The strategy associated with quantitative research tends to be more regulatory and doctrinaire than the flexibility associated with more qualitative methods, a feature noted by Wiersma and Jurs (2005) [215]. An ambiguous disparity appears to exist between qualitative and quantitative research, according to Bryman (2004) [207] ; despite the fact that they are at opposite ends of the spectrum, complementary factors exist between the realms of qualitative and quantitative research. Ideally, research methods should be varied according to the information that the researcher is attempting to establish (Silverman, 2001: 25) [211] . This is precisely what the researcher attempted to do when analysing the data in this thesis – the current study uses both qualitative and quantitative techniques to analyse the data.
People‘s language and behaviour are a prime feature of obtaining qualitative information, according to Maykut and Morehouse (1994) [212]. This comprises surveillance of participants‘ demeanour and activities, comprehensive colloquia, cohort interviews, and collating of germane records. The current study uses these ‗tools‘ to carry out initial pilot studies, observing the participants and conducting interviews in order to finalise a survey that is relevant and structured and that measures what the researchers intends. Quantitative methods were then used to analyse various aspects of the qualitative data.
3.13 Validity and Reliability:
In experimental sciences, reliability is the extent to which the measurements of a test remain consistent over repeated tests of the same subject under identical conditions. An experiment is reliable if it yields consistent results of the same measure. It is unreliable if repeated measurements give different results. Reliability does not, however, imply
validity. That is, a reliable measure is measuring something consistently, but not necessarily what it is supposed to be measuring. According to Ary et al. (2006) [208] and Bryman (2004) [207] , the key condition of research is validity. Validity, according to Bryman, is ―concerned with the integrity of the conclusions that are generated from a piece of research‖ (28). For example, while there are many reliable tests of specific abilities, not all of them would be valid for predicting, intelligence per se. In terms of accuracy and precision, reliability is precision, while validity is accuracy.
The kind of validity evidence most apparent is that which is derived from content. Achieving this is possible through enlisting some colleagues "who are familiar with the purpose of the survey to examine the items to judge whether they are appropriate for measuring what they are supposed to measure" (P: 440), as well as whether ―they are a representative sample of the behaviour domain under investigation" [208]. For this reason, four people who were familiar with the purpose of the survey were asked to give their professional opinions on the system in order that improvements may be made and the study be altered accordingly.
According to the definition of Krueger (1994) [216] & Fowler (2002:88) [206] , validity is ―The extent to which the answer given is a true measure and means what the researcher wants or expects it to mean‖. In this respect, face validity can be accomplished providing an agreement exists between the researchers that a notion‘s operational indicators are sound. Such elements as knowledge or ability tests; or questionnaire statements can be indicators (Bernard 2000) [217] . Therefore, building from Bernard‘s argument, to verify and attain this validity, the survey was distributed to a number of researchers to verify and study its statements (as explained above). As argued by Davis (2002) [218] , researchers and professionals exhibiting specialist judgment enables the attainment of validity throughout the course of devising a questionnaire. As such, specialist judgment in this study increased the face validity of the survey as issues with respect to format, language and comprehensibility of instructions were identified, enabling required improvement and minimising undesired mistakes in the fulfilment of the survey. In addition, a pilot study was conducted to further address these points supporting the validity of the final study.
According to Ary et al. (2006) [208] , if the participants‘ behaviour and responses are observed to correspond, the evidence for the research method‘s validity is strengthened and reinforced. Participants were indeed observed during the pilot study in order to achieve this, further strengthening the validity.
There are two key variables that affect the validity, according to Ary et al.(2006) [208] : 1- The importance of the topic to the respondent: Participants that value the topic and are given information about it will provide more valid answers.
2- The level of anonymity for the respondent: Allowing the participants to maintain anonymity will achieve a higher level trust.
Both of these points were addressed in the current study in order to ensure the validity. Among the strongest factors in the consideration of whether a measure is reliable is the internal reliability. According to Bryman (2004: 71) [207] , internal reliability is related to whether ―the indicators that make up the scale or index are consistent; in other words, whether respondents‘ scores on any indicator tend to be related to their scores on the other indicators‖. This was addressed in the pilot study by asking certain questions throughout the survey and examining the consistency in the responses in order to assess the reliability of it.
For the semi-structured and focus group interviews, their reliability and validity were ensured through establishing an agreement with my supervisors on interview questions that were reliable, thus guaranteeing the credibility. Ensuring reliability was further supported by the iterative form of the interviews.
The risks to reliability and validity can be minimised by using certain approaches: - A comprehensive array of research steps ought to be employed; - Research questions should be chosen prudently;
- Considered sampling and choice of participants, events and schedule; - The participants of interviews ought to be allowed to express themselves
freely without inhibition of what they have in mind;
- An amicable and open atmosphere should be provided by each interview and case study;
Each of these approaches were put into practice by the researcher in the current research methodology. Furthermore, a course of pilot studies assisted to verify and examine the reliability and validity of the survey, meaning that the survey statements ought to have achieved the intended measurements.