The value of online surveys

By Joel R. Evans, Anil Mathur. Internet Research, 2005

1,954 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Information Systems and Management, Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f8debbb585606d503f1049cfba3c1ddbad9352a8

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Information Systems and Management

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Humor Types Show Different Patterns of Self-Regulation, Self-Esteem, and Well-Being (2013, background): “1 Weaknesses of online surveys concern the perception of the online questionnaire as junk mail, as impersonal, or the low response rate (Evans and Mathur 2005).”
Brand Management in the Era of Social Media: Social Visibility of Consumption and Customer Brand Identification (2018, background): “However, they also offer important advantages, including their speed and timeliness, geographical reach, and ability to obtain a large sample (Evans and Mathur 2005), and therefore were considered appropriate for this study.”
Hate Knows No Boundaries: Online Hate in Six Nations (2020, background): “These platforms ensure onetime participation through IP address matching (Evans and Mathur 2005; Wansink 2001), and also weed out speeders through attention checks and mean timing comparisons to the sample.”
Predicting behavioral loyalty through corporate social responsibility: The mediating role of involvement and commitment (2017, neutral): “Fifth, the generalizability of the results is further limited by the use of a web-based survey, which can prevent certain segments of consumers, such as those with limited internet access, from responding (Evans & Mathur, 2005).”
Online, face-to-face and telephone surveys—Comparing different sampling methods in wine consumer research (2013, background): “At the beginning of the 21st century, experts expected that the majority of survey research would be conducted online (Schonlau et al., 2001; Evans and Mathur, 2005).”
The CSR-Quality Trade-Off: When can Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Ability Compensate Each Other? (2007, background): “This is especially important for Internet questionnaires, as respondents are not able to ask questions while filling them in (Evans and Mathur, 2005).”
Exploring Signature Pedagogies in Undergraduate Leadership Education (2012, methodology): “The questionnaire format of the web-based survey in this study implemented as many principles from Evans and Mathur (2005) and Dillman, Tortora, and Barker (1999) as possible.”
Micro-multinational or not? International entrepreneurship, networking and learning effects (2014, neutral): “A large number of research organizations across the globe increasingly employ the on-line method (Evans & Mathur, 2005).”
Web Surveys versus other Survey Modes: A Meta-Analysis Comparing Response Rates (2008, neutral): “2004; Evans & Mathur 2005).”
Investigating the factors influencing the adoption of m-banking: A cross cultural study (2015, positive): “This method offered flexibility, ease-of-use and enabled the researchers to reach large and dispersed samples (Epstein, Klinkenberg, Wiley & McKinley, 2001; Albaum, Roster, Wiley, Rossiter & Smith, 2010; Evans & Mathur, 2005).”
Green Hotel Selection of Chinese Consumers: A Planned Behavior Perspective (2018, background): “…the geographic location of respondents; the high speed of this data collection method; low cost; better display of the questionnaire; better access to unique populations; convenience (Evans & Mathur, 2005; Ilieva, Baron, & Healey, 2002;,Wright, 2005) as well as many other reasons not listed here.”
Citizen Participation, Open Innovation, and Crowdsourcing (2013, background): “(Johnson 2010, 246) In recent years, planners, like nearly everyone else, have gravitated to the Internet and its wide and asynchronous reach as a means to engage an even broader group of stakeholders (Evans and Mathur 2005; Evans-Cowley 2010a, 2010b; Evans-Cowley and Hollander 2010).”