A Note on Determining Questionnaire Destination in Survey Research

Abstract

R eliance upon survey techniques in the analysis of general social phenomena of academic interest (e.g., social mobility and patterns of psychiatric disorder) as well as those of more practical concern (e.g., voting or consumer product preferences) has become ,commonplace. Extant literature addressed to the design and implementation of either interview or questionnaire surveys tends to focus upon issues such as sample selection, question or format development, coding and data analysis techniques. In instances of survey questionnaires distributed through the mails, however, little attention has been devoted to evaluating the consequences of selecting particular locations at which to confront subjects with the general research effort and the specific data collection instrument. In the course of recent sui-vey research it became possible to determine the relative importance of questionnaire reception at either the home or employment sites of subjects for overall survey return rates, as well as question completion rates for items categorized as closed-ended (i.e., answers constrained by given response alternatives) and open-ended (i.e., responses structured solely by subject feelings). The research project in question was designed to ascertain the perceptions and preferences of civic activists (i.e., Chamber of Commerce members) in western New York State in respect to the structure and functioning of various universities. Random selection of Chamber members generated a pool of 700 male subjects between the ages of thirty-five and seventy and employed in professional or managerial occupations. Given the availability of dual addresses for each individual, 350 subjects received survey questionnaires at their place of residence and an equal number received questionnaires at work sites. Each questionnaire contained a total of 64 closedended questions and 26 open-ended items usually requesting amplifications upon responses to previous closed-ended questions. Overall return rates for subjects contacted at place of work or residence were identical, both in terms of the rate of response (i.e., time elapsed prior to questionnaire return) and the final number of questionnaires returned by subjects. Between-group differences in completion rates for the 64 closed-ended questions proved insignificant, as did an analysis of the actual attitudes (i.e., resporses to closed-ended items) of subjects when grouped according to reception location. In terms of open-ended items, however, subject reception of a questionnaire at place of employment resulted in significantly greater (beyond the .01 level) numbers of completions (X = 23.4, s =2.4) than did contact of an individual at place of residence (X 18.1, s=4.1). Subsequent interviews with subjects revealed that participation in survey research through questionnaires, whether at work or residence sites, necessitates overcoming barriers caused by inertia, disinterest or resentment of intrusion. Although this results in similar rates of questionnaire return and response to closedended items, the actual completion of time consuming open-ended questions by individuals while at work appears facilitated by (1) the evocation of work-centered achievement orientations, (2) the organizational appropriateness of writing activity as a task diversion, and (3) formal corporate acceptance of participa-