Lesson 4: Data Collection Phase

by Joanna Ng

Methods for Collecting Data

• Questionnaires: open-end, close-end
• Interviews
• Observation
• Unobtrusive Measure

Questionnaires

Questionnaire is one of the most efficient methods to collect data. This kind of method can obtain large volume of data in a short amount of time, thus is more inexpensive. There are also a lot of surveys and questionnaire available. The result and responses obtained from questionnaires are also helpful because it can be quantified,thus organizations can use this data to assess their performance.

However questionnaires have its own disadvantages because unlike in interviews, responses from surveys are limiting because respondents only answer the questions provided and further clarification on the reason of their answers cannot be known. Another disadvantage is that some employees may not sincerely answer the questionnaires or surveys. This happens even in school setting. Not all students read and answer the teachers’ evaluation or other evaluation form carefully. Since questions found in questionnaires can be more general and impersonal and it becomes more difficult to extract valid conclusions.

Interviews

Interviews are more flexible compare to questionnaires because it is more direct. In this case, this is very useful because the personal views of the employees about the organization can be extracted during an interview that’s why interview is considered as a source of rich data. Because interview allows data collection on a range of possible subjects; it is very adaptive. The process of interviewing can also build relationships and this is helpful because this helps employees be more open and comfortable in sharing their feelings about the organization.

This rapport can also be disadvantageous because interview can then be bias and his can distort the data. Interview is also very time-consuming and expensive. The rich data interviews provide can also be a disadvantage because it makes coding and interpretation difficult.

Interviews can be done individually or by group. Group interviews though can sometimes restrain other people from expressing their views or feelings.

Observations

In the observation method, the OD practitioner simply observes the behaviors of the organization and its members. The practitioner looks around in the work area. There is participant-observation where the OD practitioner completely involves himself into the group and becomes a member. The more detached version would be just observing. The OD practitioner would record the behaviors of the members through videotapes or film and study them.

The problem with observation though is that practitioners are the data collection tool so there’s a strong possibility for personal biases and this can distort the data, which unlike in questionnaires and interviews the practitioners gather data from the respondents through surveys and questions. Another problem is the sampling because practitioners should know how, where and when to observe.

Unobtrusive Measures

This method is helpful because data and information are gathered from company records. It is unobtrusive because it collects data from secondary sources without the much need of the members’ participation, thus being free from respondent and practitioner biases. Company records can say a lot about an organization. For example, company has their reports on the patterns of their sales. From this they’ll now when they have the highest and lowest sale of the year.

The problem with this though is the limited data company records and reports provide. Because most company records production performance based on group or by department but individual performance data are not recorded. This limits the consultant in drawing valid conclusions.

Despite, data gathered from unobtrusive measure is useful for preliminary diagnosis of the possible problems of the organization. This is useful for other methods such as observation and interviews.

Reflection

I got these information from our notes and the reading, Collecting and Analyzing Diagnostic Information. In my personal view, I would say that interview and observation works best for me. Because I like doing interviews because it’s personal and you get to see the reaction of the people in response to your question. You get to listen to the respondents answers right away and you’ll know if it’s useful or if you still need to extract more. I like forming questions for interviews although most of the time I just formulate basic or general questions and just go with the flow of the interview. I prefer individual interviews because group interviews like focus group discussions (FGD) sometimes forms tension among the respondents because of their conflicting views. And I think it’s hard to work and concentrate in such an environment.

I also like the observation method because I simple like observing. In my opinion, there are so many thing you’ll know about a person just by mere observation same as in organizations. According to the readings, there are two types of observation: participant-observation which is the attached one and the other is the detached one. I believe in participant-observation because as we’ve tackled before in our THEORYC (Communication Theories) class, people are inclined to the Hawthorne effect. Hawthorneeffect is the reactivity of the respondents or the subjects wherein they modify their behavior because they’re and they know that they’re being studied, thus distorting the data collection. That’s why I believe in the effectiveness of being a participant-observer because you get to be with and part of them. They would then become more comfortable with you that they get to show their true selves and the data you gather would be more valid. Although this can have the tendency of biases but one should just always stay professional.