3.5.1 Overview of Data collection
The survey was open to the general population and was distributed online to increase the quantity and breadth of the sample. Data was collected primarily through the use of social media platforms, including Facebook, Instagram and LinkedIn. A link to the survey was posted via the researcher’s personal platforms accompanied by the same message to ensure consistency. Additionally, data was collected through the online platform ‘Survey Circle’ which connects researchers with respondents through a
‘reciprocal points system’ based on completing other surveys. One round of data collection was conducted for a duration of two weeks.
All respondents self-selected to take part in the research. The completion of the survey was voluntary, and all respondents were notified at the beginning of the survey that responses would be kept anonymous and that respondents could exit the survey at any time. The benefits of self-selection sampling are that responses could be collected in a short period of time, and that most surveys were properly completed as the respondents chose to participate. Whilst respondents were not directly compensated for their participation, incentives including a raffle of 5 x 30 euro Amazon vouchers were used to increase the survey response rate. Respondents were also offered a copy of the final survey results if interested.
During the two-week period of data collection, the survey was promoted various times on all platforms to increase response rate. Additionally, further responses were gathered due to the survey being shared by members of the researchers’ networks.
After two weeks, data collection was closed and a total of 243 responses were collected and recorded.
Of these responses, 51% were collected through the Facebook and LinkedIn social media platforms, 37% were collected via Instagram and 12% were collected from the ‘Survey Circle’ platform. Response rate calculation is difficult as it is not known how many people viewed the online posts requesting
40
participation. However, one possible measure of response rate is the number of completed surveys per the number of unique visits to the survey page, which was 71.3%.
3.5.2 Data preparation
To ensure quality of the sample responses a data cleaning process was undertaken. 22 responses were excluded from the sample due to clearly misunderstanding the survey, not taking the survey seriously or not filling in the survey properly. Moreover, the dataset was rearranged to enable the following analysis. Additionally, all categorical variables were converted to dummy variables, and overall scores of each control variable were generated for each respondent.
3.5.3 Sample characteristics
The above procedure resulted in a sample of 221 useful responses which were further used to analyse the data. The analysis of the data was mainly conducted with participants who “passed” the manipulation check for the complexity of the tasks and ranked them in the correct order. A total number of 165 participants ranked the tasks correctly in accordance to the manipulation checks order.
In terms of sample characteristics, the gender ratio of the respondents was 65.5% female and 34.5%
male, with the mean age of the respondents being 28. Due to the sample not being limited to a specific nationality, respondents from a total of 24 different countries were captured. Australia was the largest percentage with 35.8%, followed by Germany and Denmark with 22.4% and 12.1% respectively. A total percentage of 51.5% of all respondents indicated that they are currently employed, while a further 40.6%
are still in education. The remaining 7.7% consists of 2.4% retired respondents, 4.8% of self-employed and 0.6% of unemployed.
Regarding educational levels, 53.3% of all participants currently hold a bachelor’s or equivalent level degree and 28.5% hold a Master’s or equivalent level degree. Due to a large proportion of respondents falling into these two educational level groups alone, the latter analysis uses three educational levels.
The first is made up with respondents belonging to all educational levels up to the level of secondary non-tertiary education (9.7%). The second level consists of those currently holding post-secondary non tertiary education, short-cycle tertiary education or a bachelor’s degree (60.0%). The final group is made up of those holding a master’s degree or higher (30.3%).
41
Whole Sample Correct Manipulation Check
Characteristics n Percentage n Percentage
Gender 221 100% 165 100%
Male 71 32.1% 57 34.5%
Female 150 67.9% 108 65.5%
Nationality 221 100% 165 100%
Australia 83 37.6% 59 35.8%
Germany 47 21.3% 37 22.4%
Denmark 26 11.8% 20 12.1%
Other 65 29.3% 49 29.7%
Educational Level 221 100% 165 100%
1. Up to and including upper secondary 25 11.3% 16 9.7%
2. Up to and included bachelor’s degree 126 57% 99 60%
3. Master degree or higher 70 31.7% 50 30.3%
Current Situation 221 100% 165 100%
Currently employed 118 53.4% 85 51.5%
Retired 4 1.8% 4 2.4%
Self-Employed 10 4.5% 8 4.8%
Unemployed 1 0.5% 1 0.6%
In education 88 39.8% 67 40.6%
Industry 93 42.1% 72 43.6%
Professional, Scientific or technical services 24 25.8% 20 27.8%
Finance or insurance 17 18.3% 13 18.1%
Healthcare or social assistance 12 12.9% 8 11.1%
Management of companies or enterprises 10 10.8% 8 11.1%
Other 30 32.2% 23 31.9%
Table 4 Sample Characteristics
42
4 ANALYSIS & FINDINGS
The analysis of the data was conducted in three broad steps, each aiming to analyse a different aspect of the research question. First the relationship between willingness to collaborate and task complexity is explored. This is followed by exploring the collaboration partner preferences and their link to task complexity. Both these sections consist of quantitative analysis that was primarily conducted through the statistics software ‘SPSS’. Lastly, open ended answers were analysed qualitatively using thematic coding, to enrich the quantitative findings and gain further insights into explaining the relationship between task complexity and collaboration preferences.
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Collaboration choice (dummy) 495 0 1 .66 .48
Trust 165 4 20 14.77 3.06
Self-Efficacy 165 26 56 44.61 5.26
Altruism 165 3 21 17.52 2.42
Intrinsic Motivation 165 12 21 18.64 1.99
Mood* 165 -12 10 -3.30 4.58
Experience Score 165 0 3 1.33 .99
Knowledge Score 165 0 3 1.60 .92
Risk 165 2 10 6.28 1.97
General WTC 165 0 10 6.64 2.32
Extroversion 165 -4 4 1.55 1.77
Openness 165 -4 4 .98 1.8
Agreeableness 165 -4 4 .98 1.59
Age 165 18 66 28.27 9.52
Gender (dummy) 165 0 1 .65 .48
Education (3 Levels) 165 1 3 2.21 .60
Table 5 Descriptive Statistics
* = negative mood score
General WTC = General Willingness to Collaborate
43