310 likes | 445 Views
The Zen of Surveys. Heather Morrison Communication 801, February 2010.
E N D
The Zen of Surveys Heather Morrison Communication 801, February 2010 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 Canada License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ca/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 171 Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California, 94105,. USA
Why surveys? • Data about groups of people • Opinions • Factual information • Attitudes, values • Classroom tool (online polls) • Secondary analysis • Known method / advocacy tool
Fred Horne, Alberta MLA on consultation sessions re recent 39% increase in funding for public libraries: “Through our consultation we encountered so many Albertans who are passionate and committed to providing quality library services. They recognized that libraries are a fundamental and tremendously important part of community life. They acknowledged that their lives as citizens and collectively as a community are enhanced because of the programs and services they access at their library. Their dedication is both remarkable and infectious. We hope we captured their passion in our report”.
Planning a survey • The research question Are BC ELN communications as effective as they could be?
Population and sample • Census – full population • Sampling frame: everyone who could respond • Probability sampling • Random numbers table • Systematic • Multi-stage cluster • Non-probability sampling
Unit of analysis • Individual, family, journal, newspaper • You • Singular • Plural: family, social group, community • BC ELN • Office / network • Individual / department / library • Functional groups
From concept to indicator (de VAUS) • Clarify concepts • BC ELN communications: website, listservs, quarterly newsletter, budget document, annual Year in Review • Effective: key stakeholders have the information they need (but not unwanted information) • Develop indicators • Importance, satisfaction, perceived gaps • Evaluate initial indicators
Decide on approach • Questionnaire • Web-based • Mail • Telephone • Focus group • Interview (structured or semi-structured) • Telephone • In-person • Consumer society / agonistic (Brinkmann, Kvale) • Content analysis
Designing a questionnaire • Length • Introduction: purpose of questionnaire • Question order • Easy to hard • Logical • Thank you & follow-up • Pretesting
To answer a question… • Decoding the question How often do youwatch television? • Memory • Analysis • Opinion. Do I have one? • Social desirability bias
Creating questions • Clear, unambiguous wording • Neutral non-leading questions (??) • Easy response options • Preselected • How often do you watch television • 1-2 hours / month • 1-2 hours / day • Right amount • Includes the responses people want to give (don’t know) • Sensitive questions • Leading?
Types of questions • Agree / disagree • Scales / Likert • Strongly agree to strongly disagree • Ranking • Open versus closed • Filtering questions
Analysis & interpretation • Response rate • Differences between responders and non-responders • A tale of two surveys • Reliability • Opinion / multi-question checking • Generalizability (sample) • Validity • Coding (open-ended questions)
Critical evaluation • Bias: funders? • Introduction and question wording • Given the current tough economic climate, how much funding should be given to the arts? Versus: • Given how much the arts enhance our lives, how much funding should this area receive?
Critical evaluation: responses • Self-selection bias • Open web surveys • Waltham study • Who was included? • Who was excluded? • Marginalized groups • Homeless • Illegal immigrants • Response rates
Discussion questions • Consumer versus agonistic interviews • Experiences with surveys • Video: Ask a Silly Question
References • Brinkmann, S. (2007). Could interviews be epistemic? an alternative to qualitative opinion polling. Qualitative Inquiry, 13(8), 1116-1138. doi:10.1177/1077800407308222 • De Vaus, D. A. (1995). Surveys in social research (4th ed. ed.). North Sydney, NSW, Australia : Allen & Unwin. • Kvale, S. (2006). Dominance through interviews and dialogues. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(3), 480-500. doi:10.1177/1077800406286235
references • Waltham, M. 2009. The future of scholarly journal publishing among social sciences and humanities journals. Princeton, New Jersey. Retrieved from: http://www.nhalliance.org/bm~doc/hssreport.pdf • - critique of Waltham study: Morrison, H. 2009. Humanities and social sciences: thoughts towards transition to OA. The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics. Retrieved from: http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com/2009/09/humanities-and-social-sciences-thoughts.html