Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T01:57:25.417Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

24 - Open-Ended Survey Questions

from Part VI - Qualitative Data Collection Sources

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 December 2024

By
Gloria Fraser
Edited by
John E. Edlund  and
Austin Lee Nichols
John E. Edlund
Affiliation:
Rochester Institute of Technology, New York
Austin Lee Nichols
Affiliation:
Central European University, Vienna
Get access

Summary

Open-ended survey questions (OESQs) are a flexible and efficient method of collecting qualitative data but have received little attention in qualitative methods research and teaching. Here, I discuss OESQs as a stand-alone data collection method, a demographic data collection method, and an adjunct to researcher-derived survey responses. I explore the advantages and disadvantages of OESQs, review previous research using them, and provide practical guidance for survey design, data collection, and data analysis. When used thoughtfully, OESQs have potential to collect rich data from large samples and allow for exciting new directions in qualitative and survey research.

Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Research Methods and Statistics for the Social and Behavioral Sciences
Volume 2: Performing Research
 , pp. 547 - 570
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2024

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Al-Ababneh, M. (2020). Linking ontology, epistemology and research methodology. Science & Philosophy, 8(1), 75–91.Google Scholar
Albudaiwi, D. (2018). Surveys, advantages, and disadvantages. In Allen, M. (ed.), The SAGE Encyclopedia of Communication Research Methods (pp. 1735–1736). SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Andrews, M. (2005). Who is being heard? Response bias in open-ended responses in a large government employee survey. In 60th Annual Conference of the American Association for Public Opinion Research (pp. 3760–3766). AAPOR. www.asasrms.org/Proceedings/y2005/files/JSM2005-000924.pdfGoogle Scholar
Aryan, N. (2022). An immigrant paradox or a mental health crisis: Understanding the psychological wellbeing of migrant youth in Aotearoa. Manuscript in preparation.Google Scholar
Ashley, F. (2021). Accounting for research fatigue in research ethics. Bioethics, 35(3), 270–276.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beaudry, J., Kothe, E., Singleton Thorn, F., McGuire, R., Tierney, N., & Ling, M. (2022). gendercoder: Recodes Sex/Gender Descriptions into a Standard Set. [R package version 0.0.0.9000]. Retrieved from https://github.com/ropensci/gendercoderGoogle Scholar
Bogetz, J. F., Revette, A., Rosenberg, A. R., & DeCourcey, D. (2020). “I could never prepare for something like the death of my own child”: Parental perspectives on preparedness at end of life for children with complex chronic conditions. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 60(6), 1154–1162.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2013). Successful Qualitative Research: A Practical Guide for Beginners. SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021a). Can I use TA? Should I use TA? Should I not use TA? Comparing reflexive thematic analysis and other pattern‐based qualitative analytic approaches. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 21(1), 37–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021b). To saturate or not to saturate? Questioning data saturation as a useful concept for thematic analysis and sample-size rationales. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 13(2), 201–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021c). Thematic Analysis: A Practical Guide. SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Braun, V., Clarke, V., Boulton, E., Davey, L., & McEvoy, C. (2021). The online survey as a qualitative research tool. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 24(6), 641–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broodryk, T., & Robinson, K. (2022). Dataset describing Aotearoa New Zealand young adults’ psychological well-being and behaviour during nationwide lockdown. Data in Brief, 40, 107808.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chambers, T., & Chiang, C. H. (2012). Understanding undergraduate students’ experience: A content analysis using NSSE open-ended comments as an example. Quality & Quantity, 46(4), 1113–1123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaudhary, A. K., & Israel, G. D. (2016). Influence of importance statements and box size on response rate and response quality of open-ended questions in web/mail mixed-mode surveys. Journal of Rural Social Sciences, 31(3), 140–159.Google Scholar
Chauvette, A., Schick-Makaroff, K., & Molzahn, A. E. (2019). Open data in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christian, L. M., & Dillman, D. A. (2004). The influence of graphical and symbolic language manipulations on responses to self-administered questions. Public Opinion Quarterly, 68(1), 57–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cogin, J., & Ng, J. L. (2016). Computer-supported qualitative research. In Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods on Human Resource Management. Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Darby, J. A. (2007). Open‐ended course evaluations: A response rate problem? Journal of European Industrial Training, 31(5), 402–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davey, L., Clarke, V., & Jenkinson, E. (2019). Living with alopecia areata: An online qualitative survey study. British Journal of Dermatology, 180(6), 1377–1389.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Denscombe, M. (2009). Item non‐response rates: A comparison of online and paper questionnaires. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 12(4), 281–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (eds.). (2017). The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research. SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Edley, N., & Litosseliti, E. (2018). Critical perspectives on using interviews and focus groups. In Litosseliti, L. (ed.), Research Methods in Linguistics. (pp. 195–227). Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Ellonen, N., Fagerlund, M., & Pösö, T. (2018). Free-text comments as a tool for developing the self-report method: Parents’ responses to a survey on violence against children. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 51(1), 58–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emde, M., & Fuchs, M. (2012). Using adaptive questionnaire design in open-ended questions: A field experiment. Paper presented at the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) 67th Annual Conference. https://memde.de/Emde_Fuchs_using_adaptive_questionnaire_design_AAPOR_paper_2012.pdfGoogle Scholar
Fraser, G. (2018). Evaluating inclusive gender identity measures for use in quantitative psychological research. Psychology & Sexuality, 9(4), 343–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, G. (2020). Rainbow Experiences of Accessing Mental Health Support in Aotearoa New Zealand: A Community-Based Mixed Methods Study [unpublished PhD thesis]. Victoria University of Wellington.Google Scholar
Fraser, G., Brady, A., & Wilson, M. S. (2021). “What if I’m not trans enough? What if I’m not man enough?”: Transgender young adults’ experiences of gender-affirming healthcare readiness assessments in Aotearoa New Zealand. International Journal of Transgender Health, 22(4), 454–467.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fraser, G., Brady, A., & Wilson, M. S. (2022). Mental health support experiences of rainbow rangatahi youth in Aotearoa New Zealand: Results from a co-designed online survey. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 52(4), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fraser, G., Bulbulia, J., Greaves, L. M., Wilson, M. S., & Sibley, C. G. (2020). Coding responses to an open-ended gender measure in a New Zealand national sample. Journal of Sex Research, 57(8), 979–986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fusch, P. I., & Ness, L. R. (2015). Are we there yet? Data saturation in qualitative research. Qualitative Report, 20(9), 1408–1416.Google Scholar
Gauld, R., & Horsburgh, S. (2014). Measuring progress with clinical governance development in New Zealand: Perceptions of senior doctors in 2010 and 2012. BMC Health Services Research, 14(1), 1–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greaves, L. M., Barlow, F. K., Lee, C. H., Matika, C. M., Wang, W., Lindsay, C. J., et al. (2017). The diversity and prevalence of sexual orientation self-labels in a New Zealand national sample. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46(5), 1325–1336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grogan, S., & Mechan, J. (2017). Body image after mastectomy: A thematic analysis of younger women’s written accounts. Journal of Health Psychology, 22(11), 1480–1490.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harrison, J., Grant, J., & Herman, J. L. (2012). A gender not listed here: Genderqueers, gender rebels, and otherwise in the National Transgender Discrimination Survey. LGBTQ Public Policy Journal at the Harvard Kennedy School, 2(1), 13–24.Google Scholar
Hennink, M., Hutter, I., & Bailey, A. (2020). Qualitative Research Methods. SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Israel, G. D. (2010). Effects of answer space size on responses to open-ended questions in mail surveys. Journal of Official Statistics, 26(2), 271–285.Google Scholar
Kidder, L. H., & Fine, M. (1987). Qualitative and quantitative methods: When stories converge. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 1987(35), 57–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klar, S., Leeper, T., & Robison, J. (2020). Studying identities with experiments: Weighing the risk of posttreatment bias against priming effects. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 7(1), 56–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LaDonna, K. A., Taylor, T., & Lingard, L. (2018). Why open-ended survey questions are unlikely to support rigorous qualitative insights. Academic Medicine, 93(3), 347–349.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lambert, A. D., & Miller, A. L. (2015). Living with smartphones: Does completion device affect survey responses? Research in Higher Education, 56(2), 166–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leavy, P. (ed.). (2014). The Oxford Handbook of Qualitative Research. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McEvoy, C., Clarke, V., & Thomas, Z. (2021). ‘Rarely discussed but always present’: Exploring therapists’ accounts of the relationship between social class, mental health and therapy. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 21(2), 324–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millar, M., & Dillman, D. (2012). Do mail and internet surveys produce different item nonresponse rates? An experiment using random mode assignment. Survey Practice, 5(2), 1–6.Google Scholar
Miller, A. L., & Lambert, A. D. (2014). Open-ended survey questions: Item nonresponse nightmare or qualitative data dream? Survey Practice, 7(5), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
North, M., Kothe, E., Klas, A., & Ling, M. (2021). How to define “Vegan”: An exploratory study of definition preferences among omnivores, vegetarians, and vegans. Food Quality and Preference, 93, 104246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Cathain, A., & Thomas, K. J. (2004). “Any other comments?” Open questions on questionnaires – a bane or a bonus to research? BMC Medical Research Methodology, 4(1), 1–7.Google ScholarPubMed
Opperman, E., Braun, V., Clarke, V., & Rogers, C. (2014). “It feels so good it almost hurts”: Young adults’ experiences of orgasm and sexual pleasure. Journal of Sex Research, 51(5), 503–515.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Poncheri, R. M., Lindberg, J. T., Thompson, L. F., & Surface, E. A. (2008). A comment on employee surveys: Negativity bias in open-ended responses. Organizational Research Methods, 11(3), 614–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reja, U., Manfreda, K. L., Hlebec, V., & Vehovar, V. (2003). Open-ended vs. close-ended questions in web questionnaires. Developments in Applied Statistics, 19(1), 159–177.Google Scholar
Rukuwai, E. (2022). The role of identity and culture in perfectionism and non-suicidal self-injury within rangatahi Māori. Manuscript in preparation.Google Scholar
Schmidt, K., Gummer, T., & Roßmann, J. (2020). Effects of respondent and survey characteristics on the response quality of an open-ended attitude question in Web surveys. Methods, Data, Analyses, 14(1), 3–34.Google Scholar
Sibley, C. G. (2022). Sampling procedure and sample details for the New Zealand Attitudes and Values Study. PsyArXiv Preprints. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/wgqvyCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singer, E., & Couper, M. P. (2017). Some methodological uses of responses to open questions and other verbatim comments in quantitative surveys. Methods, Data, Analyses, 11(2), 115–134.Google Scholar
Sinkowitz-Cochran, R. L. (2013). Survey design: To ask or not to ask? That is the question… . Clinical Infectious Diseases, 56(8), 1159–1164.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smyth, J. D., Dillman, D. A., Christian, L. M., & McBride, M. (2009). Open-ended questions in web surveys: Can increasing the size of answer boxes and providing extra verbal instructions improve response quality? Public Opinion Quarterly, 73(2), 325–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strand, K., Marullo, S., Cutforth, N., Stoecker, R., & Donohue, P. (2003). Principles of best practice for community-based research. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 9(3), 5–15.Google Scholar
Taylor, A., Caffery, L. J., Gesesew, H. A., King, A., Bassal, A. R., Ford, K., et al. (2021). How Australian health care services adapted to telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic: A survey of telehealth professionals. Frontiers in Public Health, 9, 648009.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Terry, G., & Braun, V. (2013). To let hair be, or to not let hair be? Gender and body hair removal practices in Aotearoa/New Zealand. Body Image, 10(4), 599–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terry, G., & Braun, V. (2017). Short but often sweet: The surprising potential of qualitative survey methods. In Braun, V., Clarke, V., & Gray, D. (eds.), Collecting Qualitative Data: A Practical Guide to Textual, Media and Virtual Techniques (pp. 15–44). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Toerien, M., & Wilkinson, S. (2004). Exploring the depilation norm: A qualitative questionnaire study of women’s body hair removal. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 1(1), 69–92.Google Scholar
Willig, C. (2021). Introducing Qualitative Research in Psychology. Open University Press.Google Scholar
Yao, E. S., Meissel, K., Bullen, P., Carr, P. A., Clark, T. C., & Morton, S. M. (2021). Classifying multiple ethnic identifications. Demographic Research, 44, 481–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhou, R., Wang, X., Zhang, L., & Guo, H. (2017). Who tends to answer open-ended questions in an e-service survey? The contribution of closed-ended answers. Behaviour & Information Technology, 36(12), 1274–1284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuell, C., Menold, N., & Körber, S. (2015). The influence of the answer box size on item nonresponse to open-ended questions in a web survey. Social Science Computer Review, 33(1), 115–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Open-Ended Survey Questions
  • Edited by John E. Edlund, Rochester Institute of Technology, New York, Austin Lee Nichols, Central European University, Vienna
  • Book: The Cambridge Handbook of Research Methods and Statistics for the Social and Behavioral Sciences
  • Online publication: 12 December 2024
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009000796.025
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Open-Ended Survey Questions
  • Edited by John E. Edlund, Rochester Institute of Technology, New York, Austin Lee Nichols, Central European University, Vienna
  • Book: The Cambridge Handbook of Research Methods and Statistics for the Social and Behavioral Sciences
  • Online publication: 12 December 2024
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009000796.025
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Open-Ended Survey Questions
  • Edited by John E. Edlund, Rochester Institute of Technology, New York, Austin Lee Nichols, Central European University, Vienna
  • Book: The Cambridge Handbook of Research Methods and Statistics for the Social and Behavioral Sciences
  • Online publication: 12 December 2024
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009000796.025
Available formats
×