Surveys in low- and middle-income countries evoke much higher response than those in richer countries. This has led to a situation wherein there is much less interest by researchers on various factors that might be impacting survey response in the former. However, many factors, including increasing urbanisation and industrialisation and accompanying demographic and socio-economic changes in countries of the global South, may lead to a situation where the survey response is no longer high warranting researchers to pay greater attention to it. In this article, the authors undertake this exercise by drawing on the panel the Delhi Metropolitan Area Telephonic Survey (DMAS-T) that was conducted in the National Capital Region during the pandemic from April 2019 to June 2021 (this includes periods of the COVID-induced lockdown). The results indicate that underneath the initial high response to the survey, there is much heterogeneity by the lockdown phase, survey month, and other individual and socio-economic background characteristics of the respondents. The results reinforce the argument for paying greater attention to survey response as a means of understanding survey data as also of designing better surveys with the intention to reduce non-response and/or bias.
AxinnW., GhimireD., & WilliamsN. (2012). Collecting survey data during armed conflict. Journal of Official Statistics, 28(2), 153–171.
2.
BarboniG., FieldE., PandeR., RigolN., SchanerS., & TroyerC. (2018). A tough call: Understanding barriers to and impacts of women’s mobile phone adoption in India. Harvard Kennedy School.
3.
BatesN., & ZamadicsJ. (2021). COVID-19 infection rates and propensity to self-respond in the 2020 U.S. Decennial Census. Survey Practice, 14(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.29115/SP-2021-0002.
4.
BeullensK., LoosveldtG., VandenplasC., & StoopI. (2018). Response rates in the European social survey: Increasing, decreasing, or a matter of fieldwork efforts?Survey Methods: Insights from the Field. https://surveyinsights.org/?p=9673.
5.
CampanelliP., SturgisP., & PurdonS. (1997). Can you hear me knocking: An investigation into the impact of interviewers on survey response rates?GB National Centre for Social Research.
6.
CleryE., CurticeJ., FrankenburgS., MorganH., & ReidS. (2021). British social attitudes: The 38th report. The National Centre for Social Research.
7.
CoffeyD., HathiP., KhuranaN., & ThoratA. (2018). Explicit prejudice: Evidence from a new survey. Economic & Political Weekly, 53(1), 46–54.
8.
CurtinR., PresserS., & SingerE. (2005). Changes in telephone survey non-response over the past quarter century. Public Opinion Quarterly, 69(1), 87–98.
9.
DesaiS., DeshmukhN., & PramanikS. (2021). Precarity in a time of uncertainty: Gendered employment patterns during the COVID-19 lockdown in India. Feminist Economics, 27(1–2), 152–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/13545701.2021.1876903
10.
EtangA., HoogeveenJ., & LendorferJ. (2015). Socio-economic impact of the crisis in North Mali on displaced people [Policy Research Working Paper 7253]. World Bank.
11.
GrovesR. (2011). Three eras of survey research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 75(5), 861–871.
12.
GrovesR., & CouperM. (1998). Non-response in household interview surveys. John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118490082.index
13.
GoyderJ. (1987). The silent minority: Non-respondents on sample survey. Westview Press.
14.
HRS Staff. (2017). Sample sizes and response rates. https://hrs.isr.umich.edu/
15.
International Institute for Population Sciences (IIPS) & ICF. (1995). National Family Health Survey (MCH and Family Planning), India 1992-93. IIPS.
16.
International Institute for Population Sciences (IIPS) & ICF. (2000). National Family Health Survey (NFHS-2), 1998-99: India. IIPS.
17.
International Institute for Population Sciences (IIPS) & ICF. (2007). National Family Health Survey (NFHS-3), 2005-06: India. IIPS.
18.
International Institute for Population Sciences (IIPS) & ICF. (2017). National Family Health Survey (NFHS-4), 2015-16: India. IIPS.
19.
International Institute for Population Sciences (IIPS) & ICF. (2021). National Family Health Survey (NFHS-5), 2019-21: India. IIPS.
20.
McIlleceJ. (2020). COVID-19 and the current population survey: Response rates and estimation bias. https://www.bls.gov/osmr/research-papers/2020/st200030.htm
21.
MorganS. (2020). Response rates and representativeness: A benchmark comparison of the general social surveys to the American Community Surveys, 2012–2018. GSS Methodological Report No. 131. Johns Hopkins University.
22.
NCAER. (2020–2021). Delhi NCR Coronavirus telephonic survey – Various rounds. National Council of Applied Economic Research. https://ndic.ncaer.org/research-theme/dcvts/
23.
PramanikS., BanerjiM., TiwariD., ChoudhuriP., MotheramA., & ShepherdA. (2022a). India COVID-19 poverty monitor report: August 2022. National Data Innovation Centre, National Council of Applied Economic Research (NCAER) and Chronic Poverty Advisory Network (CPAN).
24.
PramanikS., DeshmukhN., ChouhanB., BanerjiM., AshrafR., TiwariD., & DesaiS. (2022b). Coverage and non-response bias in telephone surveys during the COVID-19 lockdown in India [NCAER Working Paper WP136]. National Council of Applied Economic Research.
SastryN., McGonagleK., & FombyP. (2020). Effects of the COVID-19 crisis on survey fieldwork: Experience and lessons from two major supplements to the U.S. panel study of income dynamics. Survey Research Methods, 14(2), 241–245. https://ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/srm/article/view/7752
27.
SingerE. (2006). Non-response bias in household surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 70(5), 637–645. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfl034
28.
SingerE., & PresserS. (2008). Privacy, confidentiality, and respondent burden as factors in telephone survey non-response. In LepkowskiJ., TuckerN., BrickJ., de LeeuwE., JapecL., LavrakasP., & SangsterR. (Eds), Advances in telephone survey methodology (pp. 447–470). Wiley.
29.
StecklovG., WeinrebA., & CarlettoC. (2017). Can incentives improve survey data quality in developing countries? Results from a field experiment in India. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A: Statistics in Society, 181(4), 1033–1056. https://doi.org/10.1111/rssa.12333
30.
StoopI. (2005). The hunt for the last respondent. Nonresponse in sample surveys. Social and Cultural Planning Office.
31.
TourangeauR. (2004). Survey research and societal change. Annual Review of Psychology, 55(1), 775–801.
32.
TuckerC., & LepkowsiJ. (2008). Telephone survey methods: Adapting to change. In LepkowskiJ., TuckerN., BrickJ., de LeeuwE., JapecL., LavrakasP., & SangsterR. (Eds), Advances in telephone survey methodology (pp. 3–26). Wiley.
33.
WatkinsS. (1995). “Circle no bicycle”: Fieldwork in Nyanza Province, Kenya, 1994-1995. Population Studies Center, University of Pennsylvania. https://repository.upenn.edu/psc_working_papers/54
34.
WeinrebA. (2006). The limitations of stranger-interviewers in rural Kenya. American Sociological Review, 71(6), 1014–1039.
35.
WilliamsD., & BricksJ. (2017). Trends in U.S. face-to-face household survey non-response and level of effort. Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology, 6(2), 186–211. https://academic.oup.com/jssam/article/6/2/186/3930833
36.
World Bank. (2015a). The socio-economic impacts of Ebola in Sierra Leone: Results from a high frequency cell phone survey - Round 3. World Bank.
37.
World Bank. (2015b). The socio-economic impacts of Ebola in Liberia: Results from a high frequency cell phone survey - Round 5. World Bank.
38.
World Bank. (2016). Republic of Guinea: Socio-economic impact of Ebola using mobile phone survey. World Bank.
