Download Survey Research by Klandermans Bert

SURVEY RESEARCH
Bert Klandermans,
VU-University
Word count 2000 (excl. refs and cross refs)
Survey research is a frequently employed research design in social movement studies (Crist
and McCarthy 1996). As there are quite a few excellent source books for researchers who
want to apply survey methodology (e.g. Robson 1993), I will restrict myself to specificities of
survey research in the context of social movement studies (see Klandermans and Smith 2002
for a detailed discussion).
In social movement research, survey-techniques are employed both with individuals and
organizations as the unit of analysis. In the prototypical individual survey a sample of
individuals fills in a questionnaire encompassing questions about knowledge, beliefs,
attitudes, behavior, demographics and other personal characteristics. In an organizational
survey spokespersons of social movement organizations are questioned about their
organization's structure, resource acquisition and allocation, tactics, policy and the like.
Survey research can use cross-sectional or more sophisticated longitudinal or
comparative designs. While intellectually more demanding and more costly, survey designs
that draw comparisons across movements, space, or time provide empirical leverage that can
help advance theories of social movements. The intelligent use of such designs turns surveys
into a powerful tool for the study of social movements.
The Use of Survey Research in the Study of Social Movements
The most frequent use of surveys is for description: the description of members, of
participants, of potential participants, of different types of participants (male/female,
black/white, young/old, etc.), and of their opponents. The key-questions of this type of
research are who participates and who doesn't? and, do different types of participants have
different motives to participate? Sometimes these studies are simple descriptions and
sometimes they root in theories that are tested against survey responses. An example of the
latter is Opp's work within a rational choice theoretical framework on the anti-nuclear power
movement in Germany (1989) and of the democratization movement in former Eastern
Germany (Opp & Gern 1993). The problem with such studies is that often they lack a proper
standard of comparison. In order to understand the dynamics of participation one needs to
compare participants with non-participants. It is not enough to assert all kinds of
characteristics of participants, one needs to know whether such characteristics are typical for
participants or not. But what is a proper comparison? Participation is a process that can be
conceived in four steps (Klandermans and Oegema 1987). Each step can be thought of as a
crossroad where people can move toward or away from participation: becoming a
sympathizer or not, becoming a target of a mobilization attempt or not, becoming motivated
to participate or not, and overcoming barriers to participation or not. Comparisons must be
made between people at the same crossroad, that is, between sympathizers and nonsympathizers, between targets and non-targets, between those who are motivated and those
who are not, between those who did overcome barriers and those who didn't. If we don't
separate these comparisons, our comparison of participants with non-participants
encompasses each of the four types of non-participation and thus is blurred.
But there is more to comparison than distinguishing participants from non-participants. I
maintain that it is far more informative to survey several smaller samples in a comparative
design, than one large sample non-comparatively. Six times fifty interviews with two different
groups of informants at three points in time will tell us considerably more about movement
participation than three hundred interviews with one group at a single point in time. It is such
comparisons that help us to understand movement participation. After all, movement
participation is a process, and we cannot investigate a process with a single shot measure.
Comparative designs may incorporate comparisons of movements, comparisons of
movements across space or time, or some combination of these comparisons. Such
comparisons are rare. Yet, comparative research of movement participation is important. It
tells us that what holds for a participant in the one movement or at the one point in time, or at
one place is not necessarily true for a participant in the other. Comparisons across different
social movements are uncommon. One example we find is Klandermans’s (1993) comparison
of participants in the labor movement, the peace movement and the women's movement. This
comparison used similar measurements and concepts within a unified theoretical framework
and found that a different mix of motives spurred participation in each of these movements.
Comparisons of space are the most common. The surveys by Opp and others in
Germany, Israel, and Peru (1995) are examples. These authors investigated participation in
legal and illegal protest in the three countries. Their results suggest that the simple association
between ideology and protest behavior can vary widely according to country context.
Findings like this demonstrate the importance of comparison of space.
Comparisons of time are equally important, as levels of participation tend to go up and
down. Klandermans’s research on the peace movement provides a dramatic example. In June
1985, he and his colleagues interviewed samples of the Dutch population. Sixty-nine percent
said that they would sign a petition against the deployment of cruise missiles in the
Netherlands. The interviews were repeated again in November, when just two thirds of those
who said that they would sign, reported that indeed they signed. Of the initial petition
supporters remaining, two fifths indicated that in fact they wanted to sign but failed to do so,
but three fifths said that they had never wanted to sign. Had we only interviewed our sample
in November, we would not have found this group of people who changed their positions
completely (Oegema and Klandermans 1994).
How is survey research done?
The first decision a researcher must make when considering a survey research design is what
unit of analysis is most appropriate to the questions being asked. Obviously a first choice is
whether one is principally concerned with answering questions about individuals or
organizations.
Sampling. Once we have identified the unit of analysis for our study, we must find a sampling
frame. The real problem in social movement research is often the sampling frame (the list of
individuals or organizations that comprise the research population). Once we find an
appropriate sampling frame, sampling is a technical matter. Our research population can be
(some subset of) the general population or the participants in a social movement. If the
general population is the research population one can use a telephone book, postal codes,
postal addresses, or population registers as sampling frames. Far more complicated is it to
sample subsets of the population or movement participants. Often, reliable lists of individual
members of some subgroup are either not available or not accessible to third parties for
privacy reasons.
Sampling movement participants can be even more cumbersome as many movements
do not have reliable lists of participants. Sampling potential participants in order to find actual
participants is usually not very efficient. Actual participants amount only small proportions of
the mobilization potential. One may easily end up approaching ten to twenty potential
participants in order to find one active participant. Another option is to sample participants at
events: the people who attend a meeting, take part in a demonstration, sign a petition, and so
on. Apart from the technical problems of sampling participants at events it is obvious that the
kind of activity influences who participates. The people who attend a meeting are not
necessarily the same as the people who participate in the demonstration or who sign the
petition. Yet, all three are and probably see themselves as participants in the same movement.
Choosing the type of survey. Survey questionnaires can be mailed to respondents,
completed in face-to-face or telephone interviews (often computer assisted) or transmitted via
the Internet. Each of those techniques has its advantages and disadvantages.
(1) Costs. Face-to-face interviews are the most expensive form of data collection, and
the Internet is the cheapest option. Mailing questionnaires is cheaper than telephone
interviews, but the difference between the two is much smaller than one would be inclined to
believe, especially if the interviewers are inputting responses directly into a computer
database.
(2) Response rates. Each survey method influences response rates differently: face-toface interviews have the highest response rates, and mailed questionnaires the lowest.
Telephone interviews occupy a position in between, but nearer to face-to-face interviews than
to mailed questionnaires. So far, the Internet generates large unsystematic samples. If one
knows some characteristics of the population one can easily create a weighed sample out of
the response.
(3) Timing--surveys take time. However, telephone and Internet surveys can be
organized on much shorter notice than mail and face-to-face surveys. Someone who has
access to the appropriate facilities can organize a telephone or Internet survey almost
overnight. The Internet is by far the speediest form of data-collection.
(4) Substance--not every kind of question can be asked via each approach. For
example, knowledge cannot be assessed in mailed questionnaires or via Internet; open
questions fare better in interviews. Mailed questionnaires and questionnaires on the Internet
have the advantage that people can take their time and work on their response when it suits
them. Telephone interviews need to remain limited in length.
Response rates and nonresponse bias. Non-response threatens the reliability and
validity of our findings more than sample size. Therefore, researcher effort should emphasize
achieving high response rates rather than large samples. Indeed, it is better to draw a smaller
sample and aim at as high a response rate as possible, than to draw a large sample to
compensate for low response rates.
Questionnaire. The typical survey questionnaire in the social movement domain
encompasses a mixture of questions regarding knowledge, opinions and attitudes about the
movement and its goals; reported participation in movement activities in the past and intended
participation in the future; perceived costs and benefits of participation; ideology and identity;
affective components such as commitment to the movement, and demographic characteristics
such as gender, age, profession, income and education, position in social networks and
political affiliation. Organizational surveys might ask about an organization’s goals, structure
and procedures, strategies and activities, involvement with members or volunteers, and
resources. It would be worth the effort to standardize questionnaires. Indeed, one would be
able to compare the results from different studies even if different researchers, in different
places or on different movements conducted them.
Limitations and Advantages of Survey Research
Questions. Surveys are certainly not appropriate tools for addressing all research questions in
social movements. Research that takes the individual as its unit of analysis necessarily
restricts itself to the explanation of individual opinions, attitudes and behavior. It can help us
to understand why individuals participate in social movements once they have emerged, but is
not able to tell us much about the emergence of social movements.
Costs. Properly designed surveys are time-consuming, and they can be expensive. As most
survey costs cover telephone, mail, and personnel to interview or code or enter the data in the
computer, anything that can cut down on those items reduces costs.
Logistics. Organizing a survey cannot be done overnight. Designing and printing
questionnaires, making questionnaires ready for computer assisted interviewing or for use on
Internet, drawing samples, organizing a mailing or hiring interviewers are time-consuming
matters.
Information. One is dependent on what informants are prepared to tell us. The answers to our
questions can be socially desirable answers. There is no guarantee that people are telling the
truth. Although sometimes informants may provide false responses, attempts by survey
researchers to assess this potential problem revealed no indications that it takes place on a
large scale.
Quantitative method. Necessarily, the measures used in surveys are more superficial. Feelings
and emotions, people's uncertainties, doubts and fears, all the inconsistencies and the
complexities of s belief systems are matters that are not easily tapped with surveyquestionnaires.
However, if used properly, survey research is a powerful tool for the study of social
movements, especially if employed in comparative designs. Rather than conducting largescale, single shot surveys, researchers might put their time and resources to more productive
use by comparing smaller samples drawn from different movements, places or at different
points in time.
See also: political psychology and movements, comparative research, time and social
movements, organizations and movements, participation in social movements
References and suggested readings
Crist, John T. and John McCarthy. 1996. "If I Had a Hammer": The Changing
Methodological
Klandermans, Bert. 1993. A theoretical framework for comparisons of social movement
participation. Sociological Forum, 8:383-402.
Klandermans, Bert and Dirk Oegema. 1987. “Potentials, Networks, Motivations and Barriers:
Steps toward Participation in Social Movements.” American Sociological Review 5:519-531.
Klandermans, Bert and Jackie Smith. Survey Methods. A Case for Comparative Designs. Pp.
3-32 in Research Methods on Social Movements edited by Bert Klandermans and Suzanne
Staggenborg. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 2002.
Oegema, Dirk and Bert Klandermans. 1994. "Non-conversion and Erosion: The Unwanted
Effects of Action Mobilization." American Sociological Review. 59:703-722.
Opp, Karl-Dieter and Christiane Gern. 1993. "Dissident Groups, Personal Networks, and the
East German Revolution of 1989," American Sociological Review, 58: 659-680.
Opp, Karl-Dieter. 1989. The Rationality of Political Pro-test. Boulder: Westview.
Opp, Karl-Dieter, Steven E. Finkel, Edward N. Muller, Gadi Wolfsfeld, Henry Dietz and
Jerrold Green. 1995. "Left-Right Ideology and Collective Political Action: A comparative
Analysis of Germany, Israel and Peru." Pp. 63-96 in The Politics of Social Protest:
Comparative Perspectives on States and Social Movements, edited by J. Craig Jenkins and
Bert Klandermans
Robson, Collin. 1993. Real World Research. A Resource for Social Scientists and
Practitioner-Researchers. Oxford: Blackwell.