Advertisement

Abstract

E-mail survey methodology is a new and rapidly evolving field. This chapter considers and evaluates the advantages and disadvantages related to conducting online surveys identified in previous research. In particular, it describes the methodology and examines some advantages and disadvantages of conducting online survey research. Advantages include access to individuals in distant locations, the ability to reach difficult to contact participants, and the convenience of having automated data collection, which reduces researchers’ time and effort. Disadvantages of online survey research include uncertainty over the validity of the data and sampling issues, and concerns surrounding the design, implementation, and evaluation of an online survey. Future directions of the methodology are discussed.

Keywords

Online surveys  E-mail methodology  E-mail questionnaire  Self-reported  Online behavior  Sensitive topics  E-mail survey administration  E-mail Survey sampling  E-mail surveys time framework  

References

  1. Bachman, D. P., Elfrind, J., & Vazzana, G. (2000). E-mail and snail mail face off in research. Marketing Research, 11, 10–15.Google Scholar
  2. Bhatnagar, A., Misra, S., & Raoi, H. R. (2000). On risk, convenience, and Internet shopping behavior. Communications of the ACM, 43, 11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blasius, J., & Brandt, M. (2010). Representativeness in online surveys through stratified samples. Bulletin of Sociological Methodology, 107, 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Borkan, B. (2010). The mode effect in mixed mode surveys, mail and web surveys. Social Science Computer Review, 28, 371–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Converse, P. D., Wolfe, E. W., & Oswald, F. L. (2008). Response rates for mixed-mode surveys using mail and e-mail/web. American Journal of Evaluation, 29(1), 99–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Coderre, F., Mathieu, A., & St-Laurent, N. (2004). Comparison of quality of qualitative data obtained through telephone, postal and e-mail surveys. International Journal of Market Research, 46, 347–357.Google Scholar
  7. Couper, M. P., Blair, J., & Tripleet, T. (1999). A comparison of mail and e-mail for a survey of employees in US statistical agencies. Journal of official Statistics, 15, 39–56.Google Scholar
  8. Dillman, D. A., Torotra, R. D., Conradt, J., & Bowerk, D. (1998, 9–13 August). Influence of plain vs. fancy design on response rates of surveys. Dallas, TX: Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Statistical Association.Google Scholar
  9. Elford, J., Bolding, G., Davis, M., Sherr, L., & Hart, G. (2004). Web-based behavioral surveillance among men who have sex with men: A comparison of online and offline samples in London, UK. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes, 4, 421–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Evans, J. R., & Matur, A. (2005). The value of online surveys. Internet Research, 15, 195–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Folkman-Curasi, C. (2001). A critical exploration of face-to-face interviewing vs c.m.c. interviewing. International Journal of Market Research, 43, 361–375.Google Scholar
  12. Goritz, A. (2004). Recruitment for online survey panels. International Journal of Market Research, 46, 411–425.Google Scholar
  13. Hogg, A. (2003). Web efforts energize costumer research. Electric Perspectives, 28(5) 81–83.Google Scholar
  14. International Organization for Standardization. (2009). ISO 26362:2009 Access panels in market, opinion, and social research-vocabulary and service requirements. Geneva: Switzerland.Google Scholar
  15. Jansen, K. J., Corley, K. G., & Jansen, B. J. (2006). E-survey methodology: A review, issues, and implications. In J. D. Baker & R. Woods (Eds.), Encyclopedia of electronic surveys and measurements (pp. 1–8). Hershey, PA.: Idea Group Publishing.Google Scholar
  16. Jones, R., & Pitt, N., (1999). Health survey in the workplace. Occupational Medicine, 49, 556–558.Google Scholar
  17. Kanuk, L., & Berenson, C. (1975). Mail surveys and response rates: A literature review. Journal of Marketing Research, 12, 440–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kaye, B. K., & Johnson, T. J. (1999). Taming the cyber frontier—techniques for improving online surveys. Social Science Computer Review, 17, 323–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kiesler, S., & Sproull, L. S. (1986). Response effects in the electronic survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 50, 402–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Li, H., Kuo, C., & Russell, M. (1999). The impact of perceived channel utilities, shopping orientations, and demographics on the consumer’s online buying behavior. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 5, 2.Google Scholar
  21. Mehta, R., & Sivadas, E. (1995). Comparing response rates and response content in mail versus electronic mail surveys. Journal of the Market Research Society, 37, 429–439.Google Scholar
  22. Parks, M. R. & Floyd, C. (1996). Making friends in cyberspace. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 1, 4. Downloaded on February 1, 2011 from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1083-6101.1996.tb00176.x/full.
  23. Pealer, L., Weiler, R. M., Pigg, R. M., Miller, D. & Dorman, S. M. (2001). The feasibility of a web-based surveillance system to collect health risk behavior data from college students. Health Education & Behavior, 28, 547–559Google Scholar
  24. Ross, M. W., Tikkanen, R., & Mansson, S.-A. (2000). Differences between Internet samples and conventional samples of men who have sex with men: implications for research and HIV interventions. Social Science and Medicine, 51, 749–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schaefer, D. R., & Dillman, D. A. (1998). Development of a standard e-mail methodology: Results of an experiment. Public Opinion Quarterly, 3(62), 378–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sheehan, K. B. (2001). E-mail survey response rates: A review. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 6(2).Google Scholar
  27. Sheehan, K. B. & Hoy, M. G. (1997). Using E-mail to survey internet users in the United States: Methodology and assessment. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, Downloaded on Februry 1, 2011 from jcmc.indiana.edu/vol4/issue3/sheehan.htm.Google Scholar
  28. Sheehan, K. B., & Hoy, M. G. (1999). Flaming, complaining, abstaining: How online users respond to privacy concerns. Journal of Advertising, 28, 37–51.Google Scholar
  29. Shih, T., & Fan, X. (2009). Comparing response rates in e-mail and paper surveys: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 4(1), 26–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sills, S. J., & Song, C. (2002). Innovations in survey research: An application of web surveys. Social Science Computer Review, 20, 22–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Taylor, H. (2000). Does internet research work? International Journal of Market Research, 42, 51–63.Google Scholar
  32. Truell, A. D., Barlett, J. E, I. I., & Alexander, M. A. (2002). Response rate, speed, and completeness: A comparison of Internet-based and mail surveys. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 34(1), 46–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tse, A. C. B. (1999). Conducting electronic focus groups discussions among Chinese respondents. Journal of Market Research Society, 41, 407–415.Google Scholar
  34. Tse, H. S., & Fan, X. (2008). Comparing response rates from web and mail surveys: A meta-analysis. Field Methods, 20, 249–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Van Selm, M., & Jankowski, N. W. (2006). Conducting online surveys. Quality & Quantity, 40(3), 435−456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Suggested Further Readings

  1. Baker, R., Blumberg, S. J., Brick, J. M., Couper, M. P., Courtright, M., Dennis, M., Dillman, D, Frankel, M. R., Garland, P., Groves, R. M., Kennedy, C., Krosnick, J. & Lavrakas, P. J. (2010). Research synthesis. AAPOR report on online panels. Public Opinion Quarterly, 74, 711–781.Google Scholar
  2. Dillman, D. A. (2009). Internet, Mail, and Mixed Methods surveys: The tailored design method. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Sociology and AnthropologyUniversity of HaifaHaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations