RESEARCH METHOD COHEN ok

334 QUESTIONNAIRES
Deliberately loading the question so that
overstatements of socially desirable behaviour
and understatements of socially undesirable
behaviour are reduced might be a useful means
of eliciting information.
With regard to socially undesirable behaviour,
it might be advisable first to ask whether
the respondent has engaged in that behaviour
previously, and then move to asking about his
or her current behaviour. By contrast, when
asking about socially acceptable behaviour
the reverse might be true, i.e. asking about
current behaviour before asking about everyday
behaviour.
In order to defuse threat, it might be useful to
locate the sensitive topic within a discussion
of other more or less sensitive matters, in order
to suggest to respondents that this issue might
not be too important.
Use alternative ways of asking standard
questions, for example sorting cards, or putting
questions in sealed envelopes, or repeating
questions over time (this has to be handled
sensitively, so that respondents do not feel
that they are being ‘checked’), and in order to
increase reliability.
Ask respondents to keep diaries in order to
increase validity and reliability.
At the end of an interview ask respondents
their views on the sensitivity of the topics that
have been discussed.
If possible, find ways of validating the data.
Indeed, Sudman and Bradburn (1982: 86) suggest
that, as the questions become more threatening
and sensitive, it is wise to expect greater bias and
unreliability. They draw attention to the fact that
several nominal, demographic details might be
considered threatening by respondents (Sudman
and Bradburn 1982: 208). This has implications for
their location within the questionnaire (discussed
below). The issue here is that sensitivity and threat
are to be viewed through the eyes of respondents
rather than the questionnaire designer; what might
appear innocuous to the researcher might be
highly sensitive or offensive to participants. We
refer readers to Chapter 5 on sensitive educational
research.
Avoiding pitfalls in question writing
Although there are several kinds of questions that
can be used, there are some caveats about the
framing of questions in a questionnaire (see http://
www.routledge.com/textbooks/9780415368780 –
Chapter 15, file 15.11. ppt):
Avoid leading questions, that is, questions
that are worded (or their response categories
presented) in such a way as to suggest to
respondents that there is only one acceptable
answer, and that other responses might
or might not gain approval or disapproval
respectively. For example:
Do you prefer abstract, academic-type courses, or
down-to-earth, practical courses that have some
pay-off in your day-to-day teaching
The guidance here is to check the ‘loadedness’
or possible pejorative overtones of terms or
verbs.
Avoid highbrow questions even with sophisticated
respondents. For example:
What particular aspects of the current positivistic/interpretive
debate would you like to see
reflected in a course of developmental psychology
aimed at a teacher audience
Where the sample being surveyed is representative
of the whole adult population,
misunderstandings of what researchers take to
be clear, unambiguous language are commonplace.
Therefore it is important to use clear and
simple language.
Avoid complex questions. For example:
Would you prefer a short, non-award-bearing
course (3, 4 or 5 sessions) with part-day release
(e.g. Wednesday afternoons) and one evening per
week attendance with financial reimbursement
for travel, or a longer, non-award-bearing course
(6, 7 or 8 sessions) with full-day release, or
the whole course designed on part-day release
without evening attendance