دانلود رایگان مقاله میزان پاسخ در نظر سنجی صنعتی

Abstract

Despite a growth in the number of India-focussed articles appearing in leading business journals, there has not been a systematic review of response rate to surveys conducted in India. India differs significantly from Western nations not only in its cultural norms but also in its practical difficulties of doing empirical research. We analysed more than 2000 studies published in 26 refereed academic journals. We find that the average response rate for an organisational level survey is significantly lower while for individual level respondent groups it is significantly higher than those reported in the Western context. Results, implications and recommendations are discussed.

Conclusions

The study has three strengths: First, it was informed by the response rates in the Western context and tried to understand to what extent these were applicable in India. Our findings suggest that existing guidelines for designing effective survey research as developed in the Western context may not always provide the best information available. As contrasted to findings in the Anglo-Saxon context, the average response rate for an organisational level survey is signifi- cantly lower, while for individual level respondent groups it is significantly higher than the average figures reported in the West. Further, direct method of data collection was more common and use of legitimate authority and personalisation helps significantly in India. However, there were a few similarities. The RR is significantly different for organisation level respondents as contrasted to individual level respondents. The use of non-monetary incentives was found to be associated with higher response rates while the use of reminders was related to lower response rates. Second, it created some norms for response rates when the unit of analysis was an organisation and also when it was an individual. Again, the standards that are presently adopted are based on reported work done in the West, while these are not quite applicable in India. The average RR levels at organisational level and individual level, and confounding variables could serve as a norm for those who conduct and report survey results and also to reviewers, as the norms established for surveys conducted in the US and European context are not quite relevant here. Third, it suggested some procedures organisational researchers can use to improve response rates when they do survey research in India. While both reasoned action approach and psychological heuristics approach have an implication in the Indian context, establishing trust and using legitimate authority are more salient here. These direct methods of survey data collection provide opportunities to explain the purpose of the study and assure anonymity of survey, leading to higher trust. Further, use of legitimate authority to request participation in the survey has been adopted in many studies and it has been associated with higher than average response rates.