CONFIDENTIAL LG/JUNE 2022/ALS600

ALS600-RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
(CASE STUDY)

INSTRUCTIONS TO CANDIDATE:

1. This form consists of TWO PARTS.

2. Write your answers in the text box given in the google docs. You are not allowed
to download the google docs.

3. Students are NOT allowed to refer to an English-English dictionary or refer to or

use OTHER forms of help including Paraphrasing or In-text citations software or
applications or any textbooks (printed or online)

4. This test paper can only be viewed for 2 hours and 30 minutes.

5.The link to the test will no longer be available after 2 hours and 30 minutes.

Please tick the two boxes and write your details below:

We have read and understand the instructions above.

We understand that cheating, copying, and all forms of plagiarism are serious
academic offences.

Name:______________________________________________
Student ID number:____________________________________

Name:______________________________________________
Student ID number:____________________________________

/
CONFIDENTIAL LG/JUNE 2022/ALS600

Part A (15 marks)

Read the following problem statement based on a comparative study on online advice-
seeking strategies between Malaysian and Australian women.

PROBLEM STATEMENT

Advice discourse is common in our everyday life, occurring in a myriad of settings. As such,
research on advice is diverse covering advice-seeking (Ortega et al., 2020), advice-giving
(Bjørkdahl & Druglitrø, 2018), and reception to advice (Duan et al., 2018; Van Swol et al.,
2019). Past research on advice has also examined various factors affecting these advice-
related practices such as the relationship between advice and politeness (Goldsmith &
MacGeorge, 2000), gender (Hampel, 2015), topics of discussion (Locher, 2006), culture
(Morrow, 2012), contexts (Limberg & Locher, 2012), and characteristics of interlocutors
(Gaertig & Simmons, 2018).

Nonetheless, despite advice being a much-researched area as mentioned, studies that

relate advice strategies to culture are fairly limited. These studies focused predominantly on
the European (Chentsova-Dutton & Vaughn, 2012), American (Glide, 2015), Asian (Morrow,
2012), and African (Hampel, 2015) regions. Similarly, cross-cultural comparison studies on
advice strategies also centred on only a few cultures, for instance comparing the Russian
and American cultures (Chentsova-Dutton & Vaughn, 2012), the American and Chinese
cultures (Feng, 2015; Feng & Feng, 2011), and the East Asian and the Euro-Canadian
cultures (Ji et al., 2016). Therefore, not much is known about the advice strategies of other
cultural communities. As argued by Feng and Feng (2018), given the diversity of cultures
and subcultures in the world, there is a need to investigate the advice strategies of other
cultures, particularly those which have not been the target of inquiry in past advice research.

Furthermore, majority of past research on cross-cultural advice studies adopted the general
perspective of looking at “social behavioural differences between national cultures” (Feng et
al., 2016, p. 170). However, according to Feng and Feng (2018), culture is a multifaceted,
complex construct, and therefore, context-specific with an interplay of various factors. As
such, it is impossible to disregard the possibilities that other factors are responsible agents,
rather than culture, to explain variations in advice strategies among individuals of different
cultural backgrounds. Subsequently, it is recommended that comparative cross-cultural
studies are carried out in similar contexts (Feng & Feng, 2011).

2
CONFIDENTIAL LG/JUNE 2022/ALS600

Yet, there have been no comparative content analysis studies that investigate advice
strategies of different cultures in similar contexts. Therefore, the present study aims to add
to the existing literature on cultural influence on advice by examining how women seek
advice on infertility treatment, i.e. in-vitro fertilisation (IVF), in a Malaysian online forum and
in an Australian online forum. The analysis is based on advice seeking strategies framework
by Muhammad Jan and Chew (2016). Both the Malaysian and Australian cultures are less-
researched cultures in advice studies, and they represent two spectrums of the collectivism-
individualism cultural dimension; the Malaysian culture as a collectivist culture (Melati
Sumari et al., 2020), and the Australian culture as an individualistic culture (Kale et al.,
2020).

Adapted from: http://doi.org/10.17576/gema-2022-2201-

Instructions

Based on the given problem statement, answer ALL questions.

1. Provide TWO justifications on why a qualitative research design is the best

approach for this study. (2 marks)
2. List THREE possible research questions. (3 marks)
3. Explain and justify the methodological considerations in collecting the data:
a. Sample (2 marks)
b. Sampling Method (2 marks)
c. Instrument (2 marks)
4. Is there any ethical consideration when conducting the above study? Explain your
answer. (2 marks)
5. What is the significance of the study to the field of cultural and communication
studies?
Explain your answer. (2 marks)

3
CONFIDENTIAL LG/JUNE 2022/ALS600

ANSWER:
Question 1
-this study aims to analyse non-numerical data specifically on advice seeking
strategies online platform forum.
- to understand advice seeking strategies/ the phenomenon used between MAlaysian
and Australian women.
- it allows for explanations to emerge from the data. in this case questions posted on
online platforms.

1. How would women seek advice on infertility treatment online?

2. Which online forum platform would malaysian and australian women
use to seek infertility advice online?
3. What are the differences between online forums in Malaysia and
Australia?

4. what are the advice seeking strategies used by Malaysian women ?

5. What are the advice seeking strategies used by Australian women ?
6. What are the differences between advice seeking strategies between
Malaysian and Australian women?

Question 3
a. Sample (data size// time frame// cultural background// age group//
language... + justification)
1. the sample used for this study will be 6 online forums - 3 from Malaysian online
forums and 3 from Australian online forums because the obj of the study is to
look at how two diff culture strategize when they seek for advice.

2. OR the sample used for this study will be from Ministry of Health online
Malaysian forums and 3 from Australian ministry of health online forum.
(comparing to culture/ advice regarding infertility treatment)

b. Sampling Method
3. The sampling method for this research will be purposive sampling. The samples
are selected based on the specific criteria determined by the researcher.

c. Instruments
4. the instrument used to analyses the data is advice seeking strategies
framework by Muhammad Jan and Chew (2016). The data will be coded using
this framework.
Question 4.
yes, the online forum developer may need the researcher to obtain their
no, there is no ethical consideration as the data is available to the public.

Question 5.
This study is significant to (who?) the field of cultural and communication studies
(why?) because it can further our understanding and knowledge in seeking
advice in relation to cultural differences.

4
CONFIDENTIAL LG/JUNE 2022/ALS600

PART B (15 MARKS)

Answer all the questions. Interpret the results to answer the research questions.

Question 1 (3 marks)

The study examined if there was a relationship between education levels and adoption of e-
commerce. Below is a 4x2 cross tabulation table which shows the frequency distribution in
E-commerce adoption across education levels.

a. Given the three tables below, analyse and interpret the results.
Table 1 E-commerce adoption by Education Levels Crosstabulation

E-Commerce
Adoption

Yes No Total

Education PhD 7 0 7
Levels
Master 190 5 195

Degree 184 22 206

Diploma 90 113 203

Total 471 140 611

Table 2 Results Summary of Chi-square Test

Chi-Square Test

Value df Asymptotic Significance

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 179.125 3 .000

5
CONFIDENTIAL LG/JUNE 2022/ALS600

Likelihood Ratio 179.355 3 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association 148.033 1

N of Valid Cases 611

Table 3 Results Summary of Symmetric Measures

Symmetric Measures

Asymptotic
Significance
Value

Nominal by Phi .823 .042

Nominal Cramer’s V .823 .042

N of Valid
Cases

ANSWER:

Question 2 (3 marks)

The study investigated the influence of English learning motivation on English scores

among six semester students of LG240 programme. It attempted to answer the following

research question:

Is there any significant relationship between English learning motivation and English

scores?

Table 1 shows the correlation results of English learning motivation and English scores.

a. Based on Table 1, analyse and interpret the results below.

Table 1 Correlation Results

6
CONFIDENTIAL LG/JUNE 2022/ALS600

Motivation

English Pearson
1 .348*
Correlation
scores

Sig.(2-tailed) .019

N 250 250

● Correlation is significant at the .05 level

ANSWER:

Question 3 (4 marks)

In academic settings, self-efficacy plays a major role in individual success. Academic self-
efficacy is an individual's beliefs on how well he/she could accomplish an academic work.
The study aimed to answer the following research question:

Is there a significant mean difference in academic self-efficacy between male and female?

Table 1 depicts the results summary of descriptive statistics for academic self-efficacy based
on gender whereas the results of independent samples t-test of academic self-efficacy
based on gender are shown Table 2.

a. Based on the two tables mentioned, analyse and interpret the given results.
Table 1 Descriptive Statistics for Academic Self-Efficacy based on Gender

Group Statistics

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error

Mean

Academic Male 50 3.35 0.412 0.058

Self-Efficacy
Female 30 3.54 0.340 0.048

Table 2 Results Summary of Independent Samples Test of Academic Self-efficacy

Based on Gender

Independent Samples Test

7
 CONFIDENTIAL LG/JUNE 2022/ALS600

Levene’s Test t-test for Equality of Means

of Equality of
Variances

Mean Std, Error 95% Confidence Interval

Sig. (2- Difference Difference of the Difference
Tailed

F Sig. t df Lower Upper

Equal variances 1.464 0.229 2.578 98 .011 -.195 .076 -.345 -.045
assumed
Academic
Self-efficacy Equal variance
not assumed 2.466 94.59 .013 -.195 .072 -.341 -.045

ANSWER:

Question 4 (5 marks)

The study examined the mean differences of three groups of students (classes) who sat for
the Research Methodology quiz. It attempted to answer the following research question:

Are there any significant mean differences in the quiz scores based on classes?

a. Based on the results in the tables below, analyse and interpret the results.

Table 1 Mean Differences Between and Within Groups

Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Research Between 23.601 2 11.800 7.485 .002

Methodology Groups
Quiz

Within 48.871 31 1.576

Groups

No. 72.471 33

Table 2 Multiple Comparison on Research Methodology Quiz Scores Based on Classes

Tukey HSD

(J) Mean Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval

8
CONFIDENTIAL LG/JUNE 2022/ALS600

Cluster Difference
(I) Cluster
(I-J)
Lower Upper
Bound Bound

Research Class A Class B 1.64848 .49841 .007 .4218 2.8752

Methodology
Quiz
Class C 1.71667 .54968 .010 .3638 3.0695

Class B Class C .06818 .49841 .007 -2.8752 -.4218

Class A -1.64848 .58341 .993 -1.3677 1.5041

Class C Class A -1.71667 .54968 .010 -3.0695 -.3638

Class B -.06818 .58341 .993 -1.5041 1.3677

*The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.

ANSWER:

END OF QUESTION PAPER