The End of the (Research) World As We Know It? Understanding and Coping With Declining Response Rates to Mail Surveys

193Citations
Citations of this article
175Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Mail surveys have long been a staple of social science research. Properly conducted, they can gather representative data about a population that provides important generalizations about that population. High response rates are one crucial element of this capacity to make such generalizations. Response rates to mail surveys–especially those targeting general populations–have declined substantially over the years, even when employing standard “best practices” such as carefully crafted and pretested instruments, good explanations of research purpose, and multiple contacts. Our research group has a unique capacity to speak to declining response rates, having implemented mail surveys on natural resource-related topics–using relatively similar methods–for more than 45 years. We present the results of a longitudinal analysis of response rates to 191 surveys we conducted between 1971 and 2017 (response rates and methodological specifics carefully recorded over this time), documenting the changes in response rates over the years, and the factors associated with these changes. Variables assessed include topic saliency, the nature of the sample, timing, length and complexity of the questionnaire, and others. We find that year of implementation is a strong predictor of response rate, net of these other factors. We use these findings as a base from which to engage a larger discussion about strategies that social science researchers might use, both in terms of continued modifications to mail survey approaches and in moving towards other research methods.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Stedman, R. C., Connelly, N. A., Heberlein, T. A., Decker, D. J., & Allred, S. B. (2019). The End of the (Research) World As We Know It? Understanding and Coping With Declining Response Rates to Mail Surveys. Society and Natural Resources, 32(10), 1139–1154. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2019.1587127

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free