RESEARCH IMPACT OF MONETIZATION POLICY ON WORKERS PRODUCTIVITY IN NIGERIA, A STUDY OF EBONYI STATE MINISTRY OF SOLID MINERALS
CHAPTER THREE
3.1 RESEARCHER METHODOLOGY
In this chapter, the method used in analyzing the
impact of monetization policy on workers productivity will be discussed using
Ebonyi State Ministry of solid mineral as a case study. For easy understanding,
this chapter will be divided into sections, viz; research design, area of study, population of study,
sources of data collection, sample size and sample technique and validity and
reliability of the measuring instrument.
3.2 RESEARCH
DESIGN
In any scientific research, the
research design adopted is always determined by the nature of the research
problem and purpose of study. The research design adopted for this study is
therefore, the descriptive survey design which uses the administration of
analysis of question to arrive at a dependable answer to any researcher
problem.
Also in social science research,
descriptive survey design is one of the most reliable research methods
available. It is simple and logical in coding sample of interpreted data.
3.3 AREA
OF STUDY
The area covered by the researcher
is narrowed to only the ministry of solid minerals development of Ebonyi State.
This ministry metamorphosed from the ministry of commerce and industry in the
year 2003, it is located at the secretariat complex, opposite unity square
Abakaliki, in Abakaliki Local Government Area of Ebonyi State, the ministry is
made up of six departments, which include, Administrative department, commerce,
finances, industry, co-operative and minerals development departments.
3.4 POPULATION
OF THE STUDY
The entire staff of the ministry of
solid minerals Ebonyi State numbering about two hundred and forty (240) was
used as the population for the study. This comprises eighty (80) senior staff
and one hundred and sixty (160) intermediate and junior staff. Due to the
existence of some limitations as mentioned in chapter one of this work, which
include secure of vital information, and nonchalant attitude of workers, the
whole population could not be used in the study.
3.5 SOURCES
OF DATA COLLECTION
This section is dedicated to basic
design and method employed by the researcher in gathering data for the purpose
of the study. It also demonstrated the step by step procedure to collect data.
We used two major sources to collect the necessary data for the study of the
monetization policy. These sources were primary and secondary sources.
a. Primary
Sources
One of the primary sources was the administering of
the questionnaires. The researcher adopted the method of setting out
questionnaire which were designed specifically to fish out useful information
for the analysis of the monetization policy. The questionnaire was set out in
simple and direct language devoid of ambiguity to avoid misunderstanding by the
respondents which may lead to incorrect information. The information required
in the questionnaire includes sex, marital status, educational/professional
qualification, occupation length of service, age, grade level etc.
Another primary source of data
collection was through personal interview. Some of the workers were each
personally interviewed by the researcher. The advantage of this method was that
the researcher was able to get some facts that were not provided in the
questionnaires. The researcher was able to asses the respondents mood and
feeling towards the monetization policy. The interview conducted was
deliberately designed to checkmate the tendency of questionnaires being filled
by other workers different from those that were given the questionnaires.
b. Secondary
Sources
These sources were through paper
presentations by economic analysts, social critics, financial experts, and
government circulars on monetization, magazines, newspapers, paper presentation
at various sensitization workshop on monetization policy, journals etc.
3.6 INSTRUMENT
OF DATA COLLECTION
For the purpose of collecting data
for this study, the instrument employed include questionnaire.
According to Odo (1992:58) Stoner define
questionnaire or instrumentation as a series of written questions or repository
and/or a devise that contains the instrument on a topic about which the
respondents written opinions are sought, which measures the variables necessary
to test the research hypothesis or answer research questions. The questionnaire
used was purely structured questions. The method was preferred in order to
obtain clear information. The questionnaires contain open-ended question and
close-ended questions meant to allow the respondents to air their own
individual opinions on the study.
3.7 (1) SAMPLE
SIZE
Sample, according to Horby
(1995:104) is a number of people or things taken from a larger group and used
in test to provide information about the group. Because of the nature of the
topic, we therefore used random sampling technique, which is based on the
principles of randomization. It is the process of giving every members or
elements in a population equal opportunity of being selected or chosen. The
research on the impact of monetization policy on workers productivity –A case
study of the ministry of solid minerals development Ebonyi State entailed the
use of interview, which was restricted to the management staff that directly
deal with and recognizes the existence of monetization policy.
3.8 SAMPLE
DETERMINATION
In determining the sample size of this research work,
Taro Yamani (1994:24) method of sample size determination is used:
Formula:
n = N
1+ N(e)2
n = sample Size
N = total number of population
I = constant
e = minimum error in calculation or margin
of error (0.052)
Here N = 240, n = ?,
e2 = 0.052
n = 240
1+240 (0.05)2
= 240
1+240 (0.0025)
= 240
1+ 240 x 0.0025
= 240 = 120 as the sample
2 Size 
3.9 VALIDITY
AND RELIABILITY OF THE MEASURING INSTRUMENT
Hornby (1995:1319) defined validity as a state of
being logical. He suggested that a group of fifteen (15) or twenty (20) people
who are not included in the main study group can be used to test the validity
of the instrument by distributing the structured questionnaires to them for
completion and the result compared with the one scored by the researcher and if
the score is between 80-100% it can be claimed to be valid.
Following the above procedure a
trial involving a group of fifteen people who are not members of the main study
group was carried out. Questionnaires were distributed to them and later
collected and evaluated. The evaluation showed that the sample was correct with
88% when compared with the one scored by the researcher. Therefore, the
instrument was valid.
To establish the reliability of the
instrument, Osuala (1982:186) said that reliability of instrument refers to the
consistency of measurement or has to do with consistency in which the
instrument works, the reliability of instrument was established, using
test-retest method, Odoh (1992:63) said that test retest is a process whereby
the researcher administers the constructed questionnaires to the same reliable
sample group more than once with the view of discovering how consistent each of
the reliable sample group are in those different times.
The materials were administered to a
group of 10 people and after two days, repeated the distribution making sure
that each person got a number of which tallied with the number given to him or
her in the previous distribution.
The
second round was collected the same day and each number compared with the
corresponding number in the first distribution. The comparison showed
similarity in the response and the researcher concluded that the instrument was
reliable.
3.10 METHOD
OF DATA ANALYSIS
The
method for the analyses of data in this research is the content analysis with
simple percentage method. The content analysis claims validity
through the analysis of data collected from the literature review, group
discussion and distributed questionnaire content from different surveyed literature were used as well opinions of respondents to represent the
universal truth. The opinions and contributions of
majority of different scholars view were analyzed together with the opinion of
different respondent to the questionnaire in order to arrive at a conclusion.