Moore2004
| Moore2004 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Moore2004 |
| Author(s) | Robert J. Moore |
| Title | Managing troubles in answering survey questions: Respondents' uses of projective reporting |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Survey Interviews, Qualitative methods, Research Methods |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2004 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Social Psychology Quarterly |
| Volume | 67 |
| Number | 1 |
| Pages | 50-69 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
Standardized survey interviewing is a form of institutional talk whose special constraints often conflict with ordinary conversational practices. Although survey manuals tend to recognize the conflict between standardization and respondents' requests for clarification, an alternative strategy for managing troubles in answering—“projective reporting”—is largely missing from the literature. Respondents may report circumstances in response to fixed-choice questions rather than providing an answer option. Such reports invite the interviewer to infer its relevance for an answer. Respondents use projective reporting in two different ways: to account for particular answers and to defer judgments in answering. Speakers and recipients in ordinary conversation have a variety of options for dealing with the upshots of projective reportings, but some of these options are prohibited in standardized interviews. When respondents use reporting to defer judgment, ordinary conversation and standardized interviewing can conflict.
Notes
