Tuesday 16th July
Wednesday 17th July
Thursday 18th July
Friday 19th July
Download the conference book
Fieldwork in Interview Surveys - Professional Guidelines and Field Observations |
|
| Chair | Professor Ivan Rimac (University of Zagreb) |
Cognitive methodology of survey research provides clearly psychological cognitive approach; tendency to satisfice or to optimize is understood as an effect of cognitive abilities and processes of a respondent.
This paper is to present how satisicing/optimizing strategies can be seen from the sociological point of view, as explained by social background of respondents and their attitudes towards political system: acceptance of democracy, legitimization of the entire political system and democratic institutions. The paper answers the question to what extend and in which way political respondents' attitudes form their perception of public opinion surveys and tendency to satisfice or optimize their answers to survey questions.
The paper presents research findings gathered in three nationwide survey, all conducted on random representative samples: in Poland (2004 and 2010) and in Russia (2012). The analysis of comparative data from two nations allows answering a question how the entire shape of the political system affects political attitudes and, as a consequence, the perception on public opinion polls as well as the quality of data gathered in them.
This paper focuses on the strategies of interviewers. Since 2002, we have carried out a face-to-face survey each year - ESS and MOSAiCH (ISSP) - with the same survey agency, i.e. the same staff of interviewers. A questionnaire about strategies of interviewers was conducted. Nearly two thirds of all interviewers responded.
For five years, we have developed moreover a technique for analyzing sequences of contacts. In this paper, we analyze the effect of strategies on sequences contact: which strategy induces what effect on the type of sequences? Are some patterns typical of some strategies? Does a link exist between the typical pattern of contact and interviewee profiles? Does the typical sequences of contact evolves during the interviewer's career (what resulted in the experience)? What lessons to improve strategies of interviewers?
In the housing needs assessment in Croatia, we tried to apply different approach to detect data falsification. Survey was done by methodology applied in previous European Values Study (EVS) wave in 2008. The three-stage probability sample (settlements, households, respondent) was used. Random walk and last birthday method were applied giving enough space to deviate from procedure. Problems of application of fieldwork guidelines and obtaining high response rates were analyzed prior to that survey using metadata (Rimac et al., 2010.).
Difference in approach was that very extensive fieldwork control was applied. It included: sending of locked random-walk list prior to interviewing, review of interviewed households list, GIS data and phonebook checking of step in random-walk procedure, verification of respondent choice and telephone contact with respondent in which ownership of contact number was checked by the telephone book.
Result of control of 2220 interviews gives 76,3% of correct interviews, 0,2% of questionnaires left to respondents and picked afterwards, 16,9% of substitution by household member and 4,2% by neighbor, 1% of fully fake interviews with given contact of person that have to approve interviewing and 1,4% of fully falsified interviews. Results support the conclusion that falsification of survey data can’t be analyzed without considering interviewers motivation, cognitive skills and pattern of falsification. That gives idea that only multilevel approach to data analysis can lead to conclusions. This is especially present in indicators that address less variable answers in falsified data, those are strongly masked by individual differences of interviewers’ approach to falsification.