Environmental Factors and Survey Research: An Article Analysis

This assignment analyzes the research paper "Environmental Factors and Survey Research in Developing Countries: Evidence from Nigeria." The paper investigates how environmental factors, such as low literacy levels, language barriers, and respondent biases, impact survey research in Nigeri...Read More

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269695759
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS AND SURVEY RESEARCH IN
DEVELOPING COUNTRIES: EVIDENCE FROM NIGERIA
INTRODUCTION
Article · January 2013
CITATION
1
READS
344
2 authors:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Diversification and RestructuringView project
Business plan competitionView project
Lukman Raimi
American University of Nigeria
104PUBLICATIONS185CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Moruf Adebakin
Yaba College of Technology
3 PUBLICATIONS3 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Lukman Raimi on 18 December 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

.
1362
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS AND SURVEY RESEARCH IN DEVELOPING
COUNTRIES: EVIDENCE FROM NIGERIA
Raimi, L. 1
Adebakin, M. A. 2
Gabadeen, W. O.3
ABSTRACT
Survey research is relevant and appropriate for problem identification and provision of objective
explanations to hidden phenomena of interest to researchers. Despite the preference for surveys
by researchers in the fields of social sciences, management and educational management, it is a
research strategy that is confronted by a number of environmental factors. The present study
examines the impact of these factors on surveys in Nigeria using a quantitative method. The
required data were collected using a survey evaluation instrument (SEI) which contained 33
items. The sample size of 250 lecturers, researchers and students was selected from the target
population using a purposive sampling technique. The generated data were analyzed using
descriptive and inferential statistics on the basis of which informed conclusions were drawn. The
findings indicate that surveys are hindered by low literacy level of respondents, multiplicity of
ethnic groups/languages, respondents’ inability of respondents to answer survey questions
appropriately, incidences of misleading responses and several other environmental factors. The
paper concludes that if the observed environmental factors are substantially redressed, survey
research in Nigeria would be greatly enriched and the research findings therefrom would be
better fortified.
Keywords: Developing Countries, Environmental Factors, Nigeria, Survey Research
1 Leicester Business School, De Montfort University, Leicester, United Kingdom, Email: [e-mail]
2 Department of Business Administration, Yaba College of Technology, Lagos, Nigeria
3 Department of Educational Management, University of Abuja, FCT Abuja, Nigeria
Asian Journal of Empirical Research
journal homepage: http://aessweb.com/journal-detail.php?id=5004

Asian Journal of Empirical Research, 3(10)2013: 1362-1381
1363
INTRODUCTION
Survey is a widely-used strategy for gathering data for academic and industry-based research
across the globe. Adoption of survey as a research strategy offers researchers comprehensive data
and rich field information for problem-solving (Denscombe, 1998; Kennedy and Vargus, 2001;
Sweeney, 2009). However, surveys in the forms of interviews, questionnaires, panels et cetera are
hindered by a number of environmental factors identified by researchers as low literacy level of
respondents, non-cooperation, non-response,interviewers‟effects,multiplicityof languages,
respondent‟s inability to answer questions appropriately and incidences of misleading responses
(Watson and Wooden, 2009). The above-mentioned inhibiting factors are not limited to
developing nations, the same trends had manifested several years back in the developed nations,
where surveys are more advanced. It is therefore a global phenomenon (The International
Conference on Survey Nonresponse, 1999; Kennedy and Vargus, 2001; Gannon-Leary et al.,
2002). Even the website-enabled or technology-aided surveys are not free from environmental
challenges, some of which include: constraints of proper configuration of browsers, the right
operating systems, reliability of internet service providers, correct hardware, and the correct
routers requires for the website as well as expertise to design the web survey (Gannon-Leary et
al., 2002). The backlashes of surveys as enunciated above have become major concerns for
academic researchers. Kennedy and Vargus (2001:483) lament:
“Survey research is currently experiencing significant challenges that have
important implications for both the method and its use.... Survey participation is
declining, and this trend is likely to continue. Some causes may be cultural... a
decrease in civic engagement...some causes may be more practical...increased
telemarketing and fundraising telephone calls and letters that confuse potential
survey participants.”
Beyond the highlighted factors, other common factors inhibiting surveys include peculiar nature
of survey strategy, diverse modes of survey, proliferation of surveys and preference for self-
administered survey, emergence of computer-aided questionnaires, discouraging length of
questionnaire and vague survey questions leading to cognitive burden, non-response, rising cost
of surveys, limited financial resources, lack of cooperation from participants and poor response
rate (The International Conference on Survey Nonresponse, 1999; Kennedy and Vargus, 2001;
Gannon-Leary et al., 2002). From all the factors listed above, the challenge of poor response rate
is considered a very serious threat; it is as low as 20% in some surveys to as high as 75%
depending on the target group and the survey content (The International Conference on Survey
Nonresponse, 1999).

Asian Journal of Empirical Research, 3(10)2013: 1362-1381
1364
Furthermore, Gannon-Leary et al., (2002) confirmed the seriousness of the phenomenon of non-
response and its impact on surveys in their operations research; they had great difficulty
administering questionnaires to students. After series of trials and deployment of different
techniques, they succeeded in sending questionnaires to student respondents using electronic mail,
direct posting of questionnaires into students‟ pigeonholes, direct contact with students
rooms and visit to departmental common rooms.
In view of the foregoing, this exploratory paper investigates the environmental factors affecting
survey research in developing countries with special reference to Nigeria. The paper is structured
into five parts. Part I gives an introductory background on the research problem. Part II is
dedicated to review of literature with emphasis on definitions, types, merits and demerits of
surveys (interview and questionnaire techniques). Part III provides theoretical and empirical
issues, methodology and research hypotheses. Part IV is devoted to results and findings. Part V
concludes with the implication of the findings in theory and practice as well as recommendations.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Conceptual Issues and Survey Typologies
For better clarity, there is a need to discuss the meaning, scope and types of survey found in
research methodology. According to Saunders et al. (2012:177), survey is one of the common
strategies use in exploratory and descriptive investigation. It is found to be potent in providing
answer to inquiry into “what‟, who‟, where‟, „how much‟ and how many questions.” How
Denscombe (2010) stated that when a social phenomenon is surveyed by field researcher, the
implication is that the object of research is thoroughly investigated and explored for the purpose
of collecting meaningful and informed data/information. From the definitions above, scholars
cautioned that when developing a research design, survey is not a research method but a research
strategy among several other competing strategies such as experiments, case study, ethnography,
archival et cetera (Denscombe, 2010; Saunders et al., 2012).
Moreover, there are two typologies of survey, namely: interview-based and questionnaire-based
surveys (Babbie, 2010; Saunders et al., 2007; Saunders et al., 2012). Interview or Interview-
based survey is a qualitative research technique which involves asking the sampled respondents
questions for the purpose of collecting data and useful information „on a particular idea,
or situation” (Boyce and Neale, 2006:.3). However, Babbie (2004), O‟Leary (2004) and S
et al. (2012) remarked that interviews can be divided into three sub-typologies: unstructured,
structured and semi-structured interviews.

Asian Journal of Empirical Research, 3(10)2013: 1362-1381
1365
Questionnaire-based survey on the other hand is an age-long primary data gathering instrument
administered by field researchers to respondents/participants with clear instructions to respond to
structured questions by ticking, ranking or rating the most appropriate option of their choice.
According to Brace (2008), a questionnaire-based survey provides a communication medium for
researchers and their respondents to interact. There are several typologies of questionnaires, viz:
open-ended questionnaire, closed-ended questionnaire, self-completed questionnaires, researcher-
administered questionnaire, Computer-aided questionnaire, Telephone questionnaire, In-house
survey questionnaire; Mail Questionnaire (Collis and Hussey, 2003; Saunders, 1997; Babbie,
2004; Monette et al., 2005; Descombe, 2010).
Historically, the interview-based survey was adopted from clinical psychology and psychiatry and
has since emerged as a widely adopted method in qualitative research (Bryman, 2008; Sweeney,
2009). Interviews could be purely structured interview, semi-structured interview and
unstructured interview as mentioned earlier (Bryman, 2008; Sweeney, 2009; Saunders et al.,
1997; Saunders et al., 2012). However, the use of semi-structured interviews is more potent for
eliciting vital information on phenomenal issues that are under-researched (Sweeney, 2009).
Researchers are at liberty to pick from any of the three typologies after a critical review of the
nature of their research design.
Irrespective of the type of interview chosen, an interview offers a number of merits in qualitative
research. First and foremost, an interview-based survey provides researcher with the leeway to
conduct investigation deeply following a systematic line of action without deviation (Bell, 1999;
Denscombe, 1998; Birn, 2000). Where deviation surfaces, interview enables researchers make
spontaneous amendment, re- adjustments and re-direction of the line of investigation
(Denscombe, 1998). Consequently, the information, data and insights arising from interview are
usually very rich in content and comprehensive for research purposes (Denscombe, 1998; Birn,
2000; Sweeney, 2009). More importantly, where formal access is sought and granted, interviews
often enhance high response rate from target respondents (Denscombe, 1998; Saunders et al.,
2012).
Despite the inherent merits of interviews as clearly enunciated above, interviews have some
obvious disadvantages. The first is the laborious nature of interview technique for research when
viewed in terms of time invested, financial resources, long travels, continuous/repetitive
discussion with people of different background and idiosyncrasies (Bailey, 1982; Denscombe,
1998; Denscombe, 2010; Sweeney, 2009; Saunders et al., 2012). Secondly, where access is turned
down by interviewees, the response rate would be low thereby compromising research objective
because of inadequate sample that is statistically unrepresentative of the target population (Bell,

Asian Journal of Empirical Research, 3(10)2013: 1362-1381
1366
1999). Other disadvantages of interview are subjectivity issue, bias, difficulty in transcribing
recorded interviews, matching respondents‟ opinions toestablish patterns/line of thought and
challenges of data analysis and data presentation as research findings in meaningful way (Bell,
1999; Saunders et al., 2012).
THEORETICAL AND EMPIRICAL ISSUES ON SURVEYS
This paper derives its theoretical underpinning from four related communication theories, namely:
Hermeneutics theory (HT), Agenda-setting theory (AST), Symbolic interactionism theory (SIT),
and Social judgment theory (SJT). These theories explain social interaction between two parties
(sender and receiver) as well as the medium used for communication. In this paper, the two
parties focused on are researchers and respondents.
Hermeneutics can be described as the creative method and professional style of interpreting
written texts, words, symbols and other classical writings across all fields. HT covers in-depth
interpretations of terms like assumptions, presuppositions, pre-understanding, signals, manner of
reporting, contents of report, semiotic, coded computer languages and philosophical nuances
beyond the comprehension of ordinary members of the public (Duvall and Hays, 2001; Kaiser and
Silva, 2007). In the anthropological literature, there are traditional and contemporary
hermeneutics. The traditional hermeneutics focuses on interpretations of ancient manuscripts
especially coded religious scriptures, while the contemporary is more embracing, as it entails
interpretations of all forms of verbal and non-verbal communication in qualitative research
(Ferguson et al., 1988; Jeanrond, 1994; Duvall and Hays, 2001). From the research viewpoint,
hermeneutics is concerned with the interpretation of field data and raw information generated via
interview and structured questionnaires for the purpose of making meaning out of them and
drawing conclusions on the subject of discussion. Put differently, the method of qualitative data
transcription, content analysis and extraction of meaning from data are the domain of
hermeneutics.
The second strand of communication theory is agenda setting theory (AST), which is constructed
on the foundation that the media (in this case researcher) set agenda and frame the minds of the
public (respondents) through information/messages/ideas disseminated to the society when
conducting surveys. In order words, “the media tell uswhat to think about, and how to think
about it” under the pretext of communication (McCombs and Reynolds, 2002:1-16). When
applied strictly to surveys, agenda setting theory presumes that structured interview questions and
contents of questionnaires are mechanisms designed by researchers to set agenda for the

Asian Journal of Empirical Research, 3(10)2013: 1362-1381
1367
respondents. The views of the respondents are framed for them by researchers through leading
questions; hence quantitative data and qualitative information generated may not really represent
the genuine viewpoints and idiosyncrasies of the respondents.
The third communication theory is symbolic interactionism theory (SIT). It is a theory designed
for understanding the process of information dissemination between individuals, groups or
organizations (often described as senders and receivers of messages within the communication
channel), as well as interpreting words/messages/signs (otherwise called verbal and non-verbal
communication) that transpired between individuals and groups in their social interaction. In
social interactionism, the theory provides meaningful interpretations to conversational
relationship between senders (as researchers) and receivers (respondents) in terms of meanings of
the messages sent by the senders and the feedbacks/responses relayed back by the receivers at the
other end of the communication continuum (Herman-Kinney and Reynolds, 2003; Griffin, 2012).
When structured interview questions and questionnaire items are vague and incomprehensible, the
tendency is for the respondents to relay back incomplete feedbacks, non-response or misleading
responses.
The fourth communication theory is social judgment theory (SJT). According to Doherty and
Kurz (1996), SJT evolved from functionalism and probabilism of Egon Brunswik and was
initially developed for making judgment and decision for problem-solving. SIJ employed
perception, insight, thinking and reasoning before passing judgment on social issues. When
applied to survey research, SJT asserts that in any form of interpersonal or organizational
communication (carried out through interview or questionnaire instruments), there tends to be
noticeable difference/discrepancy in sender‟s viewpoint (researcher‟s viewpoint) and tho
receiver (respondent‟s position) because of the influence of attitude/ego/perception/insights,
which are factors that are susceptible to environmental changes. The higher the ego-involvement
in communication, the higher degree of rejection of the message by the receivers (respondents),
while the lower the ego-involvement, the higher the degree of acceptance of the message by the
receivers (respondents). In SIJ, acceptance or rejection of messages (conveyed through interview
and questionnaires) is conditioned by the behavioural insights of the receivers of information
within the social or organizational context (Griffin, 2012).
In conclusion, the communication theories presume that environmental factors affecting surveys
are similar to noises/disturbance in the communication process. The poplar communication model
of Shannon (1948) was designed to isolate the impact of these noises (otherwise called external
disturbances, interference or distortions) on communication signals (messages). His “Sch
diagram of a general communication system” is adopted widely by scholars across academic

Asian Journal of Empirical Research, 3(10)2013: 1362-1381
1368
fields to explain the relationship between senders and receivers of messages, the significance of
feedbacks and the effects of noises in the communication process (Shannon 1948:1-2). It could be
stated with reasonable level of confidence that communication theories as argued above are
relevant for explaining environmental factors affecting research surveys. The figure 1 below
depicts the conceptual and theoretical framework of this research.
Environmental Factors
Figure 1: Conceptual & Theoretical Framework of Research
Empirical Issues Facing Surveys
Non-Response and Attrition Factors
Effectiveness of survey is marred by the challenge of non-response from respondents, but
longitudinal surveys suffer a more complex challenge of sustained non-responses during repeated
process of prolonged longitudinal interviews, a phenomenon tagged attrition by researchers with
survey orientation (Al-Hazemi, (2000; Eysenbach, 2005). Several years back Laurie, Smith and
Scott (1999) reported that longitudinal surveys are inhibited by the challenge of tracking
respondents due to relocations and fatigue of repetitive surveys. The apathy or unwillingness of
respondents to partake in subsequent longitudinal survey is pronounced in most household panel
surveys. The Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) lost over one-quarter of sample
Survey Research
Non-response/Poor responses
Misleading responses
Multiplicity of Languages
Low literacy level
Inability to interpret questions
Other factors
Hermeneutics
theory (HT)
Agenda
Setting Theory
(AST)
Symbolic
Interactionism
Theory (SIT)
Social
Judgment
Theory
(SJT)

Asian Journal of Empirical Research, 3(10)2013: 1362-1381
1369
respondents between 1968 and 1975; the German Socio-Economic Panel and the British
Household Panel Survey (BHPS) similarly lost at least 34 per cent of their original sample
respondents in the initial locations (Watson and Wooden, 2009). Attrition is not restricted to loss
of respondents in surveys; it is a phenomenon which extends to loss of languages by speakers
when foreign languages are adopted or studied by learners (Al-Hazemi, 2000).
Even in the health-oriented research, the phenomenon of attrition is rampant. In two surveys
reported by Eysenbach (2005), it was discovered that out of 1161 participants that agreed to
partake in a 12-week Internet-based evaluation of a panic disorder self-help Web program, only12
participants (approximately 1%) eventually completed the survey. In the second, the survey was
to run under 5 modules, out of 182 participants that started the depression programme, only 41
participants (22.5%) completed the 5 modules. These surveys confirmed the phenomenon on non-
response due to attrition.
In summary, the challenge of non-response in panel and longitudinal surveys is caused by
difficulty in locating former respondents, contacting the respondents, eliciting cooperation from
the respondents. The impact of non-response and attrition include reduction of the precision of
survey estimates, threats to viability of sustained panel data, creation of bias/subjectivity about
population estimates ((Watson and Wooden, 2009). On the strength of the foregoing, it could be
hypothesized under two tail test that;
H0: Inappropriate responses from respondents do not significantly impact on the outcomes of
research surveys.
Interviewer Effects: Personal and Household Characteristics
Research studies identified core environmental challenges of surveys as interviewer effects (IEs).
IEs are chain of personal and household factors which make or mare survey outcomes. IEs
include age of respondents, privacy, experiences in surveys, sex, education, income level,
attitudes and degree of confidence placed in the surveys (Groves and Couper, 1998; Martin and
Beerten, 1999; Watson and Wooden, 2009). Surveys that seek to elicit information from
respondents on personal, confidential or private affairs (e.g. sexual life, finances and psychiatric
issues) have suffer from certain degree of inhibitions linked to “ varying degrees
cultural, religious, moral and legal norms and constraints” (Fentonet al., 2001:84). Consequent
upon these constraints, surveys constrained by participation biases, non-response/poor response
rate, recalls to collect responses, unwillingness/attrition, comprehension problems, censored
attitudes and measurement errors when issues being investigated are behavioural activity like
sexually transmitted diseases (Ibid.) With regards to gender status however, a number of studies
have established that sex status impact on response rate for household surveys (Watson and

Asian Journal of Empirical Research, 3(10)2013: 1362-1381
1370
Wooden, 2009). For women, earlier studies reported that response rates higher among women
than men, that is, the phenomenon of attrition is lower among women because most of them stay
at home than men, even where prior consents are sought (Watson and Wooden, 2009).
Considering the potent impact of Interviewer Effects, it could be hypothesized under two-tail test
that;
H0: Misleading responses from respondents does not significantly impact on the outcomes of
research surveys.
Respondents’ Experiences, Exposures, Language and literacy level
Anotherenvironmentalfactor affectingsurveysis respondents‟education,experienceand
exposures to surveys. The level of educational attainment is believed would impact positively on
survey response because informed respondents have sufficient experience on survey questions
and expectations (Watson and Wooden, 2009). It is therefore not surprising that respondents with
higher level of education partake and appreciate the activities associated with research surveys
(Groves and Couper, 1998). The impact of experience is like education, because people with
robust experience about surveys are often willing to accept interviews as well as heed to
persuasion to fill any type of questionnaires, while people without experience and exposure on
surveys often turn down survey invitations (Watson and Wooden, 2009). Previous research
findings established that respondents with good experience tend to manifest predictive
cooperation for surveys (Lepkowski and Couper, 2002; Olsen, 2005). However, respondents with
little or no experience would not been competent enough to provide adequate information desired
in surveys, hence the incidences of missing data, non-response and misleading responses
(Loosveldt et al. 2002).
Furthermore, effective use of language communication for interviews has been discovered to
enhance willingness to partake in surveys thus increasing participation rate (Fenton et al., 2001).
Similarly, for questionnaire-based survey the “design, content, and mode of administration” have
been reported to have positive or negative impact on outcome of survey or what is called
measurement error. With regards to literacy, Fenton et al., (2001) noted that questionnaire-based
survey or „Pen and paper methods‟ have greater likelihood of excluding less litera
respondents thereby culminating into poor data quality as a result of non-response, missing data
and gathering of inconsistent survey responses. From the forgoing empirical studies, two
hypotheses have emerged. These are:
H0: Literacy level of respondents does not significantly impact on the outcomes of research
surveys.

Asian Journal of Empirical Research, 3(10)2013: 1362-1381
1371
H0: Multiplicity of Ethnic Groups/Languages of respondents does not significantly impact on
the outcomes of questionnaire design.
MATERIALS AND METHOD
This paper adopts quantitative research methods. The population of this research is
lecturers/researchers with survey-orientation from universities, colleges of education,
polytechnics and independent research institutions. The sampling location is Lagos State which is
a commercial beehive of Nigeria. The required data were collected using a survey evaluation
instrument (SEI) which contained 33 items. The sample size of 250 lecturers, researchers and
students was selected from the target population using a purposive sampling technique
(Descombe, 2012). The generated data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics
on the basis of which informed conclusions on environmental factors were made. This approach
aligns with the best practice in survey-based research method in management sciences (Sweeney,
2009; Howitt and Cramer, 2010; Saunders et al., 2012).
RESULTS AND FINDINGS
The response rate from this survey is average. From a total of 250 questionnaires administered to
cross-section of lecturers/researchers/students, a total of 136 questionnaires were returned after a
period of two months with consistent follow-ups on email, personal contact and phone calls. The
response rate was 54.4%. The reliability test was conducted to test if the 33 questions in the
questionnaire instrument actually measured what it was intended to measure. The Cronbach
Alpha based on standardised items indicated a magnitude of 0.656; an indication that the
reliability condition is satisfactory. The findings arising from the survey as well as the outcomes
of four tested hypotheses are as tabulated and discussed below.
Table 1: Demographic profiles of respondents
Status of respondent Percentage %
Lecturer in the University 22.8%
Lecturer in the Polytechnic 22.1%
Lecturer in the College of Education 10.3%
Researcher in the industry 7.4%
Student researcher 37.5%
Total 100
Sex of respondent
Male 61%
Female 39%
Total 100
Research Orientation
Qualitative Method 12.5%
Quantitative Method 22.1%

Asian Journal of Empirical Research, 3(10)2013: 1362-1381
1372
Mixed Method 65.4%
Total 100
Age of respondent
21-30 years 44.1%
31-40 years 31.6%
41-50 years 23.5%
51-60 years 0.7%
Total 100
Marital Status of respondent
Single 39.7%
Married 51.4%
Widow 8.8%
Total 100
Educational Qualifications
Bachelor Degree 18.4%
Master Degree 40.4%
Doctoral Degree 13.2%
Others 27.9%
Total 100
Survey Experience
0-5 years 27.9%
6-10 years 39%
11-15 years 12.5%
16-20 years 10.3%
21 years and above 10.3%
Total 100
Table 1 highlights the demographics of the survey. Lecturers from the university that partook in
the survey were 22.8%, while those from polytechnics and colleges of education were 22.1% and
10.3% respectively. The researchers in the industry are 7.4% and student researchers are 37.5%.
On gender participation, 61% of the respondents were males, while 39% were females. From the
demographics, 65.4% of the respondents indicated that they have mixed method research
orientation, 22.1% reported that they use quantitative method and 12.5% indicated that that they
use qualitative method. Also noteworthy is the survey experience of respondents. 27.9% of the
respondents have at least 5 years survey experiences, while those with 6-10 years, 11-15 years,
16-20 years and above 21 years experiences were 39%, 12.5%, 10.3% and 10.3% respectively.
Table 2: Nature of surveys in academic research
SN
Strongly Agree (SA), Agree (A), Neither Agree
nor Disagree (N) Disagree (D) and Strongly
Disagree (SD)
SA A N D SD
1.
Surveys are often relevant where secondary
data on phenomenon being investigated are
unavailable or unsuitable.
19.9% 52.9% 11.8% 14.7% 0.7%
2. Surveys provide actual field interaction with the
respondents targeted for a research programme. 39.7% 48.5% 1.5% 10.3% 0%
3.
Surveys allow collection of specific
data/information on issues being investigated as
opposed to generalised socio-economic data.
38.2% 50.0% 7.4% 4.4% 0%

Asian Journal of Empirical Research, 3(10)2013: 1362-1381
1373
4.
Surveys allow researchers to collect
quantitative data which can be analysed
quantitatively using descriptive and inferential
statistics.
49.3% 41.2% 5.1% 3.7% 0.7%
Table 2 reflects satisfactory findings on nature of survey in developing countries. A total of
72.8% of the respondents reported that surveys are relevant where secondary data on phenomenon
being investigated are unavailable or unsuitable. Another finding indicated that 88.2% agreed that
surveys provide actual field interaction with target respondents. Moreover, 88.2% of the
respondents agreed that surveys allow collection of specific data/information on issues being
investigated, while 90.5% reported that surveys allow researchers to collect quantitative data
which can be analysed quantitatively using descriptive and inferential statistics.
Table 3: Impact of Literacy level on surveys
SN
Strongly Agree (SA), Agree (A), Neither Agree
nor Disagree (N) Disagree (D) and Strongly
Disagree (SD)
SA A N D SD
1. The use of survey is often hindered by low
literacy level of respondents. 39.0% 49.3% 6.6% 3.7% 1.5%
2 Surveys are often biased in favour of literate
respondents in sample location. 20.6% 30.9% 27.2% 17.6% 3.6%
3.
Most research uses written questionnaires for
survey because of the convenience of data
gathering.
33.1% 50% 5.1% 2.2% 9.6%
4.
Most written questionnaires designed for
survey are administered to the literate members
of the target population in order to boost
response rate.
25.7% 51.5% 15.4% 4.4% 2.9%
5.
Surveying illiterate members of the target
population may result in researchers putting
words in the mouth of respondents, thus leading
to bias or subjectivity
10.3% 64.7% 5.9% 18.4% 0.7%
Table 3 presents the findings on impact of literacy on survey. A total of 88.3% answered in the
affirmative stating that literacy level affect outcome of survey from their survey experience.
Whereas, 83.1% agreed that most research uses written questionnaires for survey because of the
convenience of data gathering. And, 77.2% are of the view that questionnaires designed for
survey are administered to the literate members of the target population in order to boost response
rate.
Table 4: Impact of multiplicity of ethnic groups/languages on surveys
SN
Strongly Agree (SA), Agree (A), Neither Agree
nor Disagree (N) Disagree (D) and Strongly
Disagree (SD)
SA A N D SD
1. The phenomenon of multiplicity of ethnic 25% 49.3% 3.7% 21.3% 0.7%

Asian Journal of Empirical Research, 3(10)2013: 1362-1381
1374
Table 4 revealed some key findings on the impact of multiplicity of ethnic groups/languages on
surveys. In the first instance, 74.3% of the respondents affirmed that the phenomenon of
multiplicity of ethnic groups/languages affects questionnaire design. Another 62.5% of the
respondents felt that the problem of language excludes many potential respondents from
participation in surveys. However, 95.8% are of the respondents noted that researchers conduct
interviews in English to avoid the challenge of multiplicity of ethnic groups. In conclusion, 86.8%
maintainedthat the researcher‟schoiceof English languagefor surveys (interviews and
Questionnaire) enhances information coding/transcription, data analysis and quality of
presentation of research outcome.
groups/languages affects questionnaire design.
2. The problem of language excludes many potential
respondents from participation in surveys. 14% 48.5% 24.3% 12.5% 0.7%
3 Researchers adopt English language as the
preferred language for questionnaire design. 44.9% 50.7% 1.5% 2.2% 0.7%
4.
Researchers conduct interviews in English to
avoid the challenge of multiplicity of ethnic
groups.
27.9% 52.9% 15.4% 2.9% 0.7%
5.
In academic,researcher‟schoice of English
language for surveys (interviews and
questionnaire) enhances information
coding/transcription, data analysis and
presentation.
29.4% 57.4% 2.9% 2.2% 8.1%
6
For non-academic surveys targeted at sourcing
data on socio-cultural practices of local
population, researchers make use of local
languages.
19.1% 54.4% 15.4% 9.6% 1.5%
SN
Strongly Agree (SA), Agree (A), Neither Agree
nor Disagree (N) Disagree (D) and Strongly
Disagree (SD)
SA A N D SD
1.
Respondent‟sinability to answerquestions
correctly could be due to improper framing of
research questionnaire and interview questions.
36.8% 44.9% 14.7% 3.7% 0.0%
2 Inappropriate/low responses to surveys could be
deliberate due to apathy and suspicion for the 23.5% 44.9% 22.1% 8.8% 0.7%

Asian Journal of Empirical Research, 3(10)2013: 1362-1381
1375
Table 5: Impact of inappropriate responses on surveys
Table 5 had four key findings on the impact of inappropriate responses on surveys. The first is
that 81.7% of the respondents are of the view thatrespondent‟s inability to answer questions
correctly is traceable improper framing of research questionnaire and interview questions.
Secondly, 68.4% of the respondents stated that inappropriate/low responses to surveys could be
deliberate due to apathy and suspicion for the research. Furthermore, 74.3% of the respondents
attributed to inappropriate responses from surveys to hastiness and time constraints of the
respondents. Lastly, 72.8% of the respondents reported that inappropriate responses from survey
could be due to the sensitivity of the matter being surveyed.
Table 6: Impact of misleading responses on surveys
SN Strongly Agree (SA), Agree (A), Neither Agree
nor Disagree (N) Disagree (D) and Strongly
Disagree (SD)
SA A N D SD
1. The incidences of misleading responses affect the
reliability and outcome of research findings. 44.1% 45.6% 3.7% 4.4% 2.2%
2. Misleading responses arises where respondents
are coerced to partake in the research. 19.9% 43.4% 32.4% 1.5% 2.9%
3
Misleading responses could be traceable to
improper framing of research questions in
structured questionnaire and interview schedule.
25.7% 36.8% 20.6% 15.4% 1.5%
4.
The incidence of misleading responses is common
with surveys probing into personal matters like
incomes, sexual orientations, party affiliations,
religious ideologies and other sensitive profiles.
19.1% 52.9% 8.8% 16.9% 2.2%
5.
Public servants provide misleading responses for
fear of being accused of leaking confidential
information to researchers.
19.9% 61.0% 7.4% 9.6% 2.2%
6. Corporate organisations provide misleading
question for fear of competitors. 23.5% 46.3% 23.5% 5.1% 1.5%
7. Misleading responses are traceable to the concern
to preserve confidentiality. 24.3% 33.1% 30.9% 8.8% 2.9%
Table 6 presents seven major findings on the impact of misleading responses on surveys. The
foremost indicates that 89.7% reported that incidences of misleading responses affect the
reliability and outcome of research findings, while the others disagreed. The second reveals that
63.3% of the respondents agreed that coercion leads misleading responses. 62.6% respondents
research.
3.
Inappropriate responses to surveys could be as a
result of hastiness and time constraints of the
respondents.
12.5% 61.8% 14.7% 3.7% 7.4%
4.
Respondent‟sinability to answerquestions
correctly could be due to the sensitivity of the
matter being surveyed.
15.4% 57.4% 15.4% 3.7% 8.1%

Asian Journal of Empirical Research, 3(10)2013: 1362-1381
1376
opined that misleading responses arising from surveys could be traceable to improper framing of
research questions in structured questionnaire and interview schedule. The third finding shows
that 72% respondents agreed that the incidence of misleading responses is common with surveys
probing into personal matters like incomes, sexual orientations, party affiliations, religious
ideologies and other sensitive profiles. Next, 80.9% of the respondents are of the view that public
servants provide misleading responses for fear of being accused of leaking confidential
information to researchers. The sixth finding indicates that 69.8% of the respondents report that
corporate organisations provide misleading question for fear of competitors. Finally, 57.4% of the
respondents attribute additional source of misleading survey responses to concern to preserve
confidentiality.
Table 7: Results of the Hypotheses
From table 7 above, all the four (4) null hypotheses were rejected at 5% level of significance.
Detailed discussion is provided hereunder.
For hypothesis 1, the p-value = (0.019). Since p-value = 0.019 < 0.05, we reject the null
hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis that literacy level of respondents significantly
impact on the outcomes of research surveys.
Also, hypothesis 2 has a p-value = 0.000. Since p-value = 0.000 < 0.05, we reject the null
hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis that multiplicity of ethnic groups/languages of
respondents significantly impact on outcomes of questionnaire design.
Hypothesis 3 has a p-value =0.006 and since p-value = 0.006 < 0.05, we reject the null hypothesis
and accept the alternative hypothesis that inappropriate responses from respondents significantly
impact on the outcomes of research surveys.
SN Hypothesis Statements Df and
Level of Sig.
Chi square
and P-Value Decision
1. Literacy level of respondents does not significantly
impact on the outcomes of research surveys. 16(5%) 29.828 (0.0190) Reject
2.
Multiplicity of Ethnic Groups/Languages of
respondents does not significantly impact on
outcomes of questionnaire design.
16(5% 48.832 (0.000) Reject
3.
Inappropriate responses from respondents do not
significantly impact on the outcomes of research
surveys.
12(5%) 27.621 (0.006) Reject
4.
Misleading responses from respondents does not
significantly impact on the outcomes of research
surveys.
16(5%) 64.284(0.000) Reject

Asian Journal of Empirical Research, 3(10)2013: 1362-1381
1377
In conclusion, hypothesis 4 has p-value =0.000. Like previous hypotheses, it p-value =0.000 <
0.05, we reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis that misleading responses
from respondents significantly impact on the outcomes of research surveys.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The thrust of this research is to explore the environmental factors facing surveys in developing
nation. The adoption of survey in conducting academic research was firmly established in
developing countries using available empirical evidences in Nigeria due to the inevitability of
secondary data in academic research work but its effectiveness was threatened with some
observable environmental challenges such as literacy level of respondents and the multiplicity of
the ethnic groups and diversity in languages which resulted into inappropriate and misleading
responses on the outcome of the surveys. Four communication theories (hermeneutics, agenda
setting theory, symbolic interactionism and social judgement theory) are found useful in
explaining the identified environmental factors. The inferential statistics established a total
rejection of all the four null hypotheses tested in this study, thus affirming the alternative
hypotheses hence the following recommendations were made which in the opinion of the
researchers can fortified the use of survey method for academic research in developing countries:
1. The population for survey should be properly segmented to determine the choice of
language to be adopted in conducting the research work and thus reduce the literacy
factor as part of environmental challenges facing survey research in developing
countries.
2. There is need for public institutions and corporate organisations to accord researchers the
desired attention and support when undertaking surveys because the social-economic
benefits arising from research surveys impact on economic growth and academic
development. The freedom of information bill (FOB) before the National Assembly is
welcome development. This legislation when operational would provide safety net for
both respondents and researchers thereby providing more access to data for economic
and academic development in Nigeria.
3. To encourage institutional participation, an award system should be institutionalized by
the Government of developing countries for individual and corporate organizations that
are supporting or promoting survey research for the advancement of academic work for
sustainable growth and development which shall fast track the upward movement of
developing countries to developed nations through qualitative research output.

Asian Journal of Empirical Research, 3(10)2013: 1362-1381
1378
4. Researchers are also encouraged to treat data collected from corporate organisations and
government institutions with utmost confidentiality, as misuse of data/information by
researchers is often advanced as reason for not granting access to researchers. The data
protection Act as obtainable in United Kingdom is required in Nigeria to forestall
misuse/abuse of data/information by researchers.
5. Researchers should pay serious attention to design and validation to structured
questionnaire as well as proposed interview questions. This precaution is necessary to
ensure that framed question-item in questionnaires and interview schedules measure
what they are designed to measure. A well designed questionnaire/interview schedule
should forestall non-response, poor response and misleading responses. In case of a
questionnaire, a researcher could involve experts/specialists in the design of
questionnaires at the operationalization phase and evaluation process.
6. To forestall non-response and inability of respondents to answer survey questions
appropriately, that characterised surveys in Nigeria including the current research with
54.4% response rate. There is need for more sensitisation on the benefits of surveys for
the society.
7. With regards to literacy level which hinders participation by some vital segment of the
society most field surveys. The option of interviewer completed questionnaire should be
explored to carry along those with low literacy level. Besides, a collaborative option
involving scholars of languages could be explored. Multiplicity of languages should not
be a basis for excluding vital segment of the society from surveys.
8. In addition, trained interpreters with proficiency in local languages (where and when
desirable for survey research) should be recruited to eliminate the inappropriate and
misleading responses which could be attributed to poor or misleading interpretation.
More importantly, the official language of respective developing countries should be
adopted as the preferred language for survey research for uniformity of report findings
and implications on further research.
It is believed that if the observed environmental factors are substantially redressed, survey
research in Nigeria would be greatly enriched and the research findings therefrom would be better
fortified.

Asian Journal of Empirical Research, 3(10)2013: 1362-1381
1379
Acknowledgement
We wish to thank the authorities of De Montfort University (DMU), Leicester, United Kingdom
and Yaba College of Technology for providing conference registration fee and travel expenses.
All academic staff, career researchers and studenst researchers who partook in this survey are
highly appreciated.
REFERENCES
Al-Hazemi, H. (2005). Lexical Attrition of Some Arabic Speakers of English as a foreign
language: A Study of Word Loss. The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. 6, No. 12, Available:
http://iteslj.org/Articles/Al-Hazemi-Attrition/(Accessed: 25 November, 2013).
Babbie E. (2004). The Practice of Social Research (10th Ed.) Thomson/Wadsworth: California.
Babbie E. (2010). The Practice of Social Research (13th Ed.) Thomson/Wadsworth: California.
Bailey K. (1982). Methods of Social Research (2nd Ed.) The Free Press: New York.
Bell J. (1999). Doing Your Research Project: A Guide for First Time Researchers in Education
and Social Sciences (3rd Ed.) Open University Press: Philadelphia
Birn R. (2000). The Handbook of International Market Research Techniques (2nd Ed.) Kogan
Page: London
Boyce, C. and Neale, P. (2006). Conducting in-depth Interviews: A Guide for Designing and
Conducting In-Depth Interviews. Pathfinder International Tool Series
Brace, I. (2008). Questionnaire Design. United States of America: Kogan Page Publisher.
Bryman A. (2008). Social Research Method. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Collis, J. and Hussey, R. (2003). Business Research: A Practical Guide for Undergraduate and
Graduate Students, 2nd edition, Palgrave Macmillan.
Denscombe, M. (1998). The Good Research Guide for Small Scale Social Research Projects.
Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Denscombe, M. (2010). The Good Research Guide for Small-scale social research projects (4 th
Ed.). England: McGraw Hill Open University Press.
Doherty, M. E. and Kurz, E. M. (1996). Social judgement theory. Thinking and Reasoning, Vol.
2, pp. 109-140.
Duvall, J. S. and Hays, J. D. (2001). Grasping God's Word: A Hands on Approach to Reading,
Interpreting, and Applying the Bible. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan.
Eysenbach, G. (2005). Law of Attrition. Journal of Medical Internet Research, Vol. 7, No. 1,
Edition 11. Available: http://www.jmir.org/2005/1/e11/(Acceesed: 25 November, 2013).
Fenton, K. A., Johnson, A. M., McManus, S. and Erens, B. (2001). Measuring sexual behaviour:
methodological challenges in survey research. Sex Transm Inf; Vol. 77, pp. 84–92.

Asian Journal of Empirical Research, 3(10)2013: 1362-1381
1380
Ferguson, S. B., Wright, D. F. and Packer, J. I. (1988). (eds) New Dictionary of Theology.
Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press.
Gannon-Leary, P., Banwell, L. and Childs, S. (2002). Selling the JUBILEE Project: issues arising
from a methodology. Library and Information Research News, Vol. 26, No. 83, pp. 27-35.
Griffin, E. (2012). A first look at communication theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Groves, R. M. and Cooper, M. P. (1998). Nonresponse in Household Interview Surveys, John
Wiley and Sons, New York.
Herman-Kinney, N. J. and Reynolds, L. T. (2003). Handbook of Symbolic Interactionism. New
York: Alta Mira Press.
Howitt, D. and Cramer, D. (2010). Introduction to Research Methods in Psychology. 3rd edition.
New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Kaiser, W. C. and Silva, M. (2007). An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics: The Search for
Meaning. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
Kennedy, J. M. and Vargus, B. (2001). Challenges in Survey Research and Their Implications for
Philanthropic Studies Research. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, Vol. 30, No. 3
pp. 483-494.
Jeanrond, W. G. (1994). Theological Hermeneutics: Development and Significance (3 rd Edition).
United Kingdom: SCM Press.
Laurie, H., Smith, R. and Scott, L. (1999). Strategies for Reducing Nonresponse in a Longitudinal
Panel Survey. Journal of Official Statistics, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 269-282.
Lepkowski, J. M. and Couper, M. P. (2002). Nonresponse in the Second Wave of Longitudinal
Household Surveys. in R. M. Groves, D. A. Dillman, J. L. Eltinge and R. J. A. Little (eds),
Survey Nonresponse, John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Loosveldt, G., Pickery, J. and Billiet, J. (2002). Item Nonresponse as a Predictor of Unit
Nonresponse in a Panel Survey. Journal of Official Statistics, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 545-557.
Martin, J. and Beerten, R. (1999). The Effect of Interviewer Characteristics on Survey Response
Rates, Paper presented at the International Conference on Survey Non-Response, Portland,
Oregon, 28-31 October.
McCombs, M. and Reynolds, A. (2002). News Influence on Our Pictures of the World in Media
Effects: Advances in Theory and Research Jennings Bryant and Dolf Zillmann (eds.),
Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 1-18
Monette, D. R., Sullivan, T. J. and DeJong, C. R, (2005). Applied Social Research. A Tool for the
Human Services, 6th edition. United States of America: Cengage Learning.
O‟Leary, Z. (2004). The essential guide to doing research. London: Sage Publishing Inc.
Olsen, R. J. (2005). The Problem of Respondent Attrition: Survey Methodology is Key. Monthly
Labour Review, Vol. 128, No. 2, pp. 63-70.

Asian Journal of Empirical Research, 3(10)2013: 1362-1381
1381
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A., (2007). Research Methods for Business Students. 4 th
Edition. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2012). Research Methods for Business Students (eds).
Edinburgh Gate, Harlow, England: Pearson Education Limited.
Shannon, C. E. (1948). A Mathematical Theory of Communication. The Bell System Technical
Journal, Vol. 27, pp. 379 –423.
Sweeney, L. (2009). A Study of Current Practice of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and an
Examination of the Relationship between CSR and Financial Performance Using Structural
Equation Modelling (SEM). Doctoral Thesis, Dublin Institute of Technology, Dublin.
The International Conference on Survey Nonresponse (1999). Portland, Oregon. In monograph
(eds) Groves, R., Dillman, D. A., Eltinge, J. L., and Little, R. J. A. Survey Nonresponse.
Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics.
Watson, N. and Wooden, M. (2009). Identifying Factors Affecting Longitudinal Survey
Response, in Methodology of Longitudinal Surveys (ed P. Lynn), John Wiley & Sons, Ltd,
Chichester, UK.
View publication statsView publication stats