Secuenciación de la excursión Diario de nuestra salida 29.

Research methodologies are known to be either quantitative or qualitative, and used for different purposes:

a) quantitative research

- applying measurement to data of all kinds (Hall, 2008, p. 221); and

b) qualitative research

- applying interpretation to data of all kinds (Hall, 2008, p. 254).

The various research methods (Hall, 2008) use different forms of data collection instruments and procedures. Surveys can be cross-sectional, to collect data at a single point in time from a target sample, or longitudinal, repeatedly collecting data at intervals within a timeframe. Experimental methods use two groups for comparison: a treatment group,operating under certain criteria, and a control group,which do not.

Case studies and field research methods are related, by making observations within a true-life context; the latter include observational methods of ethnography.

According to Yin (Yin, 2002, 2004) cited in (Hall, 2008, p.107-110), case studies are more extensive than field research methods, as they involve multiple data collection sources, both quantitative and qualitative (interviews, observation, record analysis etc.), within the natural context of present or recent true-life events. Field research

also involves observation of people in their natural setting, foremost in anthropology, yet case studies produce multiple outcomes through their design (Hall, 2008, p.110- 113).

The rationale for choosing a survey over other research methods (Bould, 2009), is the following: it was considered important by the researcher to both compare quantitative data with an international survey (Azapagic et al., 2005), as well as to interpret

qualitative data within the survey, the latter being to ascertain sustainable values and motivation towards sustainable entrepreneurship. As a replication of the survey

108

questionnaire by Azapagic et al, 2005, was necessary for comparison, a cross-sectional survey was the most appropriate research methodology, with a questionnaire as the data collection procedure.

According to Hall, 2008, the advantages of using a survey rather than experimental methods, are that a far greater range of topics can be dealt with, which have a closer connection to reality. Hall discussed survey limitations as lacking the richness of context, not being able to show cause and effect relationships, and the self-reporting nature of information from the participants. It was the intention of this research to extend the range of topics covered in the questionnaire (quantitative data), as a reflection of the extensive nature of the literature review, and to include open-ended questions (qualitative data).

The previous survey conducted by Azapagic et al in 2005, has since been numerously cited in the literature in peer reviewed academic papers, and therefore was a successful and credible source for comparison. Also, the Azapagic survey was executed within a period of October 2000 to June 2002, and showed that there were substantial gaps of knowledge in SD/SPD of engineering students at that time. It was important to extend the survey to New Zealand industrial design and engineering students, as not previously included within international surveys.

Also, it was important to investigate the levels of current SD/SPD knowledge and awareness of students from these disciplines in New Zealand, to measure whether any progress had been made since the timing of the Azapagic survey. The target audience was therefore final year students in industrial design and engineering in New Zealand.

109

Quantitative Data within the Survey – to measure against previous Data

Within the survey, there was a majority of quantitative data gathered, see Appendix F.

The data provided a current insight into the levels of awareness and knowledge of sustainability issues of New Zealand final year industrial design and engineering students. The results can be directly measured against knowledge levels of international students, and identified areas where survey results are significantly different to each other in a statistical sense, see 4.3. This was enabled through a replication of survey questions from an earlier survey (Azapagic et al., 2005), with extended questions by this author on topics not previously covered in prior research.

Qualitative Data within the Survey – to interpret the Data

Qualitative data was gained within the survey via a number of open-ended questions. Industrial design and engineering students were asked to give their own understanding

of sustainable design. This linked to previous research conducted by Ramirez of design academic staff, first in Australia and then worldwide (Ramirez, 2006, 2007), and Humphries-Smith of design and engineering academic staff and students at Bournemouth University, UK (Humphries-Smith, 2008). The survey of this research equally investigated student ratings of the importance of SD, as per Azapagic et al (Azapagic et al., 2005). Finally, it examined whether any sources had especially inspired and motivated students towards SD/SPD. The information gained was open to interpretation by the author of this research. This would give an indication of students’ internal values, motives and holistic comprehension of sustainable design that could not be achieved through topical questioning.

Purpose of the Survey

The purpose of the survey was therefore to both compare quantitative data (against an international study) and interpret qualitative data (of open-ended questions). The survey was voluntary and anonymous, with participating final year industrial design, product design, mechanical and mechatronics students as a group. Individual results (from disciplines, majors and/or TEOs) would NOT be compared against each other, as that was not in the interest of the holistic and multidisciplinary nature of this thesis.

110