Relación entre comunicación transversal y valores institucionales

According to Collins and Hussey (2009) survey is a method for collecting data in which a sample of respondents are asked a list of carefully structured questions chosen after considerable testing with a view of eliciting reliable responses.

Survey method was used in the research design in order to measure consumer satisfaction with the case studies. By doing that it was possible to confirm the factors identified as essential for sustainability. Structured questionnaire were used in a survey because they are efficient in gathering views from a large number of participants (Sun and Meng, 2009). Surveys are an old methodology for conducting research and they are capable of presenting a precise map or precise measurement of potential. According to Sapsford (1999) they are a detailed and quantifiable description of a population. Surveys have the capability of generalization which is an attribute of a framework that is intended to be developed in the current research. The idea is by using this framework one should be assured of increased consumer satisfaction and presumably more loyalty and positive behaviour for sustainability of rural water supply.

Surveys are usually administered through a questionnaire and ably handle both open ended and closed loop questions. Gray (2004) says that descriptive surveys that use open ended questions have a capability of ascertaining attitudes, values and opinions whilst analytical surveys have the capacity to test a theory or approve a conceptual map by identifying the relationship between variables. They can be generalized in other contexts. The current research intends to identify a statistical relationship between input variables and consumer satisfaction; and ultimately understand how consumer satisfaction will impact sustainability.

101

Generalization of results is critical in the current research, as it intend to provide a solution to a global concern or issue and surveys capacity to generalize the findings makes it appropriate for the current research.

Quantitative data were collected through a survey, a choice that stemmed from the efficiency and prevalence of this data collection tool for learning about people and their behaviours (Bradburn and Sudman, 2004; Dillman, et al. 2009). With regard to the survey mode, participants were interviewed by research assistants who were carefully selected and trained. The main aim of the questionnaire’s development process was to be easy for the respondents to understand. As Feilzer (2010, p. 11) highlights; “The implicit expectation is that survey respondents should comprehend the questions in the same way as the researcher does.” Any unclear terminology is likely to produce biased estimates, thus, affecting a study’s findings (Fowler, 1992). For this reason the questionnaire was kept simple and short, providing clear instructions and asking clear and short questions to eliminate any ambiguities (Brace, 2013).

The questionnaire consisted of four A4 pages. Questionnaires with an upper limit of four pages have been found to increase response rates (e.g. Yammarino, Skinner, and Childers, 1991). A short introduction informed the participants about who was conducting the survey and its topic. The main body of the questionnaire consisted of two sections: demographics and satisfaction measures on a Likert scale. The statement thanking participants for taking part in the survey was at the very end. This is a common questionnaire sequence, according to which, the researcher commences with unthreatening factual questions, moves to closed questions, and then to more open-ended questions (Cohen et al., 2011; Brace, 2013). Moreover, both the qualitative and quantitative phase questions had the general aim to capture information that could potentially facilitate the integration of data obtained from the surveys and semi-structured interviews, respectively, during the discussion stage of the results.

In order to check the appropriateness of the questionnaire in the specific context of the current research, a pre-test was conducted. Pretesting is an essential process in order to identify questions that are ambiguous or difficult for respondents to understand and to gain feedback about structural aspects of the questionnaire (e.g. instructions, layout, attractiveness, length, questions’ format and so forth) (Reynolds and Diamantopoulos, 1998; Krosnick, 1991; Cohen, Manion, and Morrison, 2011).

The questionnaire was pre-tested among both experts and non-experts, namely, two water monitoring assistants, and five members of a rural community, who shared similar demographic characteristics with the research sample. The choice of participants was

102

based on the need for experts’ input, as they were more likely to identify errors in the questionnaire (Diamantopoulos et al., 1994), and simultaneously on the premise that the pre-test should use respondents similar to those of the target population to screen items for appropriateness (Hair et al., 2010, p. 655). The water monitoring assistants in particular, mixed expertise on the topic and shared characteristics with communities (e.g. they were integral parts of their communities). Face-to-face survey was used to conduct the pre-test. It has been found that such a personal approach to pre-testing is more likely to result in errors being detected than the impersonal administration (Reynolds and Diamantopoulos, 1998).

While the questionnaire was developed carefully in order to eliminate ambiguities and to be easy for respondents to complete, the pre-test results showed that issues with regard to wording and layout existed. More specifically, there was a consensus among all the participants in the pre-test survey that the wording in specific questions might be difficult for the target population to understand. As such, the language was carefully amended and kept as simple and straight forward as possible (Clark and Watson, 1995).

Considering the use of existing measures, and the conduct of pre-tests, the absence of a pilot study was not expected to affect the survey’s validity and reliability. In addition, and given the relatively small total sample, the pre-test served as a proxy for a pilot study. In summary the current methodological approach is pragmatic using a mixed approach strategy. Both quantitative and qualitative approaches are used depending on context. Survey, one to one interviews and focus group discussion were used. In order successfully roll out the strategy the researcher expounds on the qualitative approach and bring on board ten research case studies (water point/borehole cases) that were used during the research data collection. The researcher general methodological approach is going to take the shape below.

103 Source: Author

Figure 9 above presents the methodological approach of this research in terms of what constituted the quantitative methods and what constituted the qualitative approach. The quantitative method adopted use of survey for collection of data whilst the qualitative method adopted use of a multiple case study and key informant interviews. In addition face to face interviews and focus group discussions were used to collect data from the multiple case study.