METHODOLOGY

The section outlines the research methods by which data is collected, and the philosophies upon which the data analysis is based (Haralambos, 1990). The formulation of the method used should depend primarily on the question that is being investigated (Thomas & Nelson, 1996).

Research that involves the integration of quantitative and qualitative research has become increasingly common in recent years (Bryman, 2006). Multi-strategy (Bryman, 2004) or mixed methods (Creswell, 2003) is becoming regarded as a third research method in it own right.

This investigation is a multi-strand study (Bryman, 2006). The rationale for adopting a mixed methods approach based on the research is that it will provide a more complete and comprehensive account of the area of enquiry by providing a process involving structures in social life (qualitative) and research that provides sense of process (Quantitative). Greene et al. (1989, Cited in Bryman, 2006, p.105) provided a rationale for a mixed method approach. It allows the research:

Table 3: Features of Mixed Method Research (Cited, in Bryman, 2006, p.105)

Triangulation

The convergence, corroboration, correspondence or results from different disciplines to seek corroboration between quantitative and qualitative data.

Complementarity

This seeks elaboration, enhancement, illustration, and clarification of the results from one method with the results to another.

Development

This seeks to use the results from one method to help develop or inform the other method.

Initiation

This seeks the discovery of paradox and contradiction, new perspectives of frameworks, the recasting of questions or results from one method with questions or results from the other method'.

Expansion

Thisseeks to extend the breadth and range of enquiry by using different methods for different inquiry components'.

Participants

The participants for this study consisted of male football players representing The University of Wales Institute Cardiff (UWIC) during the 2006/07 Season. Fourteen players participated in the study. Their ages ranged from 19 to 27 years (M=22.98 ± 2.16); and they had an average of 1.35 ± 1.69 years playing experience within this team.

Questionnaires and Instrumentation

The main reason for utilising a questionnaire was to collect information over a time scale that could be used in interviews to further discuss the research question. By employing both types of research it enhances the integrity of the findings (Bryman, 2006). This research method consults directly with key individuals. The responses would provide answers to the same question from a large number of individuals…. "to enable the researcher not only to describe but also compare, to relate one characteristic to another and to demonstrate that certain features exist in certain categories" (Bell, 1987, p.9). An awareness of the way questionnaires can impose a structure on the respondent's answers and the way they can; "channel responses away from the respondent's perception of matters to fit in with a line of thinking established by the researcher" (p.106) is highlighted by Bell (1987).

Measures

Cohesion

Team cohesion was assessed using Group Environment Questionnaire (Carron et al., 1985). The GEQ (see appendix A) is an 18-item inventory that assesses four dimensions of cohesion. Items are measured on a 9-point Likert scale anchored at the extremes by 1 (strongly disagree) and 9 (strongly agree). The GEQ contains questions related to the four dimensions of Carron et al, (1985) conceptual model. For example, TheAttractiveness to the group-task(ATG –T) scale contains 4 items and an example item is: "This team does not give me enough opportunities to improve my performance". TheAttractiveness to the group-social(ATG-S) scale contains 5 items and an example item is: "For me, this team is one of the most important social groups to which I belong". TheGroup Integration-task(GI-T) scale contains 5 items and an example item is: "Our team is united in trying to reach its goals of performance". TheGroup Integration Social(GI-S) scale contains 4 items and an example item is: "Members of our team would rather go out on their own rather than get together as a team".

Out of the 18 items, 12 items responses to negative questions need to be reversed for data analysis so that a high score on any item indicated high cohesion. Stronger disagreements represent greater perceptions of cohesion. Also, some of the items on the GEQ are positively worded. As a consequence, the items are scored according to the response on the scale itself with stronger agreement representing greater perceptions of cohesion (Appendix B).

Performance

Performance in this study is measured using self-evaluation reports. A number of factors can effect performance (i.e. injury, illness, weather); all need to be considered in order to have a valid accurate measure of performance. Because objective performance measures fail to take these factors into consideration, the individual's subjective evaluation was used. It was recognised by the researcher that although this method of quantifying performance was not without problems it was believed to be most appropriate given the nature of the sport, characteristics of the subjects, and constraints of the investigation.