Problems with the Values Survey
The values survey is dificult. The comments I receive will be in this blog.
From David Pearce Snyder
After first learning survey design at RAND, I sent out several Delphi polls quite similar in content and length to your Value Survey. Everyone responded to the first several surveys, with considerable grumbling, because they were required to respond. After that, my typical response rates were 1% to 3%, and my RAND mentor, Olaf Helmer, told me that, unless there were tangible incentives, people simply wouldn't respond to such lengthy inquiries. Market researchers routinely offer rewards to get folks to respond to much shorter polls.
With respect to your particular survey, I (myself) would not find the 126 (!!) dimensions covered by your inquiry relevant to my decision to participate in an innovation commons. The 4 criteria that motivate my interest/desire to participate in a collaborative dialogue are:
[1] Does the subject matter merit the commitment of my limited time and attention?
[2] Do I have something valuable to contribute on the topic?
[3] Do I currently have the time and attention available to devote to creating meaningful input, given the other immediate demands on my time and attention?
[4] If I do not put in my particular 2-cents, is it likely that others will do so? (In other words, is my input likely to be unique?)
Were I to have answered "Yes" to my own 4 questions with respect to your values survey, it would have taken me a weekend or more to have agonized over how I felt about each of your subtly nuanced categories: e.g. "Community/Personalist" vs. "Community/Supportive." These criteria may have meaning to other folks, but I haven't any way of judging their feelings. For me, the 4 criteria listed above are all that matter. And, the value survey only gets a "yes" answer from my Question #1.
My bottom line assessment of the survey is that it's waaay tooo loooong and much too me-tic-u-lous to evoke meaningful/useful responses from anybody.
From Mark Fox
The reason I didn't take the survey is because I am too stupid to understand it :) I read the questions and had to re-read them several times. Then I couldn't easily make a connection with what I thought the question meant related to an innovation commons. I guess I don't understand the intent. I was confused on how a question abount morales, likeability, and religious beliefs applied to an innovation network.So because I didn't understand it really, I chose not to complete it and throw in meaningless answers.Just my feedback, I can go look at it again.
From David Pearce Snyder
After first learning survey design at RAND, I sent out several Delphi polls quite similar in content and length to your Value Survey. Everyone responded to the first several surveys, with considerable grumbling, because they were required to respond. After that, my typical response rates were 1% to 3%, and my RAND mentor, Olaf Helmer, told me that, unless there were tangible incentives, people simply wouldn't respond to such lengthy inquiries. Market researchers routinely offer rewards to get folks to respond to much shorter polls.
With respect to your particular survey, I (myself) would not find the 126 (!!) dimensions covered by your inquiry relevant to my decision to participate in an innovation commons. The 4 criteria that motivate my interest/desire to participate in a collaborative dialogue are:
[1] Does the subject matter merit the commitment of my limited time and attention?
[2] Do I have something valuable to contribute on the topic?
[3] Do I currently have the time and attention available to devote to creating meaningful input, given the other immediate demands on my time and attention?
[4] If I do not put in my particular 2-cents, is it likely that others will do so? (In other words, is my input likely to be unique?)
Were I to have answered "Yes" to my own 4 questions with respect to your values survey, it would have taken me a weekend or more to have agonized over how I felt about each of your subtly nuanced categories: e.g. "Community/Personalist" vs. "Community/Supportive." These criteria may have meaning to other folks, but I haven't any way of judging their feelings. For me, the 4 criteria listed above are all that matter. And, the value survey only gets a "yes" answer from my Question #1.
My bottom line assessment of the survey is that it's waaay tooo loooong and much too me-tic-u-lous to evoke meaningful/useful responses from anybody.
From Mark Fox
The reason I didn't take the survey is because I am too stupid to understand it :) I read the questions and had to re-read them several times. Then I couldn't easily make a connection with what I thought the question meant related to an innovation commons. I guess I don't understand the intent. I was confused on how a question abount morales, likeability, and religious beliefs applied to an innovation network.So because I didn't understand it really, I chose not to complete it and throw in meaningless answers.Just my feedback, I can go look at it again.
posted by Paul Schumann at 7:35 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home