Advertisement

Patterns of Contact Attempts in Surveys

  • Alexandre PollienEmail author
  • Dominique Joye
Chapter
Part of the Life Course Research and Social Policies book series (LCRS, volume 2)

Abstract

Survey participation is a type of social interaction between an interviewer and a respondent; by hypothesis, the way in which the respondent is successfully contacted, and agrees to cooperate, is a process of involvement in a social activity. Therefore, it is appropriate to use sequence analysis to understand how participants enter the survey according to their social status, lifestyle, and attitude. The argument developed here suggests a sociological approach to survey participation. Unlike rational choice analyses or persuasion models, the sequential analysis explores the sociology of how two actors enter and negotiate a situation to which they assign a meaning based on social institution, social times, and social roles. This viewpoint has the potential to assist in the monitoring of survey contact procedures. It also provides insight into the founding principles of survey participation. The authors examined the samples by coefficients derived from the distance between sequences of contact attempts. In exploring the process of respondent selection, this chapter investigates ways of assessing the social construction of survey data.

Keywords

European Social Survey Contact Process Target Person Longe Common Subsequence Longe Common Subsequence 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Abbott, A., & Forrest, J. (1986). Optimal matching methods for historical sequences. Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 16(3), 471–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abbot, A., & Tsay, A. (2000). Sequence analysis and optimal matching methods in sociology: review and prospect. Sociological Methods and Research, 29(1), 3–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beatty, P., & Herrmann, D. (2002). To answer or not to answer: Decision processes related to survey item non-response. In R. M. Groves, D. A. Dillman, J. L. Eltinge, & R. J. Little (Eds.), Survey non-response (pp. 71–85). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  4. Boltanski, L., & Thévenot, L. (1991). De la justification: Les économies de la grandeur. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
  5. Bourdieu, P. (1980). Le sens pratique. Paris: Éditions de Minuit.Google Scholar
  6. Dillman, D. A. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: the total design method. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  7. Dunne, M., Martin, N., Bailey, M., Heath, A., Bucholz, K., Madden, P., et al. (1997). Participation bias in a sexuality survey: psychological and behavioural characteristics of responders and non-responders. International Journal of Epidemiology, 26(4), 844–854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Elzinga, C. H. (2007). Sequence analysis: Metric representations of categorical time series. Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit. http://home.fsw.vu.nl/ch.elzinga/MetricsRevision.pdf. Accessed 16 Sep 2013.
  9. Gabadinho, A., Ritschard, G., Müller, N. S., & Studer, M. (2011). Analyzing and visualizing state sequences in R with TraMineR. Journal of Statistical Software, 40(4), 1–37.Google Scholar
  10. Groves, R. M. (2006). Non-response rates and non-response bias in household surveys. Public opinion quarterly, 70(5), 646–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Groves, R. M., & Couper, M. (1998). Non-response in household interview surveys. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Groves, R. M., & Lyberg, L. (2010). Total survey error: Past, present, and future. Public opinion quarterly, 74(5), 849–879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Groves, R. M., & Peycheva, E. (2008). The impact of nonresponse rates on nonresponse bias: a meta-analysis. Public opinion quarterly, 72(2), 167–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Groves, R. M., Singer, E., & Corning, A. (2000). Leverage-saliency theory of survey participation: description and an illustration. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64(3), 299–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Groves, R. M., Presser, S., Dipko, S. (2004). The role of topic interest in survey participation decisions. Public Opinion Quarterly, 68(1), 2–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Joule, R.-V., & Beauvois, J.-L. (2002). Petit traité de manipulation à l’usage des honnêtes gens. Grenoble: Presses Universitaires de Grenoble.Google Scholar
  17. Kaufman, L., & Rousseeuw, P. J. (2005). Finding groups in data. An introduction to cluster analysis. New-York: Wiley-Interscience.Google Scholar
  18. Keeter, S., Miller, C., Kohut, A., Groves, R., & Presser, S. (2000). Consequences of reducing nonresponse in a national telephone survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64(2), 125–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kreuter, F., & Kohler U. (2009). Analysing contact sequences in call record data. Potential and limitations of sequence indicators for nonresponse adjustments in the European Social Survey. Journal of Official Statistics, 25(2), 203–226.Google Scholar
  20. Lynn, P., & Clarke, P. (2002). Separating refusal bias and non-contact bias: evidence from UK national surveys. The Statistician, 51(3), 319–333.Google Scholar
  21. Matsuo, H., Loosveldt G., & Billiet, J. (2006). The history of the contact procedure and survey cooperation. Louvain-la-Neuve: Quetelet conference. http://www.uclouvain.be/cps/ucl/doc/demo/documents/Matsuo_Loosveldt_Billiet.pdf. Accessed 29 April 2013.
  22. Nolen, J.A., & Maynard, D.W. (2013). Formulating the request for survey participation in relation to the interactional environment. Discourse Studies, 15(2), 205–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Peytchev, A., & Olson, K. (2007). Using interviewer observations to improve nonresponse adjustments: NES 2004. Papers presented at the Joint Statistical Meetings, Salt Lake City. http://www.amstat.org/sections/srms/proceedings/y2007/Files/JSM2007–000695.pdf. Accessed 16 Sep 2013.
  24. Pollien A., & Joye, D. (2011). A la poursuite du répondant? Essai de typologie des séquences de contact dans les enquêtes. In D. Joye, C. Pirinoli, D. Spini, & E. Widmer (Eds.), Parcours de vie et insertions sociales (pp. 189–212). Zürich: Seismo.Google Scholar
  25. Shuttles, C.D. (2008). Refusal avoidance training (RAT). In P.J. Lavrakas (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Survey Research Methods (pp. 702–703). Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  26. Stoop, I., Billiet, J., Koch, A., & Fitzgerald, R. (2010). Improving survey response. Lessons learned from the European Social Survey. Chichester: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Studer, M., Ritschard, G., Gabadinho, A., & Müller, N.S. (2010). Discrepancy analysis of complex objects using dissimilarities. In F. Guillet, G. Ritschard, D.A. Zighed, & H. Briand (Eds.), Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Management (pp. 3–19). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Thévenot, L. (2006). L’action au pluriel: sociologie des régimes d’engagement. Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer New York Heidelberg Dordrecht London 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.FORS, UNILLausanneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations