Methodology in research
METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
This chapter outlines the research methodology used to investigate the effect of Information Systems on the performance of government agencies in Uganda. It details the research design, area of study, target population, sample design, sample size, research instruments, measurement of variables, data collection procedures, data analysis methods, and ethical considerations.
3.2 Research Design
The study employed a cross-sectional research design, which allowed the researcher to gather data from various segments of the target population. This design was chosen for its cost-effectiveness in terms of time and resources, as suggested by Mugenda (2003) and Sekaran (2004). A combination of both quantitative and qualitative approaches was used to collect and analyze data, as these methods complement each other and help minimize bias (Mugenda, 2003). Triangulation, as discussed by Amin (2005), enabled a more comprehensive analysis by combining inductive and deductive methods, offering a deeper insight into the study’s findings. The qualitative approach also provided an understanding of respondents’ opinions, perceptions, and attitudes, enriching the analysis.
Methodology in research
3.3 Study Population
The study focused on employees of the Uganda Revenue Authority (URA), consisting of 239 individuals, including 1 Executive Director, 12 management staff, 40 Division Heads, 5 Regional Heads, and 181 staff members whose roles influenced the effect of Information Systems on government agency performance.
3.4 Determination of Sample Size
Based on Krejcie and Morgan’s (1970) sample size determination table, a sample size of 181 was selected from a population of 239 URA employees and 100 prominent taxpayers.
| Category | Population Size | Sample Size | Sampling Technique |
|---|---|---|---|
| Executive Director | 1 | 1 | Purposive Sampling |
| Managers | 12 | 12 | Purposive Sampling |
| Division Heads | 40 | 38 | Purposive Sampling |
| Regional Heads | 5 | 5 | Purposive Sampling |
| Staff Members | 181 | 93 | Simple Random Sampling |
| Taxpayers | 100 | 32 | Simple Random Sampling |
| Total | 339 | 181 |
Methodology in research
3.5 Sampling Techniques and Procedure
The study utilized both probability and non-probability sampling methods. Simple random sampling was employed under probability sampling, while purposive sampling was used for non-probability sampling.
3.5.1 Simple Random Sampling
This technique ensured that each member of the population had an equal chance of being selected, thereby reducing bias (Neuman, 2006). It was used to select staff members and taxpayers.
Methodology in research
3.5.2 Purposive Sampling
Purposive sampling was adopted to select participants who had the most relevant information for the study, saving time and resources. This method was used to select the Executive Director, Managers, Division Heads, and Regional Heads (Mugenda, 2003; Neuman, 2006).
Methodology in research
3.6 Data Collection Methods
The data collection methods included a questionnaire survey, interviews, and document review.
3.6.1 Questionnaire Survey
This method was used to collect data from staff members, Division Heads, Regional Heads, and taxpayers. It allowed respondents to take their time in responding, ensuring more thoughtful and reliable data (Onen & Onen, 2013).
3.6.2 Interview
Interviews were used to gather qualitative data from key informants, including the Executive Director and Managers. Open-ended questions were employed to elicit detailed responses and personal reflections.
3.6.3 Documentary Review
Documents such as URA reports, journals, and newspapers were reviewed to supplement the primary data collected.
Methodology in research
3.7 Data Collection Instruments
Each data collection method had a corresponding instrument. These included the self-administered questionnaire, interview guide, and document review checklist.
3.7.1 Self-Administered Questionnaire
The questionnaire contained both closed-ended and open-ended questions, with a 5-point Likert scale to measure respondents’ agreement or disagreement on various topics.
3.7.2 Interview Guide
An unstructured interview guide was used to gather in-depth qualitative data from key respondents, providing opportunities for clarification and deeper insights (Sekaran, 2004).
3.7.3 Document Review Checklist
This checklist was used to capture secondary data from relevant documents, helping the researcher assess the extent of Information Systems’ impact on URA performance.
Methodology in research
3.8 Data Quality Control
Data collection instruments were pre-tested to ensure accuracy and validity.
3.8.1 Validity
Validity refers to the extent to which the research instruments accurately represent the study’s objectives. The Content Validity Index (CVI) was calculated, and experts reviewed the instruments to ensure validity.
| Variable | Total Items | Valid Items | CVI |
|---|---|---|---|
| Systems Software | 9 | 7 | 0.77 |
| Systems Infrastructure | 9 | 8 | 0.88 |
| User Knowledge and Skills | 11 | 8 | 0.72 |
| Financial Performance | 3 | 3 | 1.00 |
| Customer Satisfaction | 4 | 3 | 0.75 |
| Growth | 5 | 4 | 0.80 |
| Total | 46 | 36 | 0.82 |
A CVI of 0.82 was achieved, indicating a high level of content validity (Waner, 2005).
3.8.2 Reliability
Reliability was measured using Cronbach’s Alpha, which ranged from 0.00 (no reliability) to 1.00 (perfect reliability). The study achieved an overall reliability of 0.77, which is considered reliable (Amin, 2005).
| Variable | Alpha | Number of Items |
|---|---|---|
| Systems Software | 0.808 | 9 |
| Systems Infrastructure | 0.673 | 9 |
| User Knowledge and Skills | 0.840 | 11 |
| Financial Performance | 0.670 | 3 |
| Customer Satisfaction | 0.77 | 4 |
| Growth | 0.86 | 5 |
| Overall Average | 0.77 | 41 |
3.9 Data Collection Procedure
The researcher obtained an introductory letter from Uganda Management Institute and sought permission from URA to conduct the study. Consent was sought from all respondents before administering the questionnaires and conducting interviews.
Methodology in research
3.10 Data Analysis
Both quantitative and qualitative data analysis methods were used.
3.10.1 Quantitative Data Analysis
Data was entered into SPSS version 24.0 for analysis, generating frequency tables, percentages, means, variances, and standard deviations. Spearman’s correlation coefficient and regression analysis were employed to measure the effect of Information Systems on government agency performance.
3.10.2 Qualitative Data Analysis
Qualitative data was analyzed using content analysis, where raw data was organized and evaluated for accuracy, credibility, and consistency.
Methodology in Research
3.11 Measurement of Variables
A five-point Likert scale was used to measure responses, ranging from “Strongly Disagree” (1) to “Strongly Agree” (5).
3.12 Ethical Considerations
The researcher ensured respondents’ consent was obtained before participation, maintained confidentiality, and informed participants that the study was solely for academic purposes. Only selected respondents were given questionnaires and interviewed.
