The Context of Innovations - Term Paper Example

Introduction Survey research constitutes one of the three main modes of conducting research, particularly in social science academia including sociology, political science, education etc.: the other two being experimental and historical. It is also commonly used in marketing research. This paper focuses on survey research and the relevance, the multi dimensional aspects, of the different modes of conducting survey research in the current academia. Such a study is particularly significant in the context of innovations in the sphere of technology enhancing and incorporating newer possibilities and tools in the modes of conducting survey research. As opposed to the conventional methods, which consist mainly of interviews – direct and telephonic – and postal questionnaires (Dilman and Bowker 2001), technological developments, especially in the field of internet, have made it possible for researchers to conduct survey through the web. The option to conduct survey through internet, or the web, have democratised this very mode of conducting research since people with web sites and access to survey software, available at affordable costs, can always conduct a survey on the topic of their choice (Couper 2000; Couper 2001). Its technologically enhanced nature enables people with relevant backgrounds in technology to assume a significant role in its functioning rather than survey methodology professionals and scholars ruling the field all alone (Shannon et al 2002). Nevertheless these new spaces opened by technological advancements in the sphere of survey research do not exempt it from some major challenges that have accompanied these changes. This paper is a brief attempt to discuss the relative advantages and disadvantages of different forms of conducting surveys, especially electronic and non electronic (conventional) ones. While doing so it shall focus on issues that pertain to not only the different modes, methods and approaches adopted in each of these forms but also on the different contexts of their application. For instance, cultural aspects, technological literacy and access to latest technologies are some of the crucial factors determining the success and failures of online surveys in different geo political contexts that are different from their western counterparts. The paper attempts to discuss these issues in three sections including this introduction. In the next section I shall discuss about the relative advantages and limits of each of these modes of conducting survey. While the focus mainly remains on the western context an attempt is also made to bring out the contextual significances in this regard on the basis of experiences reported from different parts. The third section concludes the paper. Electronic and non-electronic survey methods- a comparative perspective One of the main problems confronted while making a review of the necessary limitations associated with using both these types of surveys is that one misses a proper scale with which to analyse these limits. This is precisely because both traditional and online surveys have suffered, and still do, from serious flaws that pertain to selection of sampling, the different logistical requirements involved within the process which eventually constitute sub streams within these main streams of survey research and in drawing results there from. While some of these issues are bound to be reflected on the results drawn by these survey attempts in comparison with the actual results that have emerged, not on all occasions do we have an actual result to compare with the results drawn by survey attempts (Sparrow and Curtice 2004). Sparrow and Curtice articulate this particularly in the context of election predictions in the UK that “most polls are conducted on subjects unconnected with vote intentions” in order to draw a comparison between the different types of surveys (23-24). Nevertheless this does not challenge the uses of a comparative exercise as there are numerous issues outside the circle of the utilitarian thoughts about ‘results’ as such since survey primarily belongs to the academic research enterprises. The problems confronted by both survey methods lie sporadically in different spheres that are nevertheless connected with each other. Online survey methods have always the advantage of saving cost, time and efforts considerably. This is primarily because the softcopies of the questionnaires could be distributed to a comparatively larger number of respondents in a limited period of time. The respondents, at least those who are willing to respond, do not usually take more time to send back the filled questionnaires. This whole process could be completed within a short time span ranging from a few days, if not less than 24 hours, to a few weeks at the most (Couper et al. 2001; McDonald and Adam 2003; Denscombe 2006; Kellner 2004). Kellner (2004) explains the experience of Yougov in UK where the online marketing survey organization normally manages to receive more than 40% response to their questionnaires sent within 24 hours. Online surveys also possess the record of a comparatively low respondent error and a completeness in response (Denscombe’s (2006) work is an example in this regard). On the other hand traditional means of conducting surveys through questionnaires sent to the respondent by mail and by conducting face-to-face or telephone interviews are more time consuming and/or involves lot more efforts than online surveys. Surveys conducted by Schaefer (2001), for the Students Life Experiences conducted at the Illinois Institute of Technology, identifies that the average cost of paper surveys was $US2.07 per student compared to the average cost of $US.88 for Web-based surveys. Zanutto (2001) explains the advantages of web surveys in the forms of quick response rate, easier to process data etc.; that it is easier to contact and send reminders to the respondents, to download responses to a spreadsheet, data analysis package or a database, to check for preliminary errors, to put questions in random order, pop up instructions for selected questions etc. Such possibilities are not open in the conventional survey methods. Kellner (2004) elaborates the main reasons for the many disadvantages that the traditional survey experience. According to him conventional survey techniques have not sufficiently considered the impacts of larger social changes on the “UK’s occupational structure, social class, lifestyle and telephone technology” all of which may reduce “the reliability of traditional survey methods” (8). He then provides a description of these multi faceted impacts on traditional survey methods in the context of UK; that telephone and in home face-to-face interviews tend exclude people who are normally not available at home especially during the working hours and at the right time. Also that traditional telephone surveys fail to account for the increasing number of mobile phone users since, by and large, surveys depend on official telephone directories for random sampling and these directories include only land line numbers (7). Vicente and Reis (2009) has studied about this phenomenon in the context of Portugal, which has the largest number of mobile only households in European union, and observes the drastic differences in the results of surveys conducted only on landline users and on a mixed population consisting of both landline and mobile users (110-111). Kellner (2004) suggests that surveys which consider mobile numbers also suffer from the fact that the availability of caller ids (and this is applicable to land numbers as well to a significant extent) enables people to avoid calls for lack of their interest or for their preoccupations at that time. He also suggests that traditional survey methods suffer from defining the “spiral of silence” on the part of the respondent who assumes silence consciously or unconsciously to avoid responding to certain questions or questions from specific area altogether (6-7). Moreover in order to ensure response rates and to maintain the representation of demographic samples marketing and research organisations in the field constitute panels of respondents who are from time to time motivated to respond to the organisations’ questionnaires through an incentive scheme (Kellner 2004; Sparrow and Curtice 2004; Smith 2001; Gunn 2002). While Kellner (2004) elaborates this process on the basis of Yougov’s experience in UK Sparrow and Curtice (2004) identifies the negative aspects of the same. Sparrow and Crutice (2004) identifies problems in this regard mainly with reference to the representativeness of the sample selected and the class related consequences on the results of such survey enterprises. This is precisely because access to internet and its usage is a highly class and gender defined category. Those who are selected to respond, thus, belong to fixed class and gender categories and this will eventually be reflected upon the results (Sparrow and Curtice 2004. pp 28-32). Although the authors make these observations in the context of UK where access to internet is a rather common phenomenon (although the authors suggests that this is just over 50% in UK comparing to many developing countries this is much more) this is more true for many third world countries where internet access and technological competence of the larger public is very poor. The practice of providing incentives to the respondents also invoke some ethical questions apart from casting doubt over the generalisability of the response thus received. Since the respondents receive incentives for responding to questionnaires all they have to do to earn incentives is to send back questionnaires filled. This may have profound influence causing them to reflect more upon the earning capacity of this whole process rather than considering it in the spirit of its social relevance. The ethical question in this regard is how far one is justified to solicit responses from someone through such inducements. Further the response rate, which is considered as crucial in giving online survey an edge over traditional methods, is also influenced by factors such age and gender. In a study conducted by Bech and Kristensen (2009) the authors identifies age as crucial in determining the rates of response. The authors conducted a survey through both traditional (postal questionnaire) and electronic means among a demographic category that is aged between 50-75 years. The response rate was much higher for the postal enquiries whereas it remained at a lower level in the online category despite the fact that in the postal questionnaires also there was an option to go online with a link provided therein. Nevertheless, the web based version improved the sample representativeness of with respect to gender. There were other significant differences also. The characteristics of respondents in the online survey differed significantly from the characteristics of the respondents of postal survey with regard to the income, education, social and health status etc. Thus both traditional and electronic or online surveys have advantages as well as disadvantages setting which right is a significant issue to be sorted before initiating them into one’s research. Nevertheless beyond the questions of qualitative and quantitative returns associated with each type of survey the contextual significance also deserves special mention. As I already noted earlier in this paper the situation with regard to third world countries significantly vary in this context. This is also true even with countries with a higher economic status but culturally different. In the context of studies of surveys in Saudi Arabia, for instance, Al-Subaihi (2008) observes that traditional survey methods yield more responses than online survey methods despite the wider internet accessibility among both the gender categories of Saudi’s population. The reason why “majority of Saudi people choose not to interact with Web Survey similarly to the telephone interview is not technical due to the lack of Internet coverage, but rather cultural” (125); a phenomenon that has led most of the social scientists in Saudi employing survey techniques for their studies to rely upon postal/mail questionnaires primarily and telephone interviews secondarily. There was also a significant gender variation in this respect since female response to online questionnaires was considerably lower than male response. With regard to third world countries the cultural and social differences gather more prominence as they lie at the heart of their social realities. There is also a significant class and gender correlation with internet usage in this context (...). Online survey literally ceases to be an option to carry out a survey among, for example, slum dwellers in any of the major third world city. Also the cultural heterogeneity associated with these societies and the inherent class correlations lessens the use of electronic survey. The social and cultural factors also have a remarkable place in developed countries including those in the west and the elite and middle class categories of population in developing countries. The effects of social factor, consisting of variable such as those related with behaviour, relations etc., are the base of scientific works. In USA for instance, internet users are more likely to be young, male, white, educated, wealthy, city residents and the parents of children living at home (Lenhart et al 2003). Above all, as Wasserman and Richmon-Abbot (2005) identifies that web access is independent of gender although it is affected by the educational status as also by other factors such as race, income, age and marital status. Also the communication and usage patterns of web significantly varied for both genders as also for other categories in this context. Conclusion Although electronic survey methods definitely carry advantages over other traditional methods there are definite advantages and limits associated with each of them which are not only determined by the purpose and target population of the respective studies but also by the very context and cultural characteristics where the studies take place. The latest method adopted by online marketing research organisations raises confusions on both the ethical and academic dimensions. As already shown in this paper traditional survey methods also need to update its tools and attitudes according to the larger social changes. The important question at stake here is the ability of samples to represent the larger population as also certain other logistical considerations, namely, cost, time, amount of efforts etc. While this remains so it is also mentionable that many, if not most, of the flaws associated with both these methods are determined by factors outside the scope of the survey techniques as such and which needs to be considered prior to initiating these methods in respective studies. References Dillman and Dennis. 2001. The Web Questionnaire Challenge to Survey Methodologists. Retrieved from http://survey.sesrc.wsu.edu/dillman/zuma_paper_dillman_bowker.pdf. on May 20, 2010. Al-Subaihi, A. A. 2008. “Comparison of Web and Telephone Survey Response Rates in Saudi Arabia.” The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods 6 (2). pp. 123 – 132. Retreived from www.ejbrm.com. Bech and Kristensen. 2009. Differential response rates in postal and Web-based surveys among older respondents. Survey Research Methods 3(1). pp 1-6. Retreived from http://www.surveymethods.org on May 20, 2010. Couper, M. P., Traugott, M. W., & Lamias, M. J. 2001. “Web survey design and administration.” Public Opinion Quarterly, 65, 230-253. Couper,M. P., 2000. "Web Surveys a Review of Issues and Approaches," Public Opinion Quarterly, 64(4). pp. 464-481. Couper,M. P., 2001. "Web Surveys: the Questionnaire Design Challenge," Proceedings of the 53rd session of the ISI. Retreived from http://134.75.100.178/isi2001/, on may 20, 2010. Denscombe, M. 2006. “Web-based questionnaires and the mode effect - An evaluation based on completion rates and data contents of near-identical questionnaires delivered in different modes.” Social Science Computer Review, 24, 246-254. Gunn, Holly 2002 “Web-based Surveys: Changing the Survey Process by”, First Monday, 7(12). Retreived from http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue7_12/gunn/index.html. on May 20, 2010. Kellner, 2004. Can online polls produce accurate findings? International Journal of Market Research Vol. 46 Quarter 1. pp 3-21. Lenhart, A. et al. 2003. The Ever-shifting Internet Population; A New Look at Internet Access and the Digital Divide. Washington DC: Pew Internet and American Life Project. McDonald, H., & Adam, S. 2003. “A comparison of online and postal data collection methods in marketing research.” Marketing Intelligence & Planning 2(1). 85-95. Schaefer, 2001. "Web Surveying: How to Collect Important Assessment Data Without Any Paper," Office of Information & Institutional Research, Illinois Institute of Technology. Retreived from http://oiir.iit.edu/oiir/Presentations/WebSurveying/WebSurveying_20010424.pdf, on May 20, 2010. Shannon. D. M., Todd E. Johnson, Shelby Searcy, and Alan Lott, 2002. "Using Electronic Surveys: Advice from Survey Professionals," Practical Assessment Research & Evaluation, 8 (1). Retreived from http://ericae.net/pare/getvn.asp?v=8&n=1, on May 20, 2010.. Smith, T.W. 2001. Are Representative Internet Survey Possible? Proceedings of Statistics Canada Symposium 2001. Retrieved from Sparrow and Curtice. 2004. Measuring the attitudes of the general public via internet polls: an evaluation, International Journal of Market Research Vol. 46 Quarter 1. pp 23-44. Vicente and Reis. 2009. The Mobile-only Population in Portugal and Its Impact in a Dual Frame Telephone Survey. Survey Research Methods 3(2). pp 105-111. Retreived from http://www.surveymethods.org on May 20, 2010. Wasserman, I. M. and Richmond-Abbott, M. 2005. “Gender and the Internet: Causes of Variation in Access, Level, and Scope of Use.” Social Science Quarterly 86 (1). pp 252-270. Zanutto, 2001. "Web & E-mail Surveys," Retreived from http://www.stat.wharton.upenn.edu/~zanutto/Annenberg2001/docs/websurveys01.pdf, on May 20, 2010. Read More