Equality of Participation Online Versus Face to Face: Condensed Analysis of the Community Forum Deliberative Methods Demonstration

Online deliberation may provide a more cost-effective and/or less inhibiting environment for public participation than face to face (F2F). But do online methods bias participation toward certain individuals or groups? We compare F2F versus online participation in an experiment affording within-participants and cross-modal comparisons. For English speakers required to have Internet access as a condition of participation, we find no negative effects of online modes on equality of participation (EoP) related to gender, age, or educational level. Asynchronous online discussion appears to improve EoP for gender relative to F2F. Data suggest a dampening effect of online environments on black participants, as well as amplification for whites. Synchronous online voice communication EoP is on par with F2F across individuals. But individual-level EoP is much lower in the online forum, and greater online forum participation predicts greater F2F participation for individuals. Measured rates of participation are compared to self-reported experiences, and other findings are discussed.Comment: 14 pages, 10 tables, to appear in Efthimios Tambouris, Panos Panagiotopoulos, {\O}ystein S{\ae}b{\o}, Konstantinos Tarabanis, Michela Milano, Theresa Pardo, and Maria Wimmer (Editors), Electronic Participation: Proceedings of the 7th IFIP WG 8.5 International Conference, ePart 2015 (Thessaloniki, August 30-September 2), Springer LNCS Vol. 9249, 201

Current Knowledge and Considerations Regarding Survey Refusals: Executive Summary of the AAPOR Task Force Report on Survey Refusals

The landscape of survey research has arguably changed more significantly in the past decade than at any other time in its relatively brief history. In that short time, landline telephone ownership has dropped from some 98 percent of all households to less than 60 percent; cell-phone interviewing went from a novelty to a mainstay; address-based designs quickly became an accepted method of sampling the general population; and surveys via Internet panels became ubiquitous in many sectors of social and market research, even as they continue to raise concerns given their lack of random selection. Among these widespread changes, it is perhaps not surprising that the substantial increase in refusal rates has received comparatively little attention. As we will detail, it was not uncommon for a study conducted 20 years ago to have encountered one refusal for every one or two completed interviews, while today experiencing three or more refusals for every one completed interview is commonplace. This trend has led to several concerns that motivate this Task Force. As refusal rates have increased, refusal bias (as a component of nonresponse bias) is an increased threat to the validity of survey results. Of practical concern are the efficacy and cost implications of enhanced efforts to avert initial refusals and convert refusals that do occur. Finally, though no less significant, are the ethical concerns raised by the possibility that efforts to minimize refusals can be perceived as coercive or harassing potential respondents. Indeed, perhaps the most important goal of this document is to foster greater consideration by the reader of the rights of respondents in survey research

A review of conceptual approaches and empirical evidence on probability and nonprobability sample survey research

There is an ongoing debate in the survey research literature about whether and when probability and nonprobability sample surveys produce accurate estimates of a larger population. Statistical theory provides a justification for confidence in probability sampling as a function of the survey design, whereas inferences based on nonprobability sampling are entirely dependent on models for validity. This article reviews the current debate about probability and nonprobability sample surveys. We describe the conditions under which nonprobability sample surveys may provide accurate results in theory and discuss empirical evidence on which types of samples produce the highest accuracy in practice. From these theoretical and empirical considerations, we derive best-practice recommendations and outline paths for future research

A Review of Conceptual Approaches and Empirical Evidence on Probability and Nonprobability Sample Survey Research

There is an ongoing debate in the survey research literature about whether and when probability and nonprobability sample surveys produce accurate estimates of a larger population. Statistical theory provides a justification for confidence in probability sampling as a function of the survey design, whereas inferences based on nonprobability sampling are entirely dependent on models for validity. This article reviews the current debate about probability and nonprobability sample surveys. We describe the conditions under which nonprobability sample surveys may provide accurate results in theory and discuss empirical evidence on which types of samples produce the highest accuracy in practice. From these theoretical and empirical considerations, we derive best-practice recommendations and outline paths for future research

A Review of Conceptual Approaches and Empirical Evidence on Probability and Nonprobability Sample Survey Research

There is an ongoing debate in the survey research literature about whether and when probability and nonprobability sample surveys produce accurate estimates of a larger population. Statistical theory provides a justification for confidence in probability sampling as a function of the survey design, whereas inferences based on nonprobability sampling are entirely dependent on models for validity. This article reviews the current debate about probability and nonprobability sample surveys. We describe the conditions under which nonprobability sample surveys may provide accurate results in theory and discuss empirical evidence on which types of samples produce the highest accuracy in practice. From these theoretical and empirical considerations, we derive best-practice recommendations and outline paths for future research

Protecting the integrity of survey research.

Although polling is not irredeemably broken, changes in technology and society create challenges that, if not addressed well, can threaten the quality of election polls and other important surveys on topics such as the economy. This essay describes some of these challenges and recommends remediations to protect the integrity of all kinds of survey research, including election polls. These 12 recommendations specify ways that survey researchers, and those who use polls and other public-oriented surveys, can increase the accuracy and trustworthiness of their data and analyses. Many of these recommendations align practice with the scientific norms of transparency, clarity, and self-correction. The transparency recommendations focus on improving disclosure of factors that affect the nature and quality of survey data. The clarity recommendations call for more precise use of terms such as representative sample and clear description of survey attributes that can affect accuracy. The recommendation about correcting the record urges the creation of a publicly available, professionally curated archive of identified technical problems and their remedies. The paper also calls for development of better benchmarks and for additional research on the effects of panel conditioning. Finally, the authors suggest ways to help people who want to use or learn from survey research understand the strengths and limitations of surveys and distinguish legitimate and problematic uses of these methods