Quality and Quantity

, Volume 39, Issue 4, pp 423–452 | Cite as

Measuring the Measurable: Why can’t we Agree on the Number of Telecommuters in the U.S.?

  • Patricia L. Mokhtarian
  • Ilan Salomon
  • Sangho Choo
Article

Abstract

Using telecommuting as a case study, we demonstrate that definitions, measurement instruments, sampling and sometimes vested interests affect the quality and utility even of seemingly objective and “measurable” data. Little consensus exists with respect to the definition of telecommuting, or to possible distinctions from related terms such as teleworking. Such a consensus is unlikely, since the “best” definition of telecommuting depends on one’s point of reference and purpose. However, differing definitions confound efforts to measure the amount of telecommuting and how it is changing over time. This paper evaluates estimates of the amounts of telecommuting occurring in the U.S. obtained from several different sources: the U.S. Census, the American Housing Survey, several Work at Home supplements to the Current Population Survey, a series of market research surveys, and the trade association-sponsored Telework America surveys. Many of the issues raised here are transferable to other contexts, and indirectly serve as suggestions for improving data collection in the future.

Keywords

Telecommuting teleworking data quality measurement issues social science data transportation impacts of telecommuting 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Armour S. (2001). Telecommuting gets stuck in the slow lane. USA Today, June 25: 1A–2AGoogle Scholar
  2. Braus P. (1993). Homework for grownups. American Demographics (August): 38–42Google Scholar
  3. Choo S, Mokhtarian P.L., Salomon I. (2005). Does telecommuting reduce vehicle-miles traveled?. An aggregate time series analysis for the U.S. Transportation 32(1)Google Scholar
  4. Churchman, C.W. 1959

    Why measure?

    Churchman, C.W.Ratoosh, P. eds. Measurement Definitions and Theories, Chapter 4.John Wiley & SonsNew York8394
    Google Scholar
  5. Dannhauser C L. (1999). Who’s in the home office? American Demographics (June): 50–56Google Scholar
  6. Deming W.G. (1994). Work at home: Data from the CPS. Monthly Labor Review (February): 14–20Google Scholar
  7. Dick G.N. (1996). Telecommuting: From definitions to a broad conceptual model. Proceedings of the PRIISM ’96 International Conference, Maui, Hawaii, January, 218–223Google Scholar
  8. Drucker P.F. (1989). Information and the future of the city. Urban Land (June): 38–39Google Scholar
  9. Ferguson M. (1986). The challenge of neo-technological determinism for communication systems, industry and culture. In: Ferguson M. (ed). New Communication Technologies and the Public Interest. Sage Publications, London, pp. 52–70Google Scholar
  10. FIND/SVP. (1995). The new home office consumers. InterActive Consumers: The Monthly Primary Research Report 2(1): 1–7. Contact: postmaster@findsvp.comGoogle Scholar
  11. Fritz, M.E.W., Higa, K., Narasimhan, S. 1995Toward a telework taxonomy and test for suitability: A synthesis of the literatureGroup Decision and Negotiation4311334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Garber A. (2001). Telecommuting fails to fulfill high hopes. Seattle Times, September 17Google Scholar
  13. Gordon G. (1990). 1990 data from work-at-home survey shows continued growth, diversity. Telecommuting Review: The Gordon Report (October): 9–10Google Scholar
  14. Gordon G. (1991). Work-at-home survey data shows continued growth; telecommuters said to hit 5.5 million. Telecommuting Review: The Gordon Report (July): 10–11Google Scholar
  15. Gordon G. (1993a). LINK’s 1993 data shows steady work-at-home growth – and a few surprises. Telecommuting Review: The Gordon Report (June): 11–12Google Scholar
  16. Gordon G. (1993b). Minor revisions noted in LINK Resources study – and some supporting trend data. Telecommuting Review: The Gordon Report (July): 10Google Scholar
  17. Gordon, G. 1997Telecommuters by the millions – 11 million, to be exactTelecommuting Review: The Gordon Report.141416Google Scholar
  18. Handy, S.L., Mokhtarian, P.L. 1995Planning for telecommuting: Measurement and policy issuesJournal of the American Planning Association.6199111Google Scholar
  19. Handy, S.L., Mokhtarian, P.L. 1996Forecasting telecommuting: An exploration of methodologies and research needsTransportation23163190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Handy, S.L., Mokhtarian, P.L. 1996The future of telecommutingFutures28227240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Helling, A., Mokhtarian, P.L. 2001Worker telecommunication and mobility in transition: Consequences for planningJournal of Planning Literature15511525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Huws, U, Korte, W.B., Robinson, S. 1990Telework: Towards the Elusive OfficeJohn Wiley and SonsNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Keil J. (2000). Home workers and their homes. Housing Economics (January): 6–11Google Scholar
  24. Kraut, R.E. eds. 1987Technology and the Transformation of White Collar WorkErlbaum AssociatesHillsdale, NJGoogle Scholar
  25. Kraut, R.E. 1988

    Homework: What is it and who does it?

    Christensen, K.E. eds. The New Era of Home-Based Work. Chapter 2Westview PressBoulder, CO
    Google Scholar
  26. Kuenzi J.J., Reschovsky C.A. (2001). Home-Based Workers in the United States: 1997. United States Census Bureau Report P70–78, U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, December. www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/p70–78.pdf, accessed February 15, 2002Google Scholar
  27. Lamond D, Daniels K., Standen P. (1997). Defining telework: What is it exactly? In: Paul J. Jackson & Jos M. van der Wielen (eds.), Proceedings, Second International Workshop on Telework: ‘Building Actions on Ideas’, 177–187. September 2–5, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  28. Lindstrom J, Moberg A., Rapp B. (1997). On the classification of telework. European Journal of Information SystemsGoogle Scholar
  29. Maier, M.H. 1991The Data Game: Controversies in Social Science StatisticsM. E. Sharpe IncArmonk, NYGoogle Scholar
  30. Mariani M. (2000). Telecommuters. Occupational Outlook Quarterly (Fall): 10–17Google Scholar
  31. Melman S.J. (1998). Home workers. Housing Economics (April): 10–13Google Scholar
  32. Mokhtarian, P.L. 1991Defining telecommutingTransportation Research Record.1305273281Google Scholar
  33. Mokhtarian, P.L. 1998A synthetic approach to estimating the impacts of telecommuting on travelUrban Studies.35215241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mokhtarian, P.L. 2003

    Telework reflections

    Jackson, P.Rapp, B. eds. Organisation and Work Beyond 2000. Chapter 11Springer-VerlagBerlin153155
    Google Scholar
  35. Mokhtarian, P.L., Henderson, D.K. 1998Analyzing the travel behavior of home-based workers in the 1991 CALTRANS Statewide Travel SurveyJournal of Transportation and Statistics.12541Google Scholar
  36. Mokhtarian P.L., Salomon, I., Choo, S. (2004). Data and Measurement Issues in Transportation, with Telecommuting as a Case Study. Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis. Report number UCD-ITS-RR-04-29, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis, July. Available at http://www.its.ucdavis.edu/publications/2004/UCD-ITS-RR-04-29.pdfGoogle Scholar
  37. Mokhtarian P.L., Ho, C.-I., Hung S, Lain T, Raney E, Redmond L, Stanek, D.M., Varma, K. V. (1997). Residential Area-Based Offices Project: Final Report on the Evaluation of Impacts. Prepared for the Federal Highway Administration and the California Department of Transportation Office of Traffic Improvement. Research Report UCD-ITS-RR-97-17, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis, September. Available on the web at www.its.ucdavis.edu/tcenters/reports.htmGoogle Scholar
  38. Nie N.H. (1999). Tracking our techno-future: What are the social consequences of innovation? American Demographics (July): 50–52Google Scholar
  39. Nijkamp P, Leitner H., Wrigley N. ed. (1983). Measuring the Unmeasurable. NATO ASI Series, Series D, Behavioral and Social Sciences, Number 22. M. Nijhoff, BostonGoogle Scholar
  40. Niles, J. S. (1994). Beyond Telecommuting: A New Paradigm for the Effect of Telecommunications on Travel. Report DOE/ER-0626, prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Research and Office of Scientific Computing, Washington, DC, September. http://www.lbl.gov/ICSD/Niles/Google Scholar
  41. Nilles, J.M., Carlson F., R.,Jr., Gray, P., Hanneman, G.J. 1976The Telecommunications-Transportation Tradeoff: Options for TomorrowJohn Wiley and SonsNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  42. Pratt J.H. (1997). Counting the New Mobile Workforce. Report No. BTS97-A-01, prepared for the U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, AprilGoogle Scholar
  43. Pratt J. H. (1999) Cost/benefits of Teleworking to Manage Work/life Responsibilities. Report on the 1999 Telework America National Telework Survey, a project of the International Telework Association and Council. Available from www.telecommute.org/twa/twa1999/twa.shtmlGoogle Scholar
  44. Pratt, J.H. 2000Asking the right questions about telecommuting: Avoiding pitfalls in surveying home-based workTransportation2799116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pratt, J.H. 2001

    Piggybacking on existing surveys: A methodology for obtaining new perspectives on changing travel behaviors

    David A., Hensher. eds. Travel Behaviour Research: The Leading Edge.Pergamon PressAmsterdam
    Google Scholar
  46. Pratt J. H. (2002). Teleworkers, trips and telecommunications: Technology drives telework – but does it reduce trips? Paper # 02–3166 presented at the 81st Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, January (01047 on the meeting CD-ROM)Google Scholar
  47. Pratt, J. H., Davis, J. A. (1985). Measurement and Evaluation of the Populations of Family-Owned and Home-Based Businesses. Prepared by Joanne H. Pratt Associates, 3520 Routh Street, Dallas, TX 75219, for the Small Business Administration under contract no. SBA-9202-AER-85, DecemberGoogle Scholar
  48. Qvortrup L. (1992). Telework: Visions, definitions, realities, barriers. In: OECD (ed.), Cities and New Technologies. Paris, France: OECDGoogle Scholar
  49. Qvortrup, L. (1996). From teleworking to networking: Definitions and trends. In: Paul J. Jackson & J. M. van der Wielen, (eds.). Proceedings, New International Perspectives on Telework: From Telecommuting to the Virtual Organization, July 31–August 2, Brunel University, West London, pp. 305–321Google Scholar
  50. Raley R.K., Harris, K. M., Rindfuss, R. R. (2000). The quality and comparability of child care data in U.S. surveys. Social Science Research 29: 356–381. doi:10.1006/ssre.2000.0673, available online at www.idealibrary.comGoogle Scholar
  51. Russell, C. 1996How many home workers?American Demographics.186Google Scholar
  52. Salomon I. et al. (1990). Telematics and personal travel behavior with special emphasis on telecommuting and teleshopping. In: Soekkha H.M. (ed). Telematics – Transportation and Spatial Development. VSP, Utrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 67–89Google Scholar
  53. Salomon, I. 1998Technological change and social forecasting: The case of telecommuting as a travel substituteTransportation Research C.61745Google Scholar
  54. Salomon, I., Salomon, M. 1984Telecommuting: The employee’s perspectiveTechnological Forecasting and Social Change.251528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Skamris, M.K., Flyvbjerg, B. 1997Inaccuracy of traffic forecasts and cost estimates on large transport projectsTransport Policy.4141146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Smith, T.W. 1995Some aspects of measuring educationSocial Science Research24215242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Stanek, D.M., Mokhtarian, P.L. 1998Developing models of preference for home-based and center-based telecommuting: Findings and forecastsTechnological Forecasting and Social Change575374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. United States Department of Energy. (1994). Energy, Emissions, and Social Consequences of Telecommuting. Report DOE/PO-0026, Office of Policy, Planning, and Program Evaluation, Washington, DC, June. Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA 22161, (703) 487–4650Google Scholar
  59. United States Department of Transportation. (2000). Our Nation’s Highways: Selected Facts and Figures – 1998. Publication No. FHWA-PL-00-014, Office of Highway Policy Information, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC. Available at www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh.htmGoogle Scholar
  60. Urban Transportation Monitor. (1991). Recent survey finds significant telecommuting increase in U.S. over past year. July 19, p. 2.Google Scholar
  61. Varma, K.V., Ho, C.-I., Stanek, D.M., Mokhtarian, P.L. 1998Duration and frequency of telecenter use: Once a telecommuter, always a telecommuter?Transportation Research C.64768Google Scholar
  62. Wallace, W.A. 1994Ethics in ModelingElsevier Science (Pergamon)Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patricia L. Mokhtarian
    • 1
  • Ilan Salomon
    • 1
  • Sangho Choo
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Institute of Transportation StudiesUniversity of CaliforniaDavisCalifornia

Personalised recommendations