The authors review many of the serious challenges faced by survey researchers whose craft is to design and implement survey research. The challenges differ by mode of data collection (in person, telephone, mail, Web, etc.), and they have strong implications for philanthropy researchers who use survey research. Specialists in survey research have benefited from a number of developments in question and questionnaire design, sampling, cost containment, and handling increasing nonresponse. After reviewing these developments, the authors conclude with a plea to researchers to consult survey research experts at all points in survey design and planning. This will result in better data and research.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Association for Public Opinion Research. (1999). Best practices for survey and public opinion research [Online]. Ann Arbor, MI: Author. Available: http://www.aapor.org/ethics/best.html
2.
American Association for Public Opinion Research. (2000). Standard definitions [Online]. Ann Arbor, MI: Author. Available: http://www.aapor.org/ethics/stddef.html
3.
Biemer, P.
, Groves, R., Lars L., Mathiowetz, M., & Sudman, S. (Eds.). (1991). Measurement errors in surveys. New York: John Wiley.
4.
Brick, J. M.
, Waksberg, J., Kulp, D., & Starer, A. (1995). Bias in list-assisted telephone samples. Public Opinion Quarterly, 59, 218-235.
5.
Dillman, D.
(1978). Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. New York: John Wiley.
6.
Dillman, D.
(2000). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method. New York: John Wiley.
7.
Groves, R.
(1989). Survey errors and survey costs. New York: John Wiley.
8.
Groves, R.
, & Couper, M. (1998). Nonresponse in household interview surveys. New York: John Wiley.
9.
Guterbock, T.
, Meekins, B., Weaver, A., & Fries, J. (2000, May). Web versus paper: A mode experiment in a survey of university computing. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, Portland, OR.
10.
Harris Interactive
. (2001, February). Our methodology for online research [Online]. Rochester, NY: Author. Available: http://www.harrisinteractive.com/about/methodology.asp
11.
Keeter, S.
, Miller, C., & Kohut, A. (2000). Consequences of reducing nonresponse in a national telephone survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64, 125-148.
12.
Kennedy, J. M.
, Kuh, G. D., & Carini, R. (2000, May). Web and mail surveys: Preliminary results of comparisons based on a large-scale project. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, Portland, OR.
13.
Kindermann, C.
, Lynch, J., & Cantor, D. (1997, April). Effects of the redesign on victimization estimates [Online]. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Available: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/erve.pdf
National Council on Public Polls
. (2001, January 3). Presidential poll performance 2000 [Online]. Hackensack, NJ: Author. Available: http://www.ncpp.org/poll_perform.htm
16.
Putnam, R.
(2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.
17.
Singer, E.
, Van Hoewyk, J., & Maher, M. (2000). Experiments with incentives in telephone surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64, 171-188.
18.
Taylor, B. M.
, & Rand, M. (1995, August). The National Crime Victimization Survey redesign: New understandings of victimization dynamics and measurement. Paper presented at the meeting of American Sociological Association, Orlando, FL.
19.
Turner, C.
, Ku, L., & Rogers. S. (1998). Adolescent sexual behavior, drug use, and violence: Increased reporting with computer survey technology. Science, 280, 867-873.
20.
U.S. Census Bureau
. (1978). The current population survey: Design and methodology (Technical Paper 40). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
21.
Waksberg, J.
(1978). Sampling methods for random digit dialing. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 73, 40-46.
