Current Editor: Chris Merrill, email@example.com
Previous Editors: Mark Sanders 1989-1997; James LaPorte: 1997-2010
As an open access journal, the JTE does not charge fees for authors to publish or readers to access.
EDITORIALS Why I Didn't Respond to Your Questionnaire John V. Gallagher One role I must play, as a scholar, is to actively participate in the research ac- tivities of other technology educators. Gen- erally, this means responding to research questionnaires to which I feel qualified to contribute. Either I will complete the re- search instrument, or, if the content is out of my area of competence, return it with a note stating the reason for not completing it. However, your questionnaire falls into neither of the above categories. It contains a number of serious defects which threaten its reliability, validity, and generalizability. This places me in the di- lemma of whether to spend time responding to a clearly defective survey instrument. I didn't respond to yours for one or more of the following reasons. I'm sorry. REASON 1. YOU FAILED TO REVIEW THE LITERATURE AND AVAILABLE DATA BASES. You are asking for information on technology education that is readily available or published recently. DISCUSSION: A researcher owes the respondent the courtesy of using a systematic process of research to obtain information to answer the research questions/hypotheses. The use of data collection instruments should be the last resort to obtain information because it is unavailable elsewhere. REASON 2. YOU FAILED TO FIELD TEST YOUR DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENT AND REVISE IT. Your instrument has vague instructions. Your terms are not defined. I started to respond but be- came frustrated because the lack of internal consistency and mutual exclusivity of the variables confused me. You sent me an instru- ment which has a sloppy format, confusing page layout, misspelled words, incorrect grammar, etc. You didn't tell me what the limits of the study are so I feel that I will never finish your instrument. DISCUSSION: How can a respondent give reli- able and valid information on an instrument with these and other defects? Too often, the researcher skips the step of conducting a field test. A multiple step field test and revision cycle will eliminate most defects in the survey instrument. The researcher should conduct a final field test with a small sam- ple of members of the population to be sur- veyed, make corrections, and only then send the final version of the instrument. REASON 3. YOU TIMED YOUR DATA COLLECTION EF- FORT POORLY. I received your instrument three days after the date you wanted me to respond so my input cannot be included in your research. Or, you gave me only a week to respond and your instrument arrived during my midterm grading week or at the end of the se- mester when I was grading term papers and final examinations. Or, your instrument ar- rived during winter break (or summer vaca- tion) when I was away and the due date passed before I returned. DISCUSSION: Make it convenient for the re- spondent. Give the respondent sufficient time to complete the instrument. Make allow- ances for delayed mail, holidays, con- ventions, or academic year events when your respondents are from the academic community. Print follow-up copies of the instrument well in advance so they may be mailed to non- respondents weeks before the return date. Budget your study so you can use FIRST CLASS MAIL for all data collection activities both TO and FROM the respondents. REASON 4. YOU FAILED TO HONESTLY IDENTIFY YOURSELF. Who are you and why should I spend my valuable time to give you information? DISCUSSION: Researchers in technology educa- tion need to identify their sponsoring organ- ization and the function they perform in the organization. If the sponsoring organization is generally unknown to technology education respondents, then a paragraph explaining its roles and purposes is needed. Graduate stu- dents conducting technology education thesis or dissertation research should identify their status in the cover letter accompanying the instrument. Graduate advisors should add a signed statement to the cover letter stat- ing that the instrument is part of an ap- proved thesis or dissertation, that the advisor reviewed and approved the instrument, and that he or she requests respondent coop- eration. A copy machine facsimile of the ad- visor's signature is appropriate but the researcher should personally sign each cover letter. REASON 5. YOU FAILED TO JUSTIFY THE RESEARCH. Your assertion that the research will make "a valuable contribution to technology education" doesn't motivate me to spend my valuable time responding. DISCUSSION: In the cover letter, provide a purpose statement and a statement of need briefly describing how the research findings will fill a gap in the body of knowledge of technology education. Describe how the re- searcher, the respondent, or others can use the research results. REASON 6. YOU DIDN'T PROMISE ME AN ABSTRACT OF THE RESULTS IF I REQUEST IT. What am I going to get out of my time spent responding? DISCUSSION: Provide the respondent with a place to check on the instrument to request an abstract of the results of the research or a separate postcard to request an abstract if respondent confidentiality is necessary. The respondent spends time reflecting on the items of the data collection instrument. The respondent needs to grow from the research and often wonders how he or she contributed to the results. An abstract will allow the respondent to compare the results with his or her own views and learn from the research. REASON 7. YOU FAILED TO SAY PLEASE AND THANK YOU. DISCUSSION: Researchers sometimes get so in- volved with their research procedure that they fail to attend to common courtesies. Make your thank you active in voice, per- sonal, in the first and second person, di- rect, and brief. SUMMARY Experienced survey researchers will find nothing new here, yet we continue to receive poorly designed and conducted surveys in the mail. This threatens the integrity of our discipline, because this causes us to wonder whether survey research data is valid and re- liable. Poor instrument design also leads to low instrument returns, further threatening the generalizability of the findings. Technology educators conducting mailed surveys face a difficult challenge in obtain- ing a representative response rate. The re- quest to complete an instrument imposes upon the valuable time of the respondent. The past history of poorly designed research instru- ments places a negative bias on the process. I cannot emphasize enough the importance of screening a prototype research instrument through a multiple-cycle field test and re- vision process to eliminate threats to valid- ity and reliability and to make the instrument "respondent friendly." ---------------- John Gallagher is Associate Professor, De- partment of Technology, Glassboro State Col- lege, Glassboro, New Jersey. Permission is given to copy any article or graphic provided credit is given and the copies are not intended for sale. Journal of Technology Education Volume 2, Number 1 Fall 1990