Survey 2.0. Survey research in the digital age

Author/s Sergio Mauceri, Maria Paola Faggiano, Luca Di Censi
Publishing Year 2020 Issue 2020/121 Language Italian
Pages 24 P. 25-48 File size 256 KB
DOI 10.3280/SR2020-121002
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

In addition to evaluating the advantages and limits of the web survey, the authors present three particularly fruitful empirical studies, with different research designs. The studies all investigate complex social problems: an open web survey on voting intentions, an e-mail survey on the quality of university life, and a closed web survey conducted in delimited contexts on technology addiction. On the basis of these research experiences, the authors reach stimulating conclusions regarding integration strategies in the web survey design, which can be adopted in succession or concurrently: a) mixed-modes of data collection; b) Mixed Methods Research; c) inclusion of a preliminary pilot study; d) multilevel survey.

  1. L.R. Atkeson, A.N. Adams, L.A. Bryant, L. Zilberman, K. Saunders (2011), «Considering Mixed Mode Surveys for Questions in Political Behavior: Using the Internet and Mail to Get Quality Data at Reasonable Costs», Political Behavior, XXXIII, 1, pp. 161-78,
  2. M.P. Couper (2005), «Technology Trends in Survey Data Collection», Social Science Computer Review, XXIII, 4, pp. 486-501, DOI: 10.1177/0894439305278972
  3. M.P. Couper (2011), «The Future of Modes of Data Collection», The Public Opinion Quarterly, LXXV, 5, pp. 889-908,
  4. F. Dandurand, T.R. Shultz, K.H. Onishi (2008), «Comparing Online and Lab Methods in a Problem-solving Experiment», Behavior Research Methods, 40, pp. 428-34, DOI: 10.3758/BRM.40.2.428
  5. W. Deming, W. Edwards (1944), «On Errors in Surveys», American Sociological Review, IX, 4, pp. 359-69, DOI: 10.2307/2085979
  6. G. Di Franco (2010), Il campionamento nelle scienze umane. Teoria e pratica, Milano, FrancoAngeli.
  7. L. Garton, C. Haythornthwaite, B. Wellman (1999), Studying Online Social Networks, in S. Jones (ed.), Doing Internet Research: Critical Issues and Methods for Examining the Net, Thousand Oaks (CA), Sage.
  8. G. Gobo, S. Mauceri (2014), Constructing Survey Data. An Interactional Approach, London, Sage Publications.
  9. R.M. Groves, R.L. Kahn (1979), Surveys by Telephone: A National Comparison with Personal Interviews, New York, Academic Press.
  10. F. Guerrini, L. Formenti, P. Duregon, M. Fontana, M. Forlani, L. Canafoglia, K. Salemi, A. Bellicoso, R. Lavilla, L. Vignati (2016), «Comparazione tra nativi digitali e adulti nell’approccio alla “rete”: analisi delle differenze e del rischio di Iad. Un’indagine Asl Milano 1», Mission, XIII, 45, pp. 62-66,
  11. D. Heervegh, G. Loosveldt (2008), «Face-to-Face versus Web Surveying in a High-Internet-Coverage Population. Differences in Response Quality», The Public Opinion Quarterly, LII, 5, pp. 836-846,
  12. D. Heervegh, T. Vanhove, K. Maatthijs, G. Loosveldt (2005), «The Effect of Personalization on Response Rates and Data Quality in Web Surveys», International Journal of Social Research Methodology, VIII, 2, pp. 85-99, DOI: 10.1080/1364557042000203107
  13. J.R. Hochstim (1967), «A Critical Comparison of Three Strategies of Collecting Data from Households», Journal of the American Statistical Association, 62, pp. 976-89, DOI: 10.2307/2283686
  14. C.M. Kehoe, J.E. Pitkow (1996), «Surveying the territory: Gvu’s five Www user surveys», World Wide Web Journal. -- Retrieved, Technical Papers [also online],
  15. N. E. Kiernan, M. Kiernan, M.A. Oyler, C.Gilles (2005), «Is a Web Survey as Effective as a Mail Survey? A Field Experiment Among Computer Users», American Journal of Evaluation, XXVI, 2, pp. 245-52, DOI: 10.1177/1098214005275826
  16. F. Kreuter, S. Presser, R. Tourangeau (2008), «Social Desiderability Bias in Cati, Ivr and Web Surveys. The Effects of Mode and Question Sensitivity», The Public Opinion Quarterly, LXXII, 5, pp. 847-865,
  17. P.F. Lazarsfeld, H. Menzel (1961), On the Relation between Individual and Collective Prop-erties, in A. Etzioni (ed.), Complex Organizations. A Sociological Reader, New York, Rinehart & Winston; tr. it., Relazioni tra proprietà individuali e proprietà collettive, in P.F. Lazarsfeld, Metodologia e ricerca sociologica, Bologna, il Mulino, 1967.
  18. H. Lindhjem, S. Navrud (2011), «Using Internet in Stated Preference Surveys: A Review and Comparison of Survey Modes», International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, 5, pp. 309-351, DOI: 10.1561/101.00000045
  19. L. Lyberg, D. Kasprzyk (1991), Data Collection Methods and Measurement Error: An Over-view, in P.P. Biemer, R.M. Groves, L.E. Lyberg, N.A. Mathiowetz, S. Sudman (eds.), Measurement Errors in Surveys, New York, John Wiley & Sons.
  20. C. Lombardo, M.P. Faggiano (a c. di) (2019), E-lettori. I risultati di una web survey alla vigilia delle politiche 2018 in Italia, Milano, FrancoAngeli.
  21. L. Lombi (2015), Le web survey, Milano, FrancoAngeli.
  22. A. Marradi (1997), Casuale e rappresentativo: ma cosa vuole dire?, in P. Ceri, a c. di, 1997, Politica e sondaggi, Torino, Rosenberg&Sellier.
  23. C. Marta-Pedroso, H. Freitas, T. Domingos (2007), «Testing for the Survey Mode Effect on Contingent Valuation Data Quality: A Case Study of Web Based versus In-Person Interviews», Ecological Economics, 62, pp. 388-398,
  24. S. Mauceri (2003), Per la qualità del dato nella ricerca sociale. Strategie di progettazione e conduzione dell’intervista con questionario, Milano, FrancoAngeli.
  25. S. Mauceri (2012), «Per una survey integrata e multilivello. Le lezioni dimenticate della Columbia School», Sociologia e ricerca sociale, XXXIII, 99, pp. 22-65, DOI: 10.3280/SR2012-099003
  26. S. Mauceri (2017), «L’avvento dell’era dei Mixed Methods. Nuovo paradigma o deadline di un dibattito?», Sociologia e ricerca sociale, XXXVIII, 113, pp.40-61, DOI: 10.3280/SR2017-113002
  27. S. Mauceri (2018), «Mixed survey research. La funzione delle tecniche qualitative nella ricerca standard», Sociologia e ricerca sociale, XXXIX, 116, pp. 90-102, DOI: 10.3280/SR2018-116008
  28. S. Mauceri (2019), Qualità nella quantità. La survey research nell’era dei Mixed Methods, Milano, FrancoAngeli.
  29. S. Mauceri, A. Taddei (2015), Valutare la qualità della vita universitaria. Indagine sugli iscritti ai Corsi di laurea magistrale del CoRiS, Roma, --,
  30. M.M. Millar, D.A. Dillman (2011), «Improving Response to Web and Mixed-Mode Surveys», The Public Opinion Quarterly, LXXV, 2, pp. 249-69,
  31. A. Peytchev, M.P. Couper, S.E. McCabe, S.D. Crawford (2006), «Web Survey Design. Paging Versus Scrolling», The Public Opinion Quarterly, LXX, 4, pp. 596-607,
  32. M.C. Pitrone (2009), Sondaggi e interviste. Lo studio dell’opinione pubblica nella ricerca sociale, Milano, FrancoAngeli.
  33. H.T. Reis, S.D. Gosling (2010), Social Psychological Methods outside the Laboratory, in S.T. Fiske, D.T. Gilbert, G. Lindzey (eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology, New York, McGraw-Hill, 5th ed.
  34. M. Revilla (2010), «Quality in Unimode and Mixed-Mode Designs: A Multitrait-Multimethod Approach», Survey Research Methods, IV, 3, pp. 11-164.
  35. G. Riva (2014), Nativi digitali. Crescere e apprendere nel mondo dei nuovi media, Bologna, il Mulino.
  36. W. Schmidt (1997), «World-Wide Web Survey Research: Benefits, Potential Problems and Solutions», Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 29, pp. 274-279, DOI: 10.3758/BF03204826
  37. T.H. Shih, X. Fan (2008), «Comparing Response Rates from Web and Mail Surveys: A Meta-Analysis», Field Methods, XX, 3, pp. 249-271, DOI: 10.1177/1525822X08317085
  38. S. Sills, C. Song (2002), «Innovations in Survey Research: An Application of Web-Based Surveys», Social Science Computer Review, XX, 1, pp. 22-30, DOI: 10.1177/089443930202000103
  39. C.B. Smith (1997, June), «Casting the net: Surveying an Internet Population», Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, --,
  40. H. Taylor (2000), «Does Internet Research work? Comparing Electronic Survey Results with Telephone Survey», International Journal of Market Research, XLII, 1, pp. 51-63, DOI: 10.1177/147078530004200104
  41. P. Vicente, E. Reis (2010), «Using Questionnaire Design to fight Nonresponse Bias in Web Surveys», Social Science Computer Review, XXVIII, 2, pp. 251-67, DOI: 10.1177/0894439309340751
  42. J.H. Watt (1999), Internet systems for evaluation research, in G. Gay, T.L. Bennington (eds.), Information Technologies in Evaluation: Social, Moral, Epistemological, and Practical Implications, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.
  43. We Are Social & Hootsuite (2019), Global Digital 2018, --
  44. K.S. Young (1998), «Internet Addiction: The Emergence of a New Clinical Disorder», Cy-berPsychology & Behavior, I, 3, pp. 237-44,

Sergio Mauceri, Maria Paola Faggiano, Luca Di Censi, Survey 2.0. L’indagine con questionario nell’era digitale in "SOCIOLOGIA E RICERCA SOCIALE " 121/2020, pp 25-48, DOI: 10.3280/SR2020-121002