Survey design and analysis of commuter behavior patterns

¶ … administer a five-question survey whilst administering the survey using at least two different methods. The author did indeed compose the survey and administered it in person and via the internet. There were clear differences in response rates and the responses that were garnered from each method. The differences were not surprising but were noticeable and palpable nonetheless.

Response Rate

There was some resistance to each method but it manifested in very different ways. One of the methods used, as noted in the introduction, was in person. Some people were noticeably tepid and hesitant to engage the author and answer the questions. Perhaps they were shy or perhaps they were taken a bit aback by a stranger approaching them out of the blue and asking them questions. They also might have been concerned that the author was simply trying to sell them something. The author made it clear up from with the latter question/answer sessions that it was just a survey, that any question could be skipped if a candid answer was not going to be possible or preferred and that absolutely nothing was being sold or marketed. As for the Internet, drawing any sort of definitive conclusions is much harder but the overall response rate was indeed much lower. This is probably due to how suspicious people are of Internet and email surveys in general and how easy it is to just ignore a request and hit "delete" or close the window.

Answer Content Difference

The people on the internet that did respond were much more open and honest and gave much deeper answers. There were details and answers given on the internet that were not remotely close to much of the answers given in person. This was no doubt because of the lack of anonymity that exists with the in-person questions vs. The online questions. Perhaps it would have been more illustrative to require the people's name from the online survey (this was not done) to see if the openness was the same. It almost certainly would not have been the same for obvious reasons.

Conclusions from Analysis

As for what can be deciphered and figured out from the answers given for each method, the response rate from each method and the questions themselves, it is clear that people are much more on guard, at least in general, when meeting a stranger in person to answer questions. This was not true across the board as some people who answered the questions in person were quite candid and honest despite the fact that the author of this report could see and actively hear the person as well as read their facial expressions and remember their face. This reasoning continues to the questions as they were answered on the internet method.

However, while people were generally much more open on the internet interviews, there were some that did hold back and answered questions (if they answered them at all with any decent content and context) in short bursts and with close-ended statements rather than paint a full and complete picture of what was going on and why in the context of the question. The results, in terms of openness and completeness, were sort of the inverse of the in-person interviews. With the in-person methods, about two thirds of the respondents were very open and candid and one third were more reserved. With the internet surveys, it was quite the opposite. The same was true, as noted above, of the rate of response in that more people ignored or simply said "no" to the interview online than said it in person but people mostly definitely engaged in this denial using under both methods. The only main difference was the rate of denial on each method. The class text notes that a proper sample is necessary for proper and effective results and the fairly diminutive nature of this survey and the resources behind that made such formality a little difficult (Berman & Wang, 2011). To that end, perhaps a panel study would have been better since the sample is fixed and consistent (University of Texas, 2013).