The Impact of EU Membership on Spain - Research Paper Example

 Introduction: At the outset, the purpose of research is to undertake an original investigation in order to gain and knowledge about a particular area or a specific problem. Therefore, it will include all work of relevance to the area that is being investigated. Materials and various types of sources can be examined in order to verify and establish the existing facts and use them as the basis to reach new conclusions. The specific area this research study aims to explore is the impact of EU membership on Spain. This impact is proposed to be examined from various angles, including changes it has brought about in Spain in politics, policies, the economy and other areas. Hence, bearing this purpose of this study in mind, the research outlook that appears relevant is one that is descriptive and takes into account all contextual factors. The ultimate objective of this study will be to describe EU membership of Spain taking into account the entire context, i.e, the politics, economy and other aspects. The study will also consider other descriptive and analytical material that has been presented on the issue of EU membership in Spain, as well as newspaper reports and other kinds of information that may be available. The research process in this instance is therefore derived from this topic that has been chosen for examination - the impact of EU membership on Spain. The basic assumption on which this study is premised is EU membership has had a favorable impact on Spain. On the basis of this assumption, the first step will be to examine secondary data gathered from the views of experts, news commentary and other sources, which will be supplemented with primary data gathered through a survey targeted at Spanish citizens and other individuals in Spain to discern their attitudes and views about EU membership in Spain and whether or not it has been beneficial. The Research Paradigm: The theoretical framework for a research study is referred to as the paradigm and it determines the intent and motivation for a study, as well as the way in which the knowledge is interpreted and studied. (Mertens 2005). A paradigm is the set of theoretical assumptions on the basis of which the research study is designed, conducted and interpreted. MacNaughton, Rolfe and Siraj-Blatchford have defined a paradigm in the context of three elements (a) an underlying belief about knowledge (b) the methodology and (c) criteria to establish validity. (MacNaughton, Rolfe and Siraj –Blatchford, 2001:32). A paradigm has also been defined as the “net that contains the researcher’s epistemological, ontological and methodological premises.” (Denzin and Lincoln, 2000:33). According to Hussey and Hussey (1997), the term paradigm refers to the manner in which research should be conducted, because it is the “progress of scientific practice based on peoples’ philosophies and assumptions about the world and the nature of knowledge” (Hussey and Hussey, 1997:47). The research question posed in this study is derived from an examination of secondary data, i.e, the information available from a variety of sources on the impact of EU membership on Spain. The principal research question posed in this study is: Has EU membership produced a positive impact on Spain? In order to examine this research question, it is necessary to take into account, the entire context of Spain’s EU membership. The impact of EU membership is proposed to be examined, not only in the context of policies, but also in the context of its impact on the economy and the day to day life of Spanish citizens. The positivist paradigm is one of the most commonly used research paradigms, but it is not chosen for this particular study due to its failure to incorporate a social perspective into research. The objective of this research study is to also examine the impact of EU membership from a subjective viewpoint, i.e, from the perspective of participants in the study. The study aims to glean the views of participants and seek their opinion on whether or not they consider EU membership to be positive and beneficial for Spain. The positivist paradigm is referred to as the scientific method because it is based on rationalist principles, i.e, that the social world can be studied in the same manner as the natural world.(Mackenzie and Knipe, 2006). But the positivist paradigm may not adequately serve to address the subjective elements involved in this study. While a positivist approach may apply very well in the case of factual analysis of data that may be available on positive or negative impact of Spain’s EU membership, it will be lacking where subjective analysis of respondent views and experiences of Spanish people with EU membership is concerned. Goles and Hirschcheim (2000) have also pointed out that most research efforts, especially those in the field of Information Systems, appear to be guided by the philosophical assumptions of positivism. The positivist research approach focuses upon the testing of a theory or an experience through the tools of observation and measurement, on the basis of which predictions can be made about the object of the test. A positivist research approach requires that a theoretical framework be available before actually commencing the research study. But in the context of EU membership for Spain, there is no ready availability of theories that can support research on this subject. The existing information is more in the nature of news reports and views of experts, which will be used as the basis to derive data for this study, while also incorporating the subjective perspective of participants in this study before arriving at these final conclusions on whether EU membership for Spain has been a positive or negative experience. A pragmatic paradigm of enquiry has been chosen for this study, with a contructivist interest. The pragmatic paradigm rejects the scientific method as a means of understanding the truth of the world. It places the research problem at the centre of focus and applies all the possible approaches to an understanding of the research problem.(Creswell, 2003:11). This is a desirable approach for this particular study because pragmatism does not confine itself to one system of philosophy or reality, but is more focused on the research problem itself, which is considered the most important element in this study. The focus in this study is to discover whether EU membership for Spain has been positive or negative on an overall basis, and this required a holistic approach that focused upon this specific research question, taking into account the contextual factors as well. The contructivist paradigm suggests that “reality is socially constructed”. (Mertens, 2005:12). The approach utilized under this theory is the intent to understand what constitutes human experience. As a result, it places greater emphasis on the views offered by participants in a research study, which was a relevant factor to be taken into consideration in this research effort, in arriving at the answers to the research question. In arriving at this choice, other paradigms were also considered but rejected because they did not fit this study as well as the pragmatic paradigm of enquiry with a contructivist leaning. The advantage offered by the constructivist approach is that it places a greater reliance on the views of participants in the study on the problem being examined in the research study. This is used as the basis to inductively “develop a theory or pattern of meaning” rather than starting off with a theory as in the positivist paradigm (Creswell, 2003:9). Burrell and Morgan have attributed two dimensions – objective and subjective – to this range of philosophical assumptions, with the objective perspective being associated with the positivist paradigm and the subjective perspective requiring a contructivist/ interpretevisit paradigm (Grant and Perren, 2002). In this study, factual data such as data on economic outputs, etc, had to be taken into consideration, but in arriving at a conclusion on whether EU membership has had a positive or negative impact, this study appears to conform to the subjective set of philosophical assumptions, hence the constructivist paradigm appears to have greater relevance. A practical approach is favored for this research study, i.e, the pragmatic paradigm, because in this study, the research question and problem is the most important. In understanding the research problem, the pragmatic paradigm allows for the use of both qualitative and quantitative methods (Creswell, 2003). This facilitates the process of applying various approaches towards understanding and answering the research question and drawing assumptions pertaining to it. Moreover, since the research is an indepth piece of primary research the pragmatic paradigm is chosen because all possible methods can be applied in this case - both qualitative and quantitative. However, a constructivistic approach is also utilized, because conclusions are drawnbased upon the empirical evidence that is gathered during this study. As demonstrated by McKenzie and Knipe(2006) in a table of comparison of the various research paradigms, the pragmatic paradigm is problem centered and the contructivist/ interpretevisit paradigm is the best suited for research that aims to develop new outlooks on existing data while also developing new theories. In this study, existing documentary analysis is proposed to be combined with a survey, which will be geared towards developing a fresh outlook on EU membership for Spain. The positivist/ post positivist approaches are centered on theory verification, while the transformative paradigm is change oriented, hence they do not suit the purpose of this study, because the research topic that is being studied in this instance is neither theory based, neither is it geared towards radical changes. Since the goal of this study is to examine EU membership for Spain over a longer time span, examining factual data as well as the subjective views of respondents, the pragmatic paradigm seems to be the most relevant for purposes of this study. Data Analysis: In terms of application of data analysis methods also, the selection of the pragmatic paradigm appears more relevant. Methods of data analysis and interpretation may be quantitative or qualitative. The quantitative paradigm is objective and is based on positivism (Sale et al, 2002). The premise of the quantitative approach is that there is only one truth. Objective reality and human perception are distinct from each other; as a result it is possible for a researcher to study a phenomenon without influencing it or allowing it to influence him/her (Sale et al, 2002:45). The objective of the quantitative approach is to assess the relationship between variables and large volumes of numerical data are collected so that they can be statistically analyzed. Such an analysis would fit a purely factual purpose, since it is based strictly upon a scientific method of analysis of data through the use of a hypothesis and the testing of data on the basis of that hypothesis. But this approach does not fit this research study because it does not allow for incorporation of qualitative research methods. On the issue of EU membership of Spain, the study cannot be directed from a purely scientific approach because the extent to which the impact of EU membership can be viewed as positive or negative for Spain has to necessarily include the views and opinions of Spanish residents, which requires qualitative analysis. The positivist paradigm, which incorporates a purely scientific perspective, has been criticized on the grounds that it is impossible to treat people as being apart from their social contexts; further capturing complex phenomena in a single measure is misleading and researchers are a part of what they observe, thus they cannot be completely objective.(Hussey and Hussey, 1997:53). The research topic in this instance has to include a multi faceted perspective, taking into account several aspects of EU membership and therefore cannot be limited to capturing complex phenomena in a single measure. The quantitative paradigm views reality as objective and singular, which is not appropriate for this study. But reality is subjective and multiple under the qualitative paradigm, therefore a qualitative paradigm also needs to be incorporated into this study (Hussey and Hussey, 1997:48). The qualitative approach is based upon constructivism and multiple truths are assumed under this approach (Sale et al, 2002). Reality could assume various shapes and forms, because reality is viewed as being socially constructed rather than one objective reality. In this method of data analysis, the researcher and the object of study are linked with each other, and reality is derived from both researcher and participants. The methods used in such research studies may include surveys as well as in-depth focus interviews, because participants are able to provide important information (Sale et al, 2002:45). But one of the criticisms of the qualitative paradigm is the lower level of reliability and validity of the research results as compared to the quantitative paradigm, due to the element of subjectivity involved.(Hussey and Hussey, 1997:57). Therefore, for this study, quantitative methods of data analysis may need to be incorporated and the use of the pragmatic paradigm allows for use of both qualitative and quantitative methods. While the focus of the quantitative approach is mainly on numerical data, qualitative analysis emphasizes process and meanings (Trochim, 2001). In assessing the validity of the results obtained from research, the quantitative researcher would examine how well the results correspond to how things really are in the world, whereas a qualitative researcher would find the results obtained valid only to the extent that they conform to a description with which the researcher agrees. The underlying belief of the researcher about reality is therefore reflected in the research method that is chosen. In determining the conceptual framework for this research study and the data analysis method which would be most appropriate, an additional factor that has to be taken into account is the fact that while there is an ample amount of secondary data available for analysis such as the views of experts and newspaper reports, there is less information available on how ordinary citizens are responding to Spain’s EU membership. While it may be difficult to justify the use of both the positivist and constructivist paradigms in one study due to the differences in their perception of social reality, it is quite possible and may be advantageous to use mixed methods for collection of data.(Hussey and Hussey, 1997:68). Using mixed methods can help in triangulation of data, thereby overcoming the potential bias and sterility inherent in the use of a single method. As Sale et al have pointed out, qualitative and quantitative research approaches paradigms may be legitimately combined, to achieve cross validation, while simultaneously using the strengths of one method to bolster the other. (Sale et al, 2002:48). Sale et al (2002, 49-50) also argue that if research is to be valid in a quantitative sense, then it must be independent of researcher intervention, while they also point out that Strauss and Corbin (1990) have emphasized that it is appropriate for qualitative researchers to apply parallel yet distinct canons; on this basis combining the two methods for cross validation may not be advisable due to the differences in phenomena studied under the two approaches. Therefore, another aspect considered and rejected in this study is the manne rin which qualitative and quantitative streams of research are being separated, focusing on the differences between the two methods and creating the belief that the two systems are incompatible with each other and must not be mixed (Onwuegbuzie and Leech, 2005). The quantitative approach views truth as an objective reality, while qualitative researchers examine the changing reality as conditioned by peoples’ experiences. Since the positivist paradigm is based on a scientific approach which is objective, combining qualitative methods of data analysis is resisted because it could introduce subjectivity into the results, which will not be 100% objective as required for interpretation. The quantitative research paradigm advocates the virtues of “hard, generalizable” survey data while the qualitative research paradigm is focused on the benefits of “deep, rich, observational data”. (Sieber, 1973:1135). Qualitative models are more able than traditional models to express states of incomplete knowledge about continuous mechanisms (Crabtree, 1999). Qualitative simulation guarantees to find all possible behaviours consistent with the knowledge in the model. This expressive power and coverage are important in problem solving for diagnosis, design, monitoring, and explanation. Qualitative evaluation data usually refers to raw, descriptive information about: programs/products and the people who participate in/use them or are affected by them and; programs/products and the people who develop or use them (Patton, 1987). Three data gathering strategies typically characterize qualitative methodology: in-depth, open-ended interviews; direct observation; and written documents (including program records, personal diaries, logs, etc.). As opposed to these methods, quantitative research does not incorporate the subjective views of people, but focuses on hard factual data that conforms to scientific principles and methods and where there is no room for ambiguity in the data, which is measured on the ordinal scale (Trochim, 2001). Sale et al (2004) have suggested that despite these differences in orientation, it may still be possible to use mixed methods in a single study if it is done for complementary purposes. Despite these differences between the two methods, Onwuegbuzie and Leech (2005) point out that the similarities between the two kinds of research methods are overwhelming. Both streams of research use data, build explanations and arguments from the data and speculate about the results obtained. Secondly, research procedures are also similar, such as triangulation of data and the introduction of safeguards into the data analysis process to protect against bias of the researcher. Thirdly, both research approaches seek to elicit maximal meaning from their data and manipulate it to coordinate their findings in accordance with their respective views of reality. Fourthly, both sets of investigators use procedures to verify their data, such as weighting evidence, leaving an audit trail, obtaining feedback, etc. Lastly, data reduction methods are used in both approaches- the quantitative method uses factor analysis and cluster analysis, while the qualitative method uses thematic analysis (Onwuegbuzie and Leech, 2005:379-380). Denzin and Lincoln also offer the view that the nature of all research is interpretive (Denzn and Lincoln, 2001: 33). Whether positivist or constructivist, all research is guided by a set of feelings and beliefs about the world and this is yet another aspect that exists in common among both categories of research. Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004) have argued that pragmatism offers an ideal basis for the use of mixed methods research. In a Table enumerating the characteristics of pragmatism, they have pointed out how it allows for a practical empiricism to determine what works while at the same time, it does not hold the current truth to be absolute but as changing over time, thereby allowing researchers the best features of both streams of research enquiry (Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004:18). A pragmatic paradigm allows for the use of both qualitative and quantitative methods. Howe (1988) has argued that a researcher should forge ahead with whatever works in a research study and suggests that a pragmatic approach can combine research methods across paradigms and incorporate mixed methods. The pragmatic rule or maxim requires the current meaning of an expression to be evaluated on the basis of the experiences or practical consequences of such a belief.(Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004:16). The pragmatic approach is useful because “in order to discover the meaning of an idea [we must] ask for its consequences (Dewey, 1948:132).On this basis it appeared that using mixed methods might be the best approach for this study. Research method: On this basis, it is decided to use both secondary documentary analysis, as well as develop a primary research instrument – the survey questionnaire. This study is a combination of two methods – the social survey method and the analysis of documents, using the process of secondary analysis. A clearly defined hypothesis does not exist on the basis of which progress can be made, rather this study is premised in tentative assumptions about the potential impact of EU integration, based upon the analysis of secondary data sources. When no preliminary hypothesis exists at the commencement of a study, the research process will be inductive (Denzin and Lincoln 2000) and this approach is likely to be the most conducive towards the generation of evidence based propositions. Denzin and Lincoln have pointed out that where qualitative research is concerned, the researcher who belongs to a particular gender and community approaches the world with a framework of ideas which form the theory or ontology of the study. These ideas set out a specific set of questions, which form the epistemology of the research study, which the researcher then examines through the application of specific research methods – the methodology analysis. (Denzin and Lincoln, 2000:30). This general methodological approach does not commence with a theory that needs to be verified, rather the researcher commences with a particular area of study and allows for the development of the relevant theories or trends. There is a greater emphasis placed upon the interpretations offered by the participants, so that through the process of constant coding and analysis of data obtained through interviews and observation, the theory grounded in this data emerges.(Douglas, pp 48). On this basis, the general research question proposed in this study is: What is the impact of EU membership on Spain? At the outset, a documentary analysis of secondary data is performed in order to arrive at a determination of whether such an impact has been positive or negative. Documentary analysis has been recommended as a qualitative research method because access to such materials is relatively easy and at low cost, apart from consuming less time and requiring less effort on the part of the researcher.(Hodder, 2000). Documentary analysis is particularly useful when access to the subjects of research is difficult, because in such an instance documentary analysis of educational files and records can function as a valuable alternative source of data. In this instance, it is not feasible to actually capture large volumes of empirical data for this study first hand, because the nature of the topic being examined is broad based and requires access to a large base of information. Therefore, secondary data available in the form of journal articles, newspaper based reports and government documents offers a valuable alternative source of data. The Internet is also used as a source to capture the documentary informationnecessary to carry out the research study. The Internet is a source of documents that may not conform strictly to the traditional definition of documentation but it is still a source of valuable evidence for educational and social researchers. (McCullogh, 2004, p 38). But as Denscombe (2003) points out that there is no restriction on the material placed on the Internet, as a result the researcher must also carry out his/her own quality audit of the material. Documents need to be approached in terms of the cultural context within which they were written and several questions must be considered during the process of analysis, such as the position and bias of authors, the time and context within which the documents were produced, the underlying arguments offered in the documents and how well they are supported, so that elements which are relevant to the researcher’s study can be extracted (Blaxter et al, 2001:208). Moreover, in order to overcome problems of reliability and bias, different kinds of documents need to be examined, representing alternative viewpoints which can then form the basis for triangulation of data.(McCullogh, 2000:44). In this study, an attempt is also made to address the issue of bias by carrying out the analysis on the basis of a wide range of documents drawn from different sources – books, government reports, journal articles and newspaper reports, also taking into account the context and background within which they were written. Based upon these documents, it is possible to make a general deduction about whether the impact of EU membership on Spain had been positive or negative. One advantage with using secondary data is that it is a pragmatic way to do the research because such data can go beyond geographical distance and time distance. Thus, compared with others, there are savings in time and costs (Tull and Hawkins, 1993). Moreover, it is possible to squeeze more time and spend it in thinking about the research aims and taking more efforts in analyzing and interpreting the data (Bryman, 2001). Secondly, the secondary data is generally of a higher quality than that personally collected by the researcher through interviews and surveys (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2003). The analysis of secondary data forms the basis for the collection of primary data through a survey questionnaire, in order to assess the first hand subjective views of respondents on the same issue, to compare whether their overall perception of EU membership for Spain also conforms to the findings derived from the documentary analysis. The survey questionnaire is a favored tool of many of those engaged in research, and it can often provide a cheap and effective way of collecting data in a structured and manageable form” (Wilkinson & Birmingham 2003). This method is also cost effective because it enables a researcher to reach out to and collect responses from a large number of participants within a short time frame. Since the results of my documentary analysis have to be supplemented with the results of analysis of primary data collected from as large a respondent base as possible, the survey questionnaire appears to offer the best option to capture the maximum amount of primary data within the shortest possible time frame. Hence, this study will adopt an inductive approach, combining two methods – the social survey as well as documentary analysis. Research Questions: The primary research question posed in this study will be: What is the impact of EU membership on Spain? This primary research question is further subdivided into other questions such as : Has EU membership been favorable for Spain’s economy? Has EU membership impacted favorably upon the Spanish Government’s policies? Is EU membership viewed favorably by Spanish citizens? Has EU membership changed Spain’s political philosophy? Has EU Membership enhanced Spain’s stature among other nations? The answers to such questions will be derived through an exhaustive documentary analysis at the first instance. The sources for documents will be educational websites such as ProQuest, EBSCO, JSTOR, Emerald Journals and Lexis Nexis. The search strategy will use search terms such as “EU membership” “impact on economy” “Spanish membership of EU” and similar search terms to pull up relevant articles and material that may provide data for use in this study. In addition, the websites of various world and Spanish newspapers will be accessed to extract the most relevant articles that deal with the issue of EU membership of Spain. Government documents and books on the subject of EU membership for Spain will also be examined to extract information. Survey Questionnaire: The survey questionnaire will be designed to gather the subjective views of participants about EU membership. Therefore, it will seek to elicit the opinions of ordinary Spanish citizens on whether in their opinion; EU membership has impacted favorably on the economy, their lifestyles, the political setup, the educational framework, the business environment, the policies of government and other aspects. This allows for a subjective, qualitative analysis of the impact of EU membership from the perspective of Spain’s residents and is likely to add value to the data to be used for final analysis of the topic. The survey questionnaire is designed in a Likert style format. This would allow for a quantitative analysis of subjective data, where verbal responses are ranked on a numerical scale. This would allow for statistical analysis using SPSS. It would also serve to supplement the results of the documentary analysis in order to assess the impact of EU membership on Spain, both from quantitative as well as qualitative perspectives. The use of two research tools in this manner also allows for the elimination of bias through triangulation of data obtained from different sources, so that problems of reliability and validity in data collection and analysis can be addressed. Time frame: The process of gathering secondary data for the purposes of documentary analysis is already in process. It is estimated that the process of collection of primary data through the framing of survey questions would take another three weeks, while a further two weeks will be allowed for analysis of the results and writing up the report. The final Dissertation will consist of five chapters. The first Chapter will provide an introduction to the topic and the purpose of the research study, as well as its aims and objectives. The second chapter will offer a literature review containing documentary information that is already available on the issue of EU membership for Spain. Chapter Three will detail the Methodology used in the study and provide the justification for the theoretical framework that is relied upon in framing research methods. Chapter Four will provide an analysis of the results and a discussion of those results. The final and concluding Chapter Five will offer an assessment of the impact of EU membership on Spain, based upon the earlier findings and results of analysis. Bibliography * Blaxter, Loraine, Hughes, Christina and Tight, Malcolm, 2001. “How to research”, Open University Press. * Bryman, A. (2001). Social Research Methods, UK: Oxford University Press. * Denzin, Norman K and Lincoln, Yvonna S, 2000. “Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials”, Sage. * Dewey, J, (1948, 1920). “Reconstruction in philosophy”, MA: Beacon Press * Denscombe, Martyn, 2003. “The good research guide for small scale social research projects”, Berkeshire: Open University Press * Douglas, David. “Inductive theory generation: A grounded approach to business enquiry”, http://www.ejbrm.com/vol2/v2-i1/issue1-art4-douglas.pdf ; August 10, 2008 * Goles, Tim and Hirschheim, Rudy, 2000. “The paradigm is dead, the paradigm is dead……long live the paradigm: the legacy of Burrell and Morgan”, Omega, 28(3): 249 * Hodder, Ian, 2000. “The interpretation of documents and material culture”, IN Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S 1994. “Introduction: Entering the field of qualitative research” IN Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S.(edn) “Handbook of qualitative research”, CA: Sage * Howe, K.R., 1988. “Against the quantitative-qualitative incompatibility thesis, or dogmas die hard”, Educational Researcher, 17:10-16 * Hussey, J.I. and Hussey, Roger, 1997. “Paradigms: analyzing qualitative data”, London: Macmillan Press * Johnson, Burke J and Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J, 2004. “Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come”, Educational Researcher, 33(7): 14-26 * Mac Naughton, G., Rolfe S.A., & Siraj-Blatchford, I. (2001). Doing Early Childhood Research: International perspectives on theory and practice. Australia: Allen & Unwin. * MacKenzie, Noella and Knipe, Sally, 2006. “Research dilemmas: Paradigms, methods and methodology”, Issues in Educational research, Vol 16, * McCulloch, Gary. “Documentary research in education, history and the Social Sciences.” Routledge Falmer * Mertens, D.M. (2005). Research methods in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative and qualitative approaches. (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks: Sage. * Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J and Leech, Nancy L, 2005. “On becoming a pragmatic researcher: The importance of combining quantitative and qualitative research methodologies”, International Journal of Social research Methodology, 8(5): 375-387 * Patton, M, 1987. “How to use qualitative methods in evaluation”, London: Sage Publications * Sale, Joanna E.M., Lohfeld, Lynne H and Brazil, Kevin, 2002. “Revising the Quantitative-qualitative debate: implications for mixed methods research”, Quality and Quantity, 36: 43-53 * Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A, 2003. “Research Methods for Business Students”, Pearson Education Limited. * Strauss, A and Corbin, J, 1990. “Basics of Qualitative research – techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory”, California: Sage. * Trochim, William, 2001. “The Research Methods Knowledge base” (2nd Edn) Atomic Dog Publishing * Tull, D.S. and Hawkins, D.I, 1993. “Market research” (6th edn) Prentice Hall * Wilkinson, David and Birmingham, Peter, 2003. “Using research instruments: A Guide for researchers”, Routledge Read More