Some scripted interview questions, built as multi-unit turns, generate a response before they reach their prescribed completion. Such ‘untimely’ interruption and premature production of responses may generate flawed data. In this article I will describe how untimely interruption also presents a problem with regard to non-scripted follow-up questions – or ‘probes’ – to closed survey items. I will try to show that some probing formats are more vulnerable than others to being interrupted before the listing of a second response option. I shall also consider the more general implications that probing format has for respondents’ understanding of ‘the ground rules’ for participating in a standardized interview. Current practices and recommendations for probing will be discussed in the light of the objective of collecting valid and reliable data.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Atkinson, J.M. and Heritage, J. (1984) Structures of Social Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
2.
Beatty, P. (1995) ‘Understanding the Standardized/Non Standardized Interviewing Controversy’ , Journal of Official Statistics11(2): 147–160 .
3.
Belson, W.A. (1981) The Design and Understanding of Survey Questions. Aldershot: Gower .
4.
Bradburn, N.M. and Sudman, S. (1979) Improving Interview Method and Questionnaire Design. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass .
5.
Brenner, M. (1981) ‘Patterns of Social Structure in the Research Interview’, in M. Brenner (ed.) Social Method and Social Life, pp. 115–158. London: Academic Press .
6.
Brenner, M., Brown, J. and Carter, D. (1985) The Research Interview: Uses and Approaches. London: Academic Press .
7.
Conrad, F.G. and Schober, M.F. (2000) ‘Clarifying Question Meaning in a Household Telephone Survey’ , Public Opinion Quarterly64: 1–28 .
8.
Fowler, F. and Mangione, T. (1990) Standardized Survey Interviewing: MinimizingInterviewer-related Error. Newbury Park, CA: Sage .
9.
Houtkoop-Steenstra, H. (2000) Interaction and the Standardized Survey Interview: The Living Questionnaire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
10.
Houtkoop-Steenstra, H. (2002) ‘Questioning Turn Format and Turn-taking Problems in Standardized Interviews’, in D.W. Maynard et al. (eds) Standardization and Tacit Knowledge. New York: Wiley .
11.
Kjøller, M. (1975) Interaktionen mellem interviewer og respondent. (Socialforskningsinstituttets studie 32). Copenhagen: Socialforskningsinstituttet.
12.
Lerner, G. (1996) ‘Finding Face in the Preference Structure of Talk-in-Interaction’ , Social Psychology Quarterly59: 303–321 .
13.
Mangione, T.W., Fowler, F.F. Jr and Louis, T.A. (1992) ‘Question Characteristics and Interviewer Effects’ , Journal of Official Statistics8(2): 293–307 .
14.
Maynard, D.W., Houtkoop-Steenstra, H., Schaeffer, N.C. and van der Zouwen, J. (eds) (2002) Standardization and Tacit Knowledge: Interaction and Practice in the Survey Interview. New York: Wiley .
15.
Maynard, D.W. and Schaeffer, N.C. (2002) ‘Standardization and its Discontents: Standardization, Interaction, and the Survey Interview’, in D.W. Maynard et al. (eds) Standardization and Tacit Knowledge. New York: Wiley .
16.
Moore, R. (2000) ‘Differences in Probing Practices at Two US Survey Centers’, unpublished paper presented at the American Association for Public Opinion Research Annual Conference, Portland, OR.
17.
Oksenberg, L., Cannell, C. and Kalton, G. (1991) ‘New Strategies for Pretesting Survey Questions’ , Journal of Official Statistics7(3): 349–369 .
18.
Pomerantz, A. and Fehr, B.J. (1997) ‘Conversation Analysis: An Approach to the Study of Social Action as Sense Making Practices’, in T.A. van Dijk (ed.) Discourse as Social Interaction. London: Sage .
19.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E.A. and Jefferson, G. (1974) ‘A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking in Conversation’ , Language50: 696–735 .
20.
Schaeffer, N.C. (1991) ‘Conversation with a Purpose or Conversation? Interaction in the Standardized Interview’, in P.P. Biemer, R.M. Groves, L.E. Lyberg, N.A. Mathiowetz and S. Sudman (eds) Measurement Errors in Surveys. New York: Wiley .
21.
Schaeffer, N.C. and Maynard, D.W. (1996) ‘From Paradigm to Prototype and Back Again’, in N. Schwarz and S. Sudman (eds) Answering Questions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass .
22.
Schober, M.F and Conrad, F. (1997) ‘Does Conversational Interviewing Reduce Survey Measurement Error?’ , Public Opinion Quarterly61: 576–602 .
23.
Schuman, H. and Presser, S. (1981) Questions and Answers in Attitude Surveys: Experiments on Question Form, Wording, and Context. Orlando, FL: Academic Press .
24.
Smit, J.H., Dijkstra W. and van der Zouwen, J. (1997) ‘Suggestive Interviewer Behaviour in Surveys: An Experimental Study’ , Journal of Official Statistics13(1): 19–28 .
25.
Stax, H.-P. (2001) ‘“And Then What Was the Question Again?”: Text and Talk in Standardised Interviews’, in 2000 Proceedings of the Section on Survey Research Methods, pp. 913–917. Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association .
26.
van der Zouwen, J, and Dijkstra, W. (2002) ‘Testing Questionnaires using Interaction Coding’, in D.W. Maynard et al. (eds) Standardization and Tacit Knowledge. New York: Wiley .
27.
Viterna, J.S. and Maynard, D.W. (2002) ‘How Uniform is Standardization? Variation Within and Across Survey Research Centers Regarding Protocols for Interviewing’, in D.W. Maynard et al. (eds) Standardization and Tacit Knowledge. New York: Wiley .
