Advertisement

Getting Data

  • Marko Sarstedt
  • Erik Mooi
Chapter
Part of the Springer Texts in Business and Economics book series (STBE)

Abstract

We first address the nuts-and-bolts questions of the data collection stage. How does one find secondary data and decide on their suitability? Can one best collect primary data through, for example, observations, questionnaires, or experiments if secondary data are unavailable? We thus provide the key theoretical concepts, choices, and practicalities associated with collecting data. We first discuss the practicalities of secondary data’s use, including their sources and availability, how to assess the inclusion of key variables, and the data’s validity and reliability. If secondary data are unavailable, outdated, or too costly, we show how to best collect your own data given the question you wish to study. Primary data collection styles, such as observations, survey questionnaires, and experiments, are reviewed and we provide a range of recommendations on the type of data to use for the relevant situation, or research question.

Keywords

Collecting Quantitative Data Internal Secondary Data Rank Order Scale Mobile Phone Surveys Market Research Firms 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Barnham, C. (2015). Quantitative and qualitative research: Perceptual foundations. International Journal of Market Research, 57(6), 837–854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baumgartner, H., & Steenkamp, J. B. E. M. (2001). Response styles in marketing research: A cross-national investigation. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2), 143−156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brace, I. (2004). Questionnaire design. How to plan, structure and write survey material for effective market research. London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  4. Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bronner, F., & Ton, K. (2007). The live or digital interviewer. A comparison between CASI, CAPI and CATI with respect to differences in response behaviour. International Journal of Market Research, 49(2), 167–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brosnan, K., Grpn, B., & Dolnicar, S. (2017). PC, phone or tablet? Use, preference and completion rates for web surveys. International Journal of Market Research, 59(1), 35–55.Google Scholar
  7. Cabooter, E., Weijters, B., Geuens, M., & Vermeir, E. (2016). Scale format effects on response option interpretation and use. Journal of Business Research, 69(7), 2574–2584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Casteleyn, J., André, M., & Kris, R. (2009). How to use facebook in your market research. International Journal of Market Research, 51(4), 439–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. DeMonaco, H. J., Ayfer, A., & Hippel, E. V. (2005). The major role of clinicians in the discovery of off-label drug therapies. Pharmacotherapy, 26(3), 323–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Deutskens, E., De Jong, A., De Ruyter, K., & Martin, W. (2006). Comparing the generalizability of online and mail surveys in cross-national service quality research. Marketing Letters, 17(2), 119–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method (4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  12. Fink, A. (2003) How to ask survey questions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Foddy, W. (1993). Constructing questions for interviews and questionnaires. Theory and practice in social science research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gneezy, A. (2017). Field experimentation in marketing research. Journal of Marketing Research, 54(1), 140–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Holbrook, A., Cho, Y. I. K., & Johnson, T. (2006). The impact of question and respondent characteristics on comprehension and mapping difficulties. Public Opinion Quarterly, 70(4), 565–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Houston, M. B. (2002). Assessing the validity of secondary data proxies for marketing constructs. Journal of Business Research, 57(2), 154–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kennedy, C., & Everett, S. E. (2011). Use of cognitive shortcuts in landline and cell phone surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 75(2), 336–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kurylko, D. T. (2005). Moonraker project seeks marketing savvy for VW. Automotive News Europe, 10(17), 22.Google Scholar
  19. Lietz, P. (2010). Research into questionnaire design. A summary of the literature. International Journal of Market Research, 52(2), 249–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Liu, M., Lee, S., & Conrad, F. G. (2016). Comparing extreme response styles between agree-disagree and item-specific scales. Public Opinion Quarterly, 79(4), 952–975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lynn, P., & Kaminska, O. (2013). The impact of mobile phones on survey measurement error. Public Opinion Quarterly, 77(2), 586–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mooi, E., & Gilliland, D. I. (2013). How contracts and enforcement explain transaction outcomes. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 30(4), 395–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mitchell, M. L., & Jolley, J. M. (2013). Research design explained (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  24. Nowlis, S. M., Kahn, B. E., & Dhar, R. (2002). Coping with ambivalence: The effect of removing a neutral option on consumer attitude and preference judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(3), 319–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Oppenheim, A. N. (1992). Questionnaire design, Interviewing and attitude measurement. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
  26. Peng, L., & Finn, A. (2016). Assessing response format effects on the scaling of marketing stimuli. International Journal of Market Research, 58(4), 595–619.Google Scholar
  27. Peterson, R. A. (1997). A quantitative analysis of rating-scale response variability. Marketing Letters, 8(1), 9–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Raithel, S., Sarstedt, M., Scharf, S., & Schwaiger, M. (2012). On the value relevance of customer satisfaction. Multiple drivers in multiple markets. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(4), 509–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rammstedt, B., & Krebs, D. (2007) Does response scale format affect the answering of personality scales? European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 23(1), 32–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Reips, U.-D., & Funke, F. (2008). Interval-level measurement with visual analogue scales in Internet-based research: VAS generator. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 699–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Revilla, M. (2015). Effect of using different labels for the scales in a web survey. International Journal of Market Research, 57(2), 225–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rindfleisch, A., & Heide, J. B. (1997). Transaction cost analysis: Past, present, and future applications. Journal of Marketing, 61(4), 30–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sarstedt, M., Diamantopoulos, A., Salzberger, T., & Baumgartner, P. (2016). Selecting single items to measure doubly concrete constructs: A cautionary tale. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 3159-3167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schilling, M. A. (2009). Understanding the alliance data. Strategic Management Journal, 30(3), 233–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stern, M. J., Bilgen, I., & Dillman, D. A. (2014). The state of survey methodology challenges, dilemmas, and new frontiers in the era of the tailored design, Field Methods, 26(3), 284–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Stieglitz, S., Dang-Xuan, L., Bruns, A., & Neuberger, C. (2014). Social media analytics, An interdisciplinary approach and its implications for information systems. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 6(2), 89−96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Swain, S. D., Weathers, D., & Niedrich, R. W. (2008). Assessing three sources of misresponse to reversed Likert items. Journal of Marketing Research, 45(1), 116−131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tourangeau, R., & Smith, T. W. (1996). Asking sensitive questions: the impact of data collection mode, question format, and question context. Public Opinion Quarterly, 60(2), 275–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Vesta Research. (2016). Rules of thumb for survey length. Vesta Research Blog. Available at: http://www.verstaresearch.com/blog/rules-of-thumb-for-survey-length/
  40. Vicente, P., & Reis, E. (2010). Marketing research with telephone surveys: Is it time to change? Journal of Global Marketing, 23(4), 321−332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Vincente, P., Reis, E., & Santos, M. (2008). Using mobile phones for survey research. International Journal of Market Research, 51(5), 613–633.Google Scholar
  42. Weijters, B., & Baumgartner, H. (2012). Misresponse to reversed and negated items in surveys: A review. Journal of Marketing Research, 49(5), 737–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Weijters, B., Cabooter, E., & Schillewaert, N. (2010). The effect of rating scale format on response styles: The number of response categories and response category labels. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 27(3), 236–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Weijters, B., Baumgartner, H., & Schillewaert, N. (2013). Reversed item bias: An integrative model. Psychological Methods, 18(3), 320–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Weng, L.-J. (2004). Impact of the number of response categories and anchor labels on coefficient alpha and test-retest reliability. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64(6), 956–972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Winkler, T. J., Sarstedt, M., Keil, M., & Rost, P. (2015). Selfsurvey.org: A platform for prediction-based benchmarking and feedback-enabled survey research. Proceedings of the European Conference on Information Systems, Paper 204, Münster, Germany.Google Scholar

Further Reading

  1. Barnham, C. (2015). Quantitative and qualitative research: Perceptual foundations. International Journal of Market Research, 57(6), 837–854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1966). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago: Wadsworth Publishing.Google Scholar
  3. Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Chicago, IL: Wadsworth Publishing.Google Scholar
  4. Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method (4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  5. FocusGroupTips.com.Google Scholar
  6. Gideon, L. (2012). The art of questionnaire phrasing. In: L. Gideon (Ed.), Handbook of survey methodology for the social sciences (pp. 91–108). New York, NJ: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hulland, J., Baumgartner, H., & Smith, K.M. (2018). Marketing survey research best practices: Evidence and recommendations from a review of JAMS articles. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46(1), 92–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lichters, M., Sarstedt, M., & Vogt, B. (2015). On the practical relevance of the attraction effect: a cautionary note and guidelines for context effect experiments. AMS Review, 5(1-2), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lietz, P. (2010). Current state of the art in questionnaire design: a review of the literature. International Journal of Market Research, 52(2), 249–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Morales, A. C., Amir, O., & Lee, L. (2017). Keeping it real in experimental research. Understanding when, where, and how to enhance realism and measure consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 44(2), 465–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Mystery Shopping Providers Association (www.mysteryshop.org).
  12. Norman, G. (2010). Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 15(5), 625–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Smyth, J.D., Olson, K., & Burke, A. (2018). Comparing survey ranking question formats in mail surveys. International Journal of Market Research, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  14. Veludo-de-Oliveira, T. M., Ikeda, A. A., & Campomar, M. C. (2006). Laddering in the practice of marketing research: Barriers and solutions. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 9(3), 297–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marko Sarstedt
    • 1
  • Erik Mooi
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty of Economics and ManagementOtto-von-Guericke- University MagdeburgMagdeburgGermany
  2. 2.Department of Management and MarketingThe University of MelbourneParkville, VICAustralia

Personalised recommendations