DATA COLLECTION AND TECHNIQUES

5.0 The sources and collection of data

In practice, most statistical data exist in official and private records
that are compiled as part of the routine of the day-to-day activities of
public organizations and private firms. Thus, government departments
routinely record figures on such matters as births and deaths, number of
accidents, per period, quantities of items exported or imported per
period etc. Private firms also maintain continuous records on personnel,
sales, expenses, production, etc.

Primary data are those which are collected for the first time and thus
original in character, whereas secondary data are those which have
already been collected by some other persons and which have passed
through the statistical machine at least once. Primary data are in the
shape of raw materials to which statistical methods are applied for the
purpose of analysis and interpretations. Secondary data are usually in
the shape of finished products since they have been treated
statistically in some form or the other. Therefore when
data are used for purposes other than those for which they were
originally complied, they are known as ‘secondary’ data.

It may be observed that the distinction between primary and secondary
data is a matter of degree or relativity only. The same set of data may
be secondary in the hands of one and primary in the hands of others. In
general, the data are primary to the source who collects and processes
them for the first time and are secondary for all other sources who
later use such data.

For instance, the data relating to mortality (death rates) and fertility
(birth rate) in Kenya published by the office of Registrar of births and
deaths are primary whereas the same reproduced by the United Nations
Organization (U.N.O) in its United Nations Statistical Abstract become
secondary in as far as the later agency (UNO) is concerned.

5.1 Choice between Primary and Secondary Data
Obviously, there are a lot of differences in the method of collection of
primary and secondary data. In the case of primary data which is to be
collected originally, the entire scheme of the plan starting with the
definition of various terms used, units to be employed, type of enquiry
to be conducted, extent of accuracy aimed at etc, is to be formulated
whereas the collection of secondary data is in the form of mere
compilation of the existing data. A proper choice between the types of
data needed for any particular statistical investigation is to be made
after taking into consideration:

that nature
the objective, and
scope of the enquiry;
the time and finances (budget) at the disposal of researcher;
The degree of precision aimed at; when conducting a survey, primary
data on the great advantage in that the exact information is
obtained. Terms can be carefully defined so that misunderstandings
are avoided as far as is possible. In fact the investigations can be
geared to cover all the ground considered necessary without having
to rely on possibly out of date information. The staff carrying out
the investigation can be specifically picked for the purpose in
mind. Many business statistics are compiled from secondary data
which has certain advantages.
The information will be obtained more speedily, and at less cost
than primary data.
In addition, no large army of investigators will be required.

Secondary data must, however be used with great care, and the
investigator must be satisfied that the data is sufficiently accurate
for statistical investigation. It is necessary for the researcher to
know the source, the method of compilation and the purpose for which the
original investigation was carried out.

Furthermore, information must be available as to the units in which the
data is expressed including any change in those units since their
original collection, and the degree of accuracy of the results cannot be
determined. Secondary data provides an important source of statistical
information, particularly when circumstances make it impractical to
obtain primary data. It must always, however, be applied in full
knowledge of its limitations.

5.2 Modes of data collection

Personal Interview
A personal interview (i.e face to face) is a two-way conversation
initiated by an interviewer to obtain information from a respondent. The
differences in roles of interviewer and respondent are pronounced. They
are typically strangers, and the interviewer generally controls the
topics and patterns of discussion. The consequences of the event are
usually insignificant for the respondent. The respondent is asked to
provide information and has little hope of receiving any immediate or
direct benefit from this cooperation. Yet if the interview is carried
off successfully, it is an excellent data collection technique.

There are real advantages and clear limitations to personal
interviewing. The greatest value lies in the depth of information and
detail that can be secured. It far exceeds the information secured from
telephone and self-administered studies, mail surveys, or computer (both
intranet and Internet). The interviewer can also do more things to
improve the quality of the information received than with another method.

Interviewers also have more control than with other kinds of
interrogation. They can prescreen to ensure the correct respondent is
replying, and they can set up and control interviewing conditions. They
can use special scoring devices and visual materials. Interviewers also
can adjust to the language of the interview because they can observe the
problems and effects the interview is having on the respondent.

With such advantages, why would anyone want to use any other survey
method? Probably the greatest reason is that the method is costly, in
both money and time. Costs are particularly high if the study covers a
wide geographic area or has stringent sampling requirements. An
exception to this is the intercept interview that targets respondents in
centralized locations such as shoppers in retail malls. Intercept
interviews reduce costs associated with the need for several
interviewers, training and travel. Product and service demonstrations
can also be coordinated, further reducing costs. Their
cost-effectiveness, however, is offset when representative sampling is
crucial to the study’s outcome. Requirements for Success: Three broad
conditions must be met to have a successful personal interview. They are;
(1) availability of the needed information from the respondent,
(2) an understanding by the respondent of his or her role, and
(3) Adequate motivation by the respondent to cooperate. The interviewer
can do little about the respondent’s information level. Screening
questions can qualify respondents when there is doubt about their
ability to answer. This is the study designer’s responsibility.

Interviewers can influence respondents in many ways. An interviewer can
explain what kind of answer is sought, how complete it should be, and in
what terms it should be expressed. Interviewers even do some coaching in
the interview, although this can be a biasing factor.

Interviewing technique
At first, it may seem easy to question another person about various
topics, but research interviewing is not so simple. What we do or say as
interviewers can make or break a study. Respondents often react more to
their feelings about the interviewer than to the content of the
questions. It is also important for the interviewer
to ask the questions properly, record the responses accurately, and
probe meaningfully. To achieve these aims, the interviewer must be
trained to carry out those procedures that foster a good interviewing
relationship.

Increasing Respondent’s Receptiveness The first goal in an interview is
to establish a friendly relationship with the respondent. Three factors
will help with respondent receptiveness.
The respondents must
(1) believe the experience will be pleasant and satisfying,
(2) think answering the survey is an important and worthwhile use of
their time, and
(3) Have any mental reservations satisfied. Whether the experience will
be pleasant and satisfying depends heavily on the interviewer.

Typically, respondents will cooperate with an interviewer whose behavior
reveals confidence and engages people on a personal level. Effective
interviewers are differentiated not by demographic characteristics but
by these interpersonal skills. By confidence, we mean that most
respondents are immediately convinced they will want to participate in
the study and cooperate fully with the interviewer. An engaging personal
style is one where the interviewer instantly establishes credibility by
adapting to the individual needs of the
respondent.

For the respondent to think that answering the survey is important and
worthwhile, some explanation of the study’s purpose is necessary
although the amount will vary. It is the interviewer’s responsibility to
discover what explanation is needed and to supply it. Usually, the
interviewer should state the purpose of the study, tell how the
information will be used, and suggest what is expected of the
respondent. Respondents should feel that their cooperation would be
meaningful to themselves and to the survey results. When this is
achieved, more respondents will express their views willingly.

Respondents often have reservations about being interviewed that must be
over come. They may suspect the interviewer is a disguised salesperson,
bill collector, or the like. In addition, they may also feel inadequate
or fear the questioning will embarrass them. Techniques for successful
interviewing of respondents in environments they control – particularly
their homes – follow.

The Introduction
The respondent’s first reaction to the request for an interview is at
best guarded one. Interviewer appearance and action are critical in
forming a good first impression. Interviewers should immediately
identify themselves by name and organization, and provide any special
identification. Introductory letters or other information confirms the
study’s legitimacy. In this brief but critical period, the interviewer
must display friendly intentions and stimulate the respondent’s interest.

The interviewer’s introductory explanations should be no more detailed
than necessary. Too much information can introduce a bias. However, some
respondents will demand more detail. For them, the interviewer might
explain the objective of the study, its background, how the respondent
was selected, the confidential nature of the interview (if it is), and
the benefits of the research findings. Be prepared to deal with
questions such as: “How did you happen to pick me?” “Who gave you my
name?” “I don’t know enough about this.” “Why don’t you go next door?”
“Why are you doing this study?”

The home interview typically involves two stages. The first occurs at
the door when the introductory remarks are made, but this is not a
satisfactory location for many interviews. In trying to secure entrance,
the interviewer will find it more effective to suggest the desired
action rather than to ask permission. “May I come in?” can be easily
countered with a respondent’s no. “I would like to come in and talk with
you about X” is likely to be more successful. If the Respondent Is Busy
or Away If it is obvious that the respondent is busy, it may be a good
idea to give a general introduction and try to stimulate enough interest
to arrange an interview at another time. If the designated respondent is
not at home, the interviewer should briefly explain the proposed visit
to the person who is contacted. It is desirable to establish good
relations with intermediaries since their attitudes can help in
contacting the proper respondent.

Interviewers

contacting respondents door to door often leave calling or business
cards with their affiliation and a number where they can be reached to
reschedule the interview. Establishing a Good Relationship The
successful interview is based on rapport – meaning a
relationship of confidence and understanding between interviewer and
respondent. Interview situations are often new to respondents, and they
need help in defining their roles. The interviewer can help by conveying
that the interview is confidential (if it is) and important and that the
respondent can discuss the topics with freedom from censure, coercion,
or pressure. Under these conditions, the respondent can obtain much
satisfaction in “opening up” without pressure being exerted.

Gathering the Data To this point, the communication aspects of the
interviewing process have been stressed. Having completed the
introduction and established initial report, the interviewer turns to
the technical task of gathering information. The interview centers on a
prearranged questioning sequence. The technical task is well defined in
studies with a structured questioning procedure (in contrast to an
exploratory interview situation). The interviewer should follow the
exact wording of the questions, ask them in the order presented, and ask
every question that is specified. When questions are misunderstood or
misinterpreted, they should be repeated.
A difficult task in interviewing is to make certain the answers
adequately satisfy the question’s objectives. To do this, the
interviewer must learn the objectives of each question from a study of
the survey instructions or by asking the research project director. It
is important to have this information well in mind because many first
responses are inadequate even in the best-planned studies.

The technique of stimulating respondents to answer more fully and
relevantly is termed probing. Since it presents a great potential for
bias, a probe should be neutral and appear as a natural part of the
conversation. Appropriate probes (those that when used will elicit the
desired information while injecting a limited amount of bias) should be
specified by the designer of the data collection instrument. There are
several different probing styles:

A brief assertion of understanding and interest. With comments such
as “I see” or “ “uh-huh,” the interviewer can tell the respondent
that he interviewer is listening and is interested in more.
An expectant pause. The simplest way to suggest to the respondent to
say more is a pause along with an expectant look or a nod of the
head. This approach must be used with caution. Some respondents have
nothing more to say, and frequent pausing could
create some embarrassing silences and make them uncomfortable,
reducing their willingness to participate further.
Repeating the question. This is particularly useful when the
respondent appears not to understand the question or has strayed
from the subject.
Repeating the respondent’s reply. The interviewer can do this while
writing it down. Such repetition often serves as a good probe.
Hearing thoughts restated often promotes revisions or further comments.
A neutral question or comment. Such comments make a direct bid for
more information. Examples are: “How do you mean?” “can you tell me
more about your thinking on that?” “Why do you think that is so?”
“Anything else?”
Question clarification. When the answer is unclear or is
inconsistent with something already said, the interviewer suggests
the respondent failed to understand fully.

Typically of such probes is, “I m not quite sure I know what you mean by
that – could you tell me a little more?” Or “I’m sorry, but I’m not sure
I understand. Did you say previously that…?” It is important that the
interviewer take the blame or failure to understand so as not to appear
to be cross-examining the respondent.

Recording the Interview
While the methods used in recording will vary, the interviewer usually
writes down the answers of the respondent. Some guidelines can make this
task more efficient. Record responses as they are made by the
respondent. If you wait until later, you lose much of what is said. If
there is a time constraint, the interviewer should use some shorthand
system that will preserve the essence of the respondent’s replies
without converting them into the interviewer’s paraphrases. Abbreviating
words, leaving out articles and prepositions, and using only key words
are good ways to do this.

Another technique is for the interviewer to repeat the response while
writing it down. This helps to hold the respondent’s interest during the
writing and checks the interviewer understands of what the respondent
said. Normally the interviewer should start the writing when the
respondent begins to reply. The interviewer should also record all
probes and other comments on the questionnaire in parentheses to set
them off from responses.

Study designers sometimes create a special interview instrument for
recording respondent answers. This may be integrated with the interview
questions or a separate document. In such instances the likely answers
are anticipated, allowing the interviewer to check respondent answers or
to record ranks or ratings. However, all interview instruments must
permit the entry of unexpected responses.
Interview problems In personal interviewing, the researcher must deal
with bias and cost. While each is discussed separately, they are
interrelated. Biased results grow out of three types of error: sampling
error, non response error and response error.

Non response Error In personal interviews, non response error occurs
when you cannot locate the person whom you are supposed to study or when
you are unsuccessful in encouraging the person to participate. This is
an especially difficult problem when you are using a probability sample
of subjects. If there are pre designated persons to be interviewed; the
task is to find them, and if you are forced to interview substitutes, an
unknown but possibly substantial bias is introduced. One study of non
response found that only 31 percent of all first calls (and 20 percent
of all first call in major metropolitan areas) were completed. The most
reliable solution to non response problems is to make callbacks. If
enough attempts are made, it is usually possible to contact most target
respondents, although unlimited callbacks are expensive. An original
contact plus three callbacks should usually secure about 85 percent of
the target respondents. Yet in one study, 36 percent of central city
residents still were not contacted after three callbacks.
Response Error When the data reported differ from the actual data,
response error occurs. There are many ways these errors can happen.
Errors can be made in the processing and tabulating of data. Errors
occur when the respondent fails to report fully and accurately.
Interviewer error is also a major source of response bias.
The sample loses credibility and is likely to be biased if
interviewers do not do a good job of enlisting respondent cooperation.
Perhaps the most insidious form of interviewer error is cheating.
Surveying is difficult work, often done by part-time employees, usually
with only limited training and under little direct supervision. At
times, falsification of an answer to an overlooked question is perceived
as an easy solution to counterbalance the incomplete data. This
seemingly easy, seemingly harmless first step can be followed by more
pervasive forgery. It is not known how much of this occurs, but it
should be of constant concern to research directors as they develop
their data collection design.

It is also obvious that an interviewer can distort the results of any
survey by in-appropriate suggestions, word emphasis, tone of voice, and
question rephrasing. These activities, whether premeditated or merely
due to carelessness, are widespread. Interviewers can influence
respondents in many other ways also. Older interviewers are often seen
as authority figures by young respondents, who modify their responses
accordingly.

Some research indicates that perceived social distance between
interviewer and respondent has a distorting effect, although the studies
do not fully agree on just what this relationship is. In the light of
the numerous studies on the various aspects of interview bias, the
safest course for researchers is to recognize that there is a constant
potential for response error. Costs While professional interviewer’s
wage scales are typically not high, interviewing is costly, and these
costs continue to rise. Much of the cost results from the substantial
interviewer time taken up with administrative and travel tasks.
Respondents are often geographically scattered,
and this adds to the cost. Repeated contacts (recommended at six to nine
per household) are expensive.

In recent years, some professional research organizations have attempted
to gain control of these spiraling costs. Interviewers have typically
been paid an hourly rate, but this method rewards inefficient
interviewers and often results in field costs exceeding budgets. A
second approach to the reduction of field costs has been to use the
telephone to schedule personal interviews. A third means of reducing
high field costs is to use self-administered questionnaires.

Telephone Interview
The telephone can be helpful in arranging personal interviews and
screening large populations for unusual types of respondents
Studies have also shown that making prior
notification calls can improve the response rates of mail surveys.
However, the telephone
interview makes its greatest contribution in survey work as a unique
mode of communication to collect information from respondents.
When compared to either personal interviews or mail surveys, the use of
telephones brings a faster completion of a study, sometimes taking only
a day or so for the fieldwork. When compared to personal interviewing,
it is also likely that interviewer bias, especially bias caused by the
physical appearance, body language, and actions of the interviewer, is
reduced by using phones.

Finally, behavioral norms work to the advantage of telephone
interviewing: If someone is present, a ringing phone is usually
answered, and it is the caller who decides the purpose, length, and
termination of the call. There are also disadvantages to using the
telephone for research; obviously, the respondent must be available by
phone. Usage rates are not as high in households composed of single
adults, less educated, poorer minorities, and individuals employed as
non-professional, non-managerial workers. These variations can be a
source of bias.

A limit on interview length is another disadvantage of the telephone,
but the degree of this limitation depends on the respondent’s interest
in the topic. Ten minutes has generally been thought as ideal, but
interviews of 20 minutes or more are not uncommon.
In telephone interviewing, it is not possible to use maps,
illustrations, other visual aids, complex scales, or measurement
techniques. The medium also limits the complexity of the questioning and
the use of sorting techniques. One ingenious solution to not using
scales, however, has been to employ a nine-point scaling approach and to
ask the respondent to visualize this by using the telephone dial or keypad.

Some studies suggest the responses rate in telephone studies is lower
than for comparable face-to-face interviews. One reason is that
respondents find it easier to terminate a phone interview. Telephone
surveys can result in less thorough responses, and those involved by
phone find the experience to be less rewarding to them than a personal
interview. Respondents report less rapport with telephone interviewers
that with personal interviewers. Given the growing costs and
difficulties of personal interviews, it is likely that an even higher
share of surveys will be by telephone in the future. Thus, it behooves
management researchers using telephone surveys to attempt to improve the
enjoyment of the interview. One authority suggests:

We need to experiment with techniques to improve the enjoyment of the
interview by the respondent, maximizing the overall completion rate, and
minimize response error on specific measures. This work might fruitfully
begin with efforts at translating into verbal frowns, rising of
eyebrows, eye contact, etc. All of these cues have informational content
and are important parts of personal interview setting. We can perhaps
purposefully choose those cues that are most important to data quality
and respondent trust and discard the many that are extraneous to the
survey interaction.

Self Administered Surveys
The self-administered questionnaire has become ubiquitous in modern
living. Service evaluations of hotels, restaurants, car dealerships, and
transportation providers furnish ready examples. Often a short
questionnaire is left to be completed by the respondent in a convenient
location or is packaged with a product.

Mail Surveys

Mail surveys typically cost less than personal interviews/Telephone and
mail costs are in the same general range, although in specific cases
either may be lower. The more geographically dispersed the sample, the
more likely it is that mail will be the low-cost
method. A mail is that we can contact respondents who might otherwise be
inaccessible. People such as major corporate executive are difficult to
reach in any other way. When the research has no specific person to
contact – say, in a study of corporation – the mail
survey often will be routed to the appropriate respondent.

In a mail survey, the respondent can take more time to collect facts;
talk with other, or consider replies at length than is possible with the
telephone, personal interview, or intercept studies. Mail surveys are
typically perceived as more impersonal, providing more anonymity than
the other communication modes, including other methods for distributing
self-administered questionnaires.

The major weakness of the mail survey is non-response error. Many
studies have shown that better-educated respondents and those more
interested in the topic answer mail surveys. A high percentage of
those who reply to a given survey have usually replied to others,
while large shares of those who do not respond are habitual
non-respondents.
Mail surveys with a return of about 30% are often considered
satisfactory, but there are instances of more than 70% response. In
either case, there are many non-responders, and we usually know
nothing about how those who answer differ from those who do not answer.
The second major limitation of mail surveys concerns the type and
amount of information that can be secured. We normally do not expect
to obtain large amounts of information and cannot probe deeply into
questions. Respondents will generally refuse to co-operate with a
long and/or complex mail questionnaire unless they perceive a
personal benefit. Returned mail questionnaires with many questions
left unanswered testify to this problem, but there are also many
exceptions. One general rule of thumb is that the respondent should
be able to answer the questionnaire in no more than 10 minutes.

Maximizing the Mail Survey
To maximize the overall probability of response, attention must be given
to each point of the survey process where the response may break down,
for example:

The wrong address and wrong postage can result in non-delivery or
non-return.
The letter may look like junk mail and be discarded without being
opened.
Lack of proper instructions for completion leads to non-response.
The wrong person opens the letter and fails to call it to the
attention of the right person.
A respondent finds no convincing explanation for completing the
survey and discards it.
A respondent temporarily sets the questionnaire aside and fails to
complete it.
The return address is lost so the questionnaire cannot be returned.

Efforts to overcome these problems will vary according to the
circumstances, but some general suggestions can be made for mail survey,
and, by extension, for self-administered questionnaires using different
delivery modes. A questionnaire, cover letter, and return mechanism are
sent. Incentives, such as dollar bills, coins or gift coupons are often
attached to the letter in commercial studies. Follow-ups are usually
needed to get the maximum response. Opinions differ about the number and
timing of follow-ups.

5.3 Research Instruments

The Questionnaire
A questionnaire can be defined as a group of printed questions which
have been deliberately designed and structured to be used to gather
information from respondents.

Advantages of Using Questionnaire

They can be used to reach many people.
Save time, especially where they have been mailed to respondents.
Cost effective given they can be mailed and one can avoid using
interviewers.
Questions are standardized and therefore the responses are likely to
be the same.
Interviewer biases can be avoided when questionnaires are mailed.
They give a greater feeling of being anonymous and therefore
encourage open responses to sensitive questions.
Effective in reaching distant locations where it is not practical to
go there.

Disadvantages

Questionnaire mailed to respondents may not be returned.
The inability to control the context of questions answering and
specifically the presence of other people who may fill the questionnaire.
A certain number of potential respondents, particularly the least
educated maybe unable to respond to written questionnaires because of
illiteracy and other difficulties in reading.
Written questionnaires do not allow the researchers to correct
misunderstanding or answer questions that the respondent may have.
Source questionnaire may be returned half filled or unanswered.

Guidelines for Asking Questions
In the actual practice of social research-variables are usually
operationalized by asking people questions as a way of getting data for
analysis and interpretation. That is always the case in survey research,
and such ‘self-report’ date are often collected in experiments,
field research, and other modes of observation Sometimes the questions are
asked by the interviewer, sometimes they are written down and given to
respondents for completion (they are called administered questionnaire).

The term questionnaire suggests a collection of questions, but an
examination of a typical questionnaire will probably reveal as many
statements as questions. That is not without reason. Often, the
researcher is interested in determining the extent to which respondents
hold a particular attitude or perspective. If you are able to summarize
the attitude in a fairly brief statement, you will often present that
statement and ask respondents whether they agree or disagree with it –
Rensis Likert scale, – a format where respondents are asked to strongly
agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree, or perhaps strongly
approve, approve, and so fourth.

Open-Ended and Closed-Ended Questions

Open-ended questions
The respondent in asked to provide his or her own answer to the
questions eg. (‘What do you feel is the most important issue facing
Kenya today?) and provided with a space to write in the answer (or be
asked to report in verbally to an interviewer)

Closed-ended Questions
The respondents are asked to select an answer from among a list provided
by the researcher. Closed-ended questions are very popular because they
provide a greater conformity of responses and are more easily processed.
Open-ended responses must be coded before they can be processed for
computer analysis. This coding process often requires that the
researcher interpret the meaning of responses, opening the possibility
of misunderstanding and researcher bias. There is also a danger that
some respondents will
give answers that are essentially irrelevant to the researcher’s intent.
Closed-ended questions can often be transferred directly into computer
format. The chief shortcoming of closed-ended questions lies in the
researcher’s structuring of responses. In asking about ‘the most
important issue facing Kenya, for example, your check-list of issues
might omit certain issues that respondents would have said were important.

In the construction of closed-ended questions, the response categories
provided should be exhaustive. (They should include all the possible
responses that might be expected) – (Please specify …………). Second, the
answer categories must be mutually exclusive :
(In some cases you may wish to solicit multiple answers, but these may
create difficulties in data processing and analysis later on).

Make Items Clear
Questionnaire items should be clear and unambiguous. Often you can
become so deeply involved in the topic under examination that opinions
and perspectives are clear to you but will not be clear to your
respondents – many of whom have given little or no attention
to the topic. Or if you have only a superficial understanding of the
topic, you may fail to specify the intent of your question sufficiently.
The question ‘what do you think about the ‘proposed nuclear freeze?’ may
evoke in the respondent a counter question: ‘which nuclear freeze
proposal?’ Questionnaire items should be precise so that the respondent
knows exactly what the researcher wants an answer to.

Avoid Double-Barreled Questions
Frequently, researchers ask respondents a single answer to a combination
of questions. That seems to happen most after when the researcher has
personally identified with a complex question. For example, you might
ask respondents to agree or disagree with a
statement. ‘The United States should abandon its space program and spend
the money on domestic programs’. Although many people would
unequivocally agree with the statement and others would unequivocally
disagree, still others would be unable to answer. Some would want to
abandon the space program and give the money back to the taxpayers.
Other would want to continue the program but also put more money into
domestic programs. These latter respondents could neither agree nor
disagree without misleading you.

Respondents must be Competent to Answer

In asking respondents to provide information, you should continually ask
yourself whether they are able to do so reliably. In the study of child
rearing, you might ask respondents to report the age at which they first
talked back to their parents. Quite aside from the problem of defining
talking back to parents, it is doubtful if most respondents would
remember with any degree of accuracy.

One group of researchers examining the driving experience of teenagers
insisted on asking an open-ended question concerning the number of miles
driven since receiving a license. Although consultants argued that few
drivers would be able to estimate such
information with any accuracy, the question was asked nonetheless. In
response, some teenagers reported driving hundreds of thousands of miles.

Questions should be Relevant
When attitudes are requested on a topic that few respondents have though
about or really cared about, the results are not likely to be very
useful. This point is illustrated occasionally when you ask for
responses relating to fictitious persons and issues. In a potential poll
conducted, respondents were asked whether they were familiar with each
of 15 political figures in the community. As a methodological exercise,
a name was made up: John Maina. In response, 9% of the respondents said
they were familiar with him. Of those respondents familiar with him,
about half reported seeing him on television and reading about him in
the newspapers.

When you obtain responses to fictitious issues, you can disregard those
responses. But when the issue is real, you may have no way of telling
which responses genuinely reflect attitudes and which reflect
meaningless answers to irrelevant questions.

Short Items are best
In the interest of being unambiguous and precise and pointing to the
relevance of an issue, the researcher is often led into long and
complicated items. That should be avoided. Respondents are often
unwilling to study an item in order to understand it. The respondent
should be able to read an item quickly, understand its intent, and
select or provide an answer without difficulty. Provide clear, short
items that will not be misinterpreted under those conditions.

Avoid Negative Items
The appearance of a negative item in a questionnaire paves way for early
misinterpretation. Asked to agree or disagree with the statement. ‘The
United States should not recognize Cuba’, a sizeable portion of the
respondents will read over the word not and answer on that basis. Thus,
some will agree with the statement when they are in favor of
recognition, and other will agree when they oppose it. Any you may never
know which is which.

Avoid Biased Items and Terms
The meaning of some one’s response to a question depends in large part
on the wording of the question that was asked. That is true of every
question and answer. Some questions seem to encourage particular
responses more than other questions. Questions that encourage
respondents to answer in a particular way are called biased.

Most researchers recognize the likely effect of a question that begins
‘don’t you agree with the president that….’ And no reputable researcher
would use such an item. Unhappily the biasing effect of items and terms
is far subtler than this example suggests. The mere identification of an
attitude or position with a prestigious person or agency can bias
responses. The item ‘do you agree or disagree with the recent supreme
court decision that…’ would have similar effect. It does not mean that
such wording will necessarily produce
consensus or even a majority in support of the position identified with
the prestigious person or agency, only that support would likely be
increased over what would have been obtained without such identification.

Questionnaire items can be biased negatively as well as positively. ‘Do
you agree or disagree with the position of Adolf Hitler when he stated
that…..’ is an example. Since 1949, asking Americans questions about
China has been tricky. Identifying the country as ‘China’ can still
result in confusion between mainland China and Taiwan. Not all Americans
recognize the official name: The People’s Republic of China. Referring
to ‘Red China’ or Communist China’ evokes negative response from many
respondents, though that might be desirable if your purpose were to
study anti communist feelings.

How To Construct a Questionnaire

Questionnaires are essential to and most directly associated with
surveys research. They are also widely used in experiments, field
research, and other data – collection activities. Thus questionnaires
are used in connection with modes of observation in social research.

Response Strategies Illustrated
The characteristics of respondents, the nature of topic(s) being
studied, the type of data needed, and your analysis plan dictate the
response strategy. Example of the strategies described below are found
in Table 10.1

Free-Response Questions: also known as open-ended questions, ask the
respondent a question, and the interviewer pauses for the answer (which
is unaided), or the respondent records his or her ideas in his or her
own words in the space provided on a questionnaire.

Dichotomous Response Questions: A topic may present clearly dichotomous
choices: something is a fact or it is not; a respondent can either
recall or not recall information; a respondent attended or didn’t attend
an event.

Multiple-Choice Questions: are appropriate where there are more than two
alternatives or where we seek gradations of preference, interest, or
agreement; the latter situation also calls for rating questions. While
such questions offer more than one alternative answer,
they request the respondent to make a single choice. Multiple-choice
questions can be efficient, but they also present unique design problems.

Checklist Strategies
When you want a respondent to give multiple responses to a single
question, you will ask the question in one of three ways. If relative
order is not important, the checklist is the logical choice. Questions
like “Which of the following factors encouraged you to apply to Mount
Kenya University (Check all that apply). Force the respondent to
exercise a dichotomous response (yes, encouraged; no, didn’t encourage)
to each factor presented. Of course you cold have asked for the same
information as a series of dichotomous selection questions, one for each
individual factor, but that would have been time-consuming. Checklists
are more efficient. Checklists generate nominal data.

Rating Strategies
Rating questions ask the respondent to position each factor on a
companion scale, verbal, numeric, or graphic. ‘Each of the following
factors has been shown to have some influence on a student’s choice to
apply to Mount Kenya University. Using your own experience, for each
factor please tell us whether the factor was ‘strongly influential’,
‘somewhat influential’, or ‘not at all influential’. Generally,
rating-scale structures generate ordinal data; some carefully crafted
scales generate interval data.

Ranking Strategies
When relative order of the alternatives is important, the ranking
question is ideal. ‘Please rankorder your top three factors from the
following list based on their influence in encouraging you to apply to
Mount Kenya University. Use 1 to indicate the most encouraging factor, 2
the next most encouraging factor, etc. The checklist strategy would
provide the three factors of influence, but we would have no way of
knowing the importance the respondent places on each factor. Even in a
personal interview, the order in which the factors are mentioned is not
a guarantee of influence. Ranking as a response strategy solves this
problem.

Instructions
Instructions to the interviewer to respondent attempt to ensure that all
respondents are treated equally, thus avoiding building error into the
results. Two principles form the foundation for good instructions:
clarity and courtesy. Instruction language needs to be unfailingly
simple and polite. Instruction topics include (1) how to terminate an
interview when the respondent does not correctly answer the screen or
filter questions, (2) How to conclude an interview when the respondent
decides to discontinue, (3) Skip directions for moving between top
sections of an instrument when movement is dependent on the answer to
specific questions or when branched questions are used, and (4) Telling
the respondent to a self-administered instrument about the disposition
of the completed questionnaire. In a self-administered questionnaire,
instructions must be contained withn the survey instrument. Personal
interviewer instructions sometimes are in a document separate from the
questionnaire (a document thoroughly discussed during
interviewer training) or are distinctly and clearly marked
(high-lighted, printed in a colored ink, or boxed on the computer
screen) on the data collection instrument itself.

Conclusion
The role of the conclusons is to leave the respondent with the
impression that his or her participation has been valuable. Subsequent
researchers may need this individual to participate in new studies. If
every interviewer or instrument expresses appreciation for
participation, cooperation in subsequent studies is more likely.

DATA COLLECTION AND TECHNIQUES