UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL PUNJAB

FALL 2020

SPRING 2023
Course Title: research method
Course Code:

Project
Course Instructor: muhammad moeen

Section: B Program: bba Date:

Submission Date: 30-5-23 Maximum Marks: 20

Program Objective: PO4 Course Objective: CO6 Course Learning Objective: CLO 6

TO BE FILLED IN BY THE STUDENT

Student Name: IBRAHIM
Registration No:L1S22PABA0001
KHAN
Registration No: Sr. No:
HASSAN SHAKOOK
Registration No:
OSAID ASIF
Q1 Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of personally administered
questionnaires, mail questionnaires, and electronic questionnaires
Answer
Personally Administered Questionnaires:
Advantages:
1. Control over the administration process: With personally administered questionnaires, the
researcher has direct control over the questionnaire administration. They can ensure that
participants understand the questions and provide accurate responses.
2. Clarification of doubts: Researchers can clarify any doubts or questions participants may have
during the survey process, ensuring better comprehension of the questions and reducing response
errors.
3. Higher response rates: Personally administering questionnaires often results in higher response
rates compared to other methods. Researchers can approach potential respondents directly,
increasing the likelihood of participation.

Disadvantages:
1. Time-consuming: Administering questionnaires in person can be time-consuming, especially
when dealing with a large sample size. It requires scheduling appointments, travel, and face-to-
face interaction, which can be resource-intensive.
2. Limited reach: Personally administered questionnaires limit the geographic reach of the
study. Researchers can only collect data from participants who are physically present or within a
specific area, which may restrict the generalizability of the findings.
3. Potential bias: The presence of the researcher during questionnaire administration may
introduce response bias. Participants might feel inclined to provide socially desirable responses
or alter their answers due to perceived judgment.

Mail Questionnaires:
Advantages:
1. Cost-effective: Mail questionnaires can be a cost-effective method for data collection since
there are no expenses associated with personal interactions or travel. Mailing surveys is generally
less expensive than other methods like telephone or in-person interviews.
2. Convenience for respondents: Participants can complete mail questionnaires at their
convenience. They have the flexibility to choose when and where to respond, reducing potential
time constraints and increasing response rates.
3. Anonymity and privacy: Mail questionnaires provide a level of anonymity and privacy for
respondents, which can encourage honest and uninfluenced answers, particularly for sensitive
topics.

Disadvantages:
1. Low response rates: One major drawback of mail questionnaires is the possibility of low
response rates. Participants may disregard or forget to complete the questionnaire, leading to a
biased sample and potentially impacting the generalizability of the results.
2. Limited control over the process: Researchers have limited control over the questionnaire
administration with mail surveys. They cannot ensure participants' understanding of the
questions or offer clarifications, potentially leading to response errors or misunderstandings.
3. Non-response bias: The respondents who choose to complete and return mail questionnaires
might differ systematically from those who do not, introducing non-response bias and potentially
affecting the representativeness of the sample.

Electronic Questionnaires:
Advantages:
1. Wide reach and convenience: Electronic questionnaires can reach a broader audience since
they can be distributed online, allowing participants from different geographic locations to
participate. Respondents can complete the surveys at their convenience, increasing the likelihood
of higher response rates.
2. Quick data collection and analysis: Electronic questionnaires enable fast data collection and
automated data entry, reducing manual effort. Data can be easily compiled and analyzed using
software, saving time and resources for researchers.
3. Flexibility and customization: Electronic questionnaires offer flexibility in terms of question
formats, skip patterns, and multimedia integration. Researchers can tailor the survey to the
participants' preferences, enhancing engagement and data quality.

Disadvantages:
1. Digital divide and access issues: Electronic questionnaires assume respondents have access
to the necessary technology and internet connectivity. This can lead to exclusion or
underrepresentation of certain demographics, potentially introducing bias.
2. Response validity concerns: Without face-to-face interaction, researchers cannot ensure the
respondent's identity or the accuracy of the answers. There is a risk of multiple submissions,
dishonest responses, or incomplete surveys.
3. Technological challenges: Technical issues such as internet connectivity problems, survey
platform glitches, or compatibility issues may hinder the completion of electronic questionnaires.
This can frustrate participants and affect response rates

Q2 3. How are multiple methods of data collection and from multiple sources
related to the reliability and validity of the measures?

Using multiple methods of data collection and obtaining data from multiple sources can enhance
the reliability and validity of the measures in several ways:

1. Increased reliability: When data is collected using multiple methods and from multiple
sources, it helps establish the consistency and reliability of the measures. If different methods or
sources yield similar results, it increases confidence in the reliability of the findings. Consistency
across different data collection approaches strengthens the robustness of the measurements.

2. Triangulation: Triangulation involves using multiple methods or sources to investigate the

same phenomenon. By comparing and integrating findings from different approaches,
researchers can identify converging patterns or discrepancies, which can lead to a more
comprehensive understanding of the topic under study. Triangulation enhances the reliability of
the measures by reducing the reliance on a single method or source.
3. Reduction of bias: Different methods and sources can capture different aspects of a
phenomenon and provide a more balanced perspective. If a particular method or source is prone
to bias, having multiple methods can help mitigate that bias and provide a more accurate
representation of the construct being measured. It allows researchers to consider various
viewpoints and reduce the impact of any single source's limitations or biases.

4. Validity enhancement: Validity refers to the extent to which a measure assesses what it
intends to measure. Using multiple methods and sources can improve the validity of the
measures by offering complementary perspectives and increasing the breadth of information
captured. For example, qualitative interviews can provide in-depth insights, while quantitative
surveys can provide statistical trends. By combining different types of data, researchers can
construct a more comprehensive and valid understanding of the phenomenon.

5. Cross-validation: Cross-validation involves comparing data obtained from different sources

to verify the consistency and accuracy of the measurements. When multiple sources converge on
similar findings, it strengthens the validity of the measures and provides evidence for the
robustness of the results.

6. Addressing limitations: Each data collection method and source has its own strengths and
limitations. By using multiple methods and sources, researchers can overcome the limitations
associated with any single approach. For example, if self-report questionnaires have limitations
in capturing certain aspects, combining them with observational data or objective measures can
provide a more complete picture.

Overall, the use of multiple methods of data collection and data sources improves the reliability
and validity of the measures by reducing bias, increasing consistency, and providing a more
comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon being studied. It allows researchers to gather
converging evidence from different angles, leading to more robust and trustworthy results.

Q3 Every data collection method has its own built‐in biases. Therefore, resorting to multi
methods of data collection is only going to compound the biases.” How would you critique
this statement?
Answer

While it is true that every data collection method may have its own inherent biases, it is an
oversimplification to claim that resorting to multiple methods of data collection will only
compound these biases. In fact, using multiple methods can help mitigate and offset biases in
several ways:

1. Bias identification and reduction: Different data collection methods may have different
biases, but by using multiple methods, researchers can identify and compare these biases. When
biases are consistent across methods, it suggests a systematic bias that can be acknowledged and
addressed in data analysis and interpretation. Conversely, when biases differ across methods, it
prompts researchers to critically examine and reconcile the differences, leading to a more
nuanced understanding of the biases involved.
2. Triangulation for bias mitigation: Triangulation, which involves using multiple methods or
sources to investigate the same phenomenon, helps to overcome the limitations and biases
associated with any single method. By integrating data from different sources, researchers can
identify converging patterns and discrepancies, allowing for a more balanced and accurate
representation of the phenomenon.

3. Diverse perspectives: Different data collection methods have different strengths and
weaknesses, and biases can vary accordingly. By using multiple methods, researchers can tap
into a range of perspectives and approaches, which can help uncover biases from different
angles. This allows for a more comprehensive assessment of the biases and helps to mitigate any
single method's limitations.

4. Cross-validation of findings: When multiple methods yield consistent findings despite their
individual biases, it provides stronger evidence for the reliability and validity of the results. If
biases were solely compounding, we would expect inconsistent and conflicting results. However,
when multiple methods converge on similar conclusions, it strengthens confidence in the
findings by reducing the influence of method-specific biases.

5. Meta-analysis and synthesis: Combining data from multiple methods allows for meta-
analysis or synthesis, where the findings from different studies or sources are statistically
combined or integrated. This can help identify overarching patterns and minimize the impact of
individual biases, enhancing the reliability and generalizability of the conclusions.

It is important to acknowledge that biases exist in all data collection methods, and researchers
should be aware of their presence. However, rather than compounding biases, the use of multiple
methods can actually mitigate and address biases through critical analysis, triangulation, cross-
validation, and integration of findings. By considering different perspectives and sources,
researchers can enhance the validity and reliability of their results, leading to a more
comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon under study.