What are the probable reasons that respondents are unable to answer the questions asked by the interviewer? Also suggest the ways to overcome them.
What are the probable reasons that respondents are unable to answer the questions asked by the interviewer? Also suggest the ways to overcome them.
Ans.
Reasons that respondents are unable to answer the questions asked by the interviewer:
(1) They do not allow the respondent the opportunity to give a different response to those suggested.
(2) They ‘suggest answers that respondents may not have considered before.
With open-ended questions the respondent is asked to give a reply to a question in his/her own words. No answers are suggested.
Example: “What do you like most about this implement?” Open-ended questions have a number of advantages when utilised in a questionnaire :
(1) They allow the respondent to answer in his own words, with no influence by any specific alternatives suggested by the interviewer.
(2) They often reveal the issues which are most important to the respondent, and this may reveal findings which were not originally anticipated when the survey was initiated.
(3) Respondents can ‘qualify’ their answers or emphasis the strength of their opinions.
However, open-ended questions also have inherent problems which means they must be treated with considerable caution. For example:
(1) Respondents may find it difficult to articulate their responses ie., to properly and fully explain their attitudes or motivations.
(2) Respondents may not give a full answer simply because they may forget to mention important points. Some respondents need prompting or reminding of the types of answer they could give.
(3) Data collected is in the form of verbatim comments-it has to be coded and reduced to manageable categories. This can be time consuming for analysis and there are numerous opportunities for error in recording and interpreting the answers given on the part of interviewers.
(4) Respondents will tend to answer open questions in different ‘dimensions’. For example, the question: “When did you purchase your tractor?”, could elicit one of several responses, viz:
“A short while ago”.
“Last year”.
“When I sold my last tractor”.
“When I bought the farm”.
Such responses need to be probed further unless the researcher is to be confronted with responses that cannot be aggregated or compared.
It has been suggested that the open response-option questions largely eliminate the disadvantages of both the afore-mentioned types of question. An open response-option is a form of question which is both open-ended and includes specific response-options as well. For example,
What features of this implement do you like?
(i) Performance
(ii) Quality
(iii) Price
(iv) Weight
(v) Others mentioned:
The advantages of this type of question are twofold:
(1) The researcher can avoid the potential problems of poor memory or poor articulation by then subsequently being able to prompt the respondent into considering particular response options.
(2) Recording during interview is relatively straightforward. The one disadvantage of this form of question is that it requires the researcher to have a good prior knowledge of the subject in order to generate realistic/likely response options before printing the questionnaire. However, if this understanding is achieved the data collection and analysis process can be significantly eased.
Clearly there are going to be situations in which a questionnaire will need to incorporate all three forms of question, because some forms are more appropriate for seeking particular forms of response. In instances where it is felt the respondent needs assistance to articulate answers or provide answers on a preferred dimension determined by the researcher, then closed questions should be used. Open-ended questions should be used where there are likely to be a very large number of possible different responses (e.g., farm size), where one is seeking a response described in the respondent’s own words, and when one is unsure about the possible answer options. The mixed type of question would be advantageous in most instances where most potential response-options are known; where unprompted and prompted responses are valuable, and where the survey needs to allow for unanticipated responses.
There are a series of questions that should be posed as the researchers develop the survey questions themselves:
“Is this question sufficient to generate the required information?”
For example, asking the question “Which product do you prefer?” in a taste panel exercise will reveal nothing about the attribute(s) the product was judged upon. Nor will this question reveal the degree of preference. In such cases a series of questions would be more appropriate.
“Can the respondent answer the question correctly?”
(1) An inability to answer a question arises from three sources:
(2) Having never been exposed to the answer, eg., “How much does your husband earn?”
(3) Forgetting, e.g., What price did you pay when you last bought maize meal?
(4) An inability to articulate the answer: e.g. “What would you want to see in food preparation equipment?”
“Are there any external events that might bias response to the question?”
For example, judging the popularity of beef products shortly after a foot and mouth epidemic is likely to have an effect on the responses.
“Do the words have the same meaning to all respondents?”
For example, “How many members are there in your family?”
There is room for ambiguity in such a question since it is open to interpretation as to whether one is speaking of the immediate or extended family.
“Are any of the words or phrases loaded or leading in any way?”
For example, “What did you dislike about the product you have just tried?”
The respondent is not given the opportunity to indicate that there was nothing he/she disliked about the product. A less biased. approach would have been to ask a preliminary question along the lines of, “Did you dislike any aspect of the product you have just tried?”, and allow him/her to answer yes or no.
“Are there any implied alternatives within the question?”
The presence or absence of an explicitly stated alternative can have dramatic effects on responses. For example, consider the following two forms of a question asked of a Pasta-in-a-Jar’ concept test:
1. “Would you buy pasta-in-a-jar if it were locally available?”
2. “If pasta-in-a-jar and the cellophane pack you currently use were both available locally, would you :
(i) Buy only the cellophane packed pasta?
(ii) Buy only the pasta-in-a-jar product?
(iii) Buy both products?
The explicit alternatives provide a context for interpreting the true reactions to the new product idea. If the first version of the question is used, the researcher is almost certain to obtain a larger number of positive responses than if the second form is applied.
“Will the question be understood by the type of individual to be interviewed?”
It is good practice to keep questions as simple as possible. Researchers must be sensitive to the fact that some of the people he/she will be interviewing do not have a high level of education. Sometimes he/she will have no idea how well or badly educated the respondents are until he/she gets into the field. In the same way, researchers should strive to avoid long questions. The fewer words in a question the better. Respondents’ memories are limited and absorbing the meaning of long sentences can be difficult: in listening to something they may not have much interest in, the respondents’ minds are likely to wander, they may hear certain words but not others, or they may remember some parts of what is said but not all.
“Is there any ambiguity in my questions?”
The careless design of questions can result in the inclusion of two items in one question. For example: “Do you like the speed and reliability of your tractor?”
The respondent is given the opportunity to answer only ‘yes’ or ‘no’, whereas he might like the speed, but not the reliability, or vice versa. Thus it is difficult for the respondent to answer and equally difficult for the researcher to interpret the response.
The use of ambiguous words should also be avoided. For example: “Do you regularly service your tractor?”
The respondents’ understanding and interpretation of the term regularly’ will differ. Some may consider that regularly means once a week, others may think once a year is regular. The inclusion of such words again present interpretation difficulties for the researcher.
“Are any words or phrases vague?”
Questions such as “What is your income?” are vague and one is likely to get many different responses with different dimensions. Respondents may interpret the question in different terms, for example:
(1) hourly pay?
(2) weekly pay?
(3) yearly pay?
(4) income before tax?
(5) income after tax?
(6) income in kind as well as cash?
(7) income for self or family?
(8) all income or just farm income?
The researcher needs to specify the term’ within which the respondent is to answer.
“Are any questions too personal or of a potentially embarrassing nature?”
The researcher must be clearly aware of the various customs, morals and traditions in the community being studied. In many communities there can be a great reluctance to discuss certain questions with interviewers/strangers. Although the degree to which certain topics are taboo varies from area to area, such subjects as level of education, income and religious issues may be embarrassing and respondents may refuse to answer.
“Do questions rely on feats of memory?”
The respondent should be asked only for such data as he is likely to be able to clearly remember. One has to bear in mind that not everyone has a good memory, so questions such as Four years ago was there a shortage of labour? should be avoided.
Putting questions into a meaningful order and format
Opening questions: Opening questions should be easy to answer and not in any way threatening to THE respondents. The first question is crucial because it is the respondent’s first exposure to the interview and sets the tone for the nature of the task to be performed. If they find the first question difficult to understand, or beyond their knowledge and experience, or embarrassing in some way, they are likely to break off immediately. If, on the other hand, they find the opening question easy and pleasant to answer, they are encouraged to continue.
Question flow: Questions should flow in some kind of psychological order, so that one leads easily and naturally to the next. Questions on one subject, or one particular aspect of a subject, should be grouped together. Respondents may feel it disconcerting to keep shifting from one topic to another, or to be asked to return to some subject they thought they gave their opinions about earlier.
Question variety: Respondents become bored quickly and restless when asked similar questions for half an hour or so. It usually improves response, therefore, to vary the respondent’s task from time to time. An open-ended question here and there (even if it is not analysed) may provide much-needed relief from a long series of questions in which respondents have been forced to limit their replies to pre-coded categories. Questions involving showing cards/pictures to respondents can help vary the pace and increase interest.
Closing questions
It is natural for a respondent to become increasingly indifferent to the questionnaire as it nears the end. Because of impatience or fatigue, he may give careless answers to the later questions. Those questions, therefore, that are of special importance should, if possible, be included in the earlier part of the questionnaire. Potentially sensitive questions should be left to the end, to avoid respondents cutting off the interview before important information is collected.
In developing the questionnaire the researcher should pay particular attention to the presentation and layout of the interview form itself. The interviewer’s task needs to be made as straight-forward as possible.
(1) Questions should be clearly worded and response options clearly identified.
(2) Prescribed definitions and explanations should be provided. This ensures that the questions are handled consistently by all interviewers and that during the interview process the interviewer can answer/clarify respondents’ queries.
Ample writing space should be allowed to record open-ended answers, and to cater for differences in handwriting between interviewers.
