a) i) Look at the conference website for evidence of use: e.g. is there a forum where people can post feedback/ideas? Is there evidence of increasing numbers attending the conference (which may give an indication of level of interest)
ii) Search for press coverage of this and similar events- newspaper, magazine and journal websites
iii) Search exhibitors’ sites to see if there is reference to the conference and its impact (e.g. do sites indicate increasing use of their services by local authorities?)
iv) Search local authority sites for coverage of the conference and reference to any changes which have resulted
v) Search blogs or social media accounts linked to the range of services covered by the conference: is there mention of the conference or action taken as a result?
Overarching ethical issues: Researchers must not gather and use any personal identifiable data found as a result of the search (e.g. naming individuals who have participated in a forum or via other social media)
b) Research design:
Any suggested design should be supported by an explanation of its suitability. If you mention the background/exploratory options you must also mention descriptive/conclusive option - the client's research objectives are unlikely to be achieved with exploratory research only.
Background/exploratory research - to help clarify and understand the key issues, the language used, the wider context - qualitative in-depth interviews with conference organizers, contributors to previous conferences, journalists specializing in youth employment features, perhaps influencers such as politicians or pressure groups focusing on youth employment; representatives from the department which funds the conference
Main research – probably a quantitative survey in order to provide conclusive evidence about the effectiveness of the conference. Three populations may be surveyed:
Sampling: Population
(1) representatives who have attended the conference, including:
o those who have contributed to conferences, to find out if they can identify any link between their attendance at the event and changes in the services offered – e.g. do they know of others who have taken up their ideas?
o those who have not contributed – to find out if new ideas from conferences have been adopted or have influenced changes in their areas
(2) representatives of organizations who have not attended the conference: are they aware of the conference? Can they see evidence of ideas being brought back into the workplace?
(3) exhibitors, including:
o organizations which exhibit at the conferences – to find out if they can identify any link between the conferences and the volume of work they do with those involved in Step Forward
o organizations who work with Step Forward but who don’t exhibit: do they attend? Can they see any links between their business and the conference?
The conference attendance database is a possible sample frame for researching attendees. Use the organizers to help identify a source of a possible sample of non-attendees.
Sampling: Approach
You should identify how you would select the sample from each of the populations. For example you can chose simple random sampling (using the database as a frame) or quota, or you may vary the approach depending on the group being sampled. Whichever approach(es) chosen, clear and convincing rationale should be given for their selection. Identify sample size as a key factor of doing this survey. Appropriate justification should be given of any sample size suggested.
Data collection methods:
If you mention the qualitative option you must also mention a quantitative option - the client's research objectives are unlikely to be achieved with a qualitative approach only. Each suggestion should be supported by a rationale:
Qualitative in depth interviews - to gain greater understanding of the issues involved and to help with questionnaire design
Telephone survey - may be the most appropriate way of contacting the target population - busy organizations and probably geographically diverse. Ability to reach widely dispersed target population. Contact details likely to be easily available - from the database and from the organization’s website. Response rates likely to be reasonable. Good quality control possible - face to face briefings at central telephone research unit, monitoring of interviews etc
Email survey/web-based may also be feasible - good for reaching widely dispersed sample, contact details available as above but response rates tend to be lower than for telephone survey. No control over who fills it in etc.
Additional marks may be given if candidates consider how using DIFFERENT data collection methods (for different respondent categories) may have benefits/drawbacks. Also, additional marks may be given if candidates mention budget or time constraints.
c) Approaches and limitations may include some/all of the following:
General Advantage: would allow opportunity to gather early and fresh feedback on the event itself.
Key limitation overall: Attendees at the conference are likely to be biased towards those who are aware of its possibilities and are likely to be positively disposed to it, so the sample may not be representative of the wider target population for the event.
Ethical issue: Client would need to be made aware of the limitations of this type of sample.
Conference provides a captive audience, many of whose members fall into the target population for the research and who might otherwise be difficult (and expensive) to contact but who may be prepared to give up some time to take part in research. If data collection not feasible could take names and ask if they mind being contacted for interview at later date.
Ethical issue: depending on venue, it may be necessary to inform the venue managers that research is being carried out on the premises.
Qualitative mini depth interviews (about 20-30 minutes) with key respondents/opinion formers – senior managers; journalists; contributors.
Limitation: May be difficult to encourage respondents to take part. Interviews may need to be pre-arranged. Suitable on-site venues/locations for interviews would be required.
Ethical issue: A suitable on-site venue must allow the information to be gathered confidentially and in a way which maintains the anonymity of the respondent. Therefore a private area would be necessary. Need to ensure that data is recorded in line with MRS Code
– e.g. permission sought to record verbatim responses; sign off sheet, showing informed consent to the interview.
Short (5-10 minutes) face to face quantitative interviews in the exhibition hall. Ability to reach a reasonably large sample in a short space of time and cost effective.
Limitation: Some attendees may not be well disposed to being interviewed. Interviews may need to be pre-arranged in order to fit in with the schedule for the conference, bearing in mind that it contains workshop activities. Not all those present will belong to the target population. Sample achieved may not be representative of target population.
Ethical issue: Need for clear briefing of field force to ensure that data is collected and recorded in line with MRS Code.
Self-completion questionnaires on chairs in workshops and seminars/CAPI/CAWI Stations.
Allows large numbers to be consulted and give a view if they wish to. Can be filled in later using respondent’s own time and allowing for more considered opinion, and returned later rather on the day of the exhibition itself.
Limitation: Questionnaires need to be short, well laid out etc to encourage audience to fill t hem in and return them. Response rate may be low. Not all members of the audience will belong to the target population. Sample achieved may not be representative of target population. No control over who fills them in. Many distractions - setting not conducive to data collection.
Ethical issues: Questionnaires would need to provide enough information about how the data collected was going to be used.
Use of handheld devices to provide ‘instant’ feedback to questions posed after each paper. Limitation: no ability to probe responses given or to capture information about the respondent)
Ethical issue: Need to ensure that the questions being asked provide a full range of options, allowing participants to provide truthful answers. There can be a tendency to opt for Yes/No type questions, with no room for ‘Don’t know’ or other responses.
Use of new technology to monitor and analyses ‘blogs’ and feedback reported via ‘Twitter’ (or other online social networking sites) by delegates.
Limitation: not necessarily representative of target population.
Ethical issues: Need to ensure that personal data is not collected/used without consent; if the researcher wants to prompt interaction, needs to make sure that others know that s/he is there in research capacity.
Kavungya answered the question on May 13, 2021 at 12:11