Answering Current Challenges of and Changes in Producing Official Time Use Statistics Using the Data Collection Platform MOTUS

Abstract

The modernization of the production of official statistics faces challenges related to technological developments, budget cuts, and growing privacy concerns. At the same time, there is a need for shareable and scalable platforms to support comparable data, leading to several online data collection strategies being rolled out. Time Use Surveys (TUS) are particularly affected by these challenges and needs as they (while producing rich data) are complex, time-intensive studies (because they include multiple tasks and are administered at the household level). This article introduces the Modular Online Time Use Survey (MOTUS) data collection platform and explains how it accommodates the challenges of and changes in the production of a TUS that is carried out in line with the Harmonized European Time Use Survey guidelines. It argues that MOTUS supports a shift in the methodological paradigm of conducting TUS by being timelier and more cost efficient, by lowering respondent burden, and by improving the reliability of the data collected. Importantly, the modular structure allows MOTUS to be easily deployed for various TUS configurations. Moreover, this versatile structure allows comparable, complex diary surveys (such as the household budget survey) to be performed on the same platform and with the same applications.

Keywords

Time-use survey data collection platform cost efficiency data quality respondent burden

References

Ahmad, N., and S.-H. Koh. 2011. Incorporating estimates of household production of non-market services into international comparisons of material well-being. UNECE Working Paper No. 42. STD/DOC(2011)7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/5kg3h0jgk87g-en.

Ashofteh, A., and J.M. Bravo. 2021. “Data science training for official statistics: A new scientific paradigm of information and knowledge development in national statistical systems.” Statistical Journal of the IAOS 37(3): 771–789. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3233/SJI-210841.

Bonke, J., and P. Fallesen. 2010. “The impact of incentives and interview methods on response quantity and quality in diary-and booklet-based surveys.” Survey Research Methods 4(2): 91–101. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18148/srm/2010.v4i2.3614.

Bruno, M., F. Inglese, and G. Ruocco. 2022. “Trusted Smart Surveys: Architectural and Methodological Challenges Related to New Data Sources.” In Studies in Theoretical and Applied Statistics, edited by N. Salvati, C. Perna, S. Marchetti,and R. Chambers, Springer Proceedings in Mathematics & Statistics, 406. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-16609-9_31.

Cai, L, and Y. Zhu. 2015. “The challenges of data quality and data quality assessment in the big data era.” Data science journal 14. DOI: http://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2015-002.

Carletto, C., H. Chen, T. Kilic, and F. Perucci. 2022. “Positioning household surveys for the next decade.” Statistical Journal of the IAOS 38(3): 923–946. DOI: https://10.3233/SJI-220042.

Chenu, A. 2004. “Prendre la mesure du travail.” In Pour une histoire des sciences sociales. Hommage à Pierre Bourdieu, edited by J. Heilbron, R. Lenoir and G.D. Sapiro: 281–304. Paris: Fayard.

Eurostat. 2018. Eurostat, European statistics code of practice: for the national statistical authorities and Eurostat (EU statistical authority). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2785/798269:

Eurostat. 2020. Harmonised European Time Use Surveys (HETUS) – 2018 guidelines – Re-edition. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2785/926903.

10.

Fernee, H., and N. Sonck. 2013. “Is everyone able to use a smartphone in survey research?” Survey Practice 6(4): 2884. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29115/SP-2013-0020.

11.

Gohar, A., and G. Nencioni. 2021. “The role of 5G technologies in a smart city: The case for intelligent transportation system.” Sustainability 13(9): 5188. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su13095188.

12.

Juster, F.T. 1986. “Response errors in the measurement of time use.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 81(394): 390–402. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1986.10478283.

13.

Keusch, F., B. Struminskaya, C. Antoun, M.P. Couper, and F. Kreuter. 2019. “Willingness to participate in passive mobile data collection.” Public Opinion Quarterly 83 (S1): 210–235. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfz007.

14.

Kuonen, D., and B. Loison. 2019. “Production processes of official statistics and analytics processes augmented by trusted smart statistics: Friends or foes?” Statistical Journal of the IAOS 35(4): 615–622. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3233/SJI-190530.

15.

Lavrakas, P.J. 2008. Encyclopedia of survey research methods. Sage Publications.

16.

Minnen, J., I. Glorieux, T.P. van Tienoven, S. Daniels, D. Weenas, J. Deyaert, S. van den Bogaert, and S. Rymenants 2014. “Modular Online Time Use Survey (MOTUS)-Translating an existing method in the 21st century.” Electronic International Journal of Time Use Research 11(1): 73–93. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.13085/eIJTUR.11.1.73-93.

17.

Minnen, J., J. Olsen, and K. Sabbe. 2022. CRŒSS: Establishing a Cross-domain data collection platform for the ESS (European Statistical System). Brussels and Bonn: Statistics Belgium, Destatis, hbits CV and Vrije Universiteit Brussel. Available at: https://torvub.be/torwebdat/publications/t2023_13.pdf.

18.

Pronovost, G. 1989. “The sociology of time.” Sociologie Contemporaine (La) 37(3): 1–124.

19.

Radermacher, W.J. 2020. Official Statistics 4.0. Verified Facts for People in the 21st Century. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31492-7.

20.

Ricciato, F., A. Wirthmann, K. Giannakouris, and M. Skaliotis. 2019. “Trusted smart statistics: Motivations and principles.” Statistical Journal of the IAOS 35(4): 589–603. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3233/SJI-190584.

21.

Ricciato, F., A. Wirthmann, and M. Hahn. 2020. “Trusted Smart Statistics: How new data will change official statistics.” Data and Policy 2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/dap.2020.7.

22.

Robinson, J.p. 1999. “The time diary method. Structure and uses.” In Time use research in the social sciences, edited by W.E. Pentland, A.S. Harvey, M.P. Lawton, and M.A. McColl: 47–89. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47155-8_3.

23.

Robinson, J.P., and G. Godbey. 1997. Time for life: The surprising ways Americans use their time. Pennsylvania: Penn State Press.

24.

Salemink, I., S. Dufour, and M. van der Steen. 2020. “A vision on future advanced data collection.” Statistical Journal of the IAOS 36 (3): 685–699. DOI: https://10.3233/SJI-200658.

25.

Salgado, D., M.E. Esteban, M. Novás, S. Sadaña, and L. Sanguiao. 2018. “Data Organisation and Process Design Based on Functional Modularity for a Standard Production Process.” Journal of Official Statistics 34(4): 811–833. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/jos-2018-0041.

26.

Sonck, N., and H. Fernee. 2013. Using smartphones in survey research: a multifunctional tool. The Hague: The Netherlands Institute for Social Research.

27.

Stodden, V. 2014. “The reproducible research movement in statistics.” Statistical Journal of the IAOS 30(2): 91–93. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3233/SJI-140818.

28.

Sullivan, O., J. Gershuny, A. Sevilla, P. Walthery, and M. Vega-Rapun. 2020. “Time use diary design for our times-an overview, presenting a Click-and-Drag Diary Instrument (CaDDI) for online application.” Journal of Time Use Research 10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32797/jtur-2020-1.

29.

Szalai, A. 1972. The use of time: Daily activities of urban and suburban populations in twelve countries. The Hague: Mouton.

30.

Te Braak, P., F. van Droogenbroeck, J. Minnen, T.P. van Tienoven, and I. Glorieux. 2022a. “Teachers’ working time from time-use data: Consequences of the invalidity of survey questions for teachers, researchers, and policy.? Teaching and Teacher Education 109: 103536. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103536.

31.

Te Braak, P., T.P. van Tienoven, J. Minnen, and I. Glorieux. 2022b. “Bias in estimated working hours in time use diary research: The effect of cyclical work time patterns on postponing designated registration days.? Time and Society 31(4): 508–534. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0961463X221111948.

32.

United Nations. 2016. Integrating a Gender Perspective into Statistics. Studies in Methods, Series F No. 111. New York: United Nations Publication. Available at: https://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic-social/Standards-and-Methods/files/Handbooks/gender/Integrating-a-Gender-Perspective-into-Statistics-E.pdf.

33.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2023. American Time Use Survey User’s Guide. Understanding ATUS 2003 to 2023. Available at: https://www.bls.gov/tus/atususers-guide.pdf.

34.

Vassilev, G., W. King, S. Wallace, and J. White. 2020. Modernization of the Production of Time-use Statistics. UK: UK Office for National Statistics. https://unstats.un.org/unsd/-statcom/53rd-session/documents/BG-3h-Modernization_UN_EG_TUS2021_FINAL_-SENT_rev-E.pdf.

35.

Yan, T., S. Fricker and S. Tsai. 2019. “Response burden: What is it and what predicts it?” In Advances in Questionnaire Design, Development, Evaluation and Testing, edited by P. Beatty, D. Collins, L. Kaye, J.L. Padilla, G. Willis and A. Wilmot: 193–212. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119263685.

36.

Zeni, M., I. Bison, F. Reis, B. Gauckler, and F. Giunchiglia. 2020. “Improving Time Use Measurement with Personal Big Data Collection – The Experience of the European Big Data Hackathon 2019.” Journal of Official Statistics 37(2): 341–365. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/jos-2021-0015.

37.

Zerubavel, E. 1982. Hidden rhythms: Schedules and calendars in social life. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.