Group interviewing in the in-person mode has the advantage of being a natural form of communication. Even in the social media, online world we live in today, the scenario of people sitting together and sharing their opinions and experiences is generally considered a socially acceptable form in the everyday lives of humans. And it is this natural way of communicating that ignites the dynamic, interactive environment that is, in many ways, the raison d’être of the focus group method. As the primary strength of the group discussion method, participant interaction is Read Full Text
The cadre of modes available to researchers as they design their studies has grown hugely over the past decade. When researchers once had few choices – relying on face-to-face, landline phone, and mail – they now need to think carefully as they sift through an increasing number of options. In addition to the old standbys, other viable, and often preferable, modes must be considered, including mobile phone, online (without webcam use), and online (with webcam use).
“Natural” characteristics, i.e., its ability to foster a natural, social conversation environment.
The ability to share content, e.g., photos, video, documents.
Rapport building, i.e., its ability to foster researcher-participant rapport.
The ability to identify cues – verbal and non-verbal – that provide insights beyond direct responses.
Coverage, i.e., the breadth and depth of geography and the population segment the mode can reach.
Cost, i.e., the total cost of the study attributable to the mode.
There are, of course, other considerations – such as, convenience, depth of response, and so on – but the six listed are certainly important.
Using these considerations, it can be helpful to visualize the relative value Read Full Text
Who can argue with the idea of choice? Having the ability to choose between two or more options is inherently attractive and frequently motivates behavior. I may pass on vanilla ice cream if that is the only flavor on the menu but more likely to buy if offered at least one other taste variety. And every car, computer, packaged goods, and other manufacturer understands that no two people are alike and that product-line differentiation intensifies appeal by giving choice to a broader audience.
So it makes some sense that offering research respondents a choice in how they would like to respond to our survey requests would be a good thing. After all, the idea that different people prefer different survey modes has been around for a while and the concept of mode preference is one justification for mixed-mode research designs that integrate, for example, traditional modes – such as CATI interviews and self-administered questionnaires via USPS mail – and Web surveys. While other more practical reasons may prevail for a mixed-mode approach – not the least of which is the ability to reach the target respondent given the contact information available to the researcher – taking advantage of mode preferences by giving respondents a choice has been considered a way to improve overall rate of response.
But choice is a curious thing in research design. It turns out that providing respondents with a choice between two modes of responding can actually decrease the response rate. A number of experiments have shown this to be the case. One such study was recently published in Public Opinion Quarterly(“Improving Response to Web and Mixed-mode Surveys”) by Morgan Millar and Don Dillman from Washington State University. In the first of two experiments, Millar and Dillman tested four conditions, all of which included initial contact via the US mail and a $2 incentive. Two of the test conditions were as follows: 1) respondents were offered a choice of responding by way of US mail or the Web; 2) response was requested by way of US mail with no other option available (i.e., no choice was given). What is interesting is that Read Full Text