Experiment FindingsPDF Available

INQUIRY WITH PRIMARY, SECONDARY, AND UNIVERSITY STUDENTS WITH AND WITHOUT DISABILITIES

Authors:
  • Goce Delcev University of Štip, Military Academy "General Mihailo Apostolski" Skopje

Abstract

Research included a quantitative research method (questionnaire). This questionnaire has been made in order to get an insight in the level of knowledge on the crisis management system in the institution, to get an insight in the preparedness for reaction in case of catastrophe and the need to take measures for improvement of the preparedness for crisis management. We had a total number of 19 questions, 3 of them open-ended, other 16 close-ended; the first 6 questions were in line with the general information about the participants, other refer to the specific topic of our research. More specifically, we conducted a questionnaire with 53 people with disabilities (12 visually impaired, 28 hearing impaired , 10 with intellectual disability and 3 physically disabled), and with 90 persons without disabilities (students from primary and secondary mainstream schools).
EXPERIMENT PROTOCOL
1. Research goals
This research has been made in order to get an insight in the level of knowledge on
the crisis management system in the institution, to get an insight in the preparedness
for reaction in case of catastrophe and the need to take measures for improvement
of the preparedness for crisis management.
The research goal was oriented towards gaining knowledge whether the schools and
specialized institutions, are prepared to efficiently manage all emergencies in which
children, youth, and persons with disabilities are threatened. The goal was also to
discover whether they are prepared to support а seamless transition from the
emergency response, through renewal, and providing of a sustainable development.
Taking into consideration that children and youth are more fragile than adults,
especially having the vulnerability of persons with disabilities in mind, the research
goal was oriented towards gaining knowledge whether there is awareness, as well
as special procedures and resources (human and material) in the institutions for
crisis management, for a specialized treatment of these categories of persons during
emergencies.
2. Research methodology
Research methodology is a strategy that silhouettes our choice and use of
specific methods relating them to the anticipated outcomes (Crotty, 1998). As in all
studies the research methodology is based on the research problem, its types and its
features (Noor, 2008).
For this study, it was decided on a mixed method research methodology.
These studies, that encompass a mixed method methodology come from a
pragmatic paradigm that combines qualitative and quantitative approaches within
different phases of the research process (Tashakkori&Teddlie, 2008, p.22).Мixed-
method designs are defined as including at least one quantitative method (designed
to collect numbers) and one qualitative method (designed to collect words), where
This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This document and its contents reect the views
only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein
neither type of method is inherently linked to a particular inquiry paradigm or
philosophy (Caracelli&Greene, 1993).
This mixed method research methodology design embodies both qualitative
and quantitative methods in a single study with the purpose to understand the
research problem (Creswell, 2003; Creswell&Clark, 2011). For this purpose, within
this study, the qualitative and quantitative data were collected concurrently. The
concept behind this was to converge and confirm the finding using both types of
data. In this manner, generalizations based on the quantitative research could be
made with the deep understanding which is offered with the qualitative research.The
promise of mixed methods, like the promise of implementation science, lies in its
ability to move beyond the confines of existing methodological approaches and
develop innovative solutions to important and complex problems (Palinkas et all,
2013).
According to Wisdom and Creswell (2013), the advantages of the mixed
method research methodology are:
Compares quantitative and qualitative data;
Reflects participants point of view;
Fosters scholarly interaction;
Provides methodological flexibility;
Collects rich, comprehensive data.
Regarding the approach or the mixed method strategy, the convergent strategy
was used. The qualitative and quantitative data were conducted and analyzed
concurrently and independently. This strategy was chosen because the data was
different but complementary. The integration of the qualitative and quantitative data
occurred during data interpretation. The conclusions were made by synthetizing the
qualitative and quantitative strand.
3. Research subject
The research methodology was developed with the purpose to gain relevant
input from the respondents related to their preparedness for managing emergency
situations, and emergency response, especially in relation to children, youth, and
persons with disabilities. The research was oriented towards the preparedness for
Page 2 of 4
appropriate protection during emergencies as a long-term activity process through
which the capacity of each state as a whole (North Macedonia, Bulgaria, and Spain),
as well as the capacity of schools and specialized institutions, is strengthened.
4. Research areas
The following research areas were defined within this methodological framework:
1. General information about participants (respondents);
2. Knowledge of the protection and rescue system; training so far in this area;
3. Participation in natural disasters;
4. Knowledge of alternative exits in the face of natural disasters and participation
in the preparation of evacuation plans;
We had a total number of 19 questions, 3 of them open-ended, other 16 close-
ended; the first 6 questions were in line with the general information about the
participants, other refer to the specific topic of our research.
5. Sampling
One of the most important features distinguishing what is commonly referred
to as qualitative from quantitative inquiry is the kind of sampling used. While
qualitative research typically involves purposeful sampling to enhance understanding
of the information-rich case, quantitative research ideally involves probability
sampling to permit statistical inferences to be made. Although purposeful sampling is
oriented toward the development of idiographic knowledge—from generalizations
from and about individual cases— probability sampling is oriented toward the
development of nomothetic knowledge, from generalizations from samples to
populations (Sandelowski, 2000). Notwithstanding these key differences, purposeful
and probability sampling techniques can be combined usefully, as it was done in this
study.
For the quantitative part we used stratified purposeful sampling. In this type of
sampling the researcher wants to ensure that certain cases varying on preselected
parameters are included. Although this kind of sampling is— from a probability
sampling standpoint—statistically nonrepresentative (Trost, 1986), it is, from a
purposeful sampling standpoint, informationally representative. Each case
Page 3 of 4
represents a prespecified combination of variables, the distinctive confluence of
which is the focus of study. The respondents were children and youth with and
without disabilities that could give us an insight in their experiences related to
disaster management in their respective countries.
For the qualitative part we used random purposeful sampling. Another
example of the combined use of probability and purposeful sampling is random
purposeful sampling. This sampling strategy is employed when there is a very large
pool of potentially information-rich cases and no obvious reason to choose one case
over another. Each case drawn met the minimum criterion in all purposeful sampling:
namely, that it is an information-rich case. This type of sampling was used both for
the semi-structured interviews and for the case studies with the purpose to define the
inferences we wanted to make concerning convergent validity and fuller description
or explanation of cases.
More specifically, we conducted a questionnaire with 53 people with
disabilities (12 visually impaired, 28 hearing impaired , 10 with intellectual disability
and 3 physically disabled), and with 90 persons without disabilities (students from
primary and secondary mainstream schools).
Page 4 of 4
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.