CAVENDISH UNIVERSITY ZAMBIA

END OF SEMESTER EXAMINATION ANSWER BOOK

SCHOOL OF ( LAW)

STUDENT NUMBER: 102-092

MODULE CODE: BBA 413

MODULE NAME: RESEARCH METHODS

DATE OF EXAMINATION: 10/05/2024

STUDENT INSTRUCTIONS:

1. Re-save the answer booklet to include your Student ID (SID) number in the file name, using the following
format: [your SID number] [module code] AnswerBooklet (for example, 123456 BBA111 AnswerBooklet).
2. Follow the instructions in the answer booklet carefully;
3. Do remember to note the code and name of the examination paper in the space provided.
4. Enter the date for the examinations in the space provided.
5. Write the answer to each question on a new page of the document and remember to include the question number
at the top of each page.
6. Remember to save the document regularly whilst you are working on it.
7. When you have finished writing your answers into the answer booklet, check your work and then save.
8. Aim to submit your completed answer booklet within 7 hours of the examination commencement time
immediately you have checked your completed work to avoid rush hour that might be affected by both network
congestion and load shedding in your locality.

9. The answer booklet can be opened, saved and submitted in

QUESTION 1

FOUR ISSUES WHICH I WILL EXPLAIN TO MY FRIEND ON THE CASE AT HAND

1. Admissibility of evidence of the dying declaration.

According to the case of R v. Mwamba (1973) ZR 226, dying declaration is an exception to the
general rule excluding the hearsay evidence. The burden of proving the dying declaration is
always on the prosecution. Dying declarations: the law recognises that statements made by a
person suffering from a terminal illness that has abandoned all hope of survival may be
admissible as hearsay evidence, the courts have analysed that the state of mind of the person in
such a position would be similar to the state of mind of a person giving an oath where the
possibility of concoction would be less and the possibility of veracity great where a person
believes that they will be meeting their creator. In such a situation the statements will be
admissible. The three important criteria are thus (a) physical condition of illness (b) mental state,
giving up all hope to live and (c) death is imminent need not mean immediate. This is an
exception to the rule of hearsay. The words uttered by the deceased before she died can be
treated as a dying declaration according to Phillipson on Evidence. Since an accused can be
convicted solely on the basis of dying declaration, the court is expected to carefully scrutinize the
same. However, its admissibility depends on the circumstances surrounding the statement. As
such, according to section 24 of the evidence act cap 30 of Zambia dying declarations are
admissible.

2. Circumstantial Evidence
In the absence of direct evidence, the prosecution may rely on circumstantial evidence to prove
its case. In this case, the fact that Joseph lived in the same neighborhood and was picked up by
the police, combined with his alleged confession, may be used as circumstantial evidence to link
him to the crime. See the case of Khupe Kafuna vs.The People Z.R. 31 (SC), The appellant was
sentenced to death following upon his conviction for the offence of murder contrary to section
200 of the Penal Code, Cap 87 of the laws of Zambia. The court found that circumstantial
evidence against the appellant was so overwhelming that he had the opportunity and the time to
commit the offence. The court was satisfied that the appellant unlawfully, with malice
aforethought, caused the death of the deceased by shooting him at close range. The court
convicted the appellant accordingly. He appealed adducing evidence of unsoundness of mind
sometime prior to the incident.

3. Confessions and Voluntariness

The learned authors of Cross on Evidence defines a confession as an expression which includes
exculpatory statements by the accused, as well as a full admission of guilt. 1 Admissibility of a
confession statement is premised on the element of voluntariness as admission that undermine
this element are considered inadmissible and cannot be relied upon the courts of law. This
principle is a rule of thumb and is mandatory at all times in circumstances where evidence of a
confession is brought before the courts of law. Joseph's alleged confession may be used as
evidence, but its admissibility depends on whether it was made voluntarily. If the confession was
obtained through torture, coercion, or other forms of duress, it may be excluded as evidence. The
police must ensure that the confession was made freely and voluntarily. See Mwiya and Ikweti
v. the People2 stated the if the objection is not as to the voluntariness of the statement made, the
trial court is not under any obligation to conduct a trial within a trial. The principle in Mwiya v.
Ikweti was restated and adopted by the Supreme Court of Zambia in Mushoke v. The People3.

4. Character Evidence
Character evidence is evidence on an individual’s personality traits, propensities, or moral
standing. Under common law character evidence is inadmissible in criminal cases unless
the defendant raises the issue first. See The U.S. Supreme Court in Michelson v. United
States summarized the common law rule as “simply clos[ing] the whole matter of character,
disposition and reputation to the prosecution’s case-in-chief.” The rationale is not because the
evidence is irrelevant, but because “it is said to weigh too much with the jury and to so over-
persuade them as to prejudge one with a bad general record and deny him a fair opportunity to
defend against a particular charge.” In Zambia, character evidence is generally inadmissible,
except in limited circumstances, such as when the accused person raises their good character as a
defense.

QUESTION 2 (i)
1
Ruper Cross.., Tapper Colin, ‘Cross on Evidence. 6th Edition. London. Butterworths (1985)
2
Mwiya and Ikweti v. The People. (1968) S.J.Z. 173
3
Mushoke v.The People [2014] ZMSC 117
A theoretical framework and a conceptual framework are two distinct concepts in research that
serve different purposes4. While they are closely related, they differ in their focus and
application.

Theoretical Framework

A theoretical framework is a set of concepts, definitions, and propositions that together form a
foundation of theory. It is used to lay down a foundation of theory on which a study will be built.
Theoretical frameworks are typically based on existing research and theories, providing a
framework for understanding and analyzing a research problem. They are often used in
quantitative studies where the primary goal is to test hypotheses based on a specific theory.

A conceptual framework5, on the other hand, is a visual representation of the expected

relationships and connections between various concepts, constructs, or variables. It is used to
visualize how the researcher views and organizes the various concepts and variables within their
study. Conceptual frameworks are often used in qualitative studies where the focus is on
understanding and exploring complex phenomena.

DIFFERENCES

1. Theoretical frameworks focus on existing theories and their application, while conceptual
frameworks focus on the relationships between concepts and variables.
2. Theoretical frameworks provide a foundation for understanding a research problem, while
conceptual frameworks serve as a roadmap for the study, outlining expected relationships
between variables.
3. Theoretical frameworks are typically used in quantitative studies, while conceptual
frameworks are used in both quantitative and qualitative studies.
4. Theoretical frameworks are often broader in scope, encompassing multiple theories, while
conceptual frameworks are more specific, focusing on the relationships between specific
variables.

4
LoBiondo-Wood, G., & Haber, J. (2010). Nursing research: Methods and critical appraisal for evidence-based
practice (7th ed.). St. Louis, MO: Mosby Elsevier
5
Mertens, D. M. (2010). Research and evaluation in education and psychology (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE
In conclusion a theoretical framework is a foundation of theory used to guide a study, while a
conceptual framework is a visual representation of relationships between variables used to
organize and guide a study.

QUESTION 2 (ii)

Research design is a critical aspect of any research endeavor, influencing the effectiveness,
efficiency, and outcomes of a study. Before embarking on research, it is essential to consider
various factors that shape the choice of research design. These factors encompass practicality,
ethics, theory, familiarity with research methods, study objectives, time and budget constraints,
target audience, nature of the topic, availability of resources, ethical considerations, research
questions, and data availability. The selection of a research method must align with practical
considerations like time, budget, skills, and logistics while also addressing ethical issues such as
informed consent and participant well-being. Theoretical frameworks like positivism and
interpretivism guide researchers in choosing between quantitative and qualitative methods based
on their emphasis on objective facts or subjective meanings.

Qualitative Research
Qualitative research is an approach for exploring and understanding the meaning individuals or
groups ascribe to a social or human problem. The process of research involves emerging
questions and procedures, data typically collected in the participant’s setting, data analysis
inductively building from particulars to general themes, and the researcher making
interpretations of the meaning of the data. The final written report has a flexible structure. Those
who engage in this form of inquiry support a way of looking at research that honours an
inductive style, a focus on individual meaning, and the importance of rendering the complexity
of a situation.6 Denzin et al. defined Qualitative research as a research method used to gain an in-
depth understanding of human behaviour, experiences, and social phenomena. It focuses on
exploring subjective meanings, interpretations, and motivations through methods such as
interviews, observations, and textual analysis.7

6
Creswell J.W, ‘Research Design (Sage Publications) (2013) p 34
7
Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S, ‘The Sage Handbook of qualitative research (Sage Publications) (2011) p 36
Whereas Quantitative research is defined as an approach for testing objective theories by
examining the relationship among variables. These variables, in turn, can be measured, typically
on instruments, so that numbered data can be analysed using statistical procedures. The final
written report has a set structure consisting of an introduction, literature and theory, methods,
results, and discussion. Like qualitative researchers, those who engage in this form of inquiry
have assumptions about testing theories deductively, building in protections against bias,
controlling for alternative explanations, and being able to generalize and replicate the findings. 8

DETERMINANT FACTORS;

Qualitative and quantitative research differ in key aspects. Qualitative research focuses on
understanding "why" through detailed testimonies, while quantitative research analyzes
numerical data to establish statistical trends. Factors influencing choice include the nature of the
outcome sought, with qualitative aiming for depth and quantitative for breadth. Qualitative
research allows for creativity and varied interpretations but is more subjective, influenced by
researcher bias. In contrast, quantitative research provides objective, numerical results but can be
restrictive due to large sample requirements. Researchers choose based on their hypotheses, data
collection methods, and desired outcomes.

Furthermore, a notable limitation of qualitative research in legal scholarship is its lack of

statistical representativeness. Qualitative studies prioritize capturing perspectives and narratives
rather than quantifiable data, which can limit the generalizability of findings 9. In addition to
qualitative research, participants being partially responsible for the data gives no assurance to
objectively evidence results to pre-formulated scripts. Along with this, legal researchers must
have a scholarly skill to evaluate the kind of research methods to make their studies more
thorough and insightful.

Secondly, quantitative research faces criticism for its limited emphasis on qualitative
methodologies, leading to an imbalance that restricts the diversity of perspectives and insights
gained. The predominant focus on quantitative approaches can hinder a comprehensive
8
Creswell, J.W, ‘Research Design (Sage Publications) (2013) p.40
9
https://writing.colostate.edu/guides/guide.cfm?guideid=65
understanding of complex legal phenomena by overshadowing qualitative methods like
purposive sampling. This overreliance on quantitative techniques, such as random sampling,
underscores the need for a more inclusive and balanced approach to legal research
methodologies10. Additionally, the potential risks and limitations of applying quantitative
research in legal contexts include challenges in simplifying complex realities into quantified
variables, potentially masking the intricate nuances of legal issues 11. While quantitative research
provides objective statistical evidence that enhances law- and rule-making quality, its tendency
towards oversimplification may impede a thorough investigation of problems requiring deep
analysis, highlighting the importance of critically evaluating its methodology and impact.
Lastly, most scholars argue that adopting mixed method can be daunting to researchers because
of the resources, time and knowledge in a case of mixed method. While others argue that the lack
of time, energy and resources as the main obstacle behind not undertaking mixed method as
research12 and that research should avoid epistemological division between quantitative methods
as, for practical reasons, one type of method will usually be primary, but all research is enriched
by the addition of other methods.13 Thus quantitative and qualitative research complement each
other by combining them together.14

BENEFITS OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH, QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH AND

MIXED METHODS RESEARCH
Benefits of Qualitative Research:
i. Flexibility and Depth: Qualitative research allows for a flexible and in-depth exploration of
complex phenomena, capturing changing attitudes and providing a more nuanced
understanding of human experiences and behaviors.
ii. Contextual Understanding: This approach is well-suited for capturing rich contextual data,
focusing on the "how" and "why" of a particular phenomenon within specific contexts,
enabling researchers to delve into the intricacies of social interactions and cultural
influences.

10
Chetty Priya, ‘Limitations and Weakness of Quantitaitve Research Methods. (2016)
https://www.projectguru.in/limitations-quantitative-research/
11
ibid
12
Nur-E Hafsa, ’Mixed methods Research: An overview for beginner researchers, (2019) p47.
13
Dawadi.S., Shrestha.S., Giri.R.A , ‘Mixed Methods Research:A Discussion on its types , challenges and critisisims (2021) P33.
14
Ibid .
iii. Exploratory Nature: Qualitative research is exploratory in nature, allowing researchers to
generate new hypotheses and theories, making it valuable for uncovering novel insights and
perspectives that quantitative methods may overlook.
Benefits of Quantitative Research:
a. Objectivity and Generalizability: Quantitative research provides objective statistical
evidence that enhances decision-making processes by offering precise numerical data,
facilitating the generalization of findings to larger populations or settings.
b. Precision and Measurement: This method excels in measuring variables with accuracy,
enabling researchers to quantify relationships between factors, track productivity, rank
employees, justify decisions, and assess performance effectively within organizations.
c. Hypothesis Testing: Quantitative research primarily follows a confirmatory scientific
method focused on hypothesis testing, allowing researchers to test hypotheses rigorously
with empirical data to validate theories and make evidence-based conclusions.
Benefits of Mixed-Methods Research:
a. Comprehensive Insights: Mixed-methods research combines the strengths of both qualitative
and quantitative approaches, providing a comprehensive understanding of research questions
by offering diverse perspectives and triangulating data sources for robust conclusions.
b. Enhanced Validity: By integrating qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis,
mixed-methods research enhances the validity of study findings, contributing to more
reliable results that can withstand scrutiny and contribute significantly to the existing
literature.15
Flexibility and Adaptability: This approach offers flexibility in study design, allowing
researchers to adapt their methods based on the research questions at hand. It enables researchers
to address complex problems from multiple angles, ensuring a more holistic examination of
phenomena through varied lenses.

15
Johnson R.B., Onwuegbuzie, A. j, ‘Mixed methods research: a research paradigm whose time las come (2004) p14-26
QUESTION 3 (i)

According to Dawadi Mixed research methods are utilized in both applied and fundamental
research, each with distinct characteristics and applications. 16 A mixed-methods approach is a
research methodology in its own right. As stated by Creswell and Plano Clark (2011), a mixed-
methods research design is a research design that has its own philosophical assumptions and
methods of inquiry. As a methodology, it includes philosophical assumptions to provide
directions for the collection and analysis of data from multiple sources in a single study.

A mixed-methods design offers a number of benefits to approaching complex research issues as

it integrates philosophical frameworks of both post-positivism and interpretivism (Fetters, 2016)
interweaving qualitative and quantitative data in such a way that research issues are
meaningfully explained. It also offers a logical ground, methodological flexibility and an in-
depth understanding of smaller cases (Maxwell, 2016). In other words, the use of mixed-methods
enables researchers to answer research questions with sufficient depth and breadth (Enosh,
Tzafrir, & Stolovy, 2014) and helps generalise findings and implications of the researched issues
to the whole population. For example, the quantitative approach helps a researcher to collect the
data from a large number of participants; thus, increasing the possibility to generalise the
findings to a wider population. The qualitative approach, on the other hand, provides a deeper
understanding of the issue being investigated, honouring the voices of its participants. In other
words, whereas quantitative data bring breadth to the study and qualitative data provides depth to
it
 Applied Research
1. Applied research17according to Bryman, 2012 aims to solve practical problems and
address specific issues in real-world settings.
2. In applied research18, mixed methods are often employed to provide comprehensive
insights that can inform practical solutions or interventions.

16
Dawadi, S., Shrestha, S., & Giri, R. A. (2021). Mixed-Methods Research: A Discussion on its Types, Challenges,
and Criticisms. Journal of Practical Studies in Education, 2(2), 25-36
17
(Bryman, 2012)
18
(Bryman, 2012; Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018; Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Maxwell, 2016; Morgan, 2014;
Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998)
 3. Its goal is to generate actionable results that can be directly applied to improve practices,
policies, or processes.
4. Applied research might use mixed methods to assess the effectiveness of a new teaching
method in improving student performance, combining quantitative data on test scores
with qualitative feedback from teachers and students.

WHERE AS Fundamental Research

1. Fundamental research19 seeks to expand knowledge and understanding of underlying
principles and theories without immediate practical applications.
2. Mixed methods in fundamental research can offer a holistic view by combining
quantitative data for statistical analysis with qualitative insights to deepen understanding.
3. The aim is to contribute to theoretical frameworks, advance knowledge, and lay the
groundwork for future applied research i.e. its used to explore the impact of a specific
behavior, integrating quantitate date of statistical validation with qualitative narratives.

Both applied and fundamental research benefit from mixed methods, their distinct focuses on
practical solutions versus theoretical advancements shape how mixed research methods are
applied and the outcomes they aim to achieve.

19
i.b.d