Should we use email for farm surveys? A comparative study of email and postal survey response rate and non-response bias

Many agricultural researchers are now turning away from the traditional postal surveys to email surveys of farmers – an option that is increasingly viable as digitalisation continues to permeate rural areas. However, email surveys often result in considerably lower response rates. This raises questi...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of rural studies 2021-10, Vol.87, p.352-360
Hauptverfasser: Zahl-Thanem, Alexander, Burton, Rob J.F., Vik, Jostein
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 360
container_issue
container_start_page 352
container_title Journal of rural studies
container_volume 87
creator Zahl-Thanem, Alexander
Burton, Rob J.F.
Vik, Jostein
description Many agricultural researchers are now turning away from the traditional postal surveys to email surveys of farmers – an option that is increasingly viable as digitalisation continues to permeate rural areas. However, email surveys often result in considerably lower response rates. This raises questions about the potential of email surveys to experience non-response bias, where the survey methodology excludes particular sectors of the general population and thus results in responses that do not represent the wider population. In this paper we address the issue of whether agricultural researchers should move from postal surveys to email surveys by comparing the results of two applications of the Norwegian national Trends survey – one to 3000 farmers via email and one to 3000 farmers via standard mail. The postal survey achieved a response rate of 41.1% – almost double that of the email survey at 21.4%. However, analysis of the returns suggested this had not led to greater non-response bias in the email survey. While respondents to the email survey were younger, better educated and more likely to be part-time farmers, comparing the entire survey revealed very few significant differences between the two samples. Where the difference was significant (in particular, attitudes towards technology), the scalar difference was so small that using different survey methods would not have led to different conclusions. Although there was no evidence that the low response rate compromised the email survey, we conclude that postal surveys may still be preferable because (a) there is less scope for non-response bias, and (b) having to double the gross survey size to achieve a sufficient sample size may create additional survey fatigue in the long term. We discuss the applicability of the findings to farm surveys in other countries. •The postal survey had twice as high response rate as the email survey.•Low response rate in the email survey did not compromised the overall quality.•Postal surveys may still be preferable because of higher response rate.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.09.029
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2606928976</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0743016721002928</els_id><sourcerecordid>2606928976</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c340t-7d272f9590bed47eb44420ea76b75c962a337d867cb7665139390b1ab70c5d5d3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkM1OwzAQhC0EEqXwCsgS5wTbSez6BFXFn1SJA3C2HHsjEiVxsJNC3x6XFq6cVtr9ZlYzCF1SklJC-XWTNn7yYZxsygijKZEpYfIIzehCZAnNJDtGMyLyLIm0OEVnITSEUEEkm6Gvl3c3tRZ_Ap4CYOh03eLKeVxp3-Ew-Q1sww1eYuO6QXs91hvAu19b7KoDrnuLBxdG3R4E2EMYXB_9ogB-7r3rk79tWetwjk4q3Qa4OMw5eru_e109Juvnh6fVcp2YLCdjIiwTrJKFJCXYXECZ5zkjoAUvRWEkZzrLhF1wYUrBeRHTZhGluhTEFLaw2Rxd7X0H7z4mCKNq3OT7-FIxTrhkCyl4pPieMt6F4KFSg6877beKErVrWTXqt2W1a1kRqWLLUXi7F0LMsKnBq2Bq6A3Y2oMZlXX1fxbf0XOK_g</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2606928976</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Should we use email for farm surveys? A comparative study of email and postal survey response rate and non-response bias</title><source>ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present)</source><source>Sociological Abstracts</source><creator>Zahl-Thanem, Alexander ; Burton, Rob J.F. ; Vik, Jostein</creator><creatorcontrib>Zahl-Thanem, Alexander ; Burton, Rob J.F. ; Vik, Jostein</creatorcontrib><description>Many agricultural researchers are now turning away from the traditional postal surveys to email surveys of farmers – an option that is increasingly viable as digitalisation continues to permeate rural areas. However, email surveys often result in considerably lower response rates. This raises questions about the potential of email surveys to experience non-response bias, where the survey methodology excludes particular sectors of the general population and thus results in responses that do not represent the wider population. In this paper we address the issue of whether agricultural researchers should move from postal surveys to email surveys by comparing the results of two applications of the Norwegian national Trends survey – one to 3000 farmers via email and one to 3000 farmers via standard mail. The postal survey achieved a response rate of 41.1% – almost double that of the email survey at 21.4%. However, analysis of the returns suggested this had not led to greater non-response bias in the email survey. While respondents to the email survey were younger, better educated and more likely to be part-time farmers, comparing the entire survey revealed very few significant differences between the two samples. Where the difference was significant (in particular, attitudes towards technology), the scalar difference was so small that using different survey methods would not have led to different conclusions. Although there was no evidence that the low response rate compromised the email survey, we conclude that postal surveys may still be preferable because (a) there is less scope for non-response bias, and (b) having to double the gross survey size to achieve a sufficient sample size may create additional survey fatigue in the long term. We discuss the applicability of the findings to farm surveys in other countries. •The postal survey had twice as high response rate as the email survey.•Low response rate in the email survey did not compromised the overall quality.•Postal surveys may still be preferable because of higher response rate.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0743-0167</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-1392</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.09.029</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Elmsford: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Agricultural research ; Agricultural survey ; Agricultural technology ; Agriculture ; Bias ; Comparative analysis ; Comparative studies ; Digitization ; Electronic mail ; Email ; Email survey ; Farmers ; Farms ; Fatigue ; Internet ; Non-response bias ; Part time farming ; Polls &amp; surveys ; Postal survey ; Response bias ; Response rate ; Response rates ; Rural areas ; Rural communities ; Technology ; Technology attitudes</subject><ispartof>Journal of rural studies, 2021-10, Vol.87, p.352-360</ispartof><rights>2021 Elsevier Ltd</rights><rights>Copyright Elsevier Science Ltd. Oct 2021</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c340t-7d272f9590bed47eb44420ea76b75c962a337d867cb7665139390b1ab70c5d5d3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c340t-7d272f9590bed47eb44420ea76b75c962a337d867cb7665139390b1ab70c5d5d3</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-3344-2596</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0743016721002928$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27901,27902,33751,65306</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Zahl-Thanem, Alexander</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Burton, Rob J.F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vik, Jostein</creatorcontrib><title>Should we use email for farm surveys? A comparative study of email and postal survey response rate and non-response bias</title><title>Journal of rural studies</title><description>Many agricultural researchers are now turning away from the traditional postal surveys to email surveys of farmers – an option that is increasingly viable as digitalisation continues to permeate rural areas. However, email surveys often result in considerably lower response rates. This raises questions about the potential of email surveys to experience non-response bias, where the survey methodology excludes particular sectors of the general population and thus results in responses that do not represent the wider population. In this paper we address the issue of whether agricultural researchers should move from postal surveys to email surveys by comparing the results of two applications of the Norwegian national Trends survey – one to 3000 farmers via email and one to 3000 farmers via standard mail. The postal survey achieved a response rate of 41.1% – almost double that of the email survey at 21.4%. However, analysis of the returns suggested this had not led to greater non-response bias in the email survey. While respondents to the email survey were younger, better educated and more likely to be part-time farmers, comparing the entire survey revealed very few significant differences between the two samples. Where the difference was significant (in particular, attitudes towards technology), the scalar difference was so small that using different survey methods would not have led to different conclusions. Although there was no evidence that the low response rate compromised the email survey, we conclude that postal surveys may still be preferable because (a) there is less scope for non-response bias, and (b) having to double the gross survey size to achieve a sufficient sample size may create additional survey fatigue in the long term. We discuss the applicability of the findings to farm surveys in other countries. •The postal survey had twice as high response rate as the email survey.•Low response rate in the email survey did not compromised the overall quality.•Postal surveys may still be preferable because of higher response rate.</description><subject>Agricultural research</subject><subject>Agricultural survey</subject><subject>Agricultural technology</subject><subject>Agriculture</subject><subject>Bias</subject><subject>Comparative analysis</subject><subject>Comparative studies</subject><subject>Digitization</subject><subject>Electronic mail</subject><subject>Email</subject><subject>Email survey</subject><subject>Farmers</subject><subject>Farms</subject><subject>Fatigue</subject><subject>Internet</subject><subject>Non-response bias</subject><subject>Part time farming</subject><subject>Polls &amp; surveys</subject><subject>Postal survey</subject><subject>Response bias</subject><subject>Response rate</subject><subject>Response rates</subject><subject>Rural areas</subject><subject>Rural communities</subject><subject>Technology</subject><subject>Technology attitudes</subject><issn>0743-0167</issn><issn>1873-1392</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>BHHNA</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkM1OwzAQhC0EEqXwCsgS5wTbSez6BFXFn1SJA3C2HHsjEiVxsJNC3x6XFq6cVtr9ZlYzCF1SklJC-XWTNn7yYZxsygijKZEpYfIIzehCZAnNJDtGMyLyLIm0OEVnITSEUEEkm6Gvl3c3tRZ_Ap4CYOh03eLKeVxp3-Ew-Q1sww1eYuO6QXs91hvAu19b7KoDrnuLBxdG3R4E2EMYXB_9ogB-7r3rk79tWetwjk4q3Qa4OMw5eru_e109Juvnh6fVcp2YLCdjIiwTrJKFJCXYXECZ5zkjoAUvRWEkZzrLhF1wYUrBeRHTZhGluhTEFLaw2Rxd7X0H7z4mCKNq3OT7-FIxTrhkCyl4pPieMt6F4KFSg6877beKErVrWTXqt2W1a1kRqWLLUXi7F0LMsKnBq2Bq6A3Y2oMZlXX1fxbf0XOK_g</recordid><startdate>202110</startdate><enddate>202110</enddate><creator>Zahl-Thanem, Alexander</creator><creator>Burton, Rob J.F.</creator><creator>Vik, Jostein</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><general>Elsevier Science Ltd</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7U4</scope><scope>7U6</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>BHHNA</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>DWI</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>WZK</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3344-2596</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202110</creationdate><title>Should we use email for farm surveys? A comparative study of email and postal survey response rate and non-response bias</title><author>Zahl-Thanem, Alexander ; Burton, Rob J.F. ; Vik, Jostein</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c340t-7d272f9590bed47eb44420ea76b75c962a337d867cb7665139390b1ab70c5d5d3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Agricultural research</topic><topic>Agricultural survey</topic><topic>Agricultural technology</topic><topic>Agriculture</topic><topic>Bias</topic><topic>Comparative analysis</topic><topic>Comparative studies</topic><topic>Digitization</topic><topic>Electronic mail</topic><topic>Email</topic><topic>Email survey</topic><topic>Farmers</topic><topic>Farms</topic><topic>Fatigue</topic><topic>Internet</topic><topic>Non-response bias</topic><topic>Part time farming</topic><topic>Polls &amp; surveys</topic><topic>Postal survey</topic><topic>Response bias</topic><topic>Response rate</topic><topic>Response rates</topic><topic>Rural areas</topic><topic>Rural communities</topic><topic>Technology</topic><topic>Technology attitudes</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Zahl-Thanem, Alexander</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Burton, Rob J.F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vik, Jostein</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (pre-2017)</collection><collection>Sustainability Science Abstracts</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (Ovid)</collection><jtitle>Journal of rural studies</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Zahl-Thanem, Alexander</au><au>Burton, Rob J.F.</au><au>Vik, Jostein</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Should we use email for farm surveys? A comparative study of email and postal survey response rate and non-response bias</atitle><jtitle>Journal of rural studies</jtitle><date>2021-10</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>87</volume><spage>352</spage><epage>360</epage><pages>352-360</pages><issn>0743-0167</issn><eissn>1873-1392</eissn><abstract>Many agricultural researchers are now turning away from the traditional postal surveys to email surveys of farmers – an option that is increasingly viable as digitalisation continues to permeate rural areas. However, email surveys often result in considerably lower response rates. This raises questions about the potential of email surveys to experience non-response bias, where the survey methodology excludes particular sectors of the general population and thus results in responses that do not represent the wider population. In this paper we address the issue of whether agricultural researchers should move from postal surveys to email surveys by comparing the results of two applications of the Norwegian national Trends survey – one to 3000 farmers via email and one to 3000 farmers via standard mail. The postal survey achieved a response rate of 41.1% – almost double that of the email survey at 21.4%. However, analysis of the returns suggested this had not led to greater non-response bias in the email survey. While respondents to the email survey were younger, better educated and more likely to be part-time farmers, comparing the entire survey revealed very few significant differences between the two samples. Where the difference was significant (in particular, attitudes towards technology), the scalar difference was so small that using different survey methods would not have led to different conclusions. Although there was no evidence that the low response rate compromised the email survey, we conclude that postal surveys may still be preferable because (a) there is less scope for non-response bias, and (b) having to double the gross survey size to achieve a sufficient sample size may create additional survey fatigue in the long term. We discuss the applicability of the findings to farm surveys in other countries. •The postal survey had twice as high response rate as the email survey.•Low response rate in the email survey did not compromised the overall quality.•Postal surveys may still be preferable because of higher response rate.</abstract><cop>Elmsford</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><doi>10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.09.029</doi><tpages>9</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3344-2596</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0743-0167
ispartof Journal of rural studies, 2021-10, Vol.87, p.352-360
issn 0743-0167
1873-1392
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2606928976
source ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present); Sociological Abstracts
subjects Agricultural research
Agricultural survey
Agricultural technology
Agriculture
Bias
Comparative analysis
Comparative studies
Digitization
Electronic mail
Email
Email survey
Farmers
Farms
Fatigue
Internet
Non-response bias
Part time farming
Polls & surveys
Postal survey
Response bias
Response rate
Response rates
Rural areas
Rural communities
Technology
Technology attitudes
title Should we use email for farm surveys? A comparative study of email and postal survey response rate and non-response bias
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-01T19%3A22%3A35IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Should%20we%20use%20email%20for%20farm%20surveys?%20A%20comparative%20study%20of%20email%20and%20postal%20survey%20response%20rate%20and%20non-response%20bias&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20rural%20studies&rft.au=Zahl-Thanem,%20Alexander&rft.date=2021-10&rft.volume=87&rft.spage=352&rft.epage=360&rft.pages=352-360&rft.issn=0743-0167&rft.eissn=1873-1392&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.09.029&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2606928976%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2606928976&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_els_id=S0743016721002928&rfr_iscdi=true