Eksperymenty sondażowe w kontekście badań ewaluacyjnych

• Authors: Włodzimierz Okrasa

Title variants

Survey Experiments in the Context of Evaluation Research

• Languages of publication: PL

Abstracts

Tezą artykułu jest uznanie, że eksperyment sondażowy (...) stanowi proceduralny odpowiednik - na poziomie generowania danych - paradygmatycznej strategii rozumowania przyczynowego odnoszonej do danych obserwacyjnych, traktowanych na podobieństwo danych eksperymentalnych dzięki odpowiedniemu uzupełnieniu pierwszych przez drugie. Dokonywane w ten sposób projekcje na populację (poprzez sondaż) rezultatów eksperymentu - w praktyce najczęściej zbioru różniących się od siebie wersjami wielu eksperymentów - oparte są na założeniu, że to, co wydarzy się w eksperymencie sondażowym odzwierciedla (i może być uogólnione) to, co wydarzy się w realnym świecie. (fragment tekstu)

EN

The article has a dual purpose - besides a general introduction to the method of the survey experiment, and related research opportunities there are formulated research problems to which it can be recommended in the studies of public statistics, with particular emphasis on research aimed to evaluation of public programs. Its structure consists of three parts: a general description of the method and its potency, examples of the most important applications in the literature and a summary from the perspective of the modernization of social research in official statistics. (original abstract)

Keywords

PL

Badania sondażowe; Metody statystyczne; Statystyka publiczna

EN

Survey research; Statistical methods; Public statistics

• Publisher: Główny Urząd Statystyczny
• Journal: Wiadomości Statystyczne. The Polish Statistician
• Year: 2014
• Issue: 10
• Pages: 1-20

Contributors

author

Włodzimierz Okrasa

• Główny Urząd Statystyczny; Uniwersytet Kardynała Stefana Wyszyńskiego

References

• Barabas J., Jerit J. (2010), Are Survey Experiments Externally Valid?, "American Political Science Review", Vol. 104, No. 2, May 2010
• Berinsky A. J., Huber G. A., Lenz G. S. (2012), Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk, "Political Analysis", Vol. 20, No. 3
• Bruch E., Mare R. (2012), Methodological Issues in the Analysis of Residential Preferences and Residential Mobility, "Sociological Methodology", Vol. 42
• Buckley J. (2008), Survey Context Effects in Anchoring Vignettes, http://polmeth.wustl.edu/ /workingpapers.php
• Cassino D., Erisen C. (2008), Priming Bush and Iraq in 2008: A Survey Experiment, "American Politics Research", Vol. 38, No. 2
• Clark A. E., Frijters P., Shields M. (2007), Relative Income, Happiness and Utility: An Explanation for the Easterlin Paradox and Other Puzzles, "Journal of Economic Literature", Vol. 46(1)
• Couper M. P., Conrad F. G., Tourangeau R. (2007), Visual Context Effects in Web Surveys, "Public Opinion Quarterly", Vol. 71, No. 4
• Cruces G., Perez-Truglia R., Tetaz M. (2013), Biased perceptions of income distribution and preferences for redistribution: Evidence from a survey experiment, "Journal of Public Economics", Vol. 98
• Druckman J. N., Green D. P., Kuklinski J. H., Lupia A. (2006), The Growth and Development of Experimental Research in Political Science, "American Political Science Review", Vol. 100, No. 4
• Druckman J., Leeper T. (2010), Bias in Political Communication Experiments, Presentation at the 2010 Annual Conference, Harvard Program in Survey Research
• Esterling K. M., Neblo M. A., Lazer D. M. J. (2008), Estimating Treatment Effects in the Presence of Noncompliance and Nonresponse: The Generalized Endogenous Treatment Model. Experiments in Political Science 2008 Conference Paper, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1269485
• Freese J. (2010), TESS: Overview, Status, and Future. Sociology & Institute for Policy Research. Northwestern University. tess.experimentcentral.org
• Fumagalli L., Laurie H., Lynn P. (2013), Experiments with methods to reduce attrition in longitudinal surveys, "Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A", Royal Statistical Society, Vol. 176(2)
• Gaines B. J., Kuklinski J. H. (2011), Experimental Estimation of Heterogeneous Treatment Effects related to Self-Selection, "American Journal of Political Science"
• Gaines B. J., Kuklinski J. H., Quirk P. J. (2006), The Logic of the Survey Experiment Reexamined,"Political Analysis", Vol. 15, No. 1
• Groves R. M., Couper M. P., Presser S., Singer R., Tourangeau R., Acosta G. P., Nelson L. (2006), Experiments in Producing Nonresponse Bias,"Public Opinion Quarterly", Vol. 70, No. 5
• Guidelines on Measuring Subjective Well-being (2013), OECD Publishing, http://dx.doi.org/ /10.1787/9789264191655-en
• Guterbock T. M. (2010), Survey Experiments: Past, Present, Future, Presentation at the 2010 Annual Conference, Harvard Program in Survey Research (October)
• Hainmueller J., Hiscox M. J. (2010), Attitudes toward Highly Skilled and Low-skilled Immigration: Evidence from a Survey Experiment, "American Political Science Review", Vol. 104, No. 1 (February)
• Hall L., Wallack R. Z., Eggers F. (2012), Fait Market Rent Survey: Results of Methodological Experiment, Redstone Research, LLC (mimeo)
• Heckman J. J., Ichimura H., Todd P. (1998), Matching as an Econometric Evaluation Estimator,"Review of Economic Studies", Vol. 65
• Heckman J. J., Smith J. A. (1995), Assessing the Case for Social Experiments, "Journal of Economic Perspectives", Vol. 9(2)
• Heckman J. J., Vytlacil E. J. (2007), Econometric Evaluation of Social Programs, Part I: Causal Models, Structural Models and Econometric Policy Evaluation, [in:] J. J. Heckman, E. E. Leamer, Handbook of Econometrics, Elsevier
• Holland P. W. (1986), Statistics and Causal Inference, "Journal of the American Statistical Association", Vol. 81, No. 396
• Hopkins D., King G. (2010), A Method of Automated Nonparametric Content Analysis for Social Science, "American Journal of Political Science", Vol. 54, No. 1
• King G., Koehane R. O., Verba S. (1994), Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research, Princeton University Press
• Kropf M. E., Blair J. (2005), Eliciting Survey Cooperation. Incentives, Self-Interest, and Norms of Cooperation, "Evaluation Review", Vol. 29, No. 6
• Kuziemko I., Norton M. I., Saez E., Stantcheva S. (2013), How elastic are preferences for redistribution? Evidence from randomized survey experiments, National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 18865, http://www.nber.org/papers/w18865
• Ladd J. M. (2010), Why Americans Hate the Media and How It Matters, Princeton University Press
• Lavrakas P. J. (2008), Total Design Method (TDM), Encyclopedia of Survey Research Methods, http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412963947
• Lissowski G., Tyszka T., Okrasa W. (1991), Principles of Distributive Justice: Experiments on Ethical Preferences in Poland and America, "Journal of Conflict Resolution", Vol. 35, No. 1
• Luiten A., Schouten B. (2013), Tailored fieldwork design to increase representative household survey response: an experiment in the Survey of Consumer Satisfaction, "Journal of the Royal Statistical Society A", Vol. 176, No. 1
• Lyall J., Blair G., Imai K. (2013), Explaining Support for Combatants during Wartime: A Survey Experiment in Afghanistan, "American Political Science Review", Vol. 107, No. 4
• Mutz D. C. (2011), Population-Based Survey Experiments, Princeton University Press, Princeton i Oxford
• Naoi M., Kume I. (2011), Explaining Mass Support for Agricultural Protectionism: Evidence from a Survey Experiment During the Global Recession International Organization, Vol. 65, No. 4
• Nock S. L., Guterbock T. M. (2010), Survey Experiments, [in:] J. Wright, P. Marsden (red.), Handbook of Survey Research, Second Edition, Wiley Interscience
• Okrasa W. (2012), Statistics and Sociology: The mutually-supportive development from the perspective of interdisciplinarization of social research, "Statistics in Transition new series", "Journal of Polish Statistical Association", Vol. 13, No. 2
• Okrasa W., Scott K. (1998), Analysis of Latvia Diary Experiment, Mimeo, Development Research Group, World Bank, Washington
• Rosenbaum P. R. (2002), Observational Studies, Springer-Verlag, New York, second edition
• Rosenbaum P. R., Rubin D. B. (1983), The Central Role of the Propensity Score in Observational Studies for Causal Effects, "Biometrika", Vol. 70, No. 1
• Rubin D. B. (1974), Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies, "Journal of Educational Psychology", Vol. 66, No. 5
• Scheubel B., Schunkx D., Winter J. (2013), Strategic Responses: A Survey Experiment on Opposition to Pension Reforms, "The Scandinavian Journal of Economics", Vol. 115, No. 2
• Schlueter E., Schmidt P. (2010), Special Issue: Survey Experiments, "European Journal of Research Methods for the Behavioral and Social Sciences", Vol. 6, No. 3
• Scriven M. (2008), A Summative Evaluation of RCT Methodology: An Alternative Approach to Causal Research, "Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation", Vol. 5, No. 9
• Smith T. W. (1986), Conditional order effects, "Technical Report GSS Methodological Research Report", No. 55, National Opinion Research Center, Chicago
• Sniderman P. M., Hagendoorn L., Prior M. (2004), Predisposing Factors and Situational Triggers: Exclusionary Reactions to Immigrant Minorities, "American Political Science Review", Vol. 98, No. 1
• Sterngold A., Warland R. H., Herrmann R. O. (1994), Do Surveys Overstate Public Concerns!, "Public Opinion Quarterly", Vol. 58, No. 2
• Tourangeau R., Rips L. J., Rasinski K. (2000), The Psychology of Survey Response, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
• Tourangeau R., Groves R. M., Kennedy C., Ting Yan (2009), The Presentation of a Web Survey, Nonresponse and Measurement Error among Members of Web Panel, "Journal of Official Statistics", Vol. 25, No. 3
• Transue J. E., Lee D. J., Aldrich J. H. (2009), Treatment Spillover Effects across Survey Experiments, "Political Analysis", Vol. 17, No.2.