“Dark Answer” Factories or Four Negative Features of Modern Opt-in Online Panels
EDN: YMCUPJ
Abstract
In 2018, the Laboratory for Social Research Methodology (The Institute for Social Analysis and Forecasting, RANEPA) held a series of expert interviews with managers and experts from companies operating in the online research market. The topic of discussion was the online opt-in panel as the most popular and dynamic method of conducting online surveys. There are four negative features that characterize modern Russian online panels. First, there is a prevalence of legal descriptions of facts and social phenomena as opposed to experimental means of observation. Formalism and standardization of procedures work to redefine social and methodological facts into legal ones. According to the latter, quality is determined by compliance with a preestablished procedure and legal norms, but not with common sense or scientific criteria. Second, panel surveys are oversaturated with falsified data and answers formulated in an ironic, playsome manner that does not meet the requirements of the survey industry. The basic psychological state of all survey participants is distrust towards each other’s sincerity. The game of obscuring mistrust is peculiar to the culture of falsification aimed at legitimizing the established order. Third, there is an already formed institution of evading errors, ignoring and silencing regular shifts, editing and cleaning arrays without preserving the original traces of falsification. Finally, the main actors of the research market demonstrate the mechanics of blackout data and significantly reduce the heu-risticity of the information received. The critical description of the online panels presented in the article aims to rethink the development of digital research in the survey industry, identifying challenges and opportunities for the methodological culture of data collection and analysis.
About the Author
Dmitry M. RogozinRussian Federation
PhD in sociology, Head of the Laboratory for Social Research Methodology
References
1. Adamu B., Berks D. (2016) Ispol’zovanie issledovatel’skih igr vmesto gejmificirovannyh oprosov. Vliyanie metoda issledovatel’skih igry na vovlechennost’ respondentov i veroyatnost’ ih budushchego uchastiya v podobnyh proektah [Using research games instead of gamified surveys. The influence of the method of research games on the involvement of respondents and the likelihood of their future participation in such projects]. Onlajn issledovaniya v Rossii: tendencii i perspektivy [Online Research in Russia: Trends and Prospects]. Pod red. A.V. SHashkina, I.F. Devyatko, S.G. Davydova. M.: Izd-vo MIK: 267-322.
2. Brick J.M., Frankel M.R., Dillman D.A., Groves R., et al. (2010) Research synthesis AAPOR report on online panels. Public Opinion Quarterly. 74(4): 711-781.
3. Comley P. (2005) Understanding the online panelist / Worldwide panel research: Development and progress. Amsterdam: ESOMAR.
4. Couper M.P. (2000) Web surveys: A review of issues and approaches. Public Opinion Quarterly. 64(4): 464-494.
5. Couper M.P. (2017) New developments in survey data collection. Annual Review of Sociology. 43: 121-145.
6. Keusch F. (2015) Why do people participate in web surveys? Applying survey participation theory to Internet survey data collection. Management Review Quarterly. 65: 183–216.
7. Martinsson, J., Dumitrescu D., Riedel K. (2017) Recruiting an online panel from another online survey: Consequences of framing and placement of the recruitment question. International Journal of Public Opinion Research. 29(2): 339-351.
8. Paas L.J., Morren M. (2018) Please do not answer if you are reading this: Respondent attention in online panels. Marketing Letters. 29(1): 13-21.
9. Poynter R., Comley P. (2003) Beyond online panels. Proceeding of the ESOMAR Technovate Conference. Amsterdam: ESOMAR, 2003.
10. Revilla M., Ochoa K., Turbina A. (2016) Novoe pokolenie onlajn-anket? Ispol’zovanie
11. preimushchestv interaktivnogo internet [The new generation of online profiles? Using the benefits of the interactive Internet]. Onlajn issledovaniya v Rossii: tendencii i perspektivy [Online Research in Russia: Trends and Prospects]. Pod red. A.V. SHashkina, I.F. Devyatko, S.G. Davydova. M.: Izd-vo MIK: 133-160.
12. Revilla M. (2017) Analyzing survey characteristics, participation, and evaluation across 186 surveys in an online opt-in panel in Spain. Methods Data Analysis. 11(2): 135-162.
13. Sarstedt M., Bengart P., Shaltoni A.M. et al. (2018) The use of sampling methods in advertising research: A gap between theory and practice. International Journal of Advertising. 39(4): 650-663.
14. Total survey error in practice (2017) Ed. by P. P. Biemer, E. de Leeuw, S. Eckman, B. Edwards, F. Kreuter, L. E. Lyberg, N. C. Tucker, B. T. West. New York: Wiley.
Review
For citations:
Rogozin D.M. “Dark Answer” Factories or Four Negative Features of Modern Opt-in Online Panels. Sociology of Power. 2018;30(3):38-53. (In Russ.) EDN: YMCUPJ