↓ Skip to main content

Quantitative conversations: the importance of developing rapport in standardised interviewing

Overview of attention for article published in Quality & Quantity, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
62 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
158 Mendeley
Title
Quantitative conversations: the importance of developing rapport in standardised interviewing
Published in
Quality & Quantity, December 2014
DOI 10.1007/s11135-014-0144-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Karen Bell, Eldin Fahmy, David Gordon

Abstract

When developing household surveys, much emphasis is understandably placed on developing survey instruments that can elicit accurate and comparable responses. In order to ensure that carefully crafted questions are not undermined by 'interviewer effects', standardised interviewing tends to be utilised in preference to conversational techniques. However, by drawing on a behaviour coding analysis of survey paradata arising from the 2012 UK Poverty and Social Exclusion Survey we show that in practice standardised survey interviewing often involves extensive unscripted conversation between the interviewer and the respondent. Whilst these interactions can enhance response accuracy, cooperation and ethicality, unscripted conversations can also be problematic in terms of survey reliability and the ethical conduct of survey interviews, as well as raising more basic epistemological questions concerning the degree of standardisation typically assumed within survey research. We conclude that better training in conversational techniques is necessary, even when applying standardised interviewing methodologies. We also draw out some theoretical implications regarding the usefulness of the qualitative-quantitative dichotomy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 158 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Unknown 155 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 15%
Student > Master 18 11%
Student > Bachelor 14 9%
Researcher 13 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 7%
Other 26 16%
Unknown 52 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 35 22%
Business, Management and Accounting 17 11%
Psychology 10 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 6%
Sports and Recreations 5 3%
Other 29 18%
Unknown 53 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 September 2019.
All research outputs
#6,034,750
of 24,542,484 outputs
Outputs from Quality & Quantity
#120
of 676 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#76,277
of 363,043 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Quality & Quantity
#2
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,542,484 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 676 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 363,043 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.