Special Session Title: Looking Forward and Back at Survey Research Response Issues in Marketing Research

2015 ◽  
pp. 711-711
Author(s):  
Barry J. Babin
Keyword(s):  
Survey Research ◽  
Marketing Research ◽  
Special Session

Item Nonresponse in Mail Surveys: Extent and Correlates

1978 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 285-289 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Samuel Craig ◽  
John M. Mccann
Keyword(s):  
Survey Research ◽  
Marketing Research ◽  
Nonresponse Bias ◽  
Item Nonresponse ◽  
Mail Surveys ◽  
Source Of Error

Item nonresponse, an often overlooked source of error in survey research, arises when a person returns a questionnaire with some questions unanswered. The authors examine the extent and correlates of item nonresponse in a series of marketing research surveys. The principal findings are that the extent of item nonresponse appears to be independent of questionnaire length and to vary systematically with age and education, and that AIO items are less likely to contain item nonresponse bias than other types of questions.

‘Survey’: Needless Despoilment of a Traditional Research Term

2013 ◽  
Vol 55 (3) ◽  
pp. 337-356 ◽  
Author(s):  
John F. Gaski
Keyword(s):  
Survey Research ◽  
Marketing Research ◽  
Research Field ◽  
Original Meaning ◽  
Traditional Research

This note demonstrates an example of lost knowledge in the marketing research field. In particular, the original meaning of the terms ‘survey’ and ‘survey research’ has been perverted, apparently through inattention. Epistemology is presented to verify, resultant problems are exposed, and some remedial conceptualisation and semantic tactics are offered. If ‘a problem recognised is half solved’, this philological endeavour aspires to cover turf at least to that midway point.

Too many compromises: survey research and the spectre of communism

2016 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 197-214 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefan Schwarzkopf
Keyword(s):  
Survey Research ◽  
High Pressures ◽  
Social Research ◽  
Marketing Research ◽  
Scientific Practices ◽  
Archival Research ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The Way

Purpose – This paper aims to chart the influence of McCarthyism and of FBI surveillance practices on a number of prominent American social scientists, market researchers, opinion pollsters and survey research practitioners during the post-war years. Hitherto disparate sets of historical evidence on how Red Scare tactics influenced social researchers and marketing scientists are brought together and updated with evidence from original archival research. Design/methodology/approach – The paper draws on the existing secondary literature on how social research practitioners and social scientists reacted to the unusually high pressures on academic freedom during the McCarthy era. It supplements this review with evidence obtained from archival research, including declassified FBI files. The focus of this paper is set on prominent individuals, mainly Bernard Berelson, Samuel Stouffer, Hadley Cantril, Robert S. Lynd, Paul F. Lazarsfeld, Herta Herzog, Ernest Dichter, but also the Frankfurt School in exile. Findings – Although some of the historiography presents American social scientists and practitioners in the marketing research sector as victims of McCarthyism and FBI surveillance, it can also be shown that virtually all individuals in focus here also developed strategies of accommodation, compromise and even opportunism to benefit from the climate of suspicion brought about by the prevailing anti-Communism. Social implications – Anyone interested in questions about the morality of marketing, market research and opinion polling as part of the social sciences practiced in vivo will need to pay attention to the way these social-scientific practices became tarnished by the way prominent researchers accommodated and at times even abetted McCarthyism. Originality/value – Against the view of social scientists as harassed academic minority, evidence is presented in this paper which shows American social scientists who researched market-related phenomena, like media, voters choices and consumer behaviour, in a different light. Most importantly, this paper for the first time presents archival evidence on the scale of Paul F. Lazarsfeld’s surveillance by the FBI.

Survey Research

2021 ◽  
pp. 272-277
Author(s):  
Jean-Frédéric Morin ◽  
Christian Olsson ◽  
Ece Özlem Atikcan
Keyword(s):  
Data Collection ◽  
Survey Research ◽  
Social Research ◽  
Marketing Research ◽  
Active Role ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Collection Method ◽  
Communication Approach ◽  
Public Opinion Polls ◽  
Opinion Polls

This chapter discusses survey research. Surveys are a very common method of data collection used by many social researchers. As such, they are used in public opinion polls to gauge political trends and trait, but also in marketing research examining consumer behaviour and feedback. Surveys are also a common data collection method in many social research projects. They are further used to evaluate needs, processes, and outcomes. Importantly, surveys are a unidirectional communication approach to collect data, which is very different from observational methods, semi-structured and structured interviews, or other types of data collection where the researcher takes an active role. Specifically, using surveys, participants are presented with a set of instructions and predetermined questions. The researcher is not expected to engage in any participatory interaction or in-depth conversation with participants.

Management of Marketing Research Projects: Does Delivery Method Matter Anymore in Survey Research?

2007 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 127-144 ◽  
Author(s):  
Catherine A. Roster ◽  
Robert D. Rogers ◽  
George C. Hozier ◽  
Kenneth G. Baker ◽  
Gerald Albaum
Keyword(s):  
Survey Research ◽  
Marketing Research ◽  
Research Projects ◽  
Delivery Method

D-test: A New Test for Analyzing Scale Invariance Using Symbolic Dynamics and Symbolic Entropy

Methodology ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 88-95 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jose A. Martínez ◽  
Manuel Ruiz Marín
Keyword(s):  
Symbolic Dynamics ◽  
Scale Invariance ◽  
Rating Scales ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Marketing Research ◽  
Response Patterns ◽  
Measurement Scales ◽  
Improve Measurement ◽  
Entropy Measures ◽  
The Difference

The aim of this study is to improve measurement in marketing research by constructing a new, simple, nonparametric, consistent, and powerful test to study scale invariance. The test is called D-test. D-test is constructed using symbolic dynamics and symbolic entropy as a measure of the difference between the response patterns which comes from two measurement scales. We also give a standard asymptotic distribution of our statistic. Given that the test is based on entropy measures, it avoids smoothed nonparametric estimation. We applied D-test to a real marketing research to study if scale invariance holds when measuring service quality in a sports service. We considered a free-scale as a reference scale and then we compared it with three widely used rating scales: Likert-type scale from 1 to 5 and from 1 to 7, and semantic-differential scale from −3 to +3. Scale invariance holds for the two latter scales. This test overcomes the shortcomings of other procedures for analyzing scale invariance; and it provides researchers a tool to decide the appropriate rating scale to study specific marketing problems, and how the results of prior studies can be questioned.

Review of Conversations at Random: Survey Research as Interviewers See It.

1974 ◽  
Vol 19 (7) ◽  
pp. 563-563
Author(s):  
EDWARD E. JONES
Keyword(s):  
Survey Research ◽  
Random Survey

Review of An Introduction to Survey Research and Data Analysis (2nd ed.).

1990 ◽  
Vol 35 (6) ◽  
pp. 618-618
Author(s):  
Mark D. Shermis
Keyword(s):  
Data Analysis ◽  
Survey Research

Graduate Programs and Careers in Consumer Psychology, Advertising, and Marketing Research

2000 ◽  
Author(s):  
Curtis P. Haugtvedt ◽  
Sharon Shavitt ◽  
Bonnie Sherman-William
Keyword(s):  
Graduate Programs ◽  
Marketing Research ◽  
Consumer Psychology
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document