However, poorly composed questionnaires can deter people from responding. Although simple initiatives such as free pens motivate people to quickly fill in their answers, Interpretivists criticise postal questionnaires for a lack of in-depth research. They claim questionnaires offer a distorted or incomplete picture of society because the answers might be deliberately misleading or dishonest. Moreover, they dispute the validity of postal questionnaires, claiming the subjects are conscious of their involvement in social research, and cannot, therefore, answer frankly or accurately. Further criticism centres on the opinions of subjects themselves: people might feel implored to answer questions despite not having fully formed, justifiable or informed opinions on the topic.
Advocates of the postal questionnaire refute these claims. They claim that questionnaires are usually posted to gather information on a relatively uncontroversial topic, and that results are compared to information collected via other means of research. They recognise advantages of postal questionnaires over other approaches, too. Positivists claim that postal questionnaires remove the intimidating aspect of interviews and participant observation by guaranteeing the respondent anonymity; as a result, answers might be more truthful, and, in particular, sociologists can ask personal or sensitive questions which would otherwise be inappropriate or tarnished by false answers from embarrassed or unsettled participants.
Other factors determining the usefulness and accuracy of postal questionnaires include time, funding and response rates. Questionnaires are relatively cheap and easily distributed; however, sociologists must secure funding and find time to put together a well-structured, objective and clear document. Poorly constructed postal questionnaires could be off putting to possible answerers, and the inclusion of leading questions could bring into question the legitimacy of results: for example, opinionated researchers might word questions suggestively in order lead respondents towards a certain answer which corroborates or corresponds with their own ideological/personal beliefs or ethics.
Other characteristics of postal questionnaires are the question types: an imbalance in open and closed questions restricts the answers a respondent can give, and sociologists must carefully consider the weighting of the questionnaire when planning open, closed, scaled and multiple choice questions. Sociologists encounter problems when questionnaires are heavily weighted with inconclusive closed questions or ambiguous open questions whose meanings are largely determined by personal, subjective interpretation. Ultimately, the neutrality of a postal questionnaire is key in returning valid, reliable results.
The ease with which postal questionnaires can return large amounts of data also helps sociologists in determining the ‘true’ nature of society: the questionnaires offer numerous results from numerous areas and can return basic information on all social classes. In this sense, postal questionnaires are ideal for positivists focusing on the ‘bigger picture’.
In conclusion, I believe postal questionnaires are a useful means of collecting information. They are cheap and, potentially, can return a large number of results over a short period of time. However, the quality of results depends almost entirely on the structure and content of the questionnaire, and the data often provides researchers with undetailed conclusions lacking any real depth or validity. In my opinion, the extent to which Presults are distorted by deliberately misleading or inadvertently inaccurate/poorly formed answers or opinions depends largely on the subjects of the study, and, as such, each questionnaire is specific to the individuals whom receive and return the questionnaire. Overall, I think postal questionnaires offer a means of data collection which is, generally, effective in gathering enough information to quickly determine the basic nature of an issue or topic, usually highlighting the most basic and fundamental patterns in society, which offer a sturdy structure or foundation for further investigation.
