The Primary Research conducted on the excursion would be considered to have some validity, reliability and accuracy.  This is because, to an extent, there was collected data from numerous people and results were measured consistently each time recorded.  The flaws of the Primary Research Tool lied within the size of the group that we survey - which was 10 people.  This isn't valid because a sample group that small can't represent all of Sydney city, and because Sydney is a very diverse place, full of people with different ethnicities, occupations and religions, a mere 10 people wouldn't be able to represent the opinions of all those in Australia.  In addition to this, the people surveyed were from one part of Sydney, meaning that we didn't get the opinions from people all over Sydney city who came from different socio-economic areas.  It isn't reliable, because we measured our results in one area, meaning that we wouldn't obtain the same results from other parts of Sydney thus the results wouldn't be consistent.  Most of the issues with reliability are to do with the fact that we interviewed a small amount of people, due to time constraints, meaning that less opinions and less diversity of opinions were obtained meaning that we were more unlikely to be able to obtain the same results if we were to interview more people.  Our results were accurate though because results were all tallied/responses were written down word for word from people.  This means, in response to the statement, this is not entirely the case with our Primary Research.

In our results there was some bias to account for because there was such a small sample size that covered such a small space.  For example, because in that area at that time the tradespeople were on their lunch break, meaning that many of the people we interviewed were them.  This bias would interfere with results as an occupation impact a person's income, experiences, and their overall outlook on life.  Most of those surveyed were tradespeople as in that area, meaning that the responses that were received would've been influenced by many people having the same job as they would have a different perspective to - for example - a single mother, or lawyer or retail worker.  This means that the data obtained won't be fully reliable as these results wouldn't be consistent if we tried this survey again amongst a different group of people.  By extension, this means that the survey wasn't valid as it didn't measure the factors that we wanted them to, as the results didn't represent Sydney in its entirety.

In the future, results can be improved if there was more time, and more areas were covered, the results would be more reliable.  This is because with more time, more people have the oppurtunity to be surveyed, and a larger sample size means that more data can be obtained and analysed.  If more areas were to be covered, then it's more lkely that a greater amount of people from different areas will be encountered, meaning that more perspectives will be apparent in the answers.  In addition to this, for something to be more reliable, it should always be done more than once.  This means that the survey would be conducted over more than one days, meaning that influences such as time, weather, days people work etc would be much less likely to effect the results that are obtained.

PRIMARY RESEARCH

EVALUATION