« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
5 Methodology
5.1 Data types
There are four types of data 2 available for analysis:
(i) "Yes/No/Don't Know"- type responses for most Questions
(ii) Textual responses to each of the Questions 1 to 21
(iii) Textual responses for "General Comments"
(iv) Summary notes of questions and answers at the nine SEERAD-sponsored public consultation meetings held during the consultation period.
It is important to note however, that not all respondents chose to answer the closed "yes/no/don't know" type questions, preferring instead to record textual responses only. Further, respondents who received a paper copy of the SRDP consultation document by hand or through a source other than SEERAD's direct mail, would not necessarily have received the list of questions which included the "yes/no/don't know" closed type questions. Therefore, it is not possible to say how many respondents actually chose not to give this type of answer.
It has, therefore, been necessary to cross-reference the responses, in order to assess how many respondents chose to give no answer to a question, that is: they did not give a "yes, no, don't know" type response, AND they gave no textual response. This information is broken down by organisation type, since it is important to know whether, for example, the voluntary sector tended not respond to questions relating to LMC measures, or producers' organisations did not respond to LEADER questions etc.
A respondent type code was assigned to each respondent who submitted a written response to the SRDP Consultation. These are listed in Table 5.1. This enabled the comments to be related to respondent type, which can be useful in their analysis, and in contextualising the comments which are submitted.
Table 5.1. Respondent type codes assigned by SEERAD to respondents
Respondent type |
|---|
1. Local authorities, including Community Planning Partnerships ( CPPs) |
2. Government Bodies |
3. Voluntary Sector |
4. Regional/Local Development Partnership |
5. Private individuals and businesses (including MSPs) |
6. Professional or Academic Body |
7. Representative Organisation |
5.2 Analysis and presentation
Firstly, the findings for each question where a closed "yes/no/don't know" type response was requested, were sorted within Excel. The results are presented in a summary table at the beginning of each question, and are broken down for each respondent category. A "response rate commentary" is given for each table, to summarise the proportions of respondents from within each category to each question. It is not possible, however, to state levels of agreement/disagreement for each category of respondent, since not all respondents submitted a "yes/no/don't know" response, and few textual responses indicate agreement or disagreement unequivocally.
The closed-question analysis is followed by a presentation of the results of the thematic analysis of textual data for each of the 22 questions (that is, questions 1 to 21, with question 18 having two parts, a and b). Thematic analysis is a recognised approach (see M.Q.Patton, [1992] Qualitative Data Analysis, London: Sage Publications), whereby, within a particular question, there are a number of "themes" which begin to emerge. The responses are then grouped within these themes.
It must be emphasised that this comprises a qualitative analysis, where the focus is firmly upon uncovering and presenting the range of arguments, agreements, disagreements, discontinuities, contradictions and congruence between peoples' responses, rather than indicating a percentage response within the textual part of the finding. Thus, only where there is a clear "majority view" has this been indicated as such. Otherwise, it has not been possible, nor is it desirable, to say that "x per cent hold this particular view", since opinions, concerns and suggestions are often nuanced and context-dependent.
In addition to highlighting themes, however, the "origin" of responses is indicated, that is, where a comment has come from a local authority or from the academic sector, for example. This is felt to be useful in providing context to such perspectives.
As is usual within thematic analysis, quotations from respondents have been cited. It must be emphasised that such quotes are intended as illustrative rather than to imply a uniform voice. Where respondents have indicated that they do not wish their comments to be made public, these have not been cited within the document. However, they have been included in the original "evidence-base" which informs the commentary and analysis.
Finally, the thematic analysis is written in the present tense. This is a conscious decision, taken to reflect the immediacy of the respondents' views, and that these are views currently expressed, rather than being restricted to some point in the past.
5.3 Structure of the Analysis Report
The remainder of the report is organised according to the two main themes of the SRDP Consultation document, together with their sub-themes:
Chapter 7 focuses on Section 2 of the Consultation Document: Content of the SRDP 2007-2013
- Less Favoured Area Support Scheme ( LFASS)
- Land Management Contracts (including Forestry)
- LEADER
- Rural Development Frameworks
Chapter 8 focuses on Section 3 of the Consultation Document: Implementation of the SRDP 2007-2013
- A regional perspective
- Advisory network
- Co-ordination with other funding streams
- Equality and discrimination
Chapter 9 focuses on the General Comments section of the SRDP Consultation document, while Chapter 10 reports on the SEERAD-sponsored public consultation meetings.
Chapter 11 presents the emerging conclusions from the analysis.
« Previous | Contents | Next »