discussions of the communities identified by the agencies to be living in areas at risk of flooding. These sections also present the design of the interview and focus group discussion guides which were formulated to elicit emic perspective of flood risk;

utilised later for comparing and contrasting with the etic perspective to generate findings and draw conclusions in order to fulfil the aim of the research which envisages bridging any gaps in these perspectives.