Methodology
This section is going to explain approach and methods that were used in order to find answer to our research question. It includes research design, collection of data and its analysis. The general research question this study tries to answer is the influence of institutional corruption on development in Ukraine.
In order to answer the research question, framework for the generation of evidence is required, it is called research design (Bryman, 2012). Issues of development, corruption and institutions are very difficult to calculate, they are not ‘visible’. Therefore, quantitative research would not answer this research question on influence of institutional corruption on development in Ukraine. Qualitative methods seem to be most suitable for this research. They allow to examine qualities of entities, processes and meanings that are not experimentally examined or measured in terms of quantity, amount, intensity or frequency (Denzin, Noram, Lincolm, 2000). The studies of corruption are usually based on surveys of public and/or businesses. The phenomenon of corruption itself does not allow for some advanced methods of estimation other than different types of surveys (Denzin, Norman, Lincoln, 2000). Another argument for usage of qualitative strategy when studying corruption, is that corruption by its nature is conducted secretly, therefore no valid quantitative data can be expected on corruption phenomenon.
The main strength of qualitative approach for this research is that it seeks answers to question that stress how social experience is created and given meaning. Qualitative methods allow this research to describe existing phenomena and current situations. It provided complete view of the investigated phenomena of corruption and create a descriptive capability, based on primary data.
Qualitative research tends to be more open-ended research strategy. This may drift it away from the original objectives of the study, in response to the changing nature of the context under which the research is conducted. There are also some other limitations of qualitative research, like arriving at different conclusion based on the same information depending on the personal characteristic of the researcher as well as danger of seeing issue only through the eyes of research participants. This mostly happens with interviews.
Nevertheless, the best way to find out answers to research question would be through personal interviews with professional who have the expertise in the researched topic. Interview is probably the most widely used method in qualitative research (Bryman, 2012). Qualitative interview is quite flexible and allows adjusting the emphases in the research as a result of significant issues emerging in the course of interviews. In this research there was big interest in the interviewee’s point of view, that is why this method looks like the most suitable for obtaining required data. It means to be flexible and seek out the worldview of research participants (Bryman, 2012). Interviews in this research also allowed to capture direct quotations about people’s view and experience on the issue of corruption and development in Ukraine.
For interviews this research uses purposive sampling, as this research does not seek to sample research participants on a random basis. The goal of purposive sampling is to sample participants in a strategic way, so that those sampled are relevant to the research questions that are posed (Bryman, 2012). Purposive sampling is the fundamental principle for selecting cases and individuals in qualitative research. Purposive sampling places the investigation’s research question at the forefront of sampling consideration. Therefore, people for interviews were selected because they are ‘information rich’ and have expertise in research area.
For the sampling in this research were used two approaches: criterion and opportunistic sampling. Criterion sampling united individual that meet a particular criterion (Bryman, 2012), in this case expertise on corruption and development in Ukraine. Opportunistic sampling capitalises on opportunity to collect data from individuals, contacts with whom is largely unforeseen, but who provided relevant data to the research question.
There is considerable disagreement about what is an acceptable minimum sample size (Bryman, 2012). This research was conducted with rather small sample size, but sufficient to test emerging theoretical ideas of the researcher. Small sample size
may help to investigate research problem in a comprehensive and in-depth manner. However, small sample size can undermine opportunities to draw useful generalisation or to make broad recommendations based upon the findings. Such research can also be rooted in the cultures and experience of others and cultural context increases the opportunity for bias to enter into way data is gathered, interpreted and reported.
For the interviews were selected following experts. Yevgen Gliboytskyy, communications consultants and expert in long-term strategies and values. Myroslav Marynovych, co-founder of Amnesty International Ukraine and a founding member of Ukrainian Helsinki Group. He is prominent human rights activist and Soviet dissident.
Edward Lucas, senior editor of The Economist. He has more than 30 years’ experience dealing with countries of central and eastern Europe. Interviewees have recognised expertise and provided their vital insights of corruption in Ukraine and importance of democratic institutions. They also referred to history and context of other countries in the region.
Sampling is not only about people but also about sampling other things as documents (Bryman, 2012). This research also used some secondary data which was obtained through City University Library system and some other official public channels.
The semi-structured interviews were chosen to carry out this research. They are characterised by specific list of questions, which covert the topic and referred to as an interview guide, but the interviewee has a great deal of flexibility in how to reply (Bryman, 2012). Interview questions of this research consisted of several key questions to help define the areas to be explored. By large all questions were asked and a similar wording was used for each interview. During the interviews some questions were differed in order to pursue an idea or response in more detail. Flexible approach of semi-structured interview allowed to discover or elaborate on information that was important to participants, but was be not studied enough by the researcher. The emphasis in semi-structured interviews was on how the interview frames and understand the issue and events, what interviewee views as important in explaining and understating research question.
Interview were performed face-to-face, through Skype, which is a viable alternative to face-to-face interview and one interviewee responded through emailed questionnaire. All interviews were recorded in English and transcribed and one interview was translated from Ukrainian to English. Participants had a freedom to express their point of view and were treated with respect. Interviews were conducted in gentle and polite way. None of the interviews decided to stop or skip any part of the interview.
The collection of qualitative data frequently results in the accumulation of large volume of information (Bryman, 2012). Therefore, it requires thoughtful analysis. It is worth mentioning that qualitative data analysis is not governed by codified rules, as quantitative data analysis and there are different approaches to qualitative data analysis (Bryman, 2012). Grounded theory is probably the most prominent method of qualitative data analysis in the social sciences. It requires several steps, such as data collection, review of data, repeated ideas, concepts which are tagged with codes, which are then grouped in concepts, and then into categories. These categories may become the basis for new theory. The main outcome of qualitative research are theories and concepts.
After conducting interviews, obtained data was broken into smaller parts for easier and comprehensive analysis. Reviewed transcripts were broken into parts which had potential significance and labelled appropriately. Analysis identified repeated ideas and similarities in responses of interviewees. They were compared to existing concepts and theories and showed some new answers to investigated question.
All the information on this research has been kept in a personal laptop with a password to ensure privacy.