Corruption Dataset

Published: 6 July 2018| Version 2 | DOI: 10.17632/xh22fsmvmc.2
Contributor:
Salem Al-Jundi

Description

The sampling frame used for data collection comprised students and employees from the University of Basra, Iraq, and Basra citizens who were digitally savvy. The sampling technique and procedure used to select the participants for the study was purposive sampling, which is also known as judgmental sampling (Saunders et al., 2016). The rationale for using purposive sampling stemmed from the characteristics of the population and the objective of the study (Saunders et al., 2016). We decided that, based on the objectives of the research, a sampling frame comprising the students and employees of University of Basra, Iraq, as well as interested digitally savvy citizens in Basra was the most suitable and appropriate. The measured items under consideration were translated into Arabic and inserted into Google Forms as an electronic survey. We invited 20 friends and relatives, using the purposive sampling procedure (Saunders et al., 2016) to fill in the form. The items themselves and the results were discussed with five academics from the College of Administration and Economics, University of Basra, for pre-testing purposes (Saunders et al., 2016). Accordingly, we made slight changes to the first version to ensure reliability and validity (Sekaran and Bougie, 2013). The questionnaire (see Table 3. 1) thus became much more understandable for all educational levels.

Files

Steps to reproduce

We communicated first with students, employees and academics from the University of Basra. We then used social media to reach digitally friendly and savvy members of the public in Basra. We wanted to analyze administrative corruption and its causes from the perspective of the public. We aimed to reach 1,000 people from different social classes; however, we collected responses from only 715 participants. Of these, 38 were deleted because the respondents had not taken the survey seriously (e.g., they selected 1 in the seven-point scale for all questions). The final sample thus comprised 677 responses. The process of collecting the data took three months, from the beginning of August to the end of October 2017. Appendix A contains the data set of 677 responses.