BlogTalk paper: questionnaire choices

by Lilia Efimova on April 10, 2003

As I promised: why it took me so long to get ready with blogging adoption questionnaires

1. I was struggling with the method. Main choices I considered were:

  • Survey (web-based): most of the questions are multiple-choice
    • pro
      • less time for the participants – better response rate
      • I could quite easily make a list of answers even for the difficult questions like motivation (almost every blogger writes about it earlier or later :)
      • easier to process
    • contra
      • risk of missing important choices (we are only discovering blogging)
      • risk of suggesting answers that people would not think about themselves (especially with “would be bloggers”
      • more difficult to prepare
  • Interview (e-mail and/or phone)
    • pro
      • better understanding of important issues
      • better ratio between bloggers and “would be bloggers” (those are rare between blog readers)
      • I have to contact most of “would be bloggers” I know by e-mail in any case
    • contra
      • takes more time for participants (I mentioned to one of “would be bloggers” about 30 minutes and her reaction was convincing :)

There is another method I thought about – observation of bloggers. It doesn’t suit this specific study (I can’t observe “would be bloggers”, but I think that this is a great way to study: read weblogs, note posts about specific issues, extract and analyse. I wonder if someone is doing it.

Back to the choices:

  1. I decided for e-mail interview and I asked several people to comment on the draft
  2. I’ve got comments that it’s too time consuming
  3. I redesigned it: removed some questions and added multiple-choice answers where it doesn’t provoke new ideas
  4. Then I found out that in this format it would be more logical to have it web-based rather than e-mail based, so I made on-line version

2. I was struggling with the target audience.

In BlogTalk paper: would be bloggers I distinguished between professional weblogs and personal ones. After some comments it became clear that I was not convincing even myself, so I dropped it.

Then I also distinguished between three groups (note, this is the second iteration – there are two groups in the paper proposal):

  • “would be blogger – 1″ – considering blogging
  • “would be blogger – 2″ – trying out
  • bloggers

What happened next:

  1. I made three questionnaires and realised that I have same questions for “would be blogger – trying out” and bloggers.
  2. I realised that “considering blogging” may differ between “interested” and “decided to start, but still choosing right tools and hosting”.
  3. So, I made two questionnaires with some choices (the funny thing is that I ended up with 5 choice in total, similar to the stages of acceptance of innovation that triggered this whole study)

3. I also had some fighting with formulating questions to cover all what I wanted to know and my English :)

Archived version of this entry is available at http://blog.mathemagenic.com/2003/04/10.html#a532; comments are here.

Tags: ,

Related posts

Leave a Comment

You can use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Previous post:

Next post: