Observing "The Observers Observed": A Comment* TOM W. SMITH, National Opinion Research Center WOODY CARTER,National Opinion Research Center Peneff's (1988)ethnographic study of interviewers of the Institut National de la Statistique et des Etudes Economiques (INSEE) provides rich insight into how the institutional history and administrative structure of INSEE impacts on data collection in the field. In particular, it documents how and why interviewers deviate from the rules and interviewing procedures established by INSEE. As an idiographic study of INSEE, Peneffs is an interesting "peek behind the veil" of data collection. But Peneffs article runs into major problems when it tries to generalize beyond the unique experience of INSEE to survey research in general. First, Peneff completely ignores that there is a long research tradition on interviewing and interviewers. From Hyman's seminal work in the 1940s and 1950s (1954) to Converse and Schuman's detailed study (1974) of interviewers on the Detroit Area Study of the University of Michigan and in association with the Institute for Social Research (ISR), survey researchers have studied many aspects of interviewing. To give only a few examples, these include (1) how characteristics of respondents and interviewers interact to influence response (Hyman 1954; Schaeffer 1980; Anderson, Silver, and Abrahamson 1988), (2) how to train interviewers and evaluate their performances (Cannell, Lawson, and Hausser 1975; Fowler and Mangione 1986; Barioux 1952),(3) how often and in what ways interviewers deviate from the scripted questions (Bradburn and Sudman 1979), and (4) how vocal attributes of interviewers effect cooperation and responses (Groves and Magilavy 1986; Oksenberg, Coleman, and Cannell 1986). Second, Peneff fails to appreciate how special and atypical the situation at INSEE appears to be. In terms of structure, supervision, and field staff, INSEE does not resemble any major American survey research organization. For example, while most INSEE interviewers are "male and old" (Peneff 1988:525), personal interviewers for all national American surveys are overwhelmingly female and usually middle aged. In addition, INSEE interviewers are paid a piece rate (Peneff 1988:525),while American interviewers are almost always paid by the hour. Finally, there is little indication of meaningful supervision of INSEE interviewers; personal interviewers in American survey research are supervised through regular phone reports, direct observation in the field, and taping, often by supervisors with extensive personal experience as interviewers. Centralized telephone interviewers are even more closely monitored and supervised. These differences apparently result from the institutional history and structure of INSEE that Peneff ably relates. Third, Peneff misjudges the situation at the ISR (Peneff 1988:521, n. 2) which he cites to prove a general lack of attention to interviewing and interviewers by survey research. Probably no organization has done more to investigate these issues than ISR. In fact, among the sample of literature we cited above, half were from ISR authors and surveys. Peneff's unfamiliarity with ISR is further shown by his claim that their interviewers are "expected to complete 45 questionnaires daily" (Peneff 1988:521, n.2). Considering the seven-hour day that he reports they work, this comes to a finished interview every 9.3 minutes! Given that ISR inter-
*
Correspondence to: Smith. National Opinion Research Center. university of Chicago, 1155 East 60th Street, Chicago, IL 60637
3 10
SOCIAL PROBLEMS, Vol. 36, No. 3, June 1989