Interviewer et survey researcher, dépendance mutuelle : L'explication du comportement demande l'utilisation de concepts subjectifs comme des opinions et des attitudes. Pour mesurer ces concepts non-directement observables, la standardisation stricte du processus de répondre aux questions est nécessaire. Si des interviewers ont été employés pour assurer une procédure correcte dans la collecte des données, ces interviewers peuvent aussi empêcher la standardisation. L'interviewer, est-il une aide indispensable au chercheur et au répondant, ou un obstacle difficile dans l'obtention de réponses non-biaisées et comparables ? Pour répondre à ces questions, des transcriptions d'entretiens d'enquête ont été analysées concernant surtout les méthodes utilisées par les interviewers dans la réparation des réponses non-adequates des répondants. Les résultats de ces analyses et d'autres de la cybernétique montrent clairement qu'il n'est pas efficace de standardiser fortement le comportement de réparation des interviewers. L'analyse montre aussi la relation mutuelle entre l'interviewer et le survey researcher : celui-ci, en construisant le questionnaire et en fournissant des instructions concernant le comportement correct de « réparation », peut aussi être une aide ou un obstacle pour le travail de l'interviewer.
Ashby, W.R., (1956/1964). An Introduction to Cybernetics . London: Methuen & Co.
2.
Belson, W.A., (1981). The Design and Understanding of Survey Questions . Aldershot: Gower.
3.
Biemer, P.P. & S.L. Stokes ( 1989), The Optimal Design of Quality Control Samples to Detect Interviewer Cheating. Journal of Official Statistics, 5(1), 23-40.
4.
Brenner, M. ( 1982), "Response Effects of "Role-restricted" Characteristics of the Interviewer". In: W. Dijkstra & J. van der Zouwen (eds.), Response Behaviour in the Survey-interview. London: Academic Press, pp. 131-165.
5.
Dijkstra, W. ( 2002), "Transcribing, Coding, and Analyzing Verbal Interactions in Survey Interviews". In: D. W. Maynard, H. Houtkoop-Steenstra, N.C. Schaeffer & J. van der Zouwen (eds.), Standardization and Tacit Knowledge; Interaction and Practice in the Survey Interview. New York: John Wiley .
6.
Dijkstra, W. & J. van der Zouwen ( 1988), "Types of inadequate interviewer behavior in survey-interviews ". In: W.E. Saris & I.N. Gallhofer (eds.), Sociometric Research, Volume 1: Data Collection and Scaling. Basingstoke: Macmillan. pp. 24-35.
7.
Eyerman, J., P. Biemer, C. Hill & C. Ellis ( 2004), "Statistical and Technical Methods for the Detection and Prevention of Interviewer Fraud in Data Collection". Paper presented at the Sixth International Conference on Logic and Methodology , August 16-20, 2004, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Gove, W.R. ( 1982), "Systematic Response Bias and Characteristics of the Respondent". In: W. Dijkstra & J. van der Zouwen (eds.), Response Behaviour in the Survey Interview. London: Academic Press, pp. 167-187.
10.
Groves, R.M. ( 1989), Survey Errors and Survey Costs. New York: John Wiley.
11.
Harrison, D.E. & S.I. Krauss ( 2002), "Interviewer Cheating: Implications for Research on Entrepreneurship in Africa". Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 7(3), 319-330.
12.
Houtkoop-Steenstra, H. ( 1995), "Meeting both ends. Between standardization and recipient design in telephone survey interviews". In: P. ten Have & G. Psathas (eds.), Situated order: studies in the organization of talk and embodied activities . Washinton, DC: University Press of America, pp. 91-107.
13.
Houtkoop-Steenstra, H. ( 2000), Interaction and the Standardized Survey Interview; The living questionnaire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14.
Koch, A. ( 2002), "20 Jahre Feldarbeit im ALLBUSS: Ein Blick in die Black Box". ZUMA-Nachrichten51, Jrg. 26, November 2002, 9-37.
15.
Leeuw, E.D. de ( 1992), Data Quality in Mail, Telephone and Face to Face Surveys . Proefschrift Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam: TT-Publikaties.
16.
Matschinger, H., S. Bernert & M.C. Angermeyer (forthcoming), An Analysis of Interviewer Effects on Screening Questions in a Computer Assisted Personal Mental Health Interview. Journal of Official Statistics , forthcoming.
17.
Maynard, D.W. & N.C. Schaeffer ( 2002), "Standardization and Its Discontents". In: D.W. Maynard, H. Houtkoop-Steenstra , N.C. Schaeffer & J. van der Zouwen (eds.), Standardization and Tacit Knowledge: Interaction and Practice in the Survey Interview. New York: John Wiley, pp. 3-45.
18.
Meter, K. van ( 2005), Studying Survey Interviewers: A Call for Research and an Overview. Bulletin de Méthodologie Sociologique, N. 88, 51-71.
19.
Moore, R.J. ( 2000), "Differences in probing practices at two U.S. survey centers". In: J. Blasius, J. Hox, E. de Leeuw & P. Schmidt (eds.), Social science methodology in the new millennium. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Logic and Methodology, held at Cologne, Germany, October 3-6, 2000. Opladen: Leske & Budrich, CD-ROM.
20.
Moore, R.J. & D.W. Maynard ( 2002), Achieving understanding in the standardized survey interview: repair sequences. In: D.W. Maynard, H. Houtkoop-Steenstra, N.C.
21.
Schaeffer & J. van der Zouwen (eds.), Standardization and tacit knowledge: interaction and practice in the survey interview. New York: John Wiley, pp. 281-311.
22.
Ongena, Y.P. ( 2005), Interviewer and Respondent Interaction in Survey Interviews. Unpublished PhD dissertationVrije Universiteit, Amsterdam.
23.
Platt, J. ( 2002), "The History of the Interview". In: J.F. Gubrium & J.A. Holstein (eds.), Handbook of Interview Research; Context & Method . Thousand Oaks: Sage.
24.
Presser, S. ( 1984), "The use of survey data in basic research in the social sciences". In: C.F. Turner & E. Martin (eds.), Surveying Subjective Phenomena . New York: Russell Sage Foundation .
25.
Saris, W.E. & J. van der Zouwen ( 1999), Feasibility Study Concerning a Research Program on the Quality of Survey Measurement. Report to the 'Gebiedsbestuur' MaGW. Amsterdam.
26.
Schnell, R. ( 1991), Der Einfluss gefälschter Interviews auf Survey-Ergebnisse . Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 20 (1), 25-35.
27.
Schreiner, I., K. Pennie & J. Newbrough ( 1988), "Interviewer Falsification in Census Bureau Surveys". American Statistical Association, Proceedings of the Section of Survey Research Methods, pp. 491-496.
28.
Stocké, V. ( 2004), "The Interdependence of Determinants for the Strength and Direction of Social Desirability Bias in Racial Attitude Surveys". Report No. 04-14 SonderForschungsBereich 504. Universität Mannheim, Mannheim.
29.
Sudman, S. & N.M. Bradburn ( 1974), Response Effects in Surveys; A Review and Synthesis. Chicago: Aldine.
30.
Turner, C.F. & E. Martin (eds.)(1984), Surveying Subjective Phenomena . New York: Russell Sage Foundation .
31.
Viterna, J.S. & D.W. Maynard ( 2002), "How Uniform is Standardization? Variation Within and Across Survey Research Centers Regarding Protocols for Interviewing." In: D.W. Maynard, H. Houtkoop-Steenstra, N.C. Schaeffer & J. van der Zouwen (Eds.), Standardization and Tacit Knowledge: Interaction and Practice in the Survey Interview. New York: John Wiley, pp. 365-397.
32.
Wiener, N. ( 1965), Cybernetics: or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine. Second Edition. Cambridge, MA: MIT-Press.
33.
Zouwen, J. van der ( 2001), "Cybernetics and Interviewing". Kybernetes30(9/10), 1064-1071.
34.
Zouwen, J. van der ( 2002), "Why Study Interaction in the Survey Interview? Response from a Survey Researcher". In: D.W. Maynard , H. Houtkoop-Steenstra, N.C. Schaeffer & J. van der Zouwen (eds.), Standardization and Tacit Knowledge: Interaction and Practice in the Survey Interview. New York : John Wiley, pp. 47-65.
35.
Zouwen, J. van der ( 2006), De interviewer, hulp of hindernis? Chapter 4 in A.E. Bronner (ed.), Ontwikkelingen in het Marktonderzoek. Jaarboek 2006. Haarlem: De Vrieseborch.
36.
Zouwen, J. van der, W. Dijkstra & J. van de Bovenkamp ( 1986), "The control of interaction processes in survey interviews ". In: F. Geyer & J. van der Zouwen (eds.), Sociocybernetic Paradoxes: Observation, Control and Evolution of Self-steering Systems. London: Sage, pp. 55-63.
37.
Zouwen, J. van der & E.D. de Leeuw ( 1990 en 1991), "The Relationship between Mode of Administration and Quality of Data in Survey Research". Bulletin de Méthodologie Sociologique Nr. 29, pp. 3-14 (First Part) en Nr. 31 (Final Part) pp. 49-60.
38.
Zouwen, J. van der & J.H. Smit ( 2004a), "Evaluating Survey Questions by Analyzing Patterns of Behavior Codes and Question-Answer Sequences: A Diagnostic Approach". In: S. Presser, J.M. Rothgeb, M.P. Couper, J.T. Lessler, E. Martin, J. Martin & E. Singer (eds.), Methods for Testing and Evaluating Survey Questionnaires . New York: John Wiley, pp. 109-130.
39.
Zouwen, J. van der & J.H. Smit ( 2004b), "The Effectiveness of Repair Strategies of Interviewers in Survey Interviews". In: C. van Dijkum, J. Blasius & B. van Hilten (eds.), Recent Developments and Applications in Social Research Methodology. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Logic and Methodology, August 17-20, 2004, Amsterdam. Amsterdam: SISWO, CD-ROM.
40.
Zouwen, J. van der & J.H. Smit ( 2005), "Control processes in survey interviews: a cybernetic approach". Kybernetes34(5), 602-616.
41.
Zouwen, J. van der, J.H. Smit & M.H.L. van der Horst ( 2005), "Expectations of Interviewers as Determinants of Deviant Interviewer Behavior". Paper presented at the First Conference of the European Association for Survey Research, Barcelona, 18-22 July, 2005.
