Chapter 3

Methods

Research Design

This research is a phenomenological study under qualitative approach wherein

the researchers will use the experiences of young investors in answering the research

questions specifically the risk in investing at a young age and on how they reduce these

risks.

There a lot of authors who defined qualitative research. According to Bryman and

Bell (2007), a qualitative research signifies the relationship between research and

theory, and it commonly focuses on how theories were formulated. It also allows the

researchers to gather facts and not abstract ideas. Under qualitative approach is the

phenomenology or the phenomenological design. According to the definition of Stanford

Encyclopedia of Philosophy, phenomenology is a study that uses the experiences of the

people specifically your participants.

Phenomenology design is the most appropriate design for our research because

we, the researchers, will be using the experiences of the young investors of Ateneo de

Davao Senior High School. We will be using the risks or the challenges that they

encountered in investing at a young age and on how do they reduce these risks.

1
Research Participants

In our study, we used 5-10 participants. Having 5 as our minimum for our

qualitative interview works very well especially when the participants are homogeneous.

Having 10 participants as our maximum reduces some of the bias and validity threats

present in a qualitative research. Crouch and McKenzie (2006) proposed that less than

10 participants in a qualitative study help a researcher build and maintain a close

relationship and thus improve the “open” and “frank” exchange of information.

The group also agreed to have 5-10 participants for their research study for it is

more ideal and it is also the recommended number of participants. It is also less

challenging for the group to only have a small number of participants because there are

not a lot of entrepreneurs in Ateneo de Davao University. Also, even though it is only a

small amount, it still gave validity to the study.

With choosing our participants, the participant should be studying in Ateneo de

Davao University and should be a student and of course, a participant should have his

or her own business inside or outside the Ateneo de Davao University.

Role of the Researcher

We, the researchers, explicated the risk that young investors experienced at a

young age specifically in the students of Ateneo de Davao University. We applied the

phenomenology approach in data gathering, to be cognizant of the experiences and

philosophical perspective of each participant. We gathered data from discussion by

interviewing and observing each participant individually. We documented the process

through voice recording and by taking down notes of what each participant have

2
asserted. We cited the sources to each theory and article that we’ve copied from the

books and internet. We conducted the coding, theming, and discussion to establish a

thematic idea about our study and also to transform the data into a form suitable for

computer-aided analysis.

Data Source

In a qualitative research, there are two types of data sources according to

Salkind (2010) namely primary data and secondary data sources. A primary data source

is an original data source, in which the data is collected first hand by the researcher.

Primary data in a qualitative research can be collected in various ways and the most

common are interviews and field observation. On the other hand, Santiago Canyon

College stated that secondary data sources describe, discuss, interpret, comment upon,

analyze, evaluate, summarize, and process primary sources. Secondary source

materials can be articles in newspapers or popular magazines, book or movie reviews,

or articles found in scholarly journals that discuss or evaluate someone else's original

research.

In our research with a research design of phenomenology, the most appropriate

type of data source would be primary data sources specifically interviews. Moreover,

University of Hertfordshire stresses that interviews are the key source of data gathering

where human participants are involved. Using interviews as a data source has its own

benefits since it gives the researchers the control to external influences as well as the

opportunity to monitor non-verbal replies and the effect that questions may have on the

3
participants. Also by using secondary type of sources, we can support the idea and

provide evidence from other sources such as books and articles.

Using data sources as a way to provide ideas and evidences are necessary in

conducting a research since this will prove the credibility of the study. Primary and

secondary data sources are very useful in research for it helps the researchers in

completing the study. This will also serve as a guide and support to the researchers’

work. In a qualitative study, using interviews as a way of collecting the views and ideas

of the researchers’ participants is the most suitable way since interviews are more in-

depth and firsthand.

Data Collection

DeFranzo (2011) stated that there is a significant difference between qualitative

and quantitative data collection methods. Qualitative data collection methods may use

unstructured or semi-structured techniques. Meanwhile, quantitative data collection

methods are much structured as compared to the qualitative data collection method.

Moreover, Harrell and Bradley (2009) stated that the appropriate techniques

should be used in data collection methods in order to enhance the accuracy, validity,

and reliability of research findings. They also stated that through using interview, we

would be able to collect information from individuals about their practices, beliefs, and

opinions. We would also be able to gather information about the past and present

experiences of the participants. Therefore, semi-structured interviews will be conducted

in order to gain information that will be useful for this research. Gill et al. (2008) stated

that semi-structured interviews are very helpful to define the areas to be explored and it

4
also allows the researcher to diverge in order to gain more knowledge about the

participant.

As the researchers, we were aware that we should take thorough steps in the

data collection. In this study, the following steps were followed to ensure the completion

of the study:

First, we formulated different interview questions which would be appropriate for

our target participants in the study. Second, we set an appointment with the chosen

target participants for the target date of our interview with them. Third, we conducted the

interview with the participants. Written notes and audio recordings were taken during

the interview. Lastly, with the use of the written notes and audio recordings, we

transcribed it and analyzed the data we have gathered. To ensure the safety of the

data, all the transcribed recordings and notes will be stored on a flash drive and were

kept safe by the leader of the research group.

Data Analysis

According to Hycner (1985), a good way to phenomenologically analyze a data is

by having the interview audio recordings transcribed. This includes the verbatim

statements of the interviewees. Also, through analyzing data, bracketing is also needed

to be practiced. Bracketing is where the researcher focuses more on the answer of the

interviewee rather than pushing his or her own expected answers from the interviewee.

In this way, we will be given a wider knowledge of the topic through the perception of

other people.

5
 In our group, we transcribed the audio recordings we have gathered from the

interviews we conducted. Each member was given a copy in order to correct and verify

the content if it coincides with the written notes we have gathered as well. Afterward, the

edited version of the transcription was further corrected for grammatical errors. The

written notes from the interview underwent proofreading and verification by the

researchers until we came up with the abstract of the written notes.

When all the data has been collected, verified, and corrected, we proceeded with

the analysis of the data gathered. The written notes and the transcription from the

interview were further elaborated by connecting the notes to the transcription. In this

way, we were given the context on why the participants had that kind of answer. The

major topics in the interview such as the investing experience and the fears of young

investors was written on different topics and the answers of the participants was

thoroughly analyzed. Statements that may provide strong evidence was written in the

results in order to strengthen our research.

Trustworthiness of the Study

The trustworthiness of qualitative analysis typically is generally questioned by

positivists, maybe as a result of their ideas of validity and dependability can't be

addressed within the same manner in naturalistic work. Nonetheless, many writers on

analysis ways, notably Silverman, have demonstrated how qualitative researchers will

incorporate measures that deal with these problems, and investigators like Pitts have

tried to respond on to the problems of validity and dependableness in their own

6
qualitative studies. Several naturalistic investigators have, however, preferred to use

different terminology to distance themselves from the positivist paradigm.

One such author is Guba, who proposes four criteria that he believes should be

thought of by qualitative researchers in pursuit of a trustworthy study. By addressing

similar problems, Guba’s constructs correspond to the standards used by the positivist

investigator: a) believability (in preference to internal validity); b) exchangeability (in

preference to external validity/generalisability); c) responsibility (in preference to

reliability); d) confirmability (in preference to objectivity). though as recently as the

mid-1990s, Lincoln wrote that the full space of qualitative inquiry was “still rising and

being defined”, Guba’s constructs are accepted by several. This paper considers the

standards well and suggests provisions that the qualitative investigator might use to

satisfy them. The methods advocated area unit supported the expertise gained by

Shenton once undertaking a qualitative ph.D. study dedicated to the information-

seeking behavior of school-aged kids.

Credibility. One in all the key criteria self-addressed by positivist researchers

is that of internal validity, within which they look for to make sure that their study

measures or tests what's truly meant. According to Merriam, the qualitative

investigator’s equivalent conception, i.e. believability, deals with the question, “How

congruent area unit the findings with reality?” Lincoln and Guba argue that

guaranteeing believability is one amongst the foremost necessary factors in

establishing trustworthiness. The subsequent provisions could also be created by

analyzers to push confidence that they need accurately recorded the phenomena

beneath scrutiny: a) the adoption of research ways well established each within the

7
qualitative investigation generally and in information processing specifically. Rule

acknowledges the importance of incorporating “correct operational measures for the

ideas being studied”. Thus, the particular procedures used, like the line of questioning

pursued within the knowledge gathering sessions and therefore the ways of

information analysis, ought to be derived, wherever possible, from people who have

been successfully used in the previous comparable comes.

In terms of investigation of information-seeking behavior, the work of Dervin

has proved particularly influential in this regard. In their study of the data wants of

Seattle’s residents, Dervin et al. at the start invited participants to mirror situations

“Where you required help? Wherever you didn’t perceive something? Wherever did

you require making a decision what to do? Or wherever you were disturbed regarding

something?” Dervin’s respondents then represented well a specific instance inside

one of these classes. Similar methods are used after by Chen and Hernon, Poston-

Anderson and Edwards and Shenton amongst others;

Transferability. Merriam writes that external validity “is concerned with the

extent that the findings of one study are often applied to different situations”. In

positivist work, the priority typically lies in demonstrating that the results of the work on

hand are often applied to a wider population. Since the findings of a qualitative project

area unit specific to a tiny low range of explicit environments and people, it's not

possible to demonstrate that the findings and conclusions area unit applicable to

different things and populations. Erlandson et al. note that several representational

inquirers believe that, in practice, even typical generalisability is never possible as all

observations area unit outlined by the particular contexts within which they occur. A

8
contrasting view is offered by Stake and Denscombe, who counsel that, though every

case could also be distinctive, it's also an example within a broader cluster and, as a

result, the prospect of exchangeability shouldn't be instantly rejected. Still, such an

approach are often pursued solely with caution since, as Gomm, Hammersley, and

Foster acknowledge, it seems to belittle the importance of the contextual factors that

hit the case. Bassey proposes that, if practitioners believe their situations to be almost

like that represented within the study, they'll relate the findings to their own positions.

Lincoln and Guba and Firestone are among people who present an identical

argument and recommend that it's the responsibility of the investigator to make sure

that decent contextual data regarding the fieldwork sites is provided to enable the

reader to create such a transfer. They maintain that, since the investigator is aware of

solely the “sending context”, he or she cannot create exchangeability inferences. In

recent years such a stance has found favor with several qualitative researchers. When

poring over the outline inside the analysis report of the context within which the work

was undertaken, readers should verify how far they'll be assured in transferring to

different things the results and conclusions are given. It’s also necessary that

adequate thick description of the development under investigation is provided to

permit readers to have a correct understanding of it, thereby enabling them to check

the instances of the phenomenon described within the analysis report with those that

they have seen emerge in their situations.

Dependability. In addressing the problem of dependableness, the positivist

employs techniques to point out that, if the work were recurrent, within the same

context, with similar ways, and with similar participants, similar results would be

9
obtained. However, as Fidel and Marshall and Rossman note, the ever-changing

nature of the phenomena scrutinized by qualitative researchers renders such

provisions problematic in their work. Florio-Ruane highlights however the

investigator’s observations area unit tied to things of the study, tilt that the “published

descriptions area unit static and frozen within the ‘ethnographic present’”. Lincoln and

Guba stress the shut ties between believability and responsibility, arguing that, in

practice, a demonstration of the previous goes far in guaranteeing the latter. This

could be achieved through the utilization of “overlapping methods”, like the main target

cluster and individual interview.

In order to handle the reliability issue more directly, the processes inside the

study ought to be according in detail, thereby enabling a future investigator to repeat

the work, if not essential to achieve similar results. Thus, the research style could also

be viewed as a “prototype model”. Such in-depth coverage additionally permits the

reader to assess the extent to that correct research practices is followed. so as to

enable readers of the analysis report back to develop a radical understanding of the

ways and their effectiveness, the text ought to include sections dedicated to a) the

research style and its implementation, describing what was planned and dead on a

strategic level; b) the operational detail of knowledge gathering, addressing the trivia

of what was wiped out the field; c) reflective appraisal of the project, evaluating the

effectiveness of the method of inquiry undertaken.

Confirmability. Patton associates judgment in science with the utilization of

instruments that don't seem to be dependent on human ability and perception. He

acknowledges, however, the problem of guaranteeing real objectivity, since, as even

10
tests and questionnaires are designed by humans, the intrusion of the researcher’s

biases is inevitable. The idea of confirmability is that the qualitative investigator’s

comparable concern to objectivity. Here steps should be taken to assist guarantee as

way as the potential that the work’s findings area unit the results of the experiences

and ideas of the informants, instead of the characteristics and preferences of the

investigator.

The role of triangulation in promoting such confirmability should once more be

stressed, in this context to scale back the result of investigator bias. Miles and

Huberman consider that a key criterion for confirmability is that the extent to which the

investigator admits his or her own predispositions. To the current end, beliefs

underpinning choices created and ways adopted ought to be acknowledged inside the

analysis report, the explanations for favoring one approach when others might have

been taken explained and weaknesses within the techniques truly used admitted. In

terms of results, preliminary theories that ultimately weren't borne out by the

information should also be mentioned. A lot of the content in respect to these areas

could also be derived from the continued “reflective commentary”. Once more, an in-

depth method description allows the reader to see how far the information and

constructs emerging from it may be accepted.

Critical to the current method is the “audit trail” that permits any observer to

trace the course of the analysis in small stages via the selections created and

procedures represented. The “audit trail” could also be described graphically. 2 such

diagrams could also be created. One might take a data-oriented approach, showing,

however, the information eventually resulting in the formation of recommendations

11
was gathered and processed throughout the course of the study. This is often what's

generally understood by the term, “audit trail”. Additionally, however, the style in which

the ideas inherent within the analysis question gave rise to the work to follow could

also be tracked. This more theoretical “audit trail”, that ought to be understood in

terms of the full of the length of the project, could also be portrayed in a second

diagram.

Ethical Consideration

The ethical standards that are present in our study are anonymity, Informed

consent, confidentiality, and informing participants.

According to the Society of Research in Child Development Governing Council

(2017), anonymity is to gain access to institutional records. Permission from

responsible authorities in charge of records should be obtained by the researchers.

Keeping the information anonymous should always be practiced and no information

used other than that for which permission was obtained. Researchers should always

remember that the authorities being asked of permission should be credible enough to

give the permission needed. Researchers need to carefully consider whether they

have provided data which, if combined, risks violating participant anonymity.

The Ohio State University stated that informed consent should be obtained

after the participant has been presented with pertinent information has had adequate

time to review the consent document and have all questions answered. Consent

should be given before conducting any study specific procedures. Participant privacy

12
during the discussion is very vital and the environment of inquiring information should

be free of any possible influence and coercion from the research team.

The ethical duty of confidentiality refers to the obligation of an individual or

organization to safeguard entrusted information. Obligations to protect information

from unauthorized access, use, disclosure, modification, loss or theft are some of the

ethical duty of confidentiality. Fulfilling these obligations is very essential to secure the

trust in the relationship between the researcher and the participant and to the honesty

of the research project (Panel on Research Ethics, 2018).

13