Settings in which questions are asked and answers given make answers unreliable; that is, answers that may, or may not, be accurate. This happens because components in the two types of settings (societal and immediate, discussed below) skew answers, and since askers/survey researchers only have answers to their questions, it’s impossible for them (or anyone else) to determine which, if any, are either accurate or inaccurate. The only way to know is to check or verify answers with data/information from non-asking sources; for example, from observations or experiments. Askers do not have this type of data; all they have is unreliable information.
There are two types of asking settings: societal and immediate.
• Societal settings are cultures experienced by respondents, and that includes social values, illusions/myths/religions, and descriptions and interpretations of political and economic systems. Also included in respondents’ societal settings are their positions in society—e.g., socioeconomic, organizational, familial, and so on—and the norms and beliefs associated with these positions. Via socialization by parents, schools, colleagues, governments, and advertising, respondents take as their own the societal preferences, priorities, and outlooks they experience and answer accordingly.
• Immediate settings are specific places where asking and answering occur: for example, respondents’ homes and workplaces (via phone and Internet), on streets outside polling places (entrance and exit polls), schools, doctors’ offices, and so on.
Both types of settings (societal and immediate) have powerful attributes or components that affect answers. Characteristics of, and forces within, societal settings—such as cultural values, laws, and media—bias answers, as do aspects of immediate settings, including third parties, gender of interviewer, and so on. Essentially every component of every asking setting “contaminates;” forcing respondents to say what’s compatible with each setting.
This post is from my book, The Problem with Survey Research, p. 165, where sources are cited and where, on pp. 165-95, you can find an expanded discussion of how asking settings make answers unreliable.
Return to full site
-
Recent Posts
Archives
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- August 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- October 2019
- July 2019
- February 2019
- October 2018
- September 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- August 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- March 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- October 2012
- June 2012
- April 2012
- October 2010
- August 2010
- June 2010
Categories
- American government
- Behaviorism
- Book Review
- Christianity
- content analysis
- control
- Experiment
- freedom
- George's Office Wall
- government
- Guidelines for Optimal Living
- history
- internet
- Internet Citizens
- Internet Effects
- Internet+
- Internet+ Age
- Internet+ Effects
- Leadership
- Movie Review
- Multiple Sources
- Observation
- philosophy
- Quality Management
- religion
- Rules for Social Science Research
- Survey Research
- World Citizenship
Meta
Pingback: Askers Make Answers Unreliable | George Beam's Blog