Advanced
search

To read this content please select one of the options below:

NON‐RESPONSE IN SURVEY RESEARCH: EXPLICATION OF A TRANSLATIONAL TYPOLOGY

NICHOLAS NASH (Diploma from the Excelsior School of Driver Training in the United States. He prefers wooden coat hangers to metal ones, owns two Scottish terriers, and collects paper sacks as a hobby. Dr. Nash is also Associate Director of U.C.E.A. in Columbus, Ohio and about to become Vice‐President of Programming for the Public Radio Network in his native state of Minnesota)
WILLIAM J. DAVIS (Spouse of Anne S. Davis who is an Assistant Professor of Statistics at Macquette University in the United States. Her major research interests lie in the development of Inverse Gaussian distribution and Time‐Series analysis. Dr. Davis is also Assistant Professor of Educational Administration at the University of Wisconsin at Madison)

Journal of Educational Administration

ISSN: 0957-8234

Article publication date: 1 February 1978

64

Abstract

A continuing limitation of survey research is the problem of non‐response. Survey research is also likely to be more, rather than less, troubled by the surprising upsurge in the use of more complex prevarication systems. In a searching examination of the results of their survey authors Nash and Davis categorize prevarication statements made by professors and by their secretaries. More detailed analysis reveals three categories of prevarication systems—the red tape rationale, the elegant kafuffle and the competency‐based cookie crumbier.

Citation

NASH, N. and DAVIS, W.J. (1978), "NON‐RESPONSE IN SURVEY RESEARCH: EXPLICATION OF A TRANSLATIONAL TYPOLOGY", Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 169-174. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb009795

Publisher

:

MCB UP Ltd

Copyright © 1978, MCB UP Limited

Related articles

Manage cookies

We’re listening — tell us what you think

Join us on our journey