How to Get Truthful Answers in Sensitive Research (On the methodological potential of the nominative techniquе)

The article is devoted to the description and analysis of the nominative technique, which belongs to the class of non-randomized survey models designed to obtain sincere answers from respondents in research on sensitive issues. Theoretical origins and methodological foundations of the nominative technique are analyzed. Its connection with the methods of multiplicity and the theory of network samples by M. Sirken is traced. A detailed description of the two main versions of the analyzed technique is given: the early one, presented by the «three closest friends of the respondents» method, proposed in the 1970s byM. Sirken, and the later, developed by J. Miller in the middle 1980s taking into account the volume and depth of the respondents' social networks, as well as information about the deviance of «significant others». The organizational, technical and methodological features of these versions are shown. Methods for statistical assessment of the prevalence of the studied types of social deviations for both described models are presented. The advantages and disadvantages, possibilities and limitations of the nominative technique, as well as the conditions for its reliable application are discussed. The results of empirical studies are presented, indicating the superiority of this technique over the self-report method in terms of the reliability and quality of the data obtained. The conclusion is made about the expediency of its use when discussing sensitive issues and topics with respondents.

Keywords

nominative technique, sensitive research, indirect questioning techniques, shadow sample, sincerity of answers, social desirability, validity of data

Received

29.05.2023

Publication date

12.07.2023

Number of characters

32212

Cite

GOST	Myagkov A. How to Get Truthful Answers in Sensitive Research (On the methodological potential of the nominative techniquе) // Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya – 2023. – Issue 5 C. 26-36 [Electronic resource]. URL: http://ras.jes.su/socis/s013216250025795-7-1-en (circulation date: 06.05.2024). DOI: 10.31857/S013216250025795-7
MLA	Myagkov, Alexander Yu. "How to Get Truthful Answers in Sensitive Research (On the methodological potential of the nominative techniquе)." Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya 5 (2023):26-36. DOI: 10.31857/S013216250025795-7
APA	Myagkov A. (2023). How to Get Truthful Answers in Sensitive Research (On the methodological potential of the nominative techniquе). Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya (5), pp.26-36 DOI: 10.31857/S013216250025795-7

100 rub.

When subscribing to an article or issue, the user can download PDF, evaluate the publication or contact the author. Need to register.

Number of purchasers: 0, views: 184

Readers community rating: votes 0

1. Moin V.B. Asimmetriya pripisyvaniya v sotsiologicheskikh oprosakh // Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya. 1991. № 1. S. 40–52. [Moin V.B. (1991) Attribution asymmetry in sociological surveys. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya [Sociological Studies]. No. 1: 40–52. (In Russ.)]

2. Myagkov A.Yu. Iskrennost' respondentov v sensitivnykh oprosakh: metody diagnostiki i stimulirovaniya. Izd. 2-e ispr. i dop. M.: Variant, 2012. [Myagkov A.Yu. (2012) Sinserity of the Respondents in Sensitive Surveys: Diagnostic and Stimulation Methods. 2nd ed, fix. and add. Moscow: Variant. (In Russ.)]

3. Myagkov A.Yu. Stimulirovanie iskrennikh otvetov respondentov v oprosnykh issledovaniyakh: Voprosy metodologii i metodov. Ivanovo: IGEhU, 2018. [Myagkov A.Yu. (2018) Stimulating the Sincere Answers of Respondents in Survey Research: Methodology and Methods Questions. Ivanovo: IGEU. (In Russ.)]

4. Myagkov A.Yu. Ob odnom metode otsenki masshtabov deviantnogo povedeniya // Spetsifika professional'noj deyatel'nosti sotsial'nykh rabotnikov / Pod obsch. red. Z.Kh. Saralievoj. N. Novgorod: NISOTs, 2015. S. 147–150. [Myagkov A.Yu. (2015) About One Method of Evaluation of the Extent of Deviant Behavior. The Specificity of the Professional Activity of Social Workers. Gen. ed. by Z.Kh. Saralieva. Nizhny Novgorod: NISOTS. (In Russ.)]

5. Bradburn N.M., Sudman S. (1979) Improving Interview Method and Questionnaire Design. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

6. Chaudhuri A. (2010) Randomized Response and Indirect Questioning Techniques in Surveys. Boca Raton, Fl.: Chapman & Hall/CRC Tailor and Francis Group.

7. Chaudhury A., Christofides T.C. (2013) Indirect Questioning in Sample Surveys. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.

8. Chen S., Lu X., Liljeros F. et al. (2021) Indirect Inference of Sensitive Variables with Peer Network Survey. Journal of Complex Networks. Vol. 9. No. 6: 1–15. URL: https://academic.oup.com/comnet/article-abstract/9/6/cnab034/6420764 (accessed 13.02.2023).

9. Davis E.O., Crudge B., Glikman J.A. (2022) The Nominative Technique: A Simple Tool of Assessing Illegal Wildlife Consumption. Oryx. Vol. 56. No. 2: 284–287.

10. Davis E.O., Crudge B., Lim T. et al. (2019) Understanding the Prevalence of Bear Part Consumption in Cambodia: A Comparison of Specialized Questioning Techniques. PLOS ONE. Vol. 14. No. 2: 1–17. URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0211544 (accessed 18.10.2022).

11. Davis E.O., Glikman J.A. (2020) An Assessment of Wildlife Use by Northern Laos Nationals. Animals. Vol. 10. No. 685: 1–13.

12. Droitcour J.A., Caspar R., Hubbard M.L. (1991) The Item Count Technique as a Method of Indirect Questioning: A Review of Its Development and a Case Study Application. In: Measurement Errors in Surveys. Ed. by P.P. Biemer, R.M. Groves, L.E. Lyberg et al. New York: John Wiley & Sons, INC: 185–210.

13. Fishburne P.M. (1980) Survey Technique for Studying Threatening Topics: A Case Study on the Use of Heroine. Doctoral Dissertation. New York: New York University.

14. Gardner W., Lids C.W., Hartwig K.C. (2005) Authors’ Reports About Research Integrity Problems in Clinical Trials. Contemporary Clinical Trials. Vol. 26. No. 2: 244‒251.

15. Haire M. (1950) Projective Techniques in Marketing Research. Journal of Marketing. Vol. 14. No. 5: 649‒656.

16. Informed Consent Templates. URL: https://www.compliance.iastate.du/com-mittees/irb/informed-consent-templates (accessed 10.02.2023).

17. Jerke J., Johann D., Rauhut H. et al. (2019) Too Sophisticated Even for Highly Educated Survey Respondents? A qualitative Assessment of Indirect Question Formats for Sensitive Questions. Survey Research Methods. Vol. 13. No. 3: 319–351.

18. John L.K., Loewenstein G., Acquisti A. et al. (2018) When and Why Randomized Response Techniques (Fail to) Elicit the Truth. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. Vol. 148. No. 1: 101‒123.

19. Langer R., Beckmann S. (2005) Sensitive Research Topics: Netnography Revisited. Qualitative Market Research. Vol. 8. No. 2: 189–203.

20. Lee R.M. (1993) Doing Research on Sensitive Topics. London: Sage.

21. Levy P.S. (1977) Estimation of Rare Events by Simple Cluster Sampling With Multiplicity. Proceedings of the Social Statistics Section, American Statistical Association: 963–966. URL: http://www.asasrms.org/Proceedings/y1977/-Estimation%20Of%20Rare%20Events%20By%20Simple%20Cluster%20Samp-ling%20With%20Multiplicity.pdf (accessed 25.10. 2022).

22. Miller J.D. (1984) A New Survey Technique for Studying Deviant Behavior. Ph.D. thesis. Washington, D.C.: The George Washington University.

23. Miller J.D. (1985) The Nominative Technique: A New Method of Estimating Heroine Prevalence. In: Self-Report Methods of Estimating Drug Use: Meeting Current Challenges to Validity. Ed. by Rouse B.A. et al. Nida Research Monograph 57: 104–124. URL: https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/self-report-methods-estimating-drug-use-meeting-current-challenges (accessed 25.10.2022).

24. Pechenkina A.O., Bausch A.W., Skinner K.K. (2018) The Pitfalls of List Experiments in Conflict Zones. Civil Wars. Vol. 20. No. 3: 408–435.

25. Peter J., Valkenburg P.M. (2011) The Impact of «Forgiving» Introductions on the Reporting of Sensitive Behavior in Surveys: The Role of Social Desirability Response Style and Developmental Status. Public Qpinion Quarterly. Vol. 75. No. 4: 779‒787.

26. Pitsch W., Emrich E. (2012) The Frequency of Doping in Elite Sport: Results of a Replication Study. International Review for the Sociology of Sport. Vol. 47. No. 5: 559–580.

27. Rasinski K.A., Willis G.B., Baldwin A.K. et al. (1999) Methods of Data Collection, Perceptions of Risks and Losses, and Motivation to Give Truthful Answers to Sensitive Survey Questions. Applied Cognitive Psychology. Vol. 13. No. 4: 465–484.

28. Sieber J.E., Stanley B. (1988) Ethical and Professional Dimensions of Socially Sensitive Research. American Psychologist. Vol. 43. No. 1: 49–55.

29. Sirken M. (1975) Evaluation and Critique of Household Surveys of Substance Use. Alcohol and Other Drugs Use and Abuse in the State of Michigan. Lansing: Michigan Department of Public Health: 1–35.

30. Sirken M.G. (1998) A Short History of Network Sampling: 1–6. URL: http://-www.asasrms.org/Proceedings/papers/1998_001.pdf (accessed 10.02.2023).

31. Sirken M.G. (2002) Questionnaire Biases of Illicit Drug Use Survey Estimates That Depend on Reports of Close Friends. Proceedings of Joint Statistical Meetings – Section on Survey Research: 3264–3267. URL: https://www.amstat.-org/sections/SRMS/Proceedings/y2002/Files/JSM2002000631.pdf (accessed 24.10.2022).

32. St. John F.A.V., Edwards-Jones G., Gibbons J.M. et al. (2010) Testing Novel Methods for Assessing Rule Breaking in Conservation. Biological Conservation. Vol. 143. No. 4: 1025–1030.

33. Sudman S., Blair E., Bradburn N.M. et al. (1977) Estimates of Threatening Behavior Based on Reports of Friends. Public Opinion Quarterly. Vol. 41. No. 2: 261–264.

34. Tourangeau R., Yan T. (2007) Sensitive Questions in Surveys. Psychological Bulletin. Vol. 133. No. 5: 859‒873.

35. Trotter R.T., Medina-Mora M.E. (2000) Qualitative Methods. Guide to Drug Abuse Epidemiology. World Health Organization: P. 91–124. URL: http://apps.-who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/1066563850/a58352_PartA.pdf;jsessionid=EF1E-C5A4FE220FB9DD4575B8E3C19A35?sequence=1 (accessed: 09.02. 2023).

36. Yeatmen S., Trinitapoli J. (2011) Best-Friend Reports: A Tool for Measuring the Prevalence of Sensitive Behaviors. American Journal of Public Health. Vol. 101. No. 9: 1666–1667.