Root, D and Blismas, N G (2003) Increasing questionnaire responses from industry: Practices surrounding the use of postal questionnaires. In: Greenwood, D J (ed.) Proceedings of 19th Annual ARCOM Conference, 3-5 September 2003, Brighton, UK.
Abstract
Postal surveys are used widely to gather data in construction management research at undergraduate and postgraduate level. This is in spite of generally poor response rates resulting in an attitude within the construction management community that rates of 20-25% are deemed acceptable. Due to the relatively scarce resources available to undergraduates and many postgraduates, large sample sizes become difficult to obtain casting serious doubts on the strength of the data collected contributing to concerns over the quality of the research that is being undertaken. This paper offers practical advice on how to maximize responses to postal surveys drawing on the experience of the authors over a number of construction management research projects. Whilst much literature exists in the area of questionnaire design, personal engagement and process simplification are identified as two key areas that researchers can focus on to increase response rates. Empirical evidence is presented from a number of projects to indicate the how response rates can be improved at limited cost in time and resources.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | practice; questionnaires; research methods; response rate; survey |
| Index terms: | management research, drawing, sample size, survey, postgraduate, undergraduate, evidence, questionnaire, simplification |
| Subjects: | higher education, management, curriculum development, technical documentation, research design and methodology, data collection methods, evaluation and assessment methods |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Education, Business Strategy, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here