Investigation Evaluation Used Telephone Interviews - Report Example

Research Evaluation Student Name: Student ID: Word Count: 1534 Chosen Option: Newspoll Research Evaluation Sampling The study used random sampling. Firstly, the researchers selected the telephone number of households randomly throughout Australia. Then, the person within the household was selected randomly. It is however not convincing how the researchers did this random selection of telephone numbers considering that the population (registered voters) is very large. In addition, the researchers are unable to convince the audience how the person within the household was selected randomly considering that the researchers used telephone interviews to collect data. More information is required to show how random selection of participants was conducted. For instance, states are not equal in size and number of registered voters. On this issue, did the researchers consider this difference in size? The impact of difference in population sizes between states would be felt if a state with a high population favors one side, such as the Coalition compared to the Labor which another state with a small population has an opposite favoritism. In that case, if the researchers used a simple random sampling (sampling based on the entire Australian population), the validity of the findings and conclusions is highly questionable. Nevertheless, the random sampling used in this study ensured that all states were covered, which eliminated the chance that a state that largely preferred one party, for example, was left out. Another advantage with random sampling as used in this study is that it eliminated bias in the choice of sampling units to be measured. For example, if the researchers were using another sampling strategy such as systematic sampling, there would be a probability that the researcher’s selection of the state or respondent would be biased by his own perceptions. Another advantage with the random sampling strategy that the researcher used is that it facilitated the determination of the sampling error, which is quoted to be + 3%. Data Collection The researcher used telephone interviews to collect data although there is no information as how long each interview lasted. The advantage with telephone interview especially in this study is that it is a low-cost and fact method of data collection because the interviewer would just sit at his sit in his office and call participants. In a day, an interviewer can call several participants, which makes it possible to collect a lot of data without moving from place to place to meet participants (therefore making it low cost). Another advantage with the telephone interview method (practically any form of interview) is that the interview gets an opportunity to interact with the participant (interviewee) so that the interviewer can clarify issues that the interviewee does not seem to get right. This is contrary to use of questionnaire where there is no opportunity to interact with the participants. However, it is hoped that the interviewees gave the participants enough time to answer a question before moving to the next question; otherwise, a situation might be that interviewees answered based on the little information they got from the interviewers. This problem would be particularly serious for people who did not have interests in politics such that they did not know, for example, who was Abbott or Shorten. For example, if an interviewee posed this question, who do you think would make the better PM, Abbott or Shorten? A participant who did not know whom Abbott or Shorten was would most probably indicate Shorten because this was the last name he could remember from the question. To avoid such a scenario, the interviewee should start by asking the participant whether he knew whom Abbot is and whom Shorten is. If the participant knows these people, the interview question can be posed; otherwise, there is need to explain these personalities to people who do not have interests in politics. In fact, in order to get better results, it would be wiser for the researchers to exclude people who do not have interest in politics to ensure that only the study results would be a reflection of an actual poll. By including uncommitted people, who most likely did not have current information in politics, the results of the study may be invalid. For example, in the first question, the researcher asked, “if a federal election for the House of Representatives was held today, which one of the following would you vote for? In ‘uncommitted’, to which of these do you have a leaning?” The researcher indicates that 6% of the respondents were uncommitted. What if by chance, the 6% uncommitted leaned for the Coalition in 2013 and afterwards to the Labor? This chance might be the reason why the Coalition seems to lose to the Labor Party. In case of an election, since this uncommitted group will most likely not turn up for voting, the results of the study would not reflect the actual outcomes of the elections. On the performance of Abbott, Shorten and on who between Abbot and Shorten would make a better Prime Minister, the uncommitted group presents a significant percentage. In these cases, however, the researcher did not ask the uncommitted people to lean to any side, which ought to have been the case in the Primary Vote section. Data Collected and Time of Collection The researcher collected data regarding poll opinion of people if elections were to held at that time. Poll opinion data included primary vote if federal elections for the House of Representatives was to be held at the time, participants’ preferred party between the Coalition and the Labor Party and the better PM between Abbott and Shorten. The researcher also collected data about the performance of Abbott as the Prime Minister and that of Shorten as the Opposition Leader. The study was based on the concept that the Coalition has disappointed many Australians because it promised so much more than it could deliver and that the Prime Minister, Abbott, also has broken promises that are making him less favorite candidate as a Prime Minister. Therefore, the data that the researcher collected was the best in answering the research questions. To win, Both Abbott and the Coalition Party must garner at least 40% each of the vote. Data collection and analysis shows that they cannot win because the opposition is becoming more favorable than the ruling party. The researcher collected the data over a period of five months. The first data collection and consequent analysis was done between November 14, 2014 and November 16, 2014. This was followed by Nov 28-30, 2014 then Dec 12-14, 2014. In 2015, the researcher collected and analysed data as follows: Feb 6-8, Feb 20-22 and March 6-8. The last elections were done in September 7, 2013; therefore, the study was done one year after the last elections. This was good timing so that the ruling party and the Prime Minister elected in 2013 had enough time to deliver their promises. However, consequent timings of data collection are too close between each other. Changes in the political environment occur drastically. For example, a terrorist attack overnight may make people to lose confidence with the government yet they had shown great confidence with the same government a day before. Therefore, although the researcher wishes to track the dynamic state of the Australian politics, the spans of data collection are too close. If the researcher moves on with this trend, the research will be very expensive. Furthermore, there is the tendency that the participants will get bored. However, the choice to make data points so close might have been influenced by the fact that the researcher wanted to collect data from the same recipients such that he did not want to stay for too long otherwise the recipients would have disappeared. The Methodological Approach The researcher used longitudinal research design whereby he collected data from same individuals repeatedly. This was the best research design for the research at hand, which was aimed at tracking the dynamics of the Australian political environment. The primary benefit that this research design gave the researcher is that the researcher was able to assess behavior changes although it is usually time consuming and expensive. The use of telephone interviews, however, reduced the cost and time of collecting data, which facilitated the researcher to collect data from 1161 participants distributed all over Australia within a short time (within 3 days). This therefore facilitated the ability to collect opinions from all over the country since the researcher obtained a random sample that was well distributed throughout the country. Accordingly, the methodology that the researcher used ensured that the sample was a faithful representation of the entire population. Therefore, the research methodology that the researcher used right from research design to data collection was the best for this study considering its nature, need and the size (and geographical distribution) of the population. However, the researcher should have cleaned the data by removing the uncommitted portion of the sample. The inclusion of this portion by asking them to lean to any size between the Coalition and the Labor parties might have resulted to errors. In addition, the chance that this uncommitted section might not present itself for actual voting means that the results of the study do not accurately reflect the actual outcome of an election were it to be held. Read More

Another advantage with the telephone interview method (practically any form of interview) is that the interview gets an opportunity to interact with the participant (interviewee) so that the interviewer can clarify issues that the interviewee does not seem to get right. This is contrary to use of questionnaire where there is no opportunity to interact with the participants. However, it is hoped that the interviewees gave the participants enough time to answer a question before moving to the next question; otherwise, a situation might be that interviewees answered based on the little information they got from the interviewers.

This problem would be particularly serious for people who did not have interests in politics such that they did not know, for example, who was Abbott or Shorten. For example, if an interviewee posed this question, who do you think would make the better PM, Abbott or Shorten? A participant who did not know whom Abbott or Shorten was would most probably indicate Shorten because this was the last name he could remember from the question. To avoid such a scenario, the interviewee should start by asking the participant whether he knew whom Abbot is and whom Shorten is.

If the participant knows these people, the interview question can be posed; otherwise, there is need to explain these personalities to people who do not have interests in politics. In fact, in order to get better results, it would be wiser for the researchers to exclude people who do not have interest in politics to ensure that only the study results would be a reflection of an actual poll. By including uncommitted people, who most likely did not have current information in politics, the results of the study may be invalid.

For example, in the first question, the researcher asked, “if a federal election for the House of Representatives was held today, which one of the following would you vote for? In ‘uncommitted’, to which of these do you have a leaning?” The researcher indicates that 6% of the respondents were uncommitted. What if by chance, the 6% uncommitted leaned for the Coalition in 2013 and afterwards to the Labor? This chance might be the reason why the Coalition seems to lose to the Labor Party.

In case of an election, since this uncommitted group will most likely not turn up for voting, the results of the study would not reflect the actual outcomes of the elections. On the performance of Abbott, Shorten and on who between Abbot and Shorten would make a better Prime Minister, the uncommitted group presents a significant percentage. In these cases, however, the researcher did not ask the uncommitted people to lean to any side, which ought to have been the case in the Primary Vote section.

Data Collected and Time of Collection The researcher collected data regarding poll opinion of people if elections were to held at that time. Poll opinion data included primary vote if federal elections for the House of Representatives was to be held at the time, participants’ preferred party between the Coalition and the Labor Party and the better PM between Abbott and Shorten. The researcher also collected data about the performance of Abbott as the Prime Minister and that of Shorten as the Opposition Leader.

The study was based on the concept that the Coalition has disappointed many Australians because it promised so much more than it could deliver and that the Prime Minister, Abbott, also has broken promises that are making him less favorite candidate as a Prime Minister. Therefore, the data that the researcher collected was the best in answering the research questions. To win, Both Abbott and the Coalition Party must garner at least 40% each of the vote. Data collection and analysis shows that they cannot win because the opposition is becoming more favorable than the ruling party.

The researcher collected the data over a period of five months. The first data collection and consequent analysis was done between November 14, 2014 and November 16, 2014.

Read More