Survey Research Methods for E-Learning Acceptance in Rural Nigeria

Introduction and Context: E-Learning in Rural Nigeria

This study is organized into three parts. The first part, the breadth component, identifies the differences between three important research paradigms, which are defined, compared, and contrasted with various types of research methodologies, with a particular emphasis on survey research methodology, using a selected bibliography to evaluate the methods. The second part, the depth component, presents the respective strengths and weaknesses of the survey methodology, an evaluation of data collection instruments and sampling strategies, and the key steps that must be taken to ensure successful use of the approach; this part also includes an annotated bibliography aligned to the research objectives. The final part, the application component, provides details concerning how the survey research method will be specifically used in the author's thesis work, which seeks to determine the attitudes and behavioral intentions of students at a private university in a rural area of Nigeria regarding their acceptance of e-learning. This is accomplished by identifying a problem for the research, the research purpose, research questions, theoretical foundations of the proposed research, and the methodology used to conduct the research.

Today, the people of Nigeria stand at an educational crossroads, with one path leading to a continuation of the lackluster status quo and the other leading to opportunities for improvement in the manner in which educational services are delivered. The former path will likely result in the country's literacy rate remaining low, its infant death rate remaining high, and its people relegated to a life expectancy of less than 50 years (Nigeria, 2010). By sharp contrast, the latter path can lead to improvements in access to educational services — in general and for females in particular — for the large numbers of Nigerians who live in rural regions of the country, in ways that will contribute to their ability to gain meaningful employment and support the economic and social growth of Nigeria in the future.

According to Roffe (2004), Nigerians who live in rural regions face profound and complicated challenges in overcoming the so-called "digital divide" that separates the information "haves" from the "have-nots." Although electrification efforts have proceeded over the years, many parts of the country remain without reliable grid-based electricity. Moreover, even assuming that an alternative energy source such as solar or wind power can be used to power Internet-enabled computers, some Nigerians may live in regions where hills or mountains interfere with the line-of-sight transmissions needed for reliable Internet service. Assuming that these challenges can be overcome in a cost-effective fashion, the problem remains concerning whether Nigerians living in remote regions of the country will accept the technology and apply it for learning purposes. In this regard, Roffe emphasizes that, "People living in [rural] areas are assumed to be 'digital poor.' To benefit from technology, citizens will need a suite of e-skills, not just in digital literacy, but also in a range of associated key skills such as collaborative working and learning to learn" (p. 16).

Teachers will also need to develop new skills to use a virtual learning environment effectively. Stevens (2006) emphasizes that, "Teaching face-to-face and on-line are different skills and teachers have to learn to teach from one site to another. This is fundamental to the success of e-teaching. Teachers have to learn to teach collaboratively with colleagues from multiple sites and have to judge when it is appropriate to teach on-line and when it is appropriate to teach students in traditional face-to-face ways. These judgments have to be defended on the basis of sound pedagogy" (p. 120).

Research on teacher preparation and adult learning highlights several factors that exemplify high-quality training of teachers for e-learning settings:

1. Subject matter must be made meaningful and understandable. Through activities and tasks, students must learn general principles to apply in authentic settings.
2. Subject matter is acquired best in environments where the knowledge and methods to be learned are modeled. Multi-media presentations generated from field sites can be used to demonstrate and analyze effective practice.
3. Online modules of evidence-based practices can serve this population well by providing practice, relevant examples, answers to questions, and research citations to support the practice. Such modules can be increasingly easy to access, can respond to consumers' "need to know," and can be updated quickly as new evidence is published (West & Jones, 2007, p. 4).

Unfortunately, many of the benefits available to e-learners may remain unavailable even when young Nigerian citizens are able to gain access to institutions of higher learning with modern learning tools, because they may lack the "e-skills" needed to use those tools to best effect. It is reasonable to assume that students who lack these skills will hold a vastly different attitude toward e-learning initiatives compared to those who do. The advantages of e-learning in general — and for higher educational institutions that lack geographic proximity to larger urban centers in particular — are well documented. Stevens notes that, "The growth of e-learning in schools has led to pedagogical considerations and to the development of new ways of managing knowledge that enable these institutions to assume extended roles in the regions they serve" (2006, p. 119).

Research Paradigms: Positivist, Constructivist, and Pragmatic

Therefore, in order to formulate a path to improvement, an appropriate research paradigm must be identified and used effectively. Wright (2002) emphasizes that, "There is a current lack of relevance of educational research in Africa that highlights the need for paradigms that would link research better with policy and practice in education" (p. 279). Moreover, the unique nature of the Nigerian educational context requires a robust research paradigm capable of developing an understanding of the issues from an African perspective. As Wright concludes, "Any such [research] paradigm needs to be firmly rooted in the reality of a particular African educational context" (p. 279).

The Age of Information is characterized by incessant research of all types by people from all walks of life. More formal approaches to research typically involve a more systematic and rigorous approach to data collection and analysis. Leedy and Ormrod (2005) advise that "research is a systematic process of collecting, analyzing, and interpreting information (data) in order to increase our understanding of the phenomenon about which we are interested or concerned" (p. 2).

The emphasis on systematic process as part of formal research is also noted by Cohen, Manion, and Morrison (2000), who point out that "Research is best conceived as the process of arriving at dependable solutions to problems through the planned and systematic collection, analysis, and interpretation of data" (p. 45). As an extension of formal research, research paradigms provide the general framework in which research can proceed systematically. Olapurath (2008) reports that "Research paradigms are coherent sets of beliefs about the nature of social reality, purpose of social science research, nature of knowledge, and research procedures and criteria, held by practicing researchers, and that guide the research they do" (p. 37).

There remains a lack of consensus concerning which research paradigm is best suited for specific purposes, and some authorities reject the categorization of research traditions into paradigm form altogether. Corby notes that "Some researchers do not see the value of classification by paradigm. The choice and construction of research approach is a technical matter reflecting the middle-range theory and intellectual reference point applied by the investigator to a research problem. Good researchers tend to pull methods out of a tool kit as they are needed" (2006, p. 54). Notwithstanding these criticisms, most social researchers agree that classification by some type of research paradigm is a useful approach. As Corby concludes, "The contested nature of research makes it impossible and unhelpful to ignore the different aims and purposes of various research projects and the methods and approaches being used to carry them out" (2006, p. 54).

The positivist research paradigm is a quantitative-based approach that generally seeks to identify trends and patterns that can be used to formulate predictions about human behavior. According to Neuman (2003), positivist social science is "an approach to social science that combines a deductive approach with precise measurement of quantitative data so researchers can discover and confirm causal laws that will permit predictions about human behavior" (p. 541). Krauss (2005) notes that, "In the positivist paradigm, the object of study is independent of researchers; knowledge is discovered and verified through direct observations or measurements of phenomena; facts are established by taking apart a phenomenon to examine its component parts" (p. 759).

Davis (1998) emphasizes that "The quantitative (or positivist) research paradigm is based on the assumption that research is 'value-free' and objective. It is used to test hypotheses in a controlled environment based on validity, reliability, generalization, and replication" (p. 5). It is this assumption of being "value-free" that has attracted criticism, with some researchers arguing that it is difficult if not impossible to achieve. Davis adds that "In quantitative research, the concept of reliability assumes an unchanging world, where inquiry can quite logically be replicated. In the real world, we know that change is a constant, and the social world we live in is always being constructed, therefore making replication and generalization difficult at best" (p. 5).

Despite these constraints, positivist and other quantitative-based research paradigms have been shown to be useful in educational areas such as "exercise physiology, public health, trends in recreation and leisure services, and movement analysis in dance forms" (Davis, 1998, p. 5). According to Cohen, Manion, and Morrison (2000), "Positivist researchers are more concerned to derive universal statements of general social processes rather than to provide accounts of the degree of commonality between various social settings (e.g. schools and classrooms)" (p. 109). Lin (1998) reports that "Positivist researchers believe that they can take information from thick description or case studies about variables and hypotheses that they then test more rigorously" (p. 162).

In sharp contrast to the positivist research paradigm, the constructivist paradigm maintains that: (1) knowledge is created via the meanings that humans attach to the phenomena under investigation; (2) researchers interact with the subjects of study to obtain data; (3) inquiry changes both researcher and subject; and (4) knowledge is context and time dependent (Krauss, 2005). The constructivist research paradigm is also differentiated from the positivist paradigm in that positivism is essentially objectivist — holding that it is possible for an observer to exteriorize the reality studied while remaining detached from it — whereas "the constructivist takes the position that the knower and the known are co-created during the inquiry" (Krauss, 2005, p. 761).

Kincheloe (2002) makes useful distinctions concerning three levels of research cognition, with the constructivist research paradigm situated at the top of the research cognition hierarchy. The first level (puzzle-solving research) treats educational problems as well-structured puzzles for which particular solutions may be inductively agreed upon after researchers have been exposed to a common set of empirical observations. Certainty is deemed possible because puzzles push researchers into a single correct pathway. The second level involves meta-cognition, where researchers reflect on their first-level research activities, identifying mistakes, analyzing alternative strategies, and applying new forms of research that provide unique perspectives. The third level, drawing on critical constructivism, opens the door to epistemological considerations, where researchers examine the criteria and certainty of knowing and question the nature of problems themselves.

As Kincheloe (2002) explains, "Each level of research is necessary to the understanding of the next. Indeed, there are puzzle-like questions in education that lend themselves to empirical analysis. A form of meta-cognition is undoubtedly valuable to increasing the sophistication of such empirical questions. But such forms of research cognition do researchers little good when we begin to look at ill-defined questions such as 'What is the relationship between school performance and social class?' and 'How do definitions of intelligence affect that relationship?'" (p. 155).

The constructivist research paradigm maintains that sustained engagement with a study's participants is essential to establish trust and build rapport; however, even advocates have warned against "going native" — becoming overly involved with the culture of participants (Torres & Magolda, 2002). According to these authorities, "Incorporating oneself into the culture being observed is essential, yet one needs some distance from which to render professional judgment. This involves balancing 'falling in love' with participants and maintaining some distance from them" (p. 475). Researchers must also "step back and see their own stories in the inquiry, the stories of the participants, as well as the larger landscape on which they all live" (Torres & Magolda, 2002, p. 475).

Kincheloe (2002) notes that "The difference between critical constructivist research and objective traditional educational research rests on the willingness of critical constructivist researchers to reveal their allegiances, to admit their solidarities, their value structures, and the ways such orientations affect their inquiries" (p. 61). Engstrom (2000) adds that "Our profession needs to think creatively about how to create adequate space in our literature for constructivist research efforts so the integrity of the research process is respected and the potential contributions of these works are maximized" (p. 132).

According to Corby (2006), pragmatic research paradigms can be equated to various types of evaluations, and pragmatic evaluation is "research with a distinctive purpose, a focus on value — the most important purpose of evaluation is not to prove but to improve" (p. 53). The pragmatic paradigm stands apart from the others by being less concerned with identifying specific causal relationships or discerning patterns and trends than with adherence to one research paradigm to the exclusion of others. As Klenke (2008) notes, "Pragmatists share, with other anti-positivists, the view that multiple interpretations of events and different concepts and classificatory schemes can be used to describe phenomena" (p. 27).

Pragmatic researchers do not place as much emphasis on the distinctions typically drawn between objectivity and subjectivity. Klenke points out that "While pragmatists reject an essential and fundamental distinction between objective and subjective, they can accept, for pragmatic reasons, that there are differences between facts and values and different methods of inquiry appropriate to each" (p. 27). By acknowledging these fundamental differences, pragmatic researchers can employ a wide range of methodological approaches as needed. Corby (2006) suggests that provided the researcher is transparent concerning the details and rationale for the use of different methodologies, the pragmatic approach can be a valuable addition to the researcher's repertoire: "The designation of the term 'pragmatic' to the methods used in research can obscure what is really happening. This does not mean that multi-method researching [or] an eclectic approach cannot take place and does not have value, provided it is done transparently" (p. 54).

Quantitative and Qualitative Research Methods Compared

The decision concerning which research paradigm is best suited for a particular application relates specifically to what types of information are available and the intended goals of the researcher. For example, if a researcher is interested in determining the percentage increase in African-Americans living in the United States during the period from 1980 to 1990, a quantitative analysis of census data for those periods would be most appropriate. By contrast, if a researcher is more interested in determining gains or losses in quality-of-life indicators for this population during the same period, a qualitative approach would be more appropriate. In some cases, researchers achieve more by using both qualitative and quantitative methods than through either approach in isolation (Baines & Chansarkar, 2002).

Both research traditions share some commonalities. As Neuman (2003) points out, both qualitative and quantitative research methods "use several specific research techniques (e.g., survey, interview, and historical analysis), yet there is much overlap between the type of data and the style of research. Most qualitative-style researchers examine qualitative data and vice versa" (p. 16). Both are also capable of being valid and reliable (Quantitative research methods, 2010).

Quantitative research methods rely on the use of numbers in some form to develop findings (Neuman, 2003). Despite the growing acceptance of qualitative research for social research applications, many researchers continue to favor quantitative methods based on their perceived advantages of reliability and validity using a scientific approach. Davis (1998) raises important critiques, though: "There are many fallacies associated with the quantitative paradigm. When studying human beings, is there really any research that can be truly 'value-free' and objective? Is it enough to study only 'what is' without looking at the 'how and why?'" (p. 5).

Furthermore, "counting the beans" may not be enough to gain a comprehensive picture of the topic being researched. Davis notes that "Quantitative researchers spend years manipulating numbers and gathering surface data that have little meaning. They detach themselves from their subjects, missing valuable information that cannot be observed through 'objective' methods" (p. 5). Davis also suggests that quantitative validity is much more elusive than many advocates maintain, pointing out that he has "yet to see a quantitative research study in any research journal that has been done well — one that has included enough information to be replicated, that has controlled for all of the possible biases and extraneous variables that affect the results, that has provided sufficient evidence of informed consent, that has been generalized correctly to a specific target population, etc." (Davis, 1998, p. 5).

In contrast to quantitative research, qualitative research methods rely on text, pictures, graphics, and other non-quantified resources (Neuman, 2003). Qualitative methods have gained increasing acceptance in recent years. Crowley (1994) notes that, "During the past two decades researchers have increasingly used qualitative research methods to access traditionally unavailable data. Far from a unified set of principles, qualitative research methods encompass a range of procedures to select from based on their suitability to the research purpose" (p. 55). Available qualitative methods include historical methodology, ethnography, phenomenology, hermeneutics, field-based case study, grounded theory, and action research (Burton & Steane, 2004).

Davis (1998) emphasizes that "The qualitative (or postpositivist) research paradigm explores a problem or describes a setting, a process, a social group, or a pattern of interaction. The goal of qualitative methodology is the same as quantitative methodology — to identify clear and consistent patterns of phenomena using a systematic process" (p. 5). Krauss (2005) points out that "Many qualitative researchers operate under different epistemological assumptions from quantitative researchers. For instance, many qualitative researchers believe that the best way to understand any phenomenon is to view it in its context" (p. 75). Qualitative researchers see "all quantification as limited in nature, looking only at one small portion of a reality that cannot be split or unitized without losing the importance of the whole phenomenon" (p. 759).

According to Krauss (2005), "Qualitative research has the unique goal of facilitating the meaning-making process. The complexity of meaning in the lives of people has much to do with how meaning is attributed to different objects, people and life events" (p. 763). Creswell (1997) reports that qualitative research is conducted "in a natural setting where the researcher is an instrument of data collection who gathers words or pictures, analyzes them inductively, focuses on the meaning of participants, and describes a process that is expressive and persuasive in language" (p. 14).

Davis (1998) argues that the natural subjectivity of qualitative research, for which it is most criticized, "is actually its greatest strength. It is used by researchers to develop theory, describe complex social situations, gain entry into research areas that are not available to quantitative researchers, uncover rival hypotheses and unanticipated outcomes, and extend previous quantitative research" (p. 5). Despite its growing popularity, many peer-reviewed journals still tend to prefer quantitative studies; even at universities, "dissertation committees continue to criticize systematic, well-grounded qualitative studies because they do not use numerical data or because they do not have enough people in their sample" (Davis, 1998, p. 5). As Davis concludes, "Quantitative research based on the scientific method has contributed to the knowledge base in all of these areas for a long time and is certainly appropriate for some research purposes. However, that does not make it 'better' than qualitative research" (p. 5).

Babbie (1999) notes that one constraint commonly associated with qualitative research concerns the selective observations and the involvement of the researcher's ego, which can combine to produce findings that are subjective rather than objective. Austin and Pinkleton (2001) emphasize that "When research findings are objective, they unbiasedly reflect the attitudes and behaviors of study participants, regardless of the personal views of researchers or project sponsors. On the other hand, selective observation may occur when researchers selectively interpret results. When this happens, research results are worse than meaningless: they are wrong" (p. 82). Assuming these constraints are controlled for, both qualitative and quantitative research methods can be used alone or in tandem to good effect in survey research.

Human beings are enormously difficult subjects to study, especially over the long term, which accounts for the relatively few longitudinal studies conducted, particularly in educational settings. Longitudinal methods are also very expensive. It is in this area that survey research appears to have a distinct advantage. According to Malhotra (2004), "Surveys are the most flexible means of obtaining data from respondents" (p. 117). As a result of this flexibility, surveys have become an increasingly popular method of primary research collection. Hopkins (1999) reports that "The mailed questionnaire has become the most common data-gathering tool in educational and social research" (p. 52).