Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Designing the Face-to-Face Survey

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Handbook of Survey Methodology for the Social Sciences

Abstract

The face-to-face interview has several limitations. It requires more time and entails greater cost than other survey modes. It may yield data that mix variation originating in a respondent’s responses with variation across interview situations. However, it also has significant advantages over non-interview surveys and over non-personal interviews due to direct interpersonal interaction between the interviewer and interviewee. Two major paradigms of the survey interview encounter (Stimulus–response/information retrieval and Constructionist-collaborative) imply using alternative face-to-face interview formats (standardized or conversational) to maximize data quality and measurement reliability. The paradigms also suggest alternative paths for improving survey interviews, i.e., cognitive interviewing or conversational analysis. Exclusive reliance on the dominant stimulus–response/information-retrieval paradigm and strict adherence to a standardized format in face-to-face interviews may achieve high levels of behavioral consistency and it can also inhibit acquiring rich survey data with substantive consistency. A face-to-face survey with a flexible, conversational interview format, as supported by the constructionist-collaborative paradigm, may have lower behavior consistency but it can maximize substantive data consistency.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Alonso, W., & Starr, P. (Eds.). (1987). The politics of numbers. New York:Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Babbie, E. (1990). Survey research methods (2nd ed.). Belmonth CA:Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnes, J. A. (1979). Who should know what? social science, practice and ethics. New York:Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beatty, P. (2004). The dynamics of cognitive interviewing. In S. Presser, J. Rothgeb, M. Couper, J. Lesser, E. Martin, J. Martin & E. Singer (Eds.), Methods for testing and evaluating survey questionnaires (pp. 45–66). New York:Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beatty, P. C., & Willis, G. B. (2007). Research synthesis: the practice of cognitive interviewing. Public Opinion Quarterly, 71, 287–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blohm, M., Hox, J., & Koch, A. (2007). The influence of interviewers’ contact behavior on the contact and cooperation rate in face-to-face household surveys. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 19, 97–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradburn, N. M., & Sudman, S. (1988). Polls and surveys. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burawoy, M. (2005). For public sociology. American Sociological Review, 70, 4–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clawson, D., Zussman, R., Misra, J., Gerstel, N., & Stokes, R. (Eds.) (2007). Public sociology. Fifteen eminent sociologists debate politics and the profession in the twenty-first century. Berkeley:University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conrad, F. G. & Schober, M. F. (2000). Clarifying question meaning in a household telephone survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64, 1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Couper, M. P. (1997). Survey introductions and data quality. Public Opinion Quarterly, 61, 317–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Couper, M. P., Singer, E., & Tourangeau, R. (2003). Understanding the effects of audio-CASI on self-reports of sensitive behavior. Public Opinion Quarterly, 67, 385–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Czaja, R., & Blair, J. (2005). Designing surveys: A guide to decisions and procedures. Thousand Oaks, CA:Pine Forge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davern, M., Rockwood, T. H., Sherrod, R., & Campbell, S. (2003). Prepaid monetary incentives and data quality in face-to-face interviews. Public Opinion Quarterly, 67, 139–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Della Porta, D., & Keating, M. (Eds.). (2008). Approaches and methods in the social sciences: A pluralist perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillman, D. A., & Christian, L. M. (2005). Survey mode as a source of instability in responses across surveys. Field Methods, 17, 30–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunbar, C., Rodriquez, D., & Parker, L. (2002). Race, subjectivity and the interview process. In J. F. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interview research (pp. 279–297). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flores-Macias, F., & Lawson, C. (2008). Effects of interviewer gender on survey responses: findings from a household survey in Mexico. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 20, 100–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foddy, W. (1993). Constructing questions for interview and questionnaires: Theory and practice in social research. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fowler, F. J, Jr. (2009). Survey research methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gathman, E. C. H., Maynard, D. W., & Schaeffer, N. C. (2008). The respondents are all above average: Compliment sequences in a survey interview. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 41, 271–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groves, R. M., Presser, S., & Dipko, S. (2004). The role of topic interest in survey participation decisions. Public Opinion Quarterly, 68, 2–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groves, R. M., Singer, E., & Corning, A. (2000). Leverage-saliency theory of survey participation. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64, 299–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gubrium, J. F., & Holstein, J. A. (2002). From the individual interview to the interview society. In J. F. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interview research (pp. 3–31). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heerwegh, D. (2009). Mode differences between face-to-face and web surveys: an experimental investigation of data quality and social desirability effects. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 1, 111–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holbrook, A., Green, M. C., & Krosnick, J. A. (2003). Telephone versus face-to-face interviewing of national probability samples with long questionnaires. Public Opinion Quarterly, 67, 79–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Houtkoop-Steenstra, H. (2000). Interaction and the standardized survey interview: The living questionnaire. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kahn, R. L., & Cannell, C. F. (1957). The dynamics of interviewing: Theory, technique and cases. New York:Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krosnick, J. A. (1999). Survey research. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 537–567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krysan, M., Schuman, H., Scott, L., & Beatty, P. (1994). Response rates and response content in mail versus face-to-face surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 58, 381–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavin, D., & Maynard, D. W. (2001). Standardization vs. rapport: Respondent laughter and interviewer reaction during telephone surveys. American Sociological Review, 66, 453–479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynn, P. (2001). The impact of incentives on response rates to personal interview surveys: Role and perceptions of interviewers. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 13, 326–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mathiowetz, N.A. (1998). Respondent expressions of uncertainty. Public Opinion Quarterly, 62, 47–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, T. S., & O’Brien, E., (2001). Interviewer refusal aversion training to increase survey participation. Proceedings of the annual meeting of the American Statistical Association

    Google Scholar 

  • Maynard, D. W., Freese, J., & Schaeffer, N. C. (2010). Calling for participation requests, blocking moves and radical (Inter) action in survey introductions. American Sociological Review, 75, 791–814.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maynard, D. W., & Schaeffer, N. K. (2000). Toward a sociology of social scientific knowledge: Survey research and ethnomethodology’s asymmetric alternates. Social Studies of Science, 30, 323–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maynard, D. W., & Schaeffer, N. K. (2002). Standardization and Its discontents. In D. W. Maynard, H. Houtkoop-Steenstra, N. C. Schaeffer, & J. van der Zouwen (Eds.), Standardization and tacit knowledge (pp. 3–45). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mishler, E. G. (1986). Research interviewing: Context and narrative. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, R. J., & Maynard, D. W. (2002). Achieving understanding in the standardized interview repair sequences. In D. W. Maynard, H. Houtkoop-Steenstra, N. C. Schaeffer, & J. van der Zouwen (Eds.), Standardization and tacit knowledge (pp. 281–311). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moors, G. (2008). Exploring the effect of middle response category on response style in attitude measurement. Quality & Quantity, 42, 779–794.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neuman, W. L. (2011). Social research methods: Quantitative and qualitative approaches (7th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Odenahl, T., & Shaw, A. M. (2002). Interviewing elites. In J. F. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interview research (pp. 299–316). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oishi, S. M. (2002). How to conduct in-person interviews for surveys (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson, K., & Peytchev, A. (2007). Effect of interviewer experience on interview pace and interviewer attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 71, 273–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peytchev, A. (2009). Survey breakoff. Public Opinion Quarterly, 73, 74–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollner, M., & Adams, R. E. (1997). The effects of spouse presence on appraisals of emotional support and household strain. Public Opinion Quarterly, 61, 615–626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, T. M. (1995). Trust in numbers. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Presser, S., Rothgeb, J., Couper, M., Lesser, J., Martin, E., Martin, J., & E. Singer. (2004). The dynamics of cognitive interviewing. In S. Presser, J. Rothgeb, M. Couper, J. Lesser, E. Martin, J. Martin & E. Singer (Eds.) Methods for testing and evaluating survey questionnaires (pp. 45–66). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinharz, S., & Chase, S. E. (2002). Interviewing women. In J. F. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interview research (pp. 221–235). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosen, J., Murphy, J., Peytchev, A., Riley, S., & Lindblad, M. (2011). The effects of differential interviewer incentives on a field data collection effort. Field Methods, 23, 24–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossi, P. H., Wright, J. D., & Anderson, A. B. (Eds.). (1983). Handbook of survey research. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sala, E., Uhrig, S. C. N., & Lynn, P. (2011). It is time computers do clever things!: The impact of dependent interviewing on interviewer burden. Field Methods, 23, 3–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaeffer, N. C., & Maynard, D. W. (2002). Standardization and interaction in the survey interview. In J. F. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interview research (pp. 577–597). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaeffer, N. C., & Presser, S. (2003). The science of asking questions. Annual Review of Sociology, 29, 65–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaeffer, N. C., & Thomson, E. (1992). The discovery of grounded uncertainty: Developing standardized questions about strength of fertility motivation. Sociological Methodology, 22, 37–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaffer, N. C. (2002). Conversation with a purpose—or conversation? Interaction in the standardized interview. In D. W. Maynard, H. Houtkoop-Steenstra, N. C. Schaeffer, & J. van der Zouwen (Eds.), Standardization and tacit knowledge (pp. 95–123). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schegloff, E. A. (1990). Interactional troubles in face-to-face survey interviews: Comment. Journal of American Statistical Association, 85, 248–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schober, M. F., & Conrad, F. G. (1997). Does conversational interviewing reduce survey measurement error? Public Opinion Quarterly, 61, 576–602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schober, M. F., & Conrad, F. G. (2002). A collaborative view of standardized survey interviews. In D. W. Maynard, H. Houtkoop-Steenstra, N. C. Schaeffer, & J. van der Zouwen (Eds.), Standardization and tacit knowledge (pp. 67–94). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwalbe, M. L., & Wolkomir, M. (2002). Interviewing men. In J. F. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interview research (pp. 203–219). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinibaldi, J., Jackle, A., Tipping, S. & Lynn, P. (2009). Interviewer characteristics, their doorstep behavior, and survey co-operation. American Association for Public Opinion Research annual meeting, (May 2009).

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinmerz, G. (Ed.). (2005). The politics of method in the human sciences: Positivism and its epistemological others. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suchman, L., & Jordan, B. (1990). Interactional troubles in face-to-face survey interviews. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 85, 232–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suchman, L., & Jordan, B. (1992). Validity and the collaborative construction of meaning in face-to-face surveys. In J. Tanur (Ed.), Questions about questions: inquiries into the cognitive bases of surveys (pp. 241–267). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sudman, S., & Bradburn, N. M. (1983). Asking questions: A practical guide to questionnaire design. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sudman, S., Bradburn, N. M., & Schwarz, N. (1996). Thinking about answers: The application of cognitive processes to survey research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tourangeau, R. (2003). Cognitive aspects of survey measurement and mismeasurement. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 15, 3–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tourangeau, R. (2004). Survey research and societal change. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 775–801.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tourangeau, R., Groves, R. M., & Redline, C. D. (2010). Sensitive topics and reluctant respondents. Public Opinion Quarterly, 74, 413–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tourangeau, R., Rips, L. J., & Rasinski, K. (2000). The psychology of survey response. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tourangeau, R., & Smith, T. W. (1996). Asking sensitive questions: The impact of data collection mode, question format, and question context. Public Opinion Quarterly, 60, 275–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tourangeau, R., & Yang, T. (2007). Sensitive questions in surveys. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 859–883.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weisberg, H. F. (2005). The total survey error approach: A guide to the new science of survey research. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • West, B. T., & Olson, K. (2010). How much of interviewer variance is really nonresponse error variance? Public Opinion Quarterly, 74, 1004–1026.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willis, G. B. (2004). Cognitive interviewing revisited: A useful technique in theory? In S. Presser, J. Rothgeb, M. Couper, J. Lesser, E. Martin, J. Martin, & E. Singer (Eds.), Methods for testing and evaluating survey questionnaires (pp. 23–44). New York: Wiley.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Willis, G. B. (2005). Cognitive interviewing: A tool for improving questionnaire design. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willson, S., Stussman, B., Maitland, A., & Nahin, R. L. (2009). Role of self-concept in answering survey questions on complementary and alternative medicine: Challenges to and strategies for improving data quality. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 15, 1319–1325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wortham, S., Mortimer, K., Lee, K., Allard, E., & White, K. D. (2011). Interviews as interactional data. Language in Society, 40, 39–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zipp, J. F., & Toth, J. (2002). She said, he said, they said: The impact of spousal presence in survey research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 66, 177–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zouwen, J., Smit, J., & Draisma, S. (2010). The effect of the question topic on interviewer behavior: An interaction analysis of control activities of interviewers. Quality & Quantity, 44, 71–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology, Anthropology and Criminal Justice , Asian Studies, University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, Whitewater, WI, USA

    W. Lawrence Neuman

Authors
  1. W. Lawrence Neuman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to W. Lawrence Neuman .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York, Tenth Ave. 899, New York, 10019, New York, USA

    Lior Gideon

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Neuman, W.L. (2012). Designing the Face-to-Face Survey. In: Gideon, L. (eds) Handbook of Survey Methodology for the Social Sciences. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3876-2_14

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation