Who Perceives the Collective Past and How? Are Refusals on Open-ended Questions Substantial Answers?

Who Perceives the Collective Past and How? Are Refusals on Open-ended Questions Substantial Answers? Quality & Quantity (2005) 39:559–579 © Springer 2005 DOI 10.1007/s11135-005-1467-9 Who Perceives the Collective Past and How? Are Refusals on Open-ended Questions Substantial Answers? H.-A. HEINRICH Department of Political Syst. and Political Sociology, University of Stuttgart; Breitscheidstr. 2, D-70174 Stuttgart, Germany, E-mail: hahein@po.pol.uni-stuttgart.de Many textbooks dealing with empirical social science or survey research give only a brief overview concerning the use of open-ended questions. Usually, the authors remark some advantages of the format and contrast it with the closed-ended one. It is said that open-ended questions serve the exploration of current changes in attitudes as well as the discovery of frames of reference unknown to the researcher, the test of knowledge levels, or the examination of thought processes as well as linguistic usage (Bab- bie, 1973: 127; Bailey, 1978: 106f.; May, 1993: 95; Diekmann, 1995: 409). Despite its acknowledged usefulness, this question type is seldom applied (Kromrey, 1980: 352; Caplovitz, 1983: 119). Unwillingness of scholars to work with this measurement instrument may be put down to the fact that the closed format has several advantages especially with regard to costs and time (Converse, 1984: 270; Fowler, 1995: 178; Schnell et al., 1999: 395). Furthermore, the validity of open-ended questions http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Quality & Quantity Springer Journals

Who Perceives the Collective Past and How? Are Refusals on Open-ended Questions Substantial Answers?

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer_journal/who-perceives-the-collective-past-and-how-are-refusals-on-open-ended-8iRkXX1XJd
Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © 2005 by Springer
Subject
Social Sciences; Methodology of the Social Sciences; Social Sciences, general
ISSN
0033-5177
eISSN
1573-7845
D.O.I.
10.1007/s11135-005-1467-9
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Quality & Quantity (2005) 39:559–579 © Springer 2005 DOI 10.1007/s11135-005-1467-9 Who Perceives the Collective Past and How? Are Refusals on Open-ended Questions Substantial Answers? H.-A. HEINRICH Department of Political Syst. and Political Sociology, University of Stuttgart; Breitscheidstr. 2, D-70174 Stuttgart, Germany, E-mail: hahein@po.pol.uni-stuttgart.de Many textbooks dealing with empirical social science or survey research give only a brief overview concerning the use of open-ended questions. Usually, the authors remark some advantages of the format and contrast it with the closed-ended one. It is said that open-ended questions serve the exploration of current changes in attitudes as well as the discovery of frames of reference unknown to the researcher, the test of knowledge levels, or the examination of thought processes as well as linguistic usage (Bab- bie, 1973: 127; Bailey, 1978: 106f.; May, 1993: 95; Diekmann, 1995: 409). Despite its acknowledged usefulness, this question type is seldom applied (Kromrey, 1980: 352; Caplovitz, 1983: 119). Unwillingness of scholars to work with this measurement instrument may be put down to the fact that the closed format has several advantages especially with regard to costs and time (Converse, 1984: 270; Fowler, 1995: 178; Schnell et al., 1999: 395). Furthermore, the validity of open-ended questions

Journal

Quality & QuantitySpringer Journals

Published: Feb 1, 2005

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off