When I think of innovation in survey research, I think of innovation in our “sister” field of land surveying. (A field I think of too often as I correct confused extended relatives about the type of surveys that I’m involved in.)
In 2600 B.C. Egypt, “rope stretchers” were some of the first land surveyors. They stretched rope to measure land distances. But rope had its flaws – it was often weak, stretched, expensive, and in large amounts could be very heavy. Small innovations took place…
Peer review is wonderful in theory. Scientists reviewing other scientists’ work to evaluate whether the science was applied thoroughly, implemented well, and interpreted effectively can be a wonderful way to allow the best science through. But the Reproducibility Project clearly demonstrated that something is broken – when over a quarter of the published studies reviewed could not be replicated.
It is not a surprise to most. Humans are involved. We make mistakes…
When Apple’s ResearchKit was announced, almost immediately some squawked about the ethical problems that may be raised by its use. One argument suggested that because teens use iPhones, and because teens “aren’t supposed to take part in medical studies without parental consent” this would be bad. The argument proceeds…
Use this as a checklist for your own studies – or as a tool to evaluate survey research collaborators. Researchers who do not consider each of these elements will make disastrous mistakes. A solid researcher is not one who is perfect – it is one who learns from past mistakes. Here are the final six (of twelve)…
Ready to Launch a Survey? It’s just a press of a button, right?
How I wish that were the case! As with any science, care must be taken to ensure there is a consistent application. Bias introduced by inconsistencies in the study implementation is not desirable. Survey researchers can minimize such bias by…
Survey research is a part of the scientific process – and even a science on its own. So why do researchers abandon the science when they implement their studies? An astronomer would not go to the hobby store to buy a telescope to study the galaxy. A geneticist would never purchase non-sterile test tubes from an unknown source to capture saliva samples from research subjects. So why do social scientists routinely treat their own data collection tools this way?