NON‐RESPONSE IN SURVEY RESEARCH: EXPLICATION OF A TRANSLATIONAL TYPOLOGY
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/eb009795 |
| Pages | 169-174 |
| Date | 01 February 1978 |
| Published date | 01 February 1978 |
| Author | NICHOLAS NASH,WILLIAM J. DAVIS |
| Subject Matter | Education |
THE JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION
VOLUME XVI, NUMBER 2 OCTOBER, 1978
NON-RESPONSE IN SURVEY RESEARCH: EXPLICATION
OF A TRANSLATIONAL TYPOLOGY
NICHOLAS NASH AND WILLIAM J. DAVIS
A continuing limitation of
survey
research is the problem of
non-response.
Survey research
is also likely to be more, rather than less, troubled by the surprising upsurge in the
use of more complex prevarication systems. In a searching examination of the results
of their survey authors Nash and Davis categorize prevarication statements made by
professors and by their secretaries. More detailed analysis reveals three categories of
prevarication systems—the red tape rationale, the elegant kafuffle and the competency-
based cookie crumbier.
INTRODUCTION1
In recent years researchers have become increasingly concerned with
the difficulty of persuading potential respondents in survey research to
complete and return a survey form which is often relatively elementary.
Sample sizes, already limited because of a lack of research funds, have
begun to test the limits of credulity, especially as this deficiency is dealt
with at great length in research reports.2
Previous unpublished3 and perhaps unsupported explanations for survey
non-response include apathy, failures of the mail system, and loss of
survey forms. Extensive review of the methodologies of the studies
producing these
findings
indicated that they suffered from two deficiencies:
(1) low response rates, and (2) dubious veracity of the respondents.
This latter weakness seemed especially problematic in reflecting on
our own behavior as survey respondents.
Therefore, we determined to explore the perceptions of potential
subjects as to why they had not responded to a particular survey request
concomitant to measuring the extent of the discrepancy between truth
and prevarication.4
This article was first published in The Journal of
Irreproducible
Results (24,3) and is
reproduced here with the kind permission of publisher and authors. Coincidentally the
authors of the Journal of
Educational
Administration received their copy of the paper
on April 1st, 1978. NICHOLAS NASH holds a diploma from the Excelsior School of
Driver Training in the United States. He prefers wooden coat hangers to metal ones, owns
two Scottish terriers, and collects paper sacks as a hobby. Dr. Nash is also Associate
Director of U.C.E.A. in Columbus, Ohio and about to become Vice-President of
Programming for the Public Radio Network in his native state of Minnesota. WILLIAM
J. DAVIS is the spouse of Anne S. Davis who is an Assistant Professor of Statistics at
Macquette University in the United States. Her major research interests lie in the
development of Inverse Gaussian distribution and Time-Series analysis. Dr. Davis is also
Assistant Professor of Educational Administration at the University of Wisconsin at
Madison.
To continue reading
Request your trial