Advances in Survey and Data Analysis Methods for Rural Social Scientists: An Introduction (2016)

A BRIEF HISTORY OF METHODOLOGICAL AND SURVEY RESEARCH BY RURAL SCIENTISTSThe stage was set for rural social scientists to affect survey and data analysis methods with the emergence of the discipline of rural sociology in the 1930s and, subsequently, through innovative studies such as the USDA's Rural Life Studies published in 1942-43. Perhaps the most influential work on social science methods is Don Dillman's (1978) book, Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method, and subsequent editions with the latest being Internet, Phone, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method (Dillman, Smyth, and Christian 2014). Although the 1978 volume brought prominence to the innovative research by rural social scientists, considerable research was conducted before and following its publication (e.g., Dillman et al. 1974).In the early 1980s, several rural sociologists convened a meeting in Tucson, Arizona, to share ideas about critical issues concerning survey methodology. One outcome was the establishment of a western region research project, W-183, supported by the USDA's Cooperative State Research Service. Although this was a regional project, rural sociologists and other social scientists from across the country participated. Every five years, the project was renewed until 2002 when it transitioned to the western region coordinating committee, WERA-1001, and later to the current committee, WERA-1010. Throughout the period the focus of the research has been on reducing error in rural and agricultural surveys.Research by the regional research project team and later by the coordinating committee members has addressed a myriad of issues, including question order in questionnaires (Carlson et al. 1995; Dillman et al. 1995; Lorenz, Saltiel, and Hoyt 1995; Willits and Saltiel 1995), comparison of survey modes and administration methods (Israel 2013; Lesser, Yang, and Newton 2011; Messer and Dillman 2011; Millar and Dillman 2011; Smyth et al. 2010), effectiveness of incentives and personalization on response rates (Dillman et al. 2007; Lesser et al. 2001), the influence of visual design on response behavior (Christian and Dillman 2004; Israel 2010), effects of check-all versus forced choice on response options (Smyth et al. 2006), and many more (e.g., Hildreth et al. 2013). Earlier this decade, WERA members collaborated on a series of papers addressing item nonresponse in an issue of Survey Practice (Dillman 2012; Israel and Lamm 2012; Lesser, Newton, and Yang 2012; Messer, Edwards, and Dillman 2012; Millar and Dillman 2012). The tradition of sharing research ideas and collaborating on studies continues with this special issue.OVERVIEW OF THE PAPERS IN THE SPECIAL ISSUEA diverse set of papers comprise this special issue with the majority focused on different approaches to gaining cooperation from the survey population. Given the challenge of decreasing response rates, Lesser, Newton, Yang and Sifneos report on several experiments testing ways to the increase response rate for the general population with mixed-mode (web+mail) surveys in comparison to telephone and mail modes. The authors tested several ideas, including the number of contacts with potential respondents (4 versus 5), sponsorship of the survey on correspondence letterhead, color of the survey cover, motivating messages about saving money, and information about how to respond via the web. Their findings will be helpful for researchers who are looking for ways to tailor web+mail mixedmode and mail surveys to maximize the response rate.The paper by Jackson-Smith and colleagues demonstrates the feasibility of large-scale implementation of the drop-off/pick-up method for collecting survey data. Although most previous applications of the method had been used in a few locations for a given study, their study was deployed in 23 neighborhoods across the rural-urban continuum. The neighborhood-level response rate ranging from 33 to 79 percent with the most urban locations having lower levels of participation. …