Thing 17: Survey tools (ii)

An update on what I posted on 8 January.

I said then I'd created a survey, using Google Forms, on the subject of superhero powers.  It has drawn a single response, which is obviously not an adequate statistical sample.  100% of respondents named telekinesis as the superpower they hadn't got, and television as the source of their hearing about it; they were disappointed not to have this power, had aspired to it, and, for the story behind their aspiration, gave the following statement:

"Moving equipment would be a gesture away! Computers would be instantly fixed because I willed it to happen."

Let us press on to Georgina's recommended application, Qualtrics.  This is now live for me, and I've had a go at creating a survey using it. It's a spoof, I admit, and neither an illuminating survey nor particularly funny, but had me exploring large areas of Qualtrics that I shall be able to evaluate properly as I use them, or not, in creating surveys in earnest for the Haddon. They will be no worse for this dash of prior Qualtrics experience.

Thing 17: Survey tools (i)

This post is an interim progress report.  I have, as Georgina bids us, applied for a Qualtrics account; I have made a survey using Google Forms while waiting for Qualtrics to arrive, and tweeted links to said survey.  Later, I will do a 'Thing 17: Survey tools (ii)' post, reporting on how I find Qualtrics and what answers, if any, my Google Forms survey has drawn.

The survey takes its cue from the 2017 Libraries at Cambridge conference. Registrants at the conference were invited to indicate what their superhero powers were, and a few did.  But the conference included much -- a panel discussion and a well-received keynote address -- on the theme of failure.  My survey asks respondents about superpowers they don't have.

Reading the posts of other '23 research things' participants has been most instructive, particularly Luther's notes about the limitations of surveying as a technique and the usefulness of other methods. He is quite right to note the ease with which spurious survey returns can be created; conversely, a toxic situation can be inflamed by insinuations that some survey returns are bogus, even if the insinuations have no basis in fact.  Luther's reference to 'grounded theory' took me on to unfamiliar territory, and I look forward to exploring this further.  Trying to relate it to my my own experience, I suppose it was something like grounded theorizing when I examined the free-text responses to a Haddon Library user survey, and when I asked library users informally why they thought a particular teaching session had had zero take-up.  In both cases I was trying to see if any patterns emerged.

Of these things, more when Qualtrics is in.  And any superpower survey responses.