Methodology

This study used three instruments for collecting information from different groups of New Zealanders. A series of eight[Due to late cancellations in the first Māori focus group (Group 8i), that group was conducted with only three participants. Therefore, another Māori focus group (Group 8ii) was held and the contributions of both groups are drawn on as one collective group (no participants from Group 8i were involved in Group 8ii).] focus groups were held in and around the Wellington region, with an average group size of seven individuals. Also, a series of semi-structured interviews were conducted with individual representatives of specific groups of New Zealanders. Another section of the New Zealand population that was identified as having valuable information to contribute to this research consists of those individuals who believe that their privacy has been breached. Therefore, a survey questionnaire was designed and used to collect information from those individuals who have submitted privacy-related complaints to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner (OPC).

Where appropriate, in an effort to avoid confusion about phrases like "how much do you trust 'Organization X' to protect your privacy...," the research team used phrases like "how confident are you that 'Organization X' will handle your personal information properly and adequately protect it?" By operationalizing 'trust' and 'privacy' in this way, this research sought to focus on specific issues and minimize the probability of participants misinterpreting the questions.

back to top

3.1 Focus group interviews with commmunity groups

The purpose of focus group research is to gather qualitative data about individuals' beliefs, attitudes and feelings on a topic, with an opportunity to encourage participants to explain their reported views. Selection of the groups (as listed below) was conducted in an effort to involve a general cross-section of the New Zealand population. [The only requirement for individuals was their willingness to participate.]

Each participant completed an initial questionnaire consisting of general questions about their trust in the government and concerns about their personal information (see Appendix A). The group interview followed, including a discussion of five general questions and five scenarios (see Appendix B). [To establish a common understanding of terms, after participants presented and discussed their interpretations of "privacy." Then, a definition of information privacy was presented to the group to ensure that participants were aware of what was meant by "privacy" for the remainder of the meeting.] Each question was posed to stimulate discussion related to a specific subject, and to encourage participants to explain what factors influence their views and concerns within the context of this study. Similarly, each scenario was designed to present individuals with a situation involving an improper flow of personal information and asked participants to explain the effect (if any) each scenario would have on them. Several themes and common issues emerged from the various focus group discussions, including people's differing views about the trustworthiness of government organizations, and individuals' concerns about current and future uses of technology (data related to these topics is presented in the Findings section).

While the strength of this focus group research is the richness of information provided, the qualitative data is not necessarily representative of the population, and any inferences should be made with care.

The meetings were conducted from September through November of 2005, and the groups were composed as follows:

• Group 1: Parents (of school-aged children) in a suburb north of Wellington
• Group 2: University students
• Group 3: Recent immigrants
• Group 4: Members of a business association in central Wellington
• Group 5: Parents (of school-aged children) in a suburb of Palmerston North
• Group 6: Members of a suburban business association
• Group 7: Pacific peoples
• Group 8 (i and ii): Māori individuals

back to top

3.2 Survey of individuals reporting privacy complaints

For researchers investigating information privacy, contacting individuals who have submitted a privacy complaint presents a challenge, because that information is confidential and not generally available. As a result of this situation, there is a lack of published research drawing on input from this population. After discussing the objectives of this study with staff members of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner (OPC), that office agreed to help attempt to overcome this obstacle. In order to enable the research team to survey complainants, a protocol carefully designed to protect the privacy of all complainants was followed. In short, after being notified of this research study by the OPC, all respondents were offered an opportunity to "opt-in" in order to participate (as described in Appendix D).

In contrast to the hypothetical nature of focus group discussions, this survey (see Appendix C) collected information from respondents about the consequences of the experience related to their complaint. [Instead of questions posed in the form of "howwouldthis affect your trust..." this group of participants was asked a series of questions about "howdidthis affect your trust..."] While this survey provides important data about what actually happens when privacy is (believed to be)[The fact that an individual submitted a complaint may imply that they believe their privacy has been breached in some way, but it does not guarantee that this is the case (their complaint may not be well-founded). This is acceptable for this study, as the individual's belief that their privacy was breached is sufficient.] breached, the participants for this survey were self-selecting.[Each participant in the survey of complainants had submitted a privacy complaint and was required to "opt-in" in order to participate.] Therefore, any conclusions derived from the results of this survey of complainants are subject to the bias of the sample.

back to top

3.3 Interviews with community leaders / representatives

In New Zealand, as in any society, there are groups of individuals that may have a unique perspective regarding their informational privacy (for any number of reasons or personal circumstances, e.g., race, religion, age, health conditions, financial situation, etc.). In designing this study, it was acknowledged that focus groups would provide views from the general population, potentially neglecting the views of those with unique perspectives. Therefore, this study sought the input of individuals believed to have specific knowledge of, or experience with, these groups. [Based on their experience, interviewees provided more "expert" knowledge than participants in the focus groups and, in nearly every instance, the interviewee was also a part of the group they were representing.] Individuals fulfilling these requirements were identified by their role within an organization (e.g., the president of an association, or advocates for a specific group of New Zealanders), and contacted by phone or email inviting them to participate in this research. Each semi-structured interview followed a common schedule of questions, which was provided to interviewees well in advance of the interview (see Appendix E).

The main points raised in the interviews are presented in the Findings section. The topics covered were closely related to the themes that emerged from the focus groups, and comparison of the results from each project is included in the Discussion section.

The groups represented in these interviews were: [Although several other groups were contacted, some were unable or unwilling to participate.]

1. Social welfare beneficiaries
2. Ethnic councils in New Zealand
3. Pacific peoples
4. Māori
5. Muslims
6. People with disabilities
7. Women
8. Older New Zealanders (i.e., over sixty years old)

While individuals in the focus groups also presented views from the perspective of these groups, gathering input from these experts and advocates was helpful for corroborating individuals' comments or identifying disagreement within specific groups.

back to top

3.4 Systematic analysis of qualitative data

Each interview and focus group meeting was recorded and transcribed, providing a large base of detailed data. In order to perform thorough and objective review, the research team used a proven method of coding to analyze this qualitative data. A hierarchical framework of code terms was developed based on the issues discussed in the meetings. Each code term acts as a descriptive label to associate participants' comments with a category and a more specific classification (e.g., if a participant said "I prefer to provide personal information in a face-to-face environment, because I can see how they're treating my information," this comment would be labeled with the code term 'benefit of channel' within the 'Channel' category). The coding framework can be found in Appendix F. This allowed the research team to systematically analyze each transcript and identify comments associated with a specific topic, in turn, facilitating the identification of themes and comparisons among the different groups.