1. Research Methods Reflection
Engl 203
Professional Writing Research
Cody Reimer
November 14, 2013
Stanley Coulter Hall 183
Rachel Rapkin
Environmentally Friendly
Vs.
Conventional Vehicles
3. Introduction
In many conversations relating to
the benefits of environmentally friendly
vehicles, consumers have either been all
for or not at all for electric and hybrid cars.
I began to wonder what the reasoning
was for these beliefs, which is why I have
conducted research to find out more. It
seems that many arguments are developed
around the concept of the vehicles emitting
zero gas emissions. This statement is a fact,
however, the emissions are still entering
the environment indirectly through the
manufacturing of the body and the inner
workings such as the batteries used to gen-
erate power for transportation.
In order to understand what our commu-
nity really thinks about these vehicles, I
posted questionnaires online, conducted
focus groups and interviews to find out if
consumers just aren't aware of the contra-
dictions or just don't want to put in extra
research effort to learn the truth about the
environmental impact of gas guzzling con-
ventional vehicles compared to environ-
mentally friendly automobiles.
Within my initial research methods document, I explained that I would begin my research by
using the four research elements as stated by Michael Crotty in his social research publication. In his
book, he stated that there are four different ways that are directly influenced by the latter which are
used to develop extensive and in-depth research. My research took a total of four weeks. During the
first week, I planned my questions for each section of my research based on my understanding of
Crotty’s four elements. I designed my questions to not only hear opinions of these automobiles, but
to learn what societal influences have impacted the development of their outlooks on the subject.
Figure 1.1 shows a power plant that is emitting harmful
pollutants into the air. Even though automobiles may
be not directly producing these toxins, manufacturing
plants are emitting these chemicals.
The next three weeks was the amount of time I gave myself to conduct research. In order to
ensure that my participants were going to have a clear understanding of how I wanted my research
to play out, I took a significant amount of time to edit my methods and re-edit them again just in
case they weren't as clear or exact as they could be so I could retrieve concise answers and informa-
tion to what I was studying. To make sure my methods, or the processes I was using to extract cer-
tain information, was correct, my first focus was on my questionnaire.
Pg. 2
4. Questionnaire Research
On my previous document,
I stated that I was going to focus
my research on both qualitative
and quantitative research, but I
decided that I didn’t have enough
time and understanding to con-
duct a
survey - which is focused around
quantity. I didn’t really know what
my purpose was
going to be when I distributed my
survey. Since I was just going to
focus it around 10 yes/no ques-
tions, I didn’t know how it was
going to be
purposeful to my research. Since I
only allowed myself three weeks
to conduct my research, I real-
ized I wasn’t giving myself time
to retrieve an accurate sample
size for the United States, so I just
focused it around people from the
Midwest to make it easier when
the time came to meet with people
face to face.
The questionnaire was going to be the first item sent to people, and included six basic
open-ended questions comparing the purchasing behavior of possible consumers for
conventional cars as well as green cars. I asked my participants to be as specific as possible so I
could get detailed opinions to take into account when I set up discussion with my focus groups.
I posted this on a Facebook group where I invited all my friends to participate in hopes to
generate answers from non-friends who are located all around the world.
1. Do you believe environmentally friendly
vehicles, such as the Toyota Prius and the
Chevrolet Volt, are really 'better' for the
environment and why?
2. When comparing the differences, pros and
cons, of green vehicles and conventional cars, do
you do extra research before you talk to car
salesmen? Please explain how and the reasoning for
either conducting or not conducting extra research.
3. If you do not have a preference on the type
of vehicle you are wanting to purchase, does the car
salesman try to sway you towards green or
conventional automobiles and how do you respond
to that behavior?
4. What are the good things you hear about
green cars when compared to conventional gas
guzzling vehicles?
5. What are the bad things you hear about
green cars when compared to conventional gas
guzzling vehicles?
6. Do you have any other opinions about green
or conventional vehicles that you would like to
state?
Pg. 3
Figure 2.1 represents a check in a box
which is the format for many ques-
tionaires and surveys.
Figure 2.2 is of a vehicle traveling on the road.
5. These questions were a little
lengthy, but I purposely made them
this way so I wouldn’t have a lot of
questions that would scare away
my participants or make them cut
down their answers. Of course some
answers I received were better than
others, but it depended a lot on if
people really had a strong opinion on
the topic and if they have had prior
experience with researching and/or
purchasing a car. The question that I
had a lot of trouble with was number
three where I asked the participants
to describe the experience they had
when talking to car salesmen about
the difference between green cars and
non green cars. Many of the partic-
ipants were of a young generation
whom didn’t have the money to buy a
vehicle and the luxurious to compare
the two types of vehicles. I got many
answers saying that they have not yet
had that experience so they could not
expand upon my question.
Questionnaire Research
The questions that were particularly helpful
were questions two and six. Question two focused
on the extra research people either do or don’t do
when looking into purchasing a green vehicle. Even
though not many people said they had the experi-
ence of purchasing a vehicle, I received many replies
which said people would conduct research and I
even got a significant amount of responses that de-
scribed what kind of research people would do and
how they would conduct their lines of investigation.
Question six was very open-ended and allowed for
the participants to put in their last few cents about
their feelings on green cars and/or conventional
vehicles. This question gave me ideas to bring to
my focus groups. I received information regarding
the price of the vehicles, the high mileage that the
cars can travel as well as information about what
the participants have heard others saying about the
difference of the vehicles.
figure 3.1 shows has sketchy comission sales can be
at times. My participants were mostly from a young-
er generation and did not have any or enough
experience with car dealerships to expand upon my
questions about interacting with them. This is a
snag that occured within my research.
Figure 3.2 represents research and
how many of my participants said
they would began to look at credible
sources rather than just listen to the
gossip on the street. Pg. 4
6. Focus Group Research
Once I got a significant amount of answers from my ques-
tionnaire in the time allotted, I then began scheduling focus groups.
I wanted to get as many opinions about this controversial topic as pos-
sible, so I used some of the best answers I got from the questionnaires
as well as asking other people to partake in my research who didn’t
participate in the questionnaire. I held two focus groups each with 10
people present. Originally I was planning on setting a specific amount
of time for the meeting so people didn’t have to sit for hours on end.
However, after I guided the discussion, many participants got really
involved and didn’t mind how long it lasted.
Figure 4.1 is a graphic showing the negative differences between green
cars and conventional cars. There were more differences on the envi-
ronmental side, but these were some of the frequent answers.
I began my group by
asking why they thought
they were at my focus
group. I received a few con-
fused looks and some an-
swers stating it was because
I asked them. Moreover, the
purpose for this question
was to get them thinking
about what they will have
to discuss during the meet-
ing. I was kind of nervous
for my meeting, so I asked
a lot of “fluffy” questions
such as what is the differ-
ence between green and
conventional cars and what
are good and bad about
them. I wanted to get some
basic information about
what people’s thoughts
were on these vehicles. The
problem I had with asking
these questions was that it
took a long time to get peo-
ple talking. I had to facili-
tate a lot of the discussion
because I was getting a lot
of vague answers. My first
focus group was a test for
my second one.
During my second
focus group, about a week
later, I skipped the basic
questions and started ask-
ing about the opinions I got
from my first questionnaire.
I wanted differing opinions
on how people felt on the
comparison of green and
conventional automobiles.
The question that brought
up a lot of mixed emotions
was about the “good” and
“bad” parts about the cars.
Pg. 5
7. Interview ResearchFocus Group Research
At the end of my second focus group,
it was apparent that my participants learned a
lot of information regarding green vehicles. At
the beginning of the conversation, many peo-
ple were stating that green cars are helping the
environment, but when I asked how, the room
was silent because deep down, they knew there
is no way to make the perfect automobile. It
was stated that the best transportation device is
a bicycle and many people nodded their heads
in agreement. Bicycles don’t produce nearly as
much emissions to make as cars do since they
don’t need electronics, batteries and an oil filter.
It was very interesting to sit in on fo-
cus groups because I saw how some people
changed their views based on the information
other people were stating. There was one par-
ticipant in particular who was all for green
vehicles, but became less gung-ho about them
after hearing how many people were concerned
about small environmental impact as well as the
purchasing and maintaining prices of the vehi-
cles. This is the information that I was looking
to receive. I wanted to learn what people’s mo-
tivators were for an intrigue in these vehicles,
and although some people didn’t change their
views, there was an overall increase of aware-
ness about how beneficial these vehicles are
really said to be for our environment.
Figure 4.2 represents a focus group, where people
sit in a circle and share thoughts and opinions about
certain topics.
The final step in my research process was
conducting interviews and with a week left, I could
only fit five people into my schedule. I did one
interview every day. I used two people who went
through my whole process starting with the ques-
tionnaire then going on to the focus groups and
ending with individualized conversations, while
my third person participated in the questionnaire
and my fourth person only participated in the focus
group while the fifth and final participant was new
to the entire process. I really enjoyed every interview
that I had because I got to see how people’s views
changed from the start of my research to the end.
I wanted to do interviews on top of my
other two methods to see if the person was swayed
towards one opinion from discussing the views of
others. However, for some of the interviews, I felt
like I was getting the same answers as I received in
my other two research sections. On the spot I had
to figure out what to say to keep the conversation
from getting dry. At one point, my participant told
me they didn’t have anything else to say and it was
very early in the interview. I was taken aback be-
cause I wasn’t sure how to keep the conversation
from going stale. I asked them if their views changed
from the beginning and they said they became more
aware of what other people think and why but they
were not going to change their opinion. At the time
it seemed like this interview wasn’t very helpful, but
it proved to be the most helpful for I learned how a
group interaction has a large influence on what oth-
ers think. This behavior was the exact information I
was looking to retrieve from the readings of Crotty.
Another helpful interview was from one of
the people who went through the entire process with
me. They told me their views had changed because
they thought green cars were going to make a signif-
icant change in the environment, but after hearing
what other people had to say and the information
I presented in the interview, they understood that
green cars still produced a problem for the environ-
ment even if it was indirectly. This participant also
told me that they understood that these cars could
only make a significant impact on the world if over
half of the world’s population was driving in them,
and since these cars are a bit pricy because they are
new to the environment, the carbon footprint is still
going to be quite large. Pg. 6
8. I had a really good idea with my questionnaire, but I
didn’t get a very large sample size, which put me at a disadvan-
tage from the very start. In my initial report focusing on the re-
search methods I was going to use, I wanted to get 100 people’s
answers, but I wasn’t close to that number. My research focused
on the information people had of green cars vs. conventional
cars, but I only received 57 answers, so I couldn’t attribute these
opinions to the world or even the United States, so I just focused
it on the Midwest for I had a few participants from Wisconsin,
Michigan and Ohio to name a few. After all the editing I did on
the questions, some of theme were still tricky to understand for
my participants and one I was hoping to get answers to didn’t
apply to even half of my participants, so I didn’t get much infor-
mation about how potential buyers were swayed by car sales-
men.
Another
problem that
occurred was re-
sulting from my
shyness. To get
a better sample
for my research,
I should have
looked into send-
ing students, fac-
ulty and staff at
Purdue, my sur-
vey to get more
of a real-world
idea, but I was
nervous about it,
so I stuck to peo-
ple I had a connection with. I have a feeling that this also swayed
some of the information I received. After my research was con-
cluded, I realized that I should have called car dealerships and
gotten contact information of the people who bought green cars
so I could get their opinions on if the salesmen swayed them
one direction or not, but after thinking about this I realized for
privacy issues, that I probably wouldn’t be able to retrieve that
information anyway. By the end of my research, I realized I just
needed to look at how general conversation with others swayes
people to believe one thing over the next. I realized I could in-
clude some experiences with car salesmen, but that wasn’t going
to be the large factor that I was hoping for and I am okay with
how it turned out. On a large scale with more time and possibly
in a professional atmosphere, I believe I could have acquired the
in-depth information I hoped to gather.
Problems and Revisions
“Conducting my study
wasn’t easy and I had to tackle
many obstacles in the process.
In this section, I will break up
my three research processes -
Questionaires, Focus Groups
and Interviews - and explain
the issues that occurred, how
I had to work through them as
well as how I will change my
study in the future.”
My first focus group was more
of a trial run because it didn’t last
very long, only 45 minutes and my
questions weren’t as straightforward
as they should have been for I was
nervous. In the future, I think it would
be helpful if I came in with a list of
questions to ask. I thought that the par-
ticipants were going to talk a lot, but it
turned out that I had to facilitate much
of the discussion and I didn’t even get
to talk about how people were swayed
into thinking the complete opposite of
what they stated in the beginning of
the meeting.
My second focus group was
much better because I came in with set
questions as well as facts to bring up to
facilitate the discussion back on track
if it ran off track. with no real solution,
which happened a few times during
my first meeting.Aproblem that oc-
curred in my second focus group was
keeping people for a long time. I didn’t
notice people’s facial expressions and
body language, but people started
giving vague answers and saying
they didn’t have any experience of
what I was describing so they couldn’t
answer it. There were hypothetical
answers to my question about car
salesmen swaying them to purchase
a green car which was obviously the
more expensive choice, but that didn’t
help my research because I wanted
to know how the person acted in that
moment, and giving me a imaginary
experience wasn’t too helpful.
“It was difficult to get the answers
that I was looking for because
many participants were young
and didn’t have experiences to talk
about during the group meeting.
I didn’t focus my research on the
right population.” Pg. 7
9. Problems and Revisions
As I was designing my research methods about a month ago, I stated that I was going to
interview 20 people in a month but that proved to be impossible for my schedule, my location
and the unexpected sample size had to deal with. After my interviews were finished, I real-
ized I should have had individualized conversations with people who went through my entire
research process. I used people who participated in half or none of it at all, and realized that I
wasn’t getting the best information out of these conversations. It seemed that these participants
didn’t have much to go off of during our conversations because I didn’t know what to ask since
some of them missed certain parts of the research process so I didn’t get to see their develop-
ment throughout the entire process. In the future, I know that I should stick with the same
participants from the start. I should have know this for all the documents and research exam-
ples we have studied in class have never added new participants in the end, because the infor-
mation will be irrelevant by the end of the process. I did receive good thoughts thought would
have been helpful in the beginning, but nearing the conclusion of the research, those opinions
weren’t what I was looking for anymore, because I was studying the change in theories from
start to the end.
Conclusion
My research focused on the differences of green cars and conventional vehicles and the
influences that people deal with every day when coming up with opinions. I read Crotty’s So-
cial Research Methods publication where I specifically designed my research to give me a bet-
ter understanding of how people form
differencing view- points. I focused my
research around qualitative research,
which allowed me to gain an insight through
a lot of interaction with people. My re-
search began with a questionnaire delivered
through the social media site, Facebook.
After I received those answers, I took
them into two focus groups to get differing
opinions about the vehicles and if people
really believe they are really that much
better for the en- vironment. The final
part of my research was much more indi-
vidualized by host ing five interviews. I
used to interviews to see how people’s
viewpoints changed from the beginning of
the month, to the end after all the interactions have occurred. I didn’t have too many problems
during the interview, but I realized my problems when I was going through the data because I
didn’t get the answers that I was looking for because I didn’t seek out the right population for
the research. My participants were of a younger generation, while I actually needed an older
generation who had experience with purchasing a vehicle.
Figure 5.1 is a picture of an interview, which is
individualized and how I concluded my research.
Pg. 8
