BIOMETRICS IN THE UNITED STATES 31 Methodology Data C.docx

BIOMETRICS IN THE UNITED STATES 31
Methodology
Data Collection Technique
The study was conducted in two parts. The first part of the
study was an intensive
literature review of the existing biometrics literature to learn
what other researchers have
identified as impacts to biometrics acceptance. Additionally,
the literature review identified
previous surveys that researchers had conducted and those
surveys and their results were used to
develop the second part of the study.
The second part of the study was an anonymous online survey
that was designed to
collect and analyze participants’ opinions of biometrics and
their thoughts on acceptable uses of
the technology. The survey was created and administered using
Google’s forms functionality on
Google Docs. The survey consisted of five demographic
questions, 19 multiple choice

quantitative questions, and four fill-in-the-blank qualitative
questions. The results of the survey
were compiled in Google Docs using their spreadsheet
functionality. A copy of the survey
questions is included in this report as Appendix A.
The five demographic questions were multiple choice and
designed to gather information
such as the age of the participant, level of education, gender,
and experience with biometrics.
This data was used in the analysis to identify differences in
opinions based on demographic
characteristics. Additionally, the demographic information was
used to compare the sample
makeup to the overall population of the United States in order
to validate the results of the
survey. The 19 quantitative questions were divided into five
separate groups of questions
designed to gather data for different aspects of the study. Each
question had five answers for the
participant to choose from. The first section consisted of four
multiple choice questions
designed to measure the participants level of comfort with using
biometrics technology in the

different situations in each question. The participants chose
between the five answer options of
very comfortable, somewhat comfortable, unsure, somewhat
uncomfortable, or very
uncomfortable. The second section consisted of five questions
with the same options for the
participants to choose from as the first section. This section
was designed to measure the
participants’ level of comfort with different biometric
modalities. The third section consisted of
four questions designed to measure the participants’ acceptance
with different uses of biometrics.
The participants chose between the five answer options of very
acceptable, somewhat acceptable,
unsure, somewhat unacceptable, or very unacceptable. The
fourth section consisted of four
questions with the same answer categories as the third section.
This section was designed to
measure the participants’ level of acceptance with different
implementations of biometrics
technologies. The fifth section consisted of two questions
designed to capture the participants

overall opinion of biometrics and their roles in security and
convenience. To answer these
questions, the participants chose between the answer options of
very significantly, somewhat
significantly, unsure, very little, or none.
The four qualitative questions were designed to gather any
suggestions that the
participants had without being constrained by the limit or
format of the multiple choice options
of the quantitative design. Additionally, they were designed to
capture the general attitude and
opinion of the participants in their own words. The first
narrative question aimed to identify
locations where biometrics would be beneficial. The second
question was designed to identify
instances and situations where biometrics were needed for a
specific purpose. The third question
aimed to identify specific criteria that needed to be met in order
to use biometrics technology in
an acceptable manner. The fourth question was designed to
gather criteria for the unacceptable

use of biometrics and identify when biometrics collection would
be objectionable to the survey
participants.
Subjects and Setting
The survey participants were solicited from a small population
of people known by the
author and the faculty advisor. Participation was solicited
through the use of notifications on the
social networking site, Facebook, and emails sent to faculty and
students of American Military
University as well as co-workers, friends, and family of the
author. The notifications and emails
explained the purpose of the survey, requested their
participation, and provided the link to the
online survey. There were no identification numbers assigned
to the survey links and no way of
identifying who participated in the survey as it was completely
anonymous with the exception of
the demographic information which had little to no identifying
information.
The solicitation on Facebook was conducted as a status
message with a request for the
author’s “Facebook friends” to complete the survey with a link
to the survey location. Of the

almost 300 acquaintances on Facebook, it is expected there was
a five to ten percent participation
rate in the survey. The 300 individuals ranged from over 18
years old to over 80 years old, in a
variety of occupations, with varying levels of education, and
geographically located all over the
United States. The author’s co-workers are all employed by the
United States Coast Guard,
located in Washington, D.C., between the ages of 25 years old
and 60 years old, and most have
at least a Bachelor’s degree. There were less than 30 co-
workers that were asked to participate in
the survey. The students and faculty of American Military
University were all well-educated
with all of them having at least a Bachelor’s degree.
Additionally, they were all over 24 years
old, employed in many different occupations, and
geographically located all over the United
States.
Statistical Analysis

For the quantitative portion of the study, each question had five
choices of answers. Each
of those answers was converted to a value between one and five.
Additionally, each of the
questions was assigned a question number for easier charting
and analysis. Then, the results of
the survey were placed into an Excel spreadsheet where they
were studied and analyzed. First,
the average of each question was calculated. Then, the standard
deviation and variance were
calculated. Once those values were calculated for the entire
population, the spreadsheet was
used to filter the results by demographic characteristics and the
same calculations were
conducted for the different characteristics. Those results were
compiled and placed in tables
where they were subsequently graphed. The researcher
compared the results in each category
against the overall average and against the other categories to
develop assumptions about the
demographic subsets. Additionally, the researcher considered
the number of participants from
each category when considering the significance of each
subset’s average. If the category had a

small number of participants, its results were not given the same
regard as a category with many
participants because the average of the smaller category could
be more greatly impacted by the
answers of one or two participants. This would not lead to a
fair and accurate categorization for
those demographic subsets.
Limitations of the Study
The study was limited by the amount of time available to
complete it and the number of
participants that completed the online survey. As the study was
conducted in order to complete a
thesis to fulfill a requirement for a Master’s degree program,
the author was constrained by the
amount of time available in the course and in order to complete
the study in time, the author used
a small population of participants that would respond quickly.
For this study, the survey was
open for two weeks and had 69 participants complete the
questionnaire.
Another limitation in the survey was the potential lack of

diversity in the participants and
the disparity with the larger population of the United States of
America. The participants of the
study were predominately male with only 33% of the
participants being female. According to a
2012 census study, almost 51% of the population of the United
States was female (United States
Census Bureau, n.d.c). Additionally, an overwhelming number
of the participants in the study
had obtained a higher level of education than the national
average. Forty-one percent of the
participants had obtained a Master’s degree and 20% of the
participants had obtained a Doctorate
degree while the national average in the United States was that
8.41% of the population had
obtained a Master’s degree and 1.68% had obtained a doctorate.
Additionally, 35% of the survey
participants had obtained a Bachelor’s degree which was higher
than the national average of
20.09% (United States Census Bureau, n.d.b.). Another
disparity between the survey sample and
the population of the United States was the number of military
members that participated.
Almost 28% of the participants in the survey were military

which was much higher than the
national average of less than 1% of the population (National
Public Radio, 2011). Also, the age
dispersion of the survey participants was not as varied as the
population of the United States.
There were over three times the percentage of 25-34 year olds
represented in the survey than in
the population of the United States. People between the ages of
25 and 34 comprise 13.4% of
the population of the United States. However, they made up
43% of the participants for the
survey. Similarly, 28% of the survey participants were between
the ages of 35 and 44 years old,
but only 12.9% of the population of the United States are in that
age range. The percentage of
survey participants between the ages of 45 and 64 years old was
very close to the percentage of
the United States population with 23% of survey participants
and 26.5% of the U.S. population
falling in that range. Survey participants 65 years old and older
were underrepresented in the

survey with only 6% of the participants falling in that age range
when the national average is
13.4% of the population is 65 or older (United States Census
Bureau, n.d.a). These limitations
can be attributed to the sample populations chosen for the
survey and the method used to gather
data. Because the survey participants were solicited using
online social media to reach out to
acquaintances of the author and emails were used to reach out to
co-workers of the author and
students and employees of the American Military University,
there was not much diversity
present in the participants.
Methodology
Data Collection Technique
The study was conducted in two parts. The first part of the
study was an intensive
literature review of the existing biometrics literature to learn
what other researchers have

identified as impacts to biometrics acceptance. Additionally,
the literature review identified
previous surveys that researchers had conducted and those
surveys and their results were used to
develop the second part of the study.
The second part of the study was an anonymous online survey
that was designed to
collect and analyze participants’ opinions of biometrics and
their thoughts on acceptable uses of
the technology. The survey was created and administered using
Google’s forms functionality on
Google Docs. The survey consisted of five demographic
questions, 19 multiple choice
quantitative questions, and four fill-in-the-blank qualitative
questions. The results of the survey
were compiled in Google Docs using their spreadsheet
functionality. A copy of the survey
questions is included in this report as Appendix A.
The five demographic questions were multiple choice and
designed to gather information
such as the age of the participant, level of education, gender,
and experience with biometrics.
This data was used in the analysis to identify differences in

opinions based on demographic
characteristics. Additionally, the demographic information was
used to compare the sample
makeup to the overall population of the United States in order
to validate the results of the
survey. The 19 quantitative questions were divided into five
separate groups of questions
designed to gather data for different aspects of the study. Each
question had five answers for the
participant to choose from. The first section consisted of four
multiple choice questions
designed to measure the participants level of comfort with using
biometrics technology in the
different situations in each question. The participants chose
between the five answer options of
very comfortable, somewhat comfortable, unsure, somewhat
uncomfortable, or very
uncomfortable. The second section consisted of five questions
with the same options for the
participants to choose from as the first section. This section
was designed to measure the

participants’ level of comfort with different biometric
modalities. The third section consisted of
four questions designed to measure the participants’ acceptance
with different uses of biometrics.
The participants chose between the five answer options of very
acceptable, somewhat acceptable,
unsure, somewhat unacceptable, or very unacceptable. The
fourth section consisted of four
questions with the same answer categories as the third section.
This section was designed to
measure the participants’ level of acceptance with different
implementations of biometrics
technologies. The fifth section consisted of two questions
designed to capture the participants
overall opinion of biometrics and their roles in security and
convenience. To answer these
questions, the participants chose between the answer options of
very significantly, somewhat
significantly, unsure, very little, or none.
The four qualitative questions were designed to gather any
suggestions that the
participants had without being constrained by the limit or
format of the multiple choice options
of the quantitative design. Additionally, they were designed to

capture the general attitude and
opinion of the participants in their own words. The first
narrative question aimed to identify
locations where biometrics would be beneficial. The second
question was designed to identify
instances and situations where biometrics were needed for a
specific purpose. The third question
aimed to identify specific criteria that needed to be met in order
to use biometrics technology in
an acceptable manner. The fourth question was designed to
gather criteria for the unacceptable
use of biometrics and identify when biometrics collection would
be objectionable to the survey
participants.
Subjects and Setting
The survey participants were solicited from a small population
of people known by the
author and the faculty advisor. Participation was solicited
through the use of notifications on the
social networking site, Facebook, and emails sent to faculty and
students of American Military

University as well as co-workers, friends, and family of the
author. The notifications and emails
explained the purpose of the survey, requested their
participation, and provided the link to the
online survey. There were no identification numbers assigned
to the survey links and no way of
identifying who participated in the survey as it was completely
anonymous with the exception of
the demographic information which had little to no identifying
information.
The solicitation on Facebook was conducted as a status
message with a request for the
author’s “Facebook friends” to complete the survey with a link
to the survey location. Of the
almost 300 acquaintances on Facebook, it is expected there was
a five to ten percent participation
rate in the survey. The 300 individuals ranged from over 18
years old to over 80 years old, in a
variety of occupations, with varying levels of education, and
geographically located all over the
United States. The author’s co-workers are all employed by the
United States Coast Guard,
located in Washington, D.C., between the ages of 25 years old
and 60 years old, and most have

at least a Bachelor’s degree. There were less than 30 co-
workers that were asked to participate in
the survey. The students and faculty of American Military
University were all well-educated
with all of them having at least a Bachelor’s degree.
Additionally, they were all over 24 years
old, employed in many different occupations, and
geographically located all over the United
States.
Statistical Analysis
For the quantitative portion of the study, each question had five
choices of answers. Each
of those answers was converted to a value between one and five.
Additionally, each of the
questions was assigned a question number for easier charting
and analysis. Then, the results of
the survey were placed into an Excel spreadsheet where they
were studied and analyzed. First,
the average of each question was calculated. Then, the standard
deviation and variance were

calculated. Once those values were calculated for the entire
population, the spreadsheet was
used to filter the results by demographic characteristics and the
same calculations were
conducted for the different characteristics. Those results were
compiled and placed in tables
where they were subsequently graphed. The researcher
compared the results in each category
against the overall average and against the other categories to
develop assumptions about the
demographic subsets. Additionally, the researcher considered
the number of participants from
each category when considering the significance of each
subset’s average. If the category had a
small number of participants, its results were not given the same
regard as a category with many
participants because the average of the smaller category could
be more greatly impacted by the
answers of one or two participants. This would not lead to a
fair and accurate categorization for
those demographic subsets.
Limitations of the Study
The study was limited by the amount of time available to
complete it and the number of

participants that completed the online survey. As the study was
conducted in order to complete a
thesis to fulfill a requirement for a Master’s degree program,
the author was constrained by the
amount of time available in the course and in order to complete
the study in time, the author used
a small population of participants that would respond quickly.
For this study, the survey was
open for two weeks and had 69 participants complete the
questionnaire.
Another limitation in the survey was the potential lack of
diversity in the participants and
the disparity with the larger population of the United States of
America. The participants of the
study were predominately male with only 33% of the
participants being female. According to a
2012 census study, almost 51% of the population of the United
States was female (United States
Census Bureau, n.d.c). Additionally, an overwhelming number
of the participants in the study
had obtained a higher level of education than the national

average. Forty-one percent of the
participants had obtained a Master’s degree and 20% of the
participants had obtained a Doctorate
degree while the national average in the United States was that
8.41% of the population had
obtained a Master’s degree and 1.68% had obtained a doctorate.
Additionally, 35% of the survey
participants had obtained a Bachelor’s degree which was higher
than the national average of
20.09% (United States Census Bureau, n.d.b.). Another
disparity between the survey sample and
the population of the United States was the number of military
members that participated.
Almost 28% of the participants in the survey were military
which was much higher than the
national average of less than 1% of the population (National
Public Radio, 2011). Also, the age
dispersion of the survey participants was not as varied as the
population of the United States.
There were over three times the percentage of 25-34 year olds
represented in the survey than in
the population of the United States. People between the ages of
25 and 34 comprise 13.4% of
the population of the United States. However, they made up

43% of the participants for the
survey. Similarly, 28% of the survey participants were between
the ages of 35 and 44 years old,
but only 12.9% of the population of the United States are in that
age range. The percentage of
survey participants between the ages of 45 and 64 years old was
very close to the percentage of
the United States population with 23% of survey participants
and 26.5% of the U.S. population
falling in that range. Survey participants 65 years old and older
were underrepresented in the
survey with only 6% of the participants falling in that age range
when the national average is
13.4% of the population is 65 or older (United States Census
Bureau, n.d.a). These limitations
can be attributed to the sample populations chosen for the
survey and the method used to gather
data. Because the survey participants were solicited using
online social media to reach out to
acquaintances of the author and emails were used to reach out to
co-workers of the author and

students and employees of the American Military University,
there was not much diversity
present in the participants.
SOME REFERENCES PREVIOUSLY USED
Cimbala, S. (2017). Nuclear deterrence and cyber warfare:
coexistence or competition? Defense & Security
Analysis, 33(3), 193-208.
Galinec, D., Možnik, D., & Guberina, B. (2017). Cybersecurity
and cyber defence: national level strategic
approach. Automatika, 58(3), 273-286.
Garrie, D. (2013). Journal of law & cyber warfare. Lulu Com.
Schmitt, M. (2015). Tallinn manual on the international law
applicable to cyber warfare. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Cimbala, S. (2017). Nuclear deterrence and cyber warfare:
coexistence or competition?. Defense & Security
Analysis, 33(3), 193-208. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1080/14751798.2017.1351142
Dilbert, R. W. (2016). United States cybersecurity enforcement:
leading roles of the Federal Trade Commission and state
attorneys general. Northern Kentucky law review, 1-28.
Retrieved from
https://chaselaw.nku.edu/content/dam/chase/docs/lawreview/v43
/nklr_v43n1.pdf
Galinec, D., Možnik, D., & Guberina, B. (2017). Cybersecurity
and cyber defence: national level strategic
approach. Automatika, 58(3), 273-286. Retrieved from
https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/299324
Klein, J. J. (2015). Deterring and Dissuading Cyberterrorism.
Journal of Strategic Security, 23-38. Retrieved from
http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=146

0&context=jss
Kosenkov, A. (2016). Cyber Conflicts as a New Global
Threat. Future Internet, 8(3), 45. Retrieved from
http://www.mdpi.com/1999-5903/8/3/45/htm
Mauricio, G., & Olvera, B. (2014). The security council and the
illegal transfer of small arms and light weapons to non-state
actors. Mexican Law Review, 6(2), 225-250. Retrieved from
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1870057816
300130
Shackelford, S. J. (2016). Securing North American critical
infrastructure: a comparative case study in cybersecurity
regulation. Canada-United States law journal, 61-70. Retrived
from
https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?refe
rer=&httpsredir=1&article=2641&context=cuslj
Taylor, R. W., Fritsch, E. J., & Liederbach, J. (2014). Digital
Crime and Digital Terrorism. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall
Press.

BIOMETRICS IN THE UNITED STATES 31 Methodology Data C.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to BIOMETRICS IN THE UNITED STATES 31 Methodology Data C.docx

Similar to BIOMETRICS IN THE UNITED STATES 31 Methodology Data C.docx (20)

More from AASTHA76

More from AASTHA76 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

BIOMETRICS IN THE UNITED STATES 31 Methodology Data C.docx