Cash or Card: Consumer Perceptions of Payment Modes - Scholarly ...
Cash or Card: Consumer Perceptions of Payment Modes - Scholarly ...
Cash or Card: Consumer Perceptions of Payment Modes - Scholarly ...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
4.4.2: Participant Selection<br />
There are no guidelines as to the number <strong>of</strong> focus groups that should be used in a research<br />
project. The average Focus Group project consists <strong>of</strong> 4 to 6 groups, with some smaller<br />
projects holding only 2 <strong>or</strong> 3 groups and larger projects having as many as 10 to 15. Ritchie<br />
and Lewis (2003) advise that 4-8 would suffice. There is consensus that between 6-10 people<br />
per group is acceptable (Patton, 2002). Fifty six women volunteered, however the final<br />
participation number was thirty-one.<br />
4.4.3: Data Collection and Analysis<br />
Data were collected via five focus group sessions (FG1-7; Fg2-6; FG3-5;FG4-6;FG5-7).<br />
Once the initial briefing was complete participants were asked to complete the w<strong>or</strong>k book<br />
tasks (see Exhibit 4.1). Once the w<strong>or</strong>k book activities were complete the session moved to a<br />
group discussion. Focus group transcripts and individual w<strong>or</strong>kbook data were entered into<br />
Micros<strong>of</strong>t W<strong>or</strong>d as rich text file and then imp<strong>or</strong>ted into Nvivo version 8.0. The method <strong>of</strong><br />
analysis followed C<strong>of</strong>fey and Atkinson (1996) who suggest generating codes from data,<br />
frequently revising the codes generated, grouping codes into categ<strong>or</strong>ies and finally developing<br />
themes from the data. This procedure indicates the chain <strong>of</strong> evidence present in the analysis<br />
and describes precisely how the classification, theme identification and linking <strong>of</strong> key<br />
properties have been made.<br />
There are two maj<strong>or</strong> validity threats with qualitative research: researcher bias and interviewee<br />
reactivity; that is ‘what the inf<strong>or</strong>mant says is always influenced by the interviewer and the<br />
interview situation’ (Maxwell, 2005:109).<br />
Addressing reliability and validity issues in qualitative research is complex in that the<br />
purpose and type <strong>of</strong> data do not lend themselves to the tests n<strong>or</strong>mally associated with<br />
reliability and validity issues in quantitative studies (see Wallend<strong>or</strong>f & Belk, 1989; Winter,<br />
2000). Essentially, what needs to be established in qualitative research is accuracy in terms<br />
<strong>of</strong> bias reduction in data collection, rep<strong>or</strong>ting and interpretation. It is imp<strong>or</strong>tant that the data<br />
50