main objectives of the study, i.e., is there any perception of difference between segments of
174
users (academics) towards acceptance of Internet technology on the basis of their individual cultural characteristics (masculinity-femininity, individualism-collectivism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance)? Recall the discussion in chapter 3, where it was proposed that models and theories within technology acceptance domain are mostly culturally biased, and need to be generalised within the specific context of culture. In addition, it was discussed that, within developing countries, most decisions to introduce new technologies are made by higher authorities without considering the concerns of end-users. Therefore, overcoming both problems of cultural bias and the influence of management support, four dimensions of culture suggested by Hofstede (1980) i.e., power distance (PD), individualism/collectivism (IC), uncertainty avoidance (UA), and masculinity/femininity (MF); and two constructs of management influence at a higher and lower level i.e., government support (GS) and institute support (IS) suggested by Lewis et al., (2003), are examined in the present study. Section C is divided into three sub-parts, in which two are measured on seven-point Likert scales anchored as 1=strongly disagree to 7=strongly agree. The third part, which consists of information related to the e-Reforms, is measured on a nominal scale.
Section C, part I includes 21 questions related to four cultural dimensions i.e., PD, IC, UA and MF. All the questions measuring cultural dimensions are proposed by Hofstede (1980) and are measured on Dorfman & Howell's (1988) scale. The reasoning behind this is plausible in that the scale proposed by Hofstede (1980) would be applicable when the study aims to examine the cultural differences at a country level (i.e., cross-cultural), whereas the present study only requires the exploration of the differences on an individual level. Additionally, the adoption of the Dorfman & Howell (1988) scale is based on the suggestion of McCoy, Everard & Jones (2005), who postulated that when cultural dimensions are to be explored at an individual level, then the Dorman & Howell scale is the best option. In doing so, the first six questions (62 to 67) are related to the construct PD to measure academics’ experience of freedom to talk in the work environment (e.g., sharing problems, decision-making, etc. with the heads and chairs of organisations). The next six questions (68 to 73) are related to the construct IC to measure academics’
perceptions about him/her and the group of people in the working environment. The next four questions (74 to 77) are related to the construct UA that measures academics’
perceptions about their certainty in the job when observing rules and regulations. Finally, the last five questions (78 to 82) are related to the construct MF that measures academics’
perceptions about job goals, earning, recognition at work, advancement in work position,
175
and accepting challenging tasks, and establishing working relationships with colleagues and supervisors to promote the family environment. A number of researchers in previous literature has also examined the impact of culture (McCoy, Everard & Jones, 2005;
McCoy, Galletta & King, 2007; Robertson & Hoffman, 2000; Robertson, 2000; Srite, 2006; Srite & Karahanna, 2006; Hwang, 2005; Choi & Geistfeld, 2004; Parboteeah, Bronson & Cullen, 2005; Alsajjan & Dennis, 2010). However, most were limited to measuring differences at a country level score. In the present study, measuring constructs PD, IC, UA and MAS helps to examine the moderating path relations presented in hypotheses H15 (a,b,c,d), H16 (a,b,c,d), H17 (a,b,c,d) and H18 (a,b,c,d).
Section C, part II includes ten questions related to management support for promoting Internet usage within academics working in higher educational institutes. All the questions are adopted from the study of Lewis et al., (2003) with little moderation according to the context of the study. The first five questions (83 to 87) are related to the construct government support (GS) to measure the academic perception of government policies, encouragement and their importance for Internet usage within universities. The next five questions (88 to 92) are related to the construct institute support (IS). The questions measuring GS are similar to IS except for difference of context, to see the influence of management at a high and low level. The importance of management support is also highlighted in previous studies e.g., Igbaria & Chakrabarti (1990) and Yoon, Guimaraes &
O'Neal (1995). Measuring GS and IS helps to examine the path relations in hypotheses H11a, H11b, H12a, and H12b.
Finally, section C, part III includes five questions (93 to 98) that explore general information about the awareness of academics regarding the programmes initiated by the government to promote teaching and research skills. All the questions are measured on a nominal scale to observe the awareness of programmes launched by the Pakistan Higher Education Commission (HEC) under the umbrella of ‘e-Reforms’. These include: Pakistan Education and Resource Network (PERN), digital library, Pakistan Research Repository (PRR), e-learning, Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP), Campus Management Solution (CMS), IT infrastructure upgrade, and broadband facility (HEC PAK, 2009). Within the conceptual framework questions in section C, part III do not represent any path relationship; however, the information collected from the question enables the evaluation of the current infrastructure and its usage within academics’ work practices.
176
Type of university Researcher Four Nominal H13c1: (BI, PU, TF, RF, SE, IS, GS)BU H13c2: (SN, PEOU, IS, GS)PU
H13c3: ( PU, PEOU, TF, RF, SE, AT, NAT, SN)BI
H13c4: SNPEOU Province Researcher Four Nominal Geographical information Behavioural beliefs
Technology (Taylor & Todd, Four 7-point H7a: TFBI & H7b: TFBU
177
Academic(AT) Researcher Six 7-point Likert Use of digital library Researcher One Nominal General information Use of PRR Researcher Two Nominal General information Participation in
e-learning
Researcher One Nominal
General information Table 4. 6: Operationalisation of research variables
178 4.6.5. Questionnaire wording and layout
The wording and layout of a questionnaire plays an important role in enhancing a respondent’s interest up until the end of the questionnaire. Sekaran (2000) suggested five principles of wording in questionnaire design: 1) appropriateness of content, 2) question wording and level of language sophistication, 3) type and form of question, 4) sequencing of questions, and 5) personal data sought from the respondents.
The content of the questions in the present study mostly intend to explore the objective feelings of academics which is measured using Nominal and Likert scale techniques.
Questions are asked in simple and easy language without using phrases or technical terms related to information technology. In addition, all the questions are worded into positive sentences of short length, so that respondents feel able to complete them without concentrating on the form of the question.
The type and form of the questionnaire, which is also referred to as the ‘phrasing’ of the question, is mostly categorised as either open-ended or closed-ended questions/fixed-alternative (Zikmund, 2003). Open-ended questions fit well when the research is exploratory so that respondents can freely describe their opinions; closed-ended questions are best suited for explanatory or causal studies. Keeping in mind the nature of the present study, the close-ended questionnaire phrasing is selected, which gives the advantage of taking less time to complete and is easier for the respondent to answer. In addition, applying closed-ended questions enables the researcher to code and tabulate them easily for quantitative data analysis purposes (Zikmund, 2003; Sekaran, 2000). Apart from the wording of questions, the researcher has also carefully examined the impact of bias from questions through avoiding ambiguity or leading responses.
From the layout or appearance point of view, a number of researchers have proposed mixed suggestions. Sekaran (2000) suggested that personal information either be kept at the start or the end of the instrument depending upon the aim of the research. Dillman (2000) suggested that personal information questions should not be at the start of the instrument because they are easy to answer and lead respondents to believe that the instrument is boring. In the present study, personal and demographic information is of equal importance to the main constructs of the research (examining moderation effect), therefore, in designing the layout the researcher has kept demographic information at the start of the instrument. One potential threat in the present layout of the instrument (see appendix B) could be its length (98 items). It might be possible that information at the end
179
of the instrument may be left incomplete or be less interesting to the respondents.
Overcoming this problem and ensuring that there is no difference between respondents’
initial answers and later responses, a Mann-Whitney-U-test will be computed during the pilot study. In the case that a difference is observed, then three layouts of the instrument would be developed. In the first layout sections A, B and C will be similar to the present layout, as given in the appendix, while in the second layout the sequence will be A, C, B;
finally in the third layout the sequence will be C, A, B. The final decision will be made after piloting the initial version of the instrument.