Stopień zwrotu ankiet pocztowych w badaniach marketingowych w świetle doświadczeń nauczycieli akademickich polskich uczelni

• Authors: Oleg Gorbaniuk

Title variants

EN

The Rate of Return of Postal Reviews in Marketing Research in the Light of Experiences of Polish University Professors

Abstracts

EN

Postal reviews are widely used in social sciences research because of their great popularity both with respondents and researchers. In Poland postal reviews are used less often than other methods of communication. A low or very low percentage of returned questionnaires is most often mentioned as the reason. This opinion results first of all from not knowing that condition the rate of their return, and particularly from not knowing the cultural peculiarity of Poland in this respect. The sources of this state should be looked for in underestimating the importance of the problem in academic handbooks that only popularise and deepen negative stereotypes about postal review, and in a small number of specialist publications on the variables that are significant for the rate of return in the case of Polish population. In order to fill the existing gap in the knowledge of peculiarity as far as the reaction of potential respondents in Poland is concerned to marketing research with the use of postal review it was decided that opinions and experiences connected with postal review should be collected and analysed. They came from people who occupy themselves in marketing research, first of all in its theoretical aspect, but also having practical knowledge in this field. 89 professors were chosen who specialise in the field of marketing. They were sent aquestionnaire, specially worked out for the study. The questions were concerned, among others, with the peculiar character of postal reviews done by those people. The rate of return after two contacts was 43.7%. The article contains a specification of the rate of return of questionnaires depending on the used factors of review personalisation, financial gratification, the number and form of contacts with respondents and factors connected with the specificity of sending and returning the research materials by respondents. The obtained results are compared and analysed against the background of results of research done in the West. These specifications and analyses may be a good source of hypotheses for future research of cultural conditioning and combination of factors that allow maximising the rate of return of postal review questionnaires in Poland.

Keywords

PL

ankieta pocztowa; stopień zwrotu; szybkość zwrotu; efektywność; koperta zwrotna; opłata za przesyłkę; list motywacyjny; zawiadomienie; przypomnienie; powtórne wysłanie; sponsor; długość kwestionariusza; temat; gratyfikacja finansowa; nauczyciele akademiccy

EN

mail survey; academics; response rate; response speed; cost effectiveness; return envelope; postage; covering letter; prenotification; reminder postcard; follow-up; sponsor; length questionnaire; topic; financial gratification

• Publisher: Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawła II. Towarzystwo Naukowe KUL
• Journal: Roczniki Nauk Społecznych
• Year: 1999
• Volume: 27
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 167-181

Dates

published

1999

Contributors

author

Oleg Gorbaniuk

• Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski

References

• Altschuld J.W., Thomas P.M., McColskey W.H., Smith D.W. iin. (1992): Mailed Evaluation Questionnaires: Replications of a96 Percent Return Rate Procedure. „Evaluation and Program Planning” 3 s.239-246.
• Armstrong J.S., Lusk E.J.(1987): Return Postage in Mail Surveys: AMeta--analysis. „Public Opinion Quarterly” Vol. 51 s.233-248.
• Corcoran K.J.(1985): Enhancing the Response Rate in Survey Research. „Social Work Research and Abstracts” 1 s.2.
• Dillman D.A.(1978): Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. New York: Wiley.
• Dillman D.A.(1991): The Design and Administration of Mail Surveys. „Annual Review of Sociology” 17 s.225-249.
• Duncan W.J.(1979): Mail Questionnaires in Survey Research: AReview of Response Inducement Techniques. „Journal of Management” 1 s.39-55.
• Eichner K., Habermehl W.(1981): Predicting Response Rates to Mailed Questionnaires. „American Sociological Review” Vol. 46 s.361-363.
• Fox R.J., Crask M.R., Kim J.(1988): Mail Survey Response Rate: AMeta-analysis of Selected Techniques for Inducing Response. „Public Opinion Quarterly” 4 s.467-491.
• Fuller C.(1974): Effect of Anonymity on Return Rate and Response Bias in aMail Survey. „Journal of Applied Psychology” 3 s.292-296.
• Furse D.H., Stewart D.W., Rados D.L.(1981): Effects of Foot-in-the-door, Cash Incentives, and Followups on Survey Response. „Journal of Marketing Research” 4 s.473-478.
• Futrell C.M., Swan J.E.(1977): Anonymity and Response by Salespeople to aMail Questionnaire. „Journal of Marketing Research” 4 s.611-616.
• Golden L.L., Anderson W.T., Sharpe L.K.(1980): The Effects of Salutation, Monetary Incentive, and Degree of Urbanization on Mail Questionnaire Response Rate, Speed, and Quality. W: K.B.Monroe (Red.). Advances in Consumer Research. Ann Arbor: Association for Consumer Research.
• GorbaniukO.(1997): Niektóre uwarunkowania stopnia zwrotu, jakości iszybkości zwrotu ankiet pocztowych na przykładzie badań marketingowych na Ukrainie. Lublin (mps).
• Gorbaniuk O.(1998): The Effect of Monetary Inducements and Urban Size on Mail Survey Response Rate, Speed and Cost in Marketing Researches (w druku).
• Goyder J.(1985): Face-to-face Interviews and Mailed Questionnaires: The Net Difference in Response Rate. „Public Opinion Quarterly” 2 s.234-252.
• Goyder J., Lock J., McNair T.(1992): Urbanization Effects on Survey Nonresponse: ATest within and across Cities. „Quality and Quantity” Vol. 26 s.39-48.
• Green K.E., Stager S.F.(1986): The Effects of Personalization, Sex, Locale, and Level Taught on Educators' Responses to aMail Survey. American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting (1986, San Francisco, California). „Journal of Experimental Education” 4 s.203-206.
• Heberlein T.A., Baumgartner R.(1978): Factors Affecting Response Rates to Mailed Questionnaires: AQuantitative Analysis of the Published Literature. „American Sociological Review” 4 s.447-462.
• Hopkins K.D., Gullickson A.R.(1992): Response Rates in Survey Research: AMeta-analysis of the Effects of Monetary Gratuities. „Journal of Experimental Education” 1 s.52-62.
• Instytucje Naukowe (1996). W: Informator Nauki Polskiej. T.2. Warszawa: Ośrodek Przetwarzania Informacji.
• Kaczmarczyk S.(1995): Badania marketingowe: metody itechniki. Warszawa: PWE.
• Kahle L.R., Sales B.D.(1978): Personalization of the Outside Envelope in Mail Surveys. „Public Opinion Quarterly” 4 s.547-550.
• Labrecque D.P.(1978): AResponse Rate Experiment Using Mail Questionnaires. „Journal of Marketing” 4 s.82-83.
• Ludzie Nauki (1996). W: Informator Nauki Polskiej. T.4. Warszawa: Ośrodek Przetwarzania Informacji.
• Matteson M.T.(1974): Type of Transmittal Letter and Questionnaire Color as Two Variables Influencing Response Rates in aMail Survey. „Journal of Applied Psychology” 4 s.535-536.
• McDaniel S.W., Rao C.P.(1981): An Investigation of Respondent Anonymity's Effect on Mailed Questionnaire Response Rate and Quality. „Journal of the Market Research Society” 3 s.150-160.
• McKee D.O.(1992): The Effect of Using aQuestionnaire Identification Code and Message about Non-response Follow-up Plans on Mail Survey Response Characteristics. „Journal of the Market Research Society” 2 s.179-191.
• Nederhof A.J.(1983): Effects of Repetition and Consistency of Personalization Treatments on Response Rate in Mail Surveys. „Social Science Research” 1 s.1-9.
• Paolillo J.G., Lorenzi P.(1984): Monetary Incentives and Mail Questionnaire Response Rates. „Journal of Advertising” 1 s.46-48.
• PsycLIT Database (1974-1999). Washington: APA.
• Reddon J.R., McNeil D.C., Schmitke M.L., Willis L.A.(1991): Use of Telephone Contact to Enhance Response Rates from aMail Survey. „Perceptual and Motor Skills” 2 s.674.
• Rudd N.M., Maxwell N.L.(1980): Mail Survey Response Rates: Effects of Questionnaire Topic and Length and Recipients' Community. „Psychological Reports” 2 s.435-440.
• Schewe C.D., Cournoyer N.G.(1976): Prepaid vs. Promised Monetary Incentives to Questionnaire Response: Further Evidence. „Public Opinion Quarterly” Vol. 40 s.105-107.
• Schlegelmilch B.B., Diamantopoulos A.(1991): Prenotification and Mail Survey Response Rates: AQuantitative Integration of the Literature. „Journal of the Market Research Society” 3 s.243-255.
• Warriner K., Goyder J., Gjersten H., Hohner P., McSpurren K.(1996): Charities, No, Lotteries, No, Cash, Yes: Main Effests and Interactions in aCanadian Incentives Experiment. Paper for Presentation at the session „Sociological Methods I: Innovations in Technique”, Ontario June 5, 1996. 11.
• Winett R.A., Stewart G., Majors J.S.(1978): Prompting Techniques to Increase the Return Rate of Mailed Questionnaires. „Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis” 3 s.437.
• YuJ., Cooper H.(1983): AQuantitative Review of Research Design Effects on Response Rates to Questionnaires. „Journal of Marketing Research” 1 s.36-44.

Identifiers

Biblioteka Nauki

1857969