survey in research paper

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

Knowledge Base

Methodology

Survey Research | Definition, Examples & Methods

Survey Research | Definition, Examples & Methods

Published on August 20, 2019 by Shona McCombes . Revised on June 22, 2023.

Survey research means collecting information about a group of people by asking them questions and analyzing the results. To conduct an effective survey, follow these six steps:

Determine who will participate in the survey
Decide the type of survey (mail, online, or in-person)
Design the survey questions and layout
Distribute the survey
Analyze the responses
Write up the results

Surveys are a flexible method of data collection that can be used in many different types of research .

What are surveys used for, step 1: define the population and sample, step 2: decide on the type of survey, step 3: design the survey questions, step 4: distribute the survey and collect responses, step 5: analyze the survey results, step 6: write up the survey results, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about surveys.

Surveys are used as a method of gathering data in many different fields. They are a good choice when you want to find out about the characteristics, preferences, opinions, or beliefs of a group of people.

Common uses of survey research include:

Social research : investigating the experiences and characteristics of different social groups
Market research : finding out what customers think about products, services, and companies
Health research : collecting data from patients about symptoms and treatments
Politics : measuring public opinion about parties and policies
Psychology : researching personality traits, preferences and behaviours

Surveys can be used in both cross-sectional studies , where you collect data just once, and in longitudinal studies , where you survey the same sample several times over an extended period.

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

Academic style
Vague sentences
Style consistency

See an example

Before you start conducting survey research, you should already have a clear research question that defines what you want to find out. Based on this question, you need to determine exactly who you will target to participate in the survey.

Populations

The target population is the specific group of people that you want to find out about. This group can be very broad or relatively narrow. For example:

The population of Brazil
US college students
Second-generation immigrants in the Netherlands
Customers of a specific company aged 18-24
British transgender women over the age of 50

Your survey should aim to produce results that can be generalized to the whole population. That means you need to carefully define exactly who you want to draw conclusions about.

Several common research biases can arise if your survey is not generalizable, particularly sampling bias and selection bias . The presence of these biases have serious repercussions for the validity of your results.

It’s rarely possible to survey the entire population of your research – it would be very difficult to get a response from every person in Brazil or every college student in the US. Instead, you will usually survey a sample from the population.

The sample size depends on how big the population is. You can use an online sample calculator to work out how many responses you need.

There are many sampling methods that allow you to generalize to broad populations. In general, though, the sample should aim to be representative of the population as a whole. The larger and more representative your sample, the more valid your conclusions. Again, beware of various types of sampling bias as you design your sample, particularly self-selection bias , nonresponse bias , undercoverage bias , and survivorship bias .

There are two main types of survey:

A questionnaire , where a list of questions is distributed by mail, online or in person, and respondents fill it out themselves.
An interview , where the researcher asks a set of questions by phone or in person and records the responses.

Which type you choose depends on the sample size and location, as well as the focus of the research.

Questionnaires

Sending out a paper survey by mail is a common method of gathering demographic information (for example, in a government census of the population).

You can easily access a large sample.
You have some control over who is included in the sample (e.g. residents of a specific region).
The response rate is often low, and at risk for biases like self-selection bias .

Online surveys are a popular choice for students doing dissertation research , due to the low cost and flexibility of this method. There are many online tools available for constructing surveys, such as SurveyMonkey and Google Forms .

You can quickly access a large sample without constraints on time or location.
The data is easy to process and analyze.
The anonymity and accessibility of online surveys mean you have less control over who responds, which can lead to biases like self-selection bias .

If your research focuses on a specific location, you can distribute a written questionnaire to be completed by respondents on the spot. For example, you could approach the customers of a shopping mall or ask all students to complete a questionnaire at the end of a class.

You can screen respondents to make sure only people in the target population are included in the sample.
You can collect time- and location-specific data (e.g. the opinions of a store’s weekday customers).
The sample size will be smaller, so this method is less suitable for collecting data on broad populations and is at risk for sampling bias .

Oral interviews are a useful method for smaller sample sizes. They allow you to gather more in-depth information on people’s opinions and preferences. You can conduct interviews by phone or in person.

You have personal contact with respondents, so you know exactly who will be included in the sample in advance.
You can clarify questions and ask for follow-up information when necessary.
The lack of anonymity may cause respondents to answer less honestly, and there is more risk of researcher bias.

Like questionnaires, interviews can be used to collect quantitative data: the researcher records each response as a category or rating and statistically analyzes the results. But they are more commonly used to collect qualitative data : the interviewees’ full responses are transcribed and analyzed individually to gain a richer understanding of their opinions and feelings.

Next, you need to decide which questions you will ask and how you will ask them. It’s important to consider:

The type of questions
The content of the questions
The phrasing of the questions
The ordering and layout of the survey

Open-ended vs closed-ended questions

There are two main forms of survey questions: open-ended and closed-ended. Many surveys use a combination of both.

Closed-ended questions give the respondent a predetermined set of answers to choose from. A closed-ended question can include:

A binary answer (e.g. yes/no or agree/disagree )
A scale (e.g. a Likert scale with five points ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree )
A list of options with a single answer possible (e.g. age categories)
A list of options with multiple answers possible (e.g. leisure interests)

Closed-ended questions are best for quantitative research . They provide you with numerical data that can be statistically analyzed to find patterns, trends, and correlations .

Open-ended questions are best for qualitative research. This type of question has no predetermined answers to choose from. Instead, the respondent answers in their own words.

Open questions are most common in interviews, but you can also use them in questionnaires. They are often useful as follow-up questions to ask for more detailed explanations of responses to the closed questions.

The content of the survey questions

To ensure the validity and reliability of your results, you need to carefully consider each question in the survey. All questions should be narrowly focused with enough context for the respondent to answer accurately. Avoid questions that are not directly relevant to the survey’s purpose.

When constructing closed-ended questions, ensure that the options cover all possibilities. If you include a list of options that isn’t exhaustive, you can add an “other” field.

Phrasing the survey questions

In terms of language, the survey questions should be as clear and precise as possible. Tailor the questions to your target population, keeping in mind their level of knowledge of the topic. Avoid jargon or industry-specific terminology.

Survey questions are at risk for biases like social desirability bias , the Hawthorne effect , or demand characteristics . It’s critical to use language that respondents will easily understand, and avoid words with vague or ambiguous meanings. Make sure your questions are phrased neutrally, with no indication that you’d prefer a particular answer or emotion.

Ordering the survey questions

The questions should be arranged in a logical order. Start with easy, non-sensitive, closed-ended questions that will encourage the respondent to continue.

If the survey covers several different topics or themes, group together related questions. You can divide a questionnaire into sections to help respondents understand what is being asked in each part.

If a question refers back to or depends on the answer to a previous question, they should be placed directly next to one another.

Before you start, create a clear plan for where, when, how, and with whom you will conduct the survey. Determine in advance how many responses you require and how you will gain access to the sample.

When you are satisfied that you have created a strong research design suitable for answering your research questions, you can conduct the survey through your method of choice – by mail, online, or in person.

There are many methods of analyzing the results of your survey. First you have to process the data, usually with the help of a computer program to sort all the responses. You should also clean the data by removing incomplete or incorrectly completed responses.

If you asked open-ended questions, you will have to code the responses by assigning labels to each response and organizing them into categories or themes. You can also use more qualitative methods, such as thematic analysis , which is especially suitable for analyzing interviews.

Statistical analysis is usually conducted using programs like SPSS or Stata. The same set of survey data can be subject to many analyses.

Finally, when you have collected and analyzed all the necessary data, you will write it up as part of your thesis, dissertation , or research paper .

In the methodology section, you describe exactly how you conducted the survey. You should explain the types of questions you used, the sampling method, when and where the survey took place, and the response rate. You can include the full questionnaire as an appendix and refer to it in the text if relevant.

Then introduce the analysis by describing how you prepared the data and the statistical methods you used to analyze it. In the results section, you summarize the key results from your analysis.

In the discussion and conclusion , you give your explanations and interpretations of these results, answer your research question, and reflect on the implications and limitations of the research.

If you want to know more about statistics , methodology , or research bias , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

Student’s t -distribution
Normal distribution
Null and Alternative Hypotheses
Chi square tests
Confidence interval
Quartiles & Quantiles
Cluster sampling
Stratified sampling
Data cleansing
Reproducibility vs Replicability
Peer review
Prospective cohort study

Research bias

Implicit bias
Cognitive bias
Placebo effect
Hawthorne effect
Hindsight bias
Affect heuristic
Social desirability bias

A questionnaire is a data collection tool or instrument, while a survey is an overarching research method that involves collecting and analyzing data from people using questionnaires.

A Likert scale is a rating scale that quantitatively assesses opinions, attitudes, or behaviors. It is made up of 4 or more questions that measure a single attitude or trait when response scores are combined.

To use a Likert scale in a survey , you present participants with Likert-type questions or statements, and a continuum of items, usually with 5 or 7 possible responses, to capture their degree of agreement.

Individual Likert-type questions are generally considered ordinal data , because the items have clear rank order, but don’t have an even distribution.

Overall Likert scale scores are sometimes treated as interval data. These scores are considered to have directionality and even spacing between them.

The type of data determines what statistical tests you should use to analyze your data.

The priorities of a research design can vary depending on the field, but you usually have to specify:

Your research questions and/or hypotheses
Your overall approach (e.g., qualitative or quantitative )
The type of design you’re using (e.g., a survey , experiment , or case study )
Your sampling methods or criteria for selecting subjects
Your data collection methods (e.g., questionnaires , observations)
Your data collection procedures (e.g., operationalization , timing and data management)
Your data analysis methods (e.g., statistical tests or thematic analysis )

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

McCombes, S. (2023, June 22). Survey Research | Definition, Examples & Methods. Scribbr. Retrieved April 2, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/survey-research/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, qualitative vs. quantitative research | differences, examples & methods, questionnaire design | methods, question types & examples, what is a likert scale | guide & examples, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

Buy Me a Coffee

Home » Survey Research – Types, Methods, Examples

Survey Research – Types, Methods, Examples

Table of Contents

Survey Research

Definition:

Survey Research is a quantitative research method that involves collecting standardized data from a sample of individuals or groups through the use of structured questionnaires or interviews. The data collected is then analyzed statistically to identify patterns and relationships between variables, and to draw conclusions about the population being studied.

Survey research can be used to answer a variety of questions, including:

What are people’s opinions about a certain topic?
What are people’s experiences with a certain product or service?
What are people’s beliefs about a certain issue?

Survey Research Methods

Survey Research Methods are as follows:

Telephone surveys: A survey research method where questions are administered to respondents over the phone, often used in market research or political polling.
Face-to-face surveys: A survey research method where questions are administered to respondents in person, often used in social or health research.
Mail surveys: A survey research method where questionnaires are sent to respondents through mail, often used in customer satisfaction or opinion surveys.
Online surveys: A survey research method where questions are administered to respondents through online platforms, often used in market research or customer feedback.
Email surveys: A survey research method where questionnaires are sent to respondents through email, often used in customer satisfaction or opinion surveys.
Mixed-mode surveys: A survey research method that combines two or more survey modes, often used to increase response rates or reach diverse populations.
Computer-assisted surveys: A survey research method that uses computer technology to administer or collect survey data, often used in large-scale surveys or data collection.
Interactive voice response surveys: A survey research method where respondents answer questions through a touch-tone telephone system, often used in automated customer satisfaction or opinion surveys.
Mobile surveys: A survey research method where questions are administered to respondents through mobile devices, often used in market research or customer feedback.
Group-administered surveys: A survey research method where questions are administered to a group of respondents simultaneously, often used in education or training evaluation.
Web-intercept surveys: A survey research method where questions are administered to website visitors, often used in website or user experience research.
In-app surveys: A survey research method where questions are administered to users of a mobile application, often used in mobile app or user experience research.
Social media surveys: A survey research method where questions are administered to respondents through social media platforms, often used in social media or brand awareness research.
SMS surveys: A survey research method where questions are administered to respondents through text messaging, often used in customer feedback or opinion surveys.
IVR surveys: A survey research method where questions are administered to respondents through an interactive voice response system, often used in automated customer feedback or opinion surveys.
Mixed-method surveys: A survey research method that combines both qualitative and quantitative data collection methods, often used in exploratory or mixed-method research.
Drop-off surveys: A survey research method where respondents are provided with a survey questionnaire and asked to return it at a later time or through a designated drop-off location.
Intercept surveys: A survey research method where respondents are approached in public places and asked to participate in a survey, often used in market research or customer feedback.
Hybrid surveys: A survey research method that combines two or more survey modes, data sources, or research methods, often used in complex or multi-dimensional research questions.

Types of Survey Research

There are several types of survey research that can be used to collect data from a sample of individuals or groups. following are Types of Survey Research:

Cross-sectional survey: A type of survey research that gathers data from a sample of individuals at a specific point in time, providing a snapshot of the population being studied.
Longitudinal survey: A type of survey research that gathers data from the same sample of individuals over an extended period of time, allowing researchers to track changes or trends in the population being studied.
Panel survey: A type of longitudinal survey research that tracks the same sample of individuals over time, typically collecting data at multiple points in time.
Epidemiological survey: A type of survey research that studies the distribution and determinants of health and disease in a population, often used to identify risk factors and inform public health interventions.
Observational survey: A type of survey research that collects data through direct observation of individuals or groups, often used in behavioral or social research.
Correlational survey: A type of survey research that measures the degree of association or relationship between two or more variables, often used to identify patterns or trends in data.
Experimental survey: A type of survey research that involves manipulating one or more variables to observe the effect on an outcome, often used to test causal hypotheses.
Descriptive survey: A type of survey research that describes the characteristics or attributes of a population or phenomenon, often used in exploratory research or to summarize existing data.
Diagnostic survey: A type of survey research that assesses the current state or condition of an individual or system, often used in health or organizational research.
Explanatory survey: A type of survey research that seeks to explain or understand the causes or mechanisms behind a phenomenon, often used in social or psychological research.
Process evaluation survey: A type of survey research that measures the implementation and outcomes of a program or intervention, often used in program evaluation or quality improvement.
Impact evaluation survey: A type of survey research that assesses the effectiveness or impact of a program or intervention, often used to inform policy or decision-making.
Customer satisfaction survey: A type of survey research that measures the satisfaction or dissatisfaction of customers with a product, service, or experience, often used in marketing or customer service research.
Market research survey: A type of survey research that collects data on consumer preferences, behaviors, or attitudes, often used in market research or product development.
Public opinion survey: A type of survey research that measures the attitudes, beliefs, or opinions of a population on a specific issue or topic, often used in political or social research.
Behavioral survey: A type of survey research that measures actual behavior or actions of individuals, often used in health or social research.
Attitude survey: A type of survey research that measures the attitudes, beliefs, or opinions of individuals, often used in social or psychological research.
Opinion poll: A type of survey research that measures the opinions or preferences of a population on a specific issue or topic, often used in political or media research.
Ad hoc survey: A type of survey research that is conducted for a specific purpose or research question, often used in exploratory research or to answer a specific research question.

Types Based on Methodology

Based on Methodology Survey are divided into two Types:

Quantitative Survey Research

Qualitative survey research.

Quantitative survey research is a method of collecting numerical data from a sample of participants through the use of standardized surveys or questionnaires. The purpose of quantitative survey research is to gather empirical evidence that can be analyzed statistically to draw conclusions about a particular population or phenomenon.

In quantitative survey research, the questions are structured and pre-determined, often utilizing closed-ended questions, where participants are given a limited set of response options to choose from. This approach allows for efficient data collection and analysis, as well as the ability to generalize the findings to a larger population.

Quantitative survey research is often used in market research, social sciences, public health, and other fields where numerical data is needed to make informed decisions and recommendations.

Qualitative survey research is a method of collecting non-numerical data from a sample of participants through the use of open-ended questions or semi-structured interviews. The purpose of qualitative survey research is to gain a deeper understanding of the experiences, perceptions, and attitudes of participants towards a particular phenomenon or topic.

In qualitative survey research, the questions are open-ended, allowing participants to share their thoughts and experiences in their own words. This approach allows for a rich and nuanced understanding of the topic being studied, and can provide insights that are difficult to capture through quantitative methods alone.

Qualitative survey research is often used in social sciences, education, psychology, and other fields where a deeper understanding of human experiences and perceptions is needed to inform policy, practice, or theory.

Data Analysis Methods

There are several Survey Research Data Analysis Methods that researchers may use, including:

Descriptive statistics: This method is used to summarize and describe the basic features of the survey data, such as the mean, median, mode, and standard deviation. These statistics can help researchers understand the distribution of responses and identify any trends or patterns.
Inferential statistics: This method is used to make inferences about the larger population based on the data collected in the survey. Common inferential statistical methods include hypothesis testing, regression analysis, and correlation analysis.
Factor analysis: This method is used to identify underlying factors or dimensions in the survey data. This can help researchers simplify the data and identify patterns and relationships that may not be immediately apparent.
Cluster analysis: This method is used to group similar respondents together based on their survey responses. This can help researchers identify subgroups within the larger population and understand how different groups may differ in their attitudes, behaviors, or preferences.
Structural equation modeling: This method is used to test complex relationships between variables in the survey data. It can help researchers understand how different variables may be related to one another and how they may influence one another.
Content analysis: This method is used to analyze open-ended responses in the survey data. Researchers may use software to identify themes or categories in the responses, or they may manually review and code the responses.
Text mining: This method is used to analyze text-based survey data, such as responses to open-ended questions. Researchers may use software to identify patterns and themes in the text, or they may manually review and code the text.

Applications of Survey Research

Here are some common applications of survey research:

Market Research: Companies use survey research to gather insights about customer needs, preferences, and behavior. These insights are used to create marketing strategies and develop new products.
Public Opinion Research: Governments and political parties use survey research to understand public opinion on various issues. This information is used to develop policies and make decisions.
Social Research: Survey research is used in social research to study social trends, attitudes, and behavior. Researchers use survey data to explore topics such as education, health, and social inequality.
Academic Research: Survey research is used in academic research to study various phenomena. Researchers use survey data to test theories, explore relationships between variables, and draw conclusions.
Customer Satisfaction Research: Companies use survey research to gather information about customer satisfaction with their products and services. This information is used to improve customer experience and retention.
Employee Surveys: Employers use survey research to gather feedback from employees about their job satisfaction, working conditions, and organizational culture. This information is used to improve employee retention and productivity.
Health Research: Survey research is used in health research to study topics such as disease prevalence, health behaviors, and healthcare access. Researchers use survey data to develop interventions and improve healthcare outcomes.

Examples of Survey Research

Here are some real-time examples of survey research:

COVID-19 Pandemic Surveys: Since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, surveys have been conducted to gather information about public attitudes, behaviors, and perceptions related to the pandemic. Governments and healthcare organizations have used this data to develop public health strategies and messaging.
Political Polls During Elections: During election seasons, surveys are used to measure public opinion on political candidates, policies, and issues in real-time. This information is used by political parties to develop campaign strategies and make decisions.
Customer Feedback Surveys: Companies often use real-time customer feedback surveys to gather insights about customer experience and satisfaction. This information is used to improve products and services quickly.
Event Surveys: Organizers of events such as conferences and trade shows often use surveys to gather feedback from attendees in real-time. This information can be used to improve future events and make adjustments during the current event.
Website and App Surveys: Website and app owners use surveys to gather real-time feedback from users about the functionality, user experience, and overall satisfaction with their platforms. This feedback can be used to improve the user experience and retain customers.
Employee Pulse Surveys: Employers use real-time pulse surveys to gather feedback from employees about their work experience and overall job satisfaction. This feedback is used to make changes in real-time to improve employee retention and productivity.

Survey Sample

Purpose of survey research.

The purpose of survey research is to gather data and insights from a representative sample of individuals. Survey research allows researchers to collect data quickly and efficiently from a large number of people, making it a valuable tool for understanding attitudes, behaviors, and preferences.

Here are some common purposes of survey research:

Descriptive Research: Survey research is often used to describe characteristics of a population or a phenomenon. For example, a survey could be used to describe the characteristics of a particular demographic group, such as age, gender, or income.
Exploratory Research: Survey research can be used to explore new topics or areas of research. Exploratory surveys are often used to generate hypotheses or identify potential relationships between variables.
Explanatory Research: Survey research can be used to explain relationships between variables. For example, a survey could be used to determine whether there is a relationship between educational attainment and income.
Evaluation Research: Survey research can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of a program or intervention. For example, a survey could be used to evaluate the impact of a health education program on behavior change.
Monitoring Research: Survey research can be used to monitor trends or changes over time. For example, a survey could be used to monitor changes in attitudes towards climate change or political candidates over time.

When to use Survey Research

there are certain circumstances where survey research is particularly appropriate. Here are some situations where survey research may be useful:

When the research question involves attitudes, beliefs, or opinions: Survey research is particularly useful for understanding attitudes, beliefs, and opinions on a particular topic. For example, a survey could be used to understand public opinion on a political issue.
When the research question involves behaviors or experiences: Survey research can also be useful for understanding behaviors and experiences. For example, a survey could be used to understand the prevalence of a particular health behavior.
When a large sample size is needed: Survey research allows researchers to collect data from a large number of people quickly and efficiently. This makes it a useful method when a large sample size is needed to ensure statistical validity.
When the research question is time-sensitive: Survey research can be conducted quickly, which makes it a useful method when the research question is time-sensitive. For example, a survey could be used to understand public opinion on a breaking news story.
When the research question involves a geographically dispersed population: Survey research can be conducted online, which makes it a useful method when the population of interest is geographically dispersed.

How to Conduct Survey Research

Conducting survey research involves several steps that need to be carefully planned and executed. Here is a general overview of the process:

Define the research question: The first step in conducting survey research is to clearly define the research question. The research question should be specific, measurable, and relevant to the population of interest.
Develop a survey instrument : The next step is to develop a survey instrument. This can be done using various methods, such as online survey tools or paper surveys. The survey instrument should be designed to elicit the information needed to answer the research question, and should be pre-tested with a small sample of individuals.
Select a sample : The sample is the group of individuals who will be invited to participate in the survey. The sample should be representative of the population of interest, and the size of the sample should be sufficient to ensure statistical validity.
Administer the survey: The survey can be administered in various ways, such as online, by mail, or in person. The method of administration should be chosen based on the population of interest and the research question.
Analyze the data: Once the survey data is collected, it needs to be analyzed. This involves summarizing the data using statistical methods, such as frequency distributions or regression analysis.
Draw conclusions: The final step is to draw conclusions based on the data analysis. This involves interpreting the results and answering the research question.

Advantages of Survey Research

There are several advantages to using survey research, including:

Efficient data collection: Survey research allows researchers to collect data quickly and efficiently from a large number of people. This makes it a useful method for gathering information on a wide range of topics.
Standardized data collection: Surveys are typically standardized, which means that all participants receive the same questions in the same order. This ensures that the data collected is consistent and reliable.
Cost-effective: Surveys can be conducted online, by mail, or in person, which makes them a cost-effective method of data collection.
Anonymity: Participants can remain anonymous when responding to a survey. This can encourage participants to be more honest and open in their responses.
Easy comparison: Surveys allow for easy comparison of data between different groups or over time. This makes it possible to identify trends and patterns in the data.
Versatility: Surveys can be used to collect data on a wide range of topics, including attitudes, beliefs, behaviors, and preferences.

Limitations of Survey Research

Here are some of the main limitations of survey research:

Limited depth: Surveys are typically designed to collect quantitative data, which means that they do not provide much depth or detail about people’s experiences or opinions. This can limit the insights that can be gained from the data.
Potential for bias: Surveys can be affected by various biases, including selection bias, response bias, and social desirability bias. These biases can distort the results and make them less accurate.
L imited validity: Surveys are only as valid as the questions they ask. If the questions are poorly designed or ambiguous, the results may not accurately reflect the respondents’ attitudes or behaviors.
Limited generalizability : Survey results are only generalizable to the population from which the sample was drawn. If the sample is not representative of the population, the results may not be generalizable to the larger population.
Limited ability to capture context: Surveys typically do not capture the context in which attitudes or behaviors occur. This can make it difficult to understand the reasons behind the responses.
Limited ability to capture complex phenomena: Surveys are not well-suited to capture complex phenomena, such as emotions or the dynamics of interpersonal relationships.

Following is an example of a Survey Sample:

Welcome to our Survey Research Page! We value your opinions and appreciate your participation in this survey. Please answer the questions below as honestly and thoroughly as possible.

1. What is your age?

A) Under 18
G) 65 or older

2. What is your highest level of education completed?

A) Less than high school
B) High school or equivalent
C) Some college or technical school
D) Bachelor’s degree
E) Graduate or professional degree

3. What is your current employment status?

A) Employed full-time
B) Employed part-time
C) Self-employed
D) Unemployed

4. How often do you use the internet per day?

A) Less than 1 hour
B) 1-3 hours
C) 3-5 hours
D) 5-7 hours
E) More than 7 hours

5. How often do you engage in social media per day?

6. Have you ever participated in a survey research study before?

7. If you have participated in a survey research study before, how was your experience?

A) Excellent
E) Very poor

8. What are some of the topics that you would be interested in participating in a survey research study about?

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

9. How often would you be willing to participate in survey research studies?

A) Once a week
B) Once a month
C) Once every 6 months
D) Once a year

10. Any additional comments or suggestions?

Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. Your feedback is important to us and will help us improve our survey research efforts.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

Questionnaire – Definition, Types, and Examples

Case Study – Methods, Examples and Guide

Observational Research – Methods and Guide

Quantitative Research – Methods, Types and...

Qualitative Research Methods

Explanatory Research – Types, Methods, Guide

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

Knowledge Base
Methodology
Doing Survey Research | A Step-by-Step Guide & Examples

Doing Survey Research | A Step-by-Step Guide & Examples

Published on 6 May 2022 by Shona McCombes . Revised on 10 October 2022.

Survey research means collecting information about a group of people by asking them questions and analysing the results. To conduct an effective survey, follow these six steps:

Determine who will participate in the survey
Decide the type of survey (mail, online, or in-person)
Design the survey questions and layout
Distribute the survey
Analyse the responses
Write up the results

Surveys are a flexible method of data collection that can be used in many different types of research .

What are surveys used for, step 1: define the population and sample, step 2: decide on the type of survey, step 3: design the survey questions, step 4: distribute the survey and collect responses, step 5: analyse the survey results, step 6: write up the survey results, frequently asked questions about surveys.

Common uses of survey research include:

Social research: Investigating the experiences and characteristics of different social groups
Market research: Finding out what customers think about products, services, and companies
Health research: Collecting data from patients about symptoms and treatments
Politics: Measuring public opinion about parties and policies
Psychology: Researching personality traits, preferences, and behaviours

Surveys can be used in both cross-sectional studies , where you collect data just once, and longitudinal studies , where you survey the same sample several times over an extended period.

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

Populations

The target population is the specific group of people that you want to find out about. This group can be very broad or relatively narrow. For example:

The population of Brazil
University students in the UK
Second-generation immigrants in the Netherlands
Customers of a specific company aged 18 to 24
British transgender women over the age of 50

Your survey should aim to produce results that can be generalised to the whole population. That means you need to carefully define exactly who you want to draw conclusions about.

It’s rarely possible to survey the entire population of your research – it would be very difficult to get a response from every person in Brazil or every university student in the UK. Instead, you will usually survey a sample from the population.

The sample size depends on how big the population is. You can use an online sample calculator to work out how many responses you need.

There are many sampling methods that allow you to generalise to broad populations. In general, though, the sample should aim to be representative of the population as a whole. The larger and more representative your sample, the more valid your conclusions.

There are two main types of survey:

A questionnaire , where a list of questions is distributed by post, online, or in person, and respondents fill it out themselves
An interview , where the researcher asks a set of questions by phone or in person and records the responses

Which type you choose depends on the sample size and location, as well as the focus of the research.

Questionnaires

Sending out a paper survey by post is a common method of gathering demographic information (for example, in a government census of the population).

You can easily access a large sample.
You have some control over who is included in the sample (e.g., residents of a specific region).
The response rate is often low.

You can quickly access a large sample without constraints on time or location.
The data is easy to process and analyse.
The anonymity and accessibility of online surveys mean you have less control over who responds.

If your research focuses on a specific location, you can distribute a written questionnaire to be completed by respondents on the spot. For example, you could approach the customers of a shopping centre or ask all students to complete a questionnaire at the end of a class.

You can screen respondents to make sure only people in the target population are included in the sample.
You can collect time- and location-specific data (e.g., the opinions of a shop’s weekday customers).
The sample size will be smaller, so this method is less suitable for collecting data on broad populations.

You have personal contact with respondents, so you know exactly who will be included in the sample in advance.
You can clarify questions and ask for follow-up information when necessary.
The lack of anonymity may cause respondents to answer less honestly, and there is more risk of researcher bias.

Like questionnaires, interviews can be used to collect quantitative data : the researcher records each response as a category or rating and statistically analyses the results. But they are more commonly used to collect qualitative data : the interviewees’ full responses are transcribed and analysed individually to gain a richer understanding of their opinions and feelings.

Next, you need to decide which questions you will ask and how you will ask them. It’s important to consider:

The type of questions
The content of the questions
The phrasing of the questions
The ordering and layout of the survey

Open-ended vs closed-ended questions

There are two main forms of survey questions: open-ended and closed-ended. Many surveys use a combination of both.

Closed-ended questions give the respondent a predetermined set of answers to choose from. A closed-ended question can include:

A binary answer (e.g., yes/no or agree/disagree )
A scale (e.g., a Likert scale with five points ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree )
A list of options with a single answer possible (e.g., age categories)
A list of options with multiple answers possible (e.g., leisure interests)

Closed-ended questions are best for quantitative research . They provide you with numerical data that can be statistically analysed to find patterns, trends, and correlations .

Open-ended questions are best for qualitative research. This type of question has no predetermined answers to choose from. Instead, the respondent answers in their own words.

The content of the survey questions

When constructing closed-ended questions, ensure that the options cover all possibilities. If you include a list of options that isn’t exhaustive, you can add an ‘other’ field.

Phrasing the survey questions

In terms of language, the survey questions should be as clear and precise as possible. Tailor the questions to your target population, keeping in mind their level of knowledge of the topic.

Use language that respondents will easily understand, and avoid words with vague or ambiguous meanings. Make sure your questions are phrased neutrally, with no bias towards one answer or another.

Ordering the survey questions

The questions should be arranged in a logical order. Start with easy, non-sensitive, closed-ended questions that will encourage the respondent to continue.

If a question refers back to or depends on the answer to a previous question, they should be placed directly next to one another.

Before you start, create a clear plan for where, when, how, and with whom you will conduct the survey. Determine in advance how many responses you require and how you will gain access to the sample.

There are many methods of analysing the results of your survey. First you have to process the data, usually with the help of a computer program to sort all the responses. You should also cleanse the data by removing incomplete or incorrectly completed responses.

If you asked open-ended questions, you will have to code the responses by assigning labels to each response and organising them into categories or themes. You can also use more qualitative methods, such as thematic analysis , which is especially suitable for analysing interviews.

Statistical analysis is usually conducted using programs like SPSS or Stata. The same set of survey data can be subject to many analyses.

Finally, when you have collected and analysed all the necessary data, you will write it up as part of your thesis, dissertation , or research paper .

Then introduce the analysis by describing how you prepared the data and the statistical methods you used to analyse it. In the results section, you summarise the key results from your analysis.

A Likert scale is a rating scale that quantitatively assesses opinions, attitudes, or behaviours. It is made up of four or more questions that measure a single attitude or trait when response scores are combined.

To use a Likert scale in a survey , you present participants with Likert-type questions or statements, and a continuum of items, usually with five or seven possible responses, to capture their degree of agreement.

Individual Likert-type questions are generally considered ordinal data , because the items have clear rank order, but don’t have an even distribution.

Overall Likert scale scores are sometimes treated as interval data. These scores are considered to have directionality and even spacing between them.

The type of data determines what statistical tests you should use to analyse your data.

A questionnaire is a data collection tool or instrument, while a survey is an overarching research method that involves collecting and analysing data from people using questionnaires.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the ‘Cite this Scribbr article’ button to automatically add the citation to our free Reference Generator.

McCombes, S. (2022, October 10). Doing Survey Research | A Step-by-Step Guide & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 2 April 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/research-methods/surveys/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, qualitative vs quantitative research | examples & methods, construct validity | definition, types, & examples, what is a likert scale | guide & examples.

ScienceSphere.blog

Mastering The Art Of Writing A Survey Paper: A Step-By-Step Guide

Table of Contents

Importance of survey papers in academic research

Survey papers play a crucial role in academic research as they provide a comprehensive overview of a specific topic or field. These papers serve as valuable resources for researchers, students, and professionals who want to gain a deeper understanding of a subject. By synthesizing existing literature, survey papers help to identify research gaps, highlight key findings, and offer insights into future research directions.

Survey papers are essential for the following reasons:

Summarizing existing knowledge: Survey papers consolidate and summarize the existing body of knowledge on a particular topic. They provide a comprehensive overview of the research conducted in the field, making it easier for readers to grasp the key concepts and findings.

Identifying research gaps: By analyzing the existing literature, survey papers help researchers identify areas where further investigation is needed. They highlight the gaps in knowledge and suggest potential research questions that can contribute to the advancement of the field.

Saving time and effort: Instead of going through numerous individual research papers, survey papers offer a consolidated source of information. Researchers can save time and effort by referring to a well-structured survey paper that provides a comprehensive understanding of the topic.

Providing a foundation for new research: Survey papers serve as a foundation for new research. They provide researchers with a solid understanding of the existing literature, enabling them to build upon previous studies and contribute to the field’s knowledge.

Purpose of the blog post

The purpose of this blog post is to guide aspiring researchers and students on how to write an effective survey paper. It will provide a step-by-step approach to help them navigate through the process of selecting a topic, conducting a literature review, outlining the structure, writing the paper, editing and proofreading, formatting and presentation, and finalizing the survey paper.

By following the guidelines outlined in this blog post, readers will be equipped with the necessary tools and knowledge to produce a high-quality survey paper that adds value to the academic community. Whether they are writing a survey paper for a course assignment, a research project, or a publication, this blog post will serve as a comprehensive resource to help them excel in their writing endeavors.

In the next section, we will delve into the basics of survey papers, including their definition, different types, and the benefits of writing one.

Understanding the Basics

A survey paper is a comprehensive review of existing literature on a specific topic or research area. It aims to provide a summary and analysis of the current state of knowledge in the field. Understanding the basics of survey papers is crucial for researchers and academics who wish to contribute to the existing body of knowledge. Here, we will explore the definition of a survey paper, different types of survey papers, and the benefits of writing one.

Definition of a survey paper

A survey paper, also known as a review paper or a literature review, is a type of academic paper that synthesizes and analyzes existing research on a particular topic. It goes beyond summarizing individual studies and aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the field. The goal of a survey paper is to identify trends, patterns, and gaps in the existing literature .

Different types of survey papers

There are several types of survey papers, each with its own purpose and focus. Some common types include:

Traditional survey papers : These provide a broad overview of the topic, covering various aspects and subtopics. They aim to present a comprehensive summary of the existing literature.

Focused survey papers : These focus on a specific aspect or subtopic within a broader field. They delve deeper into a particular area of interest and provide a more detailed analysis.

Systematic review papers : These follow a specific methodology for selecting and analyzing studies. They aim to minimize bias and provide an objective assessment of the available evidence.

Meta-analysis papers : These involve statistical analysis of data from multiple studies to draw conclusions and identify patterns or relationships.

Benefits of writing a survey paper

Writing a survey paper offers several benefits for researchers and academics:

Understanding the research landscape : Conducting a comprehensive literature review allows researchers to gain a deep understanding of the current state of knowledge in their field. It helps identify gaps, controversies, and areas that require further investigation.

Contributing to the field : By synthesizing and analyzing existing research, survey papers provide valuable insights and perspectives. They can help shape the direction of future research and contribute to the advancement of knowledge.

Building credibility : Publishing a well-written survey paper enhances the author’s reputation and credibility in the academic community. It demonstrates expertise in the field and the ability to critically evaluate and synthesize existing research.

Identifying research opportunities : Survey papers often highlight areas where further research is needed. They can inspire new research questions and guide researchers towards fruitful avenues of investigation.

In conclusion, understanding the basics of survey papers is essential for researchers and academics. It involves knowing the definition of a survey paper, different types of survey papers, and the benefits of writing one. By conducting a comprehensive literature review and synthesizing existing research, survey papers contribute to the advancement of knowledge in a particular field. They provide valuable insights, identify research gaps, and guide future research directions.

Choosing a Topic

Choosing the right topic is a crucial step in writing a survey paper. It sets the foundation for your research and determines the direction of your paper. Here are some key considerations when selecting a topic:

Identifying a Research Gap

To begin, you need to identify a research gap in the existing literature. Look for areas where there is limited or conflicting information, unanswered questions, or emerging trends. This will ensure that your survey paper adds value to the academic community by filling a knowledge gap .

Selecting a Specific Area of Interest

Once you have identified a research gap, narrow down your focus by selecting a specific area of interest within that gap. Choose a topic that aligns with your expertise and interests . This will make the writing process more enjoyable and allow you to bring a unique perspective to the paper.

Ensuring the Topic is Relevant and Significant

When choosing a topic, it is important to consider its relevance and significance. Select a topic that is timely and has practical implications . This will make your survey paper more valuable to readers and increase its impact. Additionally, consider the potential for future research and the broader implications of your chosen topic.

To ensure the relevance and significance of your topic, you can:

Review recent publications and conference proceedings to identify emerging trends and hot topics in your field.
Consult with experts and mentors to get their insights and suggestions on potential topics.
Consider the practical applications of your chosen topic and how it can contribute to real-world problem-solving.

By following these steps, you can choose a topic that is both interesting to you and valuable to the academic community. Remember, the topic you choose will shape the entire survey paper, so take the time to select it wisely.

In conclusion, choosing a topic for your survey paper involves identifying a research gap, selecting a specific area of interest, and ensuring the topic is relevant and significant. By following these guidelines, you can set the stage for a well-rounded and impactful survey paper.

Conducting a Literature Review

Conducting a thorough literature review is a crucial step in writing a survey paper. It involves searching for relevant sources, evaluating their credibility, and organizing and summarizing the literature. This section will guide you through the process of conducting a literature review effectively.

Searching for relevant sources

When conducting a literature review, it is essential to search for relevant sources that contribute to your understanding of the topic. Here are some tips to help you find the right sources:

Utilize academic databases : Academic databases such as Google Scholar, PubMed, and IEEE Xplore are excellent resources for finding scholarly articles, conference papers, and research studies related to your topic.

Use appropriate keywords : Use specific keywords and phrases that accurately represent your research topic. This will help you narrow down your search and find relevant sources more efficiently.

Explore citation lists : Look for relevant sources in the reference lists of articles and papers you have already found. This can lead you to additional sources that are highly relevant to your research.

Consider different publication types : Apart from academic journals, consider including books, reports, theses, and dissertations in your literature review. These sources can provide valuable insights and perspectives on your topic.

Evaluating the credibility of the sources

It is crucial to evaluate the credibility and reliability of the sources you include in your literature review. Here are some factors to consider when assessing the credibility of a source:

Author’s expertise : Check the credentials and expertise of the author(s) of the source. Look for their affiliations, qualifications, and previous research experience in the field.

Publication venue : Consider the reputation and impact factor of the journal or conference where the source was published. High-quality venues often have a rigorous peer-review process, ensuring the reliability of the research.

Currency of the source : Ensure that the source is up-to-date and reflects the current state of research in the field. This is particularly important in rapidly evolving areas of study.

Peer-reviewed sources : Prefer sources that have undergone a peer-review process. Peer-reviewed articles are evaluated by experts in the field, ensuring the quality and validity of the research.

Organizing and summarizing the literature

Once you have gathered relevant sources, it is essential to organize and summarize the literature effectively. Here are some steps to help you with this process:

Create a citation database : Maintain a database or spreadsheet to keep track of the sources you have found. Include important details such as author names, publication year, title, and relevant notes.

Identify key themes and subtopics : Analyze the literature to identify common themes and subtopics that emerge from the sources. This will help you organize your survey paper and provide a logical flow of ideas.

Summarize the main findings : Write concise summaries of the main findings and key points from each source. Focus on the aspects that are most relevant to your research question or objective.

Identify gaps and controversies : Pay attention to any gaps or controversies in the literature. These can be areas where further research is needed or where different studies present conflicting results.

By following these steps, you can conduct a comprehensive literature review that forms the foundation of your survey paper. Remember to critically analyze and synthesize the information from various sources to provide a balanced and informative overview of the topic.

Outlining the Structure

When writing a survey paper, it is crucial to have a well-structured outline that guides the flow of your content. A clear and organized structure not only helps you present your ideas effectively but also makes it easier for readers to navigate through your paper. In this section, we will discuss the key components of outlining the structure of a survey paper.

The introduction sets the stage for your survey paper and provides essential background information to the readers. It should capture their attention and clearly state the research question or objective of your paper.

Background information : Start by providing a brief overview of the topic and its significance in the field. This helps readers understand the context and relevance of your survey paper.

Research question/objective : Clearly state the main research question or objective that your paper aims to address. This helps readers understand the purpose and focus of your survey.

The main body of your survey paper should be well-organized and structured to present your findings and analysis in a coherent manner. Consider the following points when outlining the main body:

Subtopics and their organization : Identify the key subtopics or themes that you will cover in your survey. These subtopics should be logically organized to provide a smooth flow of ideas. You can use headings and subheadings to clearly indicate the different sections of your paper.

Inclusion of relevant studies and findings : Within each subtopic, include relevant studies, research papers, and findings that contribute to the understanding of the topic. Make sure to cite and reference these sources properly to give credit to the original authors.

The conclusion of your survey paper should summarize the key points discussed in the main body and provide insights for future research directions. Consider the following elements when outlining the conclusion:

Summary of key points : Provide a concise summary of the main findings and insights from your survey. This helps readers grasp the main takeaways from your paper.

Future research directions : Discuss potential areas for further research or gaps that need to be addressed in the field. This encourages readers to explore new avenues and continue the scholarly conversation.

Having a well-structured outline for your survey paper ensures that you cover all the necessary components and present your ideas in a logical and coherent manner. It helps you stay focused and organized throughout the writing process.

Remember to review and revise your outline as needed to ensure that it aligns with the specific requirements and preferences of your survey paper. A well-structured survey paper not only enhances your credibility as a researcher but also contributes to the academic community’s knowledge and understanding of the topic.

Writing the Survey Paper

Writing a survey paper requires careful planning and organization to ensure that the information is presented in a clear and coherent manner. In this section, we will discuss the key steps involved in writing a survey paper.

The introduction of a survey paper plays a crucial role in capturing the reader’s attention and setting the tone for the rest of the paper. It should begin with an engaging opening statement that highlights the importance of the topic. The research question or objective should be clearly stated to provide a roadmap for the paper.

The main body of the survey paper should present a coherent flow of ideas that addresses the research question or objective. It is important to organize the content in a logical manner, using subheadings to divide the paper into sections. Each subtopic should be discussed in detail, providing a comprehensive overview of the existing literature.

When discussing previous studies and findings, it is essential to properly cite and reference the sources. This not only gives credit to the original authors but also adds credibility to the survey paper. Using a consistent citation style throughout the paper is important to maintain uniformity.

The conclusion of the survey paper should summarize the key findings and provide a concise overview of the main points discussed in the main body. It is an opportunity to highlight the significance of the research and its implications for future studies. Recommendations for further research can also be included to encourage future exploration of the topic.

Editing and Proofreading

Once the survey paper is written, it is crucial to thoroughly edit and proofread the content. This involves checking for grammar and spelling errors to ensure clarity and professionalism. It is also beneficial to seek feedback from peers or mentors to gain different perspectives and identify areas for improvement.

Formatting and Presentation

Proper formatting and presentation are essential for a well-structured survey paper. Following the required citation style is crucial to maintain consistency and adhere to academic standards. Headings, subheadings, and paragraphs should be properly formatted to enhance readability. Additionally, including tables, figures, and graphs can help illustrate complex information and enhance the overall presentation of the paper.

Finalizing the Survey Paper

Before submitting the survey paper, it is important to review the overall structure and content. This involves making necessary revisions and improvements to ensure the paper is coherent and cohesive. Proofreading the final version is crucial to eliminate any remaining errors and ensure a polished final product.

In conclusion, writing a survey paper requires careful planning, organization, and attention to detail. By following the steps outlined in this section, you can effectively write a survey paper that contributes to the existing body of knowledge in your field. Mastering the art of writing survey papers will not only enhance your academic research skills but also establish you as a knowledgeable and credible researcher.

Additional Resources:

Recommended books and articles on survey paper writing

Online tools and platforms for organizing research

References:

List of sources cited in the blog post

Editing and proofreading are crucial steps in the writing process. They ensure that your survey paper is polished, error-free, and effectively communicates your ideas. Here are some essential tips to help you edit and proofread your survey paper effectively:

Checking for grammar and spelling errors

Use grammar and spell-check tools : Utilize grammar and spell-check tools like Grammarly or Microsoft Word’s built-in spell checker to identify and correct any grammatical or spelling errors in your survey paper.

Read your paper aloud : Reading your paper aloud can help you identify awkward sentence structures, grammatical errors, and spelling mistakes that you may have missed while reading silently.

Proofread multiple times : Proofreading is not a one-time task. It is essential to proofread your survey paper multiple times to catch any errors that may have been overlooked during previous rounds of editing.

Ensuring clarity and coherence

Check for clarity of ideas : Ensure that your ideas are presented clearly and concisely. Avoid using jargon or overly complex language that may confuse your readers. Use simple and straightforward language to convey your message effectively.

Maintain coherence and logical flow : Ensure that your survey paper has a logical flow of ideas. Each paragraph should connect smoothly to the next, and there should be a clear progression of thoughts throughout the paper. Use transition words and phrases to guide your readers through the different sections of your survey paper.

Eliminate redundant or irrelevant information : Review your survey paper to identify any redundant or irrelevant information. Remove any content that does not contribute to the overall purpose or argument of your paper. This will help streamline your paper and make it more focused and concise.

Seeking feedback from peers or mentors

Get a fresh pair of eyes : Ask a peer or mentor to review your survey paper. They can provide valuable feedback on areas that may need improvement, such as clarity, organization, or the overall structure of your paper.

Consider different perspectives : When seeking feedback, consider the perspectives of your reviewers. They may offer insights or suggestions that you may not have considered, helping you enhance the quality of your survey paper.

Incorporate feedback effectively : Take the feedback you receive into account and make necessary revisions to your survey paper. Be open to constructive criticism and use it to refine your paper further.

Remember, editing and proofreading are essential steps in the writing process. They help ensure that your survey paper is well-written, error-free, and effectively communicates your research findings. By following these tips, you can enhance the quality and clarity of your survey paper, making it more impactful and engaging for your readers.

Formatting and presentation play a crucial role in the overall quality and readability of a survey paper. Proper formatting ensures that the information is organized and presented in a clear and visually appealing manner. In this section, we will discuss the key aspects of formatting and presentation that you should consider when writing your survey paper.

Following the required citation style

One of the first things you need to consider when formatting your survey paper is the citation style required by your academic institution or the journal you are submitting to. Common citation styles include APA, MLA, and Chicago. Each style has specific guidelines for citing sources, formatting references, and creating in-text citations. It is important to familiarize yourself with the specific requirements of the chosen citation style and consistently apply it throughout your paper.

Properly formatting headings, subheadings, and paragraphs

Headings and subheadings are essential for organizing the content of your survey paper and guiding the reader through the different sections. When formatting headings and subheadings, it is important to follow a consistent hierarchy and formatting style. Typically, main headings are formatted in a larger font size and may be bold or italicized, while subheadings are formatted in a slightly smaller font size. This helps to visually distinguish between different levels of information and makes it easier for the reader to navigate through the paper.

In addition to headings and subheadings, proper formatting of paragraphs is also important. Each paragraph should focus on a single idea or topic and be well-structured with a clear topic sentence and supporting sentences. It is recommended to use a standard font such as Times New Roman or Arial, with a font size of 12 points. Additionally, paragraphs should be indented and have appropriate line spacing to enhance readability.

Including tables, figures, and graphs if necessary

Tables, figures, and graphs can be effective tools for presenting complex data or summarizing key findings in a visual format. When including these elements in your survey paper, it is important to ensure that they are properly labeled and referenced within the text. Tables should have clear column headings and be organized in a logical manner. Figures and graphs should have descriptive captions and be accompanied by a brief explanation in the text.

It is also important to consider the placement of tables, figures, and graphs within the paper. They should be inserted close to the relevant text and be easily accessible to the reader. If necessary, you can also refer to these elements in the text to provide further explanation or analysis.

Formatting and presentation are essential aspects of writing a high-quality survey paper. By following the required citation style, properly formatting headings and paragraphs, and including tables, figures, and graphs when necessary, you can enhance the overall readability and visual appeal of your paper. Remember to consistently apply these formatting guidelines throughout your survey paper to maintain a professional and polished appearance.

After going through the process of conducting a literature review, outlining the structure, writing the survey paper, and editing and proofreading it, you are now ready to finalize your survey paper. This stage involves reviewing the overall structure and content, making necessary revisions and improvements, and proofreading the final version.

Reviewing the overall structure and content

At this stage, it is crucial to review the overall structure and content of your survey paper. Ensure that the paper flows logically and coherently from the introduction to the conclusion. Check if the main body of the paper effectively addresses the research question or objective stated in the introduction. Make sure that each subtopic is adequately covered and that the inclusion of relevant studies and findings supports your arguments.

Making necessary revisions and improvements

During the finalization stage, it is common to identify areas that require revisions and improvements. Pay attention to the clarity and conciseness of your writing. Revise sentences or paragraphs that may be confusing or convoluted . Ensure that your arguments are well-supported by the literature and that you have properly cited and referenced all sources. Eliminate any redundant or irrelevant information that may distract readers from the main points of your survey paper.

Proofreading the final version

Proofreading is a crucial step in finalizing your survey paper. Check for grammar and spelling errors that may have been overlooked during the editing process. Ensure that your paper adheres to the required citation style and that all references are correctly formatted. Read through your paper carefully to ensure clarity and coherence . It may be helpful to read your paper aloud or ask a colleague to review it for you. Their fresh perspective can help identify any remaining errors or areas that need improvement.

By following these steps, you can ensure that your survey paper is of high quality and ready for submission or publication. Finalizing your survey paper requires attention to detail and a commitment to producing a well-structured and well-written piece of academic research.

Remember, the finalization stage is not the end of the writing process. It is always beneficial to seek feedback from peers or mentors to gain different perspectives and identify areas for further improvement. Their insights can help you refine your survey paper and make it even stronger.

In conclusion, finalizing a survey paper involves reviewing the overall structure and content, making necessary revisions and improvements, and proofreading the final version. It is a critical stage in the writing process that ensures your survey paper is polished and ready to be shared with the academic community.

Mastering the art of writing survey papers takes time and practice . By following the steps outlined in this blog post and seeking continuous improvement, you can become proficient in writing survey papers that contribute to the advancement of knowledge in your field.

Additional Resources

To further enhance your understanding of survey paper writing, here are some recommended books and articles:

[Book] “Writing a Successful Research Paper: A Simple Approach” by Stanley Chodorow
[Article] “How to Write a Survey Paper” by Martijn van Otterlo

Additionally, there are online tools and platforms available that can assist you in organizing your research and citations:

[Tool] Zotero: A free, open-source reference management software
[Platform] Mendeley: A platform for managing and sharing research papers

These resources can provide valuable guidance and support as you continue to develop your skills in writing survey papers.

[List of sources cited in the blog post]

When it comes to writing survey papers, having access to additional resources can greatly enhance your understanding and improve the quality of your work. Here are some recommended books, articles, and online tools that can assist you in the process of writing a survey paper.

Online Tools and Platforms for Organizing Research

Zotero : Zotero is a free reference management tool that helps you collect, organize, and cite your sources. It allows you to easily save and annotate articles, books, and websites, and generate citations in various citation styles.

Mendeley : Mendeley is another popular reference management tool that enables you to organize your research library, collaborate with others, and generate citations and bibliographies. It also offers a social networking feature that allows you to connect with researchers in your field.

Google Scholar : Google Scholar is a powerful search engine that specializes in scholarly literature. It can be a valuable resource for finding relevant articles, books, and conference papers for your survey paper.

Microsoft Word or Google Docs : These word processing tools provide essential features for writing and formatting your survey paper. They offer options for creating headings, subheadings, and tables, as well as tools for spell checking and grammar correction.

Remember, while these resources can be helpful, it is important to critically evaluate the information you find and ensure its relevance and credibility before including it in your survey paper.

In conclusion, writing a survey paper requires careful planning, extensive research, and effective organization of information. By utilizing the additional resources mentioned above, you can enhance your writing skills and produce a high-quality survey paper that contributes to the academic community.

List of sources cited in the blog post:

Chinneck, J. W. (n.d.). Writing a Survey Paper .
Tatu, M. (n.d.). How to Write a Survey Paper .
Ridley, D. (2012). The Literature Review: A Step-by-Step Guide for Students .
Chodorow, S. (2014). Writing a Successful Research Paper: A Simple Approach .

When writing a survey paper, it is crucial to include a comprehensive list of references to support your claims and provide credibility to your work. The references section serves as a valuable resource for readers who wish to delve deeper into the topic or verify the information presented in your survey paper. Here are some important points to consider when creating the references section:

Ensure that you include all the sources that you have cited throughout your survey paper. This includes academic papers, books, journal articles, conference proceedings, and any other relevant sources that have contributed to your research. Proper citation and referencing are essential to avoid plagiarism and give credit to the original authors.

Formatting the references

Follow the required citation style specified by your academic institution or the journal you are submitting your survey paper to. Common citation styles include APA, MLA, Chicago, and IEEE. Each citation style has specific guidelines for formatting the references, including the order of information, punctuation, and capitalization. Properly formatting your references ensures consistency and makes it easier for readers to locate the sources you have used.

Organizing the references

Arrange the references in alphabetical order by the last name of the first author. If there are multiple authors, list them in the same order as they appear in the original source. Include the title of the paper or article, the name of the journal or book, the publication date, and the page numbers if applicable. Be sure to include all the necessary information to help readers locate the source easily.

There are several online tools and platforms available that can assist you in organizing and managing your research references. These tools help you create and format citations, generate bibliographies, and store your references in a centralized location. Some popular reference management tools include Zotero , Mendeley , and EndNote . These tools not only save time but also ensure accuracy and consistency in your references.

Double-checking the references

Before finalizing your survey paper, it is crucial to double-check the references section for any errors or omissions. Make sure that all the citations are accurate and complete. Verify that the formatting and punctuation are consistent throughout the references section. Proofreading the final version of your survey paper includes reviewing the references to ensure they are correctly formatted and properly cited.

Including a well-organized and accurate references section is essential for any survey paper. It adds credibility to your work and allows readers to explore the sources you have used. By following the guidelines for formatting and organizing your references, you can ensure that your survey paper meets the highest standards of academic integrity.

Writing a Survey Paper: A Comprehensive Guide

A. Importance of survey papers in academic research B. Purpose of the blog post

A. Definition of a survey paper B. Different types of survey papers C. Benefits of writing a survey paper

A. Identifying a research gap B. Selecting a specific area of interest C. Ensuring the topic is relevant and significant

A. Searching for relevant sources B. Evaluating the credibility of the sources C. Organizing and summarizing the literature

A. Introduction 1. Background information 2. Research question/objective B. Main Body 1. Subtopics and their organization 2. Inclusion of relevant studies and findings C. Conclusion 1. Summary of key points 2. Future research directions

A. Introduction 1. Engaging opening statement 2. Clear research question/objective B. Main Body 1. Coherent flow of ideas 2. Proper citation and referencing C. Conclusion 1. Recap of main findings 2. Implications and recommendations

A. Checking for grammar and spelling errors B. Ensuring clarity and coherence C. Seeking feedback from peers or mentors

A. Following the required citation style B. Properly formatting headings, subheadings, and paragraphs C. Including tables, figures, and graphs if necessary

A. Reviewing the overall structure and content B. Making necessary revisions and improvements C. Proofreading the final version

A. Recap of the steps involved in writing a survey paper B. Encouragement to master the art of writing survey papers

A. Recommended books and articles on survey paper writing B. Online tools and platforms for organizing research

A. List of sources cited in the blog post

Note: This outline is a general guide and can be modified or expanded based on the specific requirements and preferences of the blog post.

Writing a survey paper is an essential skill for academic researchers. It allows you to summarize and analyze existing literature on a specific topic, providing valuable insights and identifying research gaps. This comprehensive guide will walk you through the process of writing a survey paper, from choosing a topic to finalizing the paper.

Survey papers play a crucial role in academic research as they provide a comprehensive overview of existing knowledge in a particular field. The purpose of this blog post is to guide you through the process of writing a survey paper effectively.

To start, it’s important to understand the basics of a survey paper. A survey paper is a type of academic article that summarizes and synthesizes existing research on a specific topic. There are different types of survey papers, including literature reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. Writing a survey paper offers several benefits, such as gaining a deep understanding of the topic, identifying research gaps, and contributing to the academic community.

Selecting the right topic is crucial for writing a successful survey paper. Begin by identifying a research gap in your field of interest. This gap could be an unanswered question or an area that requires further exploration. Once you have identified the research gap, narrow down your focus to a specific area of interest. Ensure that the topic is relevant and significant, as this will determine the impact of your survey paper.

A thorough literature review is the foundation of a well-written survey paper. Start by searching for relevant sources such as research articles, books, and conference papers. Evaluate the credibility of these sources by considering factors like the author’s expertise, the journal’s reputation, and the methodology used. Organize and summarize the literature in a systematic manner, highlighting the key findings and arguments.

A well-structured survey paper is essential for clarity and coherence. The structure typically consists of an introduction, main body, and conclusion. In the introduction, provide background information on the topic and clearly state your research question or objective. The main body should be organized into subtopics, each addressing a specific aspect of the topic. Include relevant studies and findings to support your arguments. Finally, in the conclusion, summarize the key points and suggest future research directions.

When writing the survey paper, pay attention to the introduction, main body, and conclusion. The introduction should engage the reader with an opening statement and clearly state the research question or objective. The main body should have a coherent flow of ideas, presenting the literature in a logical manner. Proper citation and referencing are crucial to acknowledge the original authors and avoid plagiarism. In the conclusion, recap the main findings and provide implications and recommendations for future research.

Editing and proofreading are essential to ensure the quality of your survey paper. Check for grammar and spelling errors, and ensure clarity and coherence in your writing. Seek feedback from peers or mentors to get different perspectives and improve the overall quality of your paper.

Proper formatting and presentation enhance the readability of your survey paper. Follow the required citation style, such as APA or MLA, to ensure consistency. Format headings, subheadings, and paragraphs appropriately to create a clear structure. If necessary, include tables, figures, and graphs to present data effectively.

Before submitting your survey paper, review the overall structure and content. Make necessary revisions and improvements to enhance the clarity and coherence of your paper. Finally, proofread the final version to eliminate any remaining errors.

Writing a survey paper requires careful planning and execution. This guide has provided a step-by-step process to help you write a high-quality survey paper. By mastering the art of writing survey papers, you can contribute to the academic community and advance knowledge in your field.

To further enhance your understanding of survey paper writing, consider exploring recommended books and articles on the topic. Additionally, there are online tools and platforms available that can assist you in organizing your research effectively.

[List the sources cited in the blog post here.]

Unveiling The Shelf Life: How Long Does Citric Acid Last?

Unveiling The True Value: How Much Is Jcoin Worth In Today’s Market?

Rebooting Your Booze: How To Reset Alcohol Content

Quick And Easy: Mastering The Art Of Thawing Tuna

Unveiling The Dynamic Interplay: How Physical And Human Systems Shape A Place

Unlocking The Power: How Long Does It Take For Royal Honey To Activate?

Mastering Residency: A Guide On How To Study Effectively

Mastering The Art Of Die Cast Mold Making: A Step-By-Step Guide

Unveiling The Energy Consumption Of Water Coolers: How Much Electricity Do They Really Use?

Mastering Virtual Reality: Unlocking The Secrets To Altering Your Height

Survey Research: Definition, Examples and Methods

Survey Research is a quantitative research method used for collecting data from a set of respondents. It has been perhaps one of the most used methodologies in the industry for several years due to the multiple benefits and advantages that it has when collecting and analyzing data.

LEARN ABOUT: Behavioral Research

In this article, you will learn everything about survey research, such as types, methods, and examples.

Survey Research Definition

Survey Research is defined as the process of conducting research using surveys that researchers send to survey respondents. The data collected from surveys is then statistically analyzed to draw meaningful research conclusions. In the 21st century, every organization’s eager to understand what their customers think about their products or services and make better business decisions. Researchers can conduct research in multiple ways, but surveys are proven to be one of the most effective and trustworthy research methods. An online survey is a method for extracting information about a significant business matter from an individual or a group of individuals. It consists of structured survey questions that motivate the participants to respond. Creditable survey research can give these businesses access to a vast information bank. Organizations in media, other companies, and even governments rely on survey research to obtain accurate data.

The traditional definition of survey research is a quantitative method for collecting information from a pool of respondents by asking multiple survey questions. This research type includes the recruitment of individuals collection, and analysis of data. It’s useful for researchers who aim to communicate new features or trends to their respondents.

LEARN ABOUT: Level of Analysis Generally, it’s the primary step towards obtaining quick information about mainstream topics and conducting more rigorous and detailed quantitative research methods like surveys/polls or qualitative research methods like focus groups/on-call interviews can follow. There are many situations where researchers can conduct research using a blend of both qualitative and quantitative strategies.

LEARN ABOUT: Survey Sampling

Survey Research Methods

Survey research methods can be derived based on two critical factors: Survey research tool and time involved in conducting research. There are three main survey research methods, divided based on the medium of conducting survey research:

Online/ Email: Online survey research is one of the most popular survey research methods today. The survey cost involved in online survey research is extremely minimal, and the responses gathered are highly accurate.
Phone: Survey research conducted over the telephone ( CATI survey ) can be useful in collecting data from a more extensive section of the target population. There are chances that the money invested in phone surveys will be higher than other mediums, and the time required will be higher.
Face-to-face: Researchers conduct face-to-face in-depth interviews in situations where there is a complicated problem to solve. The response rate for this method is the highest, but it can be costly.

Further, based on the time taken, survey research can be classified into two methods:

Longitudinal survey research: Longitudinal survey research involves conducting survey research over a continuum of time and spread across years and decades. The data collected using this survey research method from one time period to another is qualitative or quantitative. Respondent behavior, preferences, and attitudes are continuously observed over time to analyze reasons for a change in behavior or preferences. For example, suppose a researcher intends to learn about the eating habits of teenagers. In that case, he/she will follow a sample of teenagers over a considerable period to ensure that the collected information is reliable. Often, cross-sectional survey research follows a longitudinal study .
Cross-sectional survey research: Researchers conduct a cross-sectional survey to collect insights from a target audience at a particular time interval. This survey research method is implemented in various sectors such as retail, education, healthcare, SME businesses, etc. Cross-sectional studies can either be descriptive or analytical. It is quick and helps researchers collect information in a brief period. Researchers rely on the cross-sectional survey research method in situations where descriptive analysis of a subject is required.

Survey research also is bifurcated according to the sampling methods used to form samples for research: Probability and Non-probability sampling. Every individual in a population should be considered equally to be a part of the survey research sample. Probability sampling is a sampling method in which the researcher chooses the elements based on probability theory. The are various probability research methods, such as simple random sampling , systematic sampling, cluster sampling, stratified random sampling, etc. Non-probability sampling is a sampling method where the researcher uses his/her knowledge and experience to form samples.

LEARN ABOUT: Survey Sample Sizes

The various non-probability sampling techniques are :

Convenience sampling
Snowball sampling
Consecutive sampling
Judgemental sampling
Quota sampling

Process of implementing survey research methods:

Decide survey questions: Brainstorm and put together valid survey questions that are grammatically and logically appropriate. Understanding the objective and expected outcomes of the survey helps a lot. There are many surveys where details of responses are not as important as gaining insights about what customers prefer from the provided options. In such situations, a researcher can include multiple-choice questions or closed-ended questions . Whereas, if researchers need to obtain details about specific issues, they can consist of open-ended questions in the questionnaire. Ideally, the surveys should include a smart balance of open-ended and closed-ended questions. Use survey questions like Likert Scale , Semantic Scale, Net Promoter Score question, etc., to avoid fence-sitting.

LEARN ABOUT: System Usability Scale

Finalize a target audience: Send out relevant surveys as per the target audience and filter out irrelevant questions as per the requirement. The survey research will be instrumental in case the target population decides on a sample. This way, results can be according to the desired market and be generalized to the entire population.

LEARN ABOUT: Testimonial Questions

Send out surveys via decided mediums: Distribute the surveys to the target audience and patiently wait for the feedback and comments- this is the most crucial step of the survey research. The survey needs to be scheduled, keeping in mind the nature of the target audience and its regions. Surveys can be conducted via email, embedded in a website, shared via social media, etc., to gain maximum responses.
Analyze survey results: Analyze the feedback in real-time and identify patterns in the responses which might lead to a much-needed breakthrough for your organization. GAP, TURF Analysis , Conjoint analysis, Cross tabulation, and many such survey feedback analysis methods can be used to spot and shed light on respondent behavior. Researchers can use the results to implement corrective measures to improve customer/employee satisfaction.

Reasons to conduct survey research

The most crucial and integral reason for conducting market research using surveys is that you can collect answers regarding specific, essential questions. You can ask these questions in multiple survey formats as per the target audience and the intent of the survey. Before designing a study, every organization must figure out the objective of carrying this out so that the study can be structured, planned, and executed to perfection.

LEARN ABOUT: Research Process Steps

Questions that need to be on your mind while designing a survey are:

What is the primary aim of conducting the survey?
How do you plan to utilize the collected survey data?
What type of decisions do you plan to take based on the points mentioned above?

There are three critical reasons why an organization must conduct survey research.

Understand respondent behavior to get solutions to your queries: If you’ve carefully curated a survey, the respondents will provide insights about what they like about your organization as well as suggestions for improvement. To motivate them to respond, you must be very vocal about how secure their responses will be and how you will utilize the answers. This will push them to be 100% honest about their feedback, opinions, and comments. Online surveys or mobile surveys have proved their privacy, and due to this, more and more respondents feel free to put forth their feedback through these mediums.
Present a medium for discussion: A survey can be the perfect platform for respondents to provide criticism or applause for an organization. Important topics like product quality or quality of customer service etc., can be put on the table for discussion. A way you can do it is by including open-ended questions where the respondents can write their thoughts. This will make it easy for you to correlate your survey to what you intend to do with your product or service.
Strategy for never-ending improvements: An organization can establish the target audience’s attributes from the pilot phase of survey research . Researchers can use the criticism and feedback received from this survey to improve the product/services. Once the company successfully makes the improvements, it can send out another survey to measure the change in feedback keeping the pilot phase the benchmark. By doing this activity, the organization can track what was effectively improved and what still needs improvement.

Survey Research Scales

There are four main scales for the measurement of variables:

Nominal Scale: A nominal scale associates numbers with variables for mere naming or labeling, and the numbers usually have no other relevance. It is the most basic of the four levels of measurement.
Ordinal Scale: The ordinal scale has an innate order within the variables along with labels. It establishes the rank between the variables of a scale but not the difference value between the variables.
Interval Scale: The interval scale is a step ahead in comparison to the other two scales. Along with establishing a rank and name of variables, the scale also makes known the difference between the two variables. The only drawback is that there is no fixed start point of the scale, i.e., the actual zero value is absent.
Ratio Scale: The ratio scale is the most advanced measurement scale, which has variables that are labeled in order and have a calculated difference between variables. In addition to what interval scale orders, this scale has a fixed starting point, i.e., the actual zero value is present.

Benefits of survey research

In case survey research is used for all the right purposes and is implemented properly, marketers can benefit by gaining useful, trustworthy data that they can use to better the ROI of the organization.

Other benefits of survey research are:

Minimum investment: Mobile surveys and online surveys have minimal finance invested per respondent. Even with the gifts and other incentives provided to the people who participate in the study, online surveys are extremely economical compared to paper-based surveys.
Versatile sources for response collection: You can conduct surveys via various mediums like online and mobile surveys. You can further classify them into qualitative mediums like focus groups , and interviews and quantitative mediums like customer-centric surveys. Due to the offline survey response collection option, researchers can conduct surveys in remote areas with limited internet connectivity. This can make data collection and analysis more convenient and extensive.
Reliable for respondents: Surveys are extremely secure as the respondent details and responses are kept safeguarded. This anonymity makes respondents answer the survey questions candidly and with absolute honesty. An organization seeking to receive explicit responses for its survey research must mention that it will be confidential.

Survey research design

Researchers implement a survey research design in cases where there is a limited cost involved and there is a need to access details easily. This method is often used by small and large organizations to understand and analyze new trends, market demands, and opinions. Collecting information through tactfully designed survey research can be much more effective and productive than a casually conducted survey.

There are five stages of survey research design:

Decide an aim of the research: There can be multiple reasons for a researcher to conduct a survey, but they need to decide a purpose for the research. This is the primary stage of survey research as it can mold the entire path of a survey, impacting its results.
Filter the sample from target population: Who to target? is an essential question that a researcher should answer and keep in mind while conducting research. The precision of the results is driven by who the members of a sample are and how useful their opinions are. The quality of respondents in a sample is essential for the results received for research and not the quantity. If a researcher seeks to understand whether a product feature will work well with their target market, he/she can conduct survey research with a group of market experts for that product or technology.
Zero-in on a survey method: Many qualitative and quantitative research methods can be discussed and decided. Focus groups, online interviews, surveys, polls, questionnaires, etc. can be carried out with a pre-decided sample of individuals.
Design the questionnaire: What will the content of the survey be? A researcher is required to answer this question to be able to design it effectively. What will the content of the cover letter be? Or what are the survey questions of this questionnaire? Understand the target market thoroughly to create a questionnaire that targets a sample to gain insights about a survey research topic.
Send out surveys and analyze results: Once the researcher decides on which questions to include in a study, they can send it across to the selected sample . Answers obtained from this survey can be analyzed to make product-related or marketing-related decisions.

Survey examples: 10 tips to design the perfect research survey

Picking the right survey design can be the key to gaining the information you need to make crucial decisions for all your research. It is essential to choose the right topic, choose the right question types, and pick a corresponding design. If this is your first time creating a survey, it can seem like an intimidating task. But with QuestionPro, each step of the process is made simple and easy.

Below are 10 Tips To Design The Perfect Research Survey:

Set your SMART goals: Before conducting any market research or creating a particular plan, set your SMART Goals . What is that you want to achieve with the survey? How will you measure it promptly, and what are the results you are expecting?
Choose the right questions: Designing a survey can be a tricky task. Asking the right questions may help you get the answers you are looking for and ease the task of analyzing. So, always choose those specific questions – relevant to your research.
Begin your survey with a generalized question: Preferably, start your survey with a general question to understand whether the respondent uses the product or not. That also provides an excellent base and intro for your survey.
Enhance your survey: Choose the best, most relevant, 15-20 questions. Frame each question as a different question type based on the kind of answer you would like to gather from each. Create a survey using different types of questions such as multiple-choice, rating scale, open-ended, etc. Look at more survey examples and four measurement scales every researcher should remember.
Prepare yes/no questions: You may also want to use yes/no questions to separate people or branch them into groups of those who “have purchased” and those who “have not yet purchased” your products or services. Once you separate them, you can ask them different questions.
Test all electronic devices: It becomes effortless to distribute your surveys if respondents can answer them on different electronic devices like mobiles, tablets, etc. Once you have created your survey, it’s time to TEST. You can also make any corrections if needed at this stage.
Distribute your survey: Once your survey is ready, it is time to share and distribute it to the right audience. You can share handouts and share them via email, social media, and other industry-related offline/online communities.
Collect and analyze responses: After distributing your survey, it is time to gather all responses. Make sure you store your results in a particular document or an Excel sheet with all the necessary categories mentioned so that you don’t lose your data. Remember, this is the most crucial stage. Segregate your responses based on demographics, psychographics, and behavior. This is because, as a researcher, you must know where your responses are coming from. It will help you to analyze, predict decisions, and help write the summary report.
Prepare your summary report: Now is the time to share your analysis. At this stage, you should mention all the responses gathered from a survey in a fixed format. Also, the reader/customer must get clarity about your goal, which you were trying to gain from the study. Questions such as – whether the product or service has been used/preferred or not. Do respondents prefer some other product to another? Any recommendations?

Having a tool that helps you carry out all the necessary steps to carry out this type of study is a vital part of any project. At QuestionPro, we have helped more than 10,000 clients around the world to carry out data collection in a simple and effective way, in addition to offering a wide range of solutions to take advantage of this data in the best possible way.

From dashboards, advanced analysis tools, automation, and dedicated functions, in QuestionPro, you will find everything you need to execute your research projects effectively. Uncover insights that matter the most!

MORE LIKE THIS

Top 17 UX Research Software for UX Design in 2024

Apr 5, 2024

Healthcare Staff Burnout: What it Is + How To Manage It

Apr 4, 2024

Top 15 Employee Retention Software in 2024

Top 10 Employee Development Software for Talent Growth

Apr 3, 2024

A Comprehensive Guide to Survey Research Methodologies

For decades, researchers and businesses have used survey research to produce statistical data and explore ideas. The survey process is simple, ask questions and analyze the responses to make decisions. Data is what makes the difference between a valid and invalid statement and as the American statistician, W. Edwards Deming said:

“Without data, you’re just another person with an opinion.” - W. Edwards Deming

In this article, we will discuss what survey research is, its brief history, types, common uses, benefits, and the step-by-step process of designing a survey.

What is Survey Research

A survey is a research method that is used to collect data from a group of respondents in order to gain insights and information regarding a particular subject. It’s an excellent method to gather opinions and understand how and why people feel a certain way about different situations and contexts.

Brief History of Survey Research

Survey research may have its roots in the American and English “social surveys” conducted around the turn of the 20th century. The surveys were mainly conducted by researchers and reformers to document the extent of social issues such as poverty. ( 1 ) Despite being a relatively young field to many scientific domains, survey research has experienced three stages of development ( 2 ):

- First Era (1930-1960)

- Second Era (1960-1990)

- Third Era (1990 onwards)

Over the years, survey research adapted to the changing times and technologies. By exploiting the latest technologies, researchers can gain access to the right population from anywhere in the world, analyze the data like never before, and extract useful information.

Survey Research Methods & Types

Survey research can be classified into seven categories based on objective, data sources, methodology, deployment method, and frequency of deployment.

Types of survey research based on objective, data source, methodology, deployment method, and frequency of deployment.

Surveys based on Objective

Exploratory survey research.

Exploratory survey research is aimed at diving deeper into research subjects and finding out more about their context. It’s important for marketing or business strategy and the focus is to discover ideas and insights instead of gathering statistical data.

Generally, exploratory survey research is composed of open-ended questions that allow respondents to express their thoughts and perspectives. The final responses present information from various sources that can lead to fresh initiatives.

Predictive Survey Research

Predictive survey research is also called causal survey research. It’s preplanned, structured, and quantitative in nature. It’s often referred to as conclusive research as it tries to explain the cause-and-effect relationship between different variables. The objective is to understand which variables are causes and which are effects and the nature of the relationship between both variables.

Descriptive Survey Research

Descriptive survey research is largely observational and is ideal for gathering numeric data. Due to its quantitative nature, it’s often compared to exploratory survey research. The difference between the two is that descriptive research is structured and pre-planned.

The idea behind descriptive research is to describe the mindset and opinion of a particular group of people on a given subject. The questions are every day multiple choices and users must choose from predefined categories. With predefined choices, you don’t get unique insights, rather, statistically inferable data.

Survey Research Types based on Concept Testing

Monadic concept testing.

Monadic testing is a survey research methodology in which the respondents are split into multiple groups and ask each group questions about a separate concept in isolation. Generally, monadic surveys are hyper-focused on a particular concept and shorter in duration. The important thing in monadic surveys is to avoid getting off-topic or exhausting the respondents with too many questions.

Sequential Monadic Concept Testing

Another approach to monadic testing is sequential monadic testing. In sequential monadic surveys, groups of respondents are surveyed in isolation. However, instead of surveying three groups on three different concepts, the researchers survey the same groups of people on three distinct concepts one after another. In a sequential monadic survey, at least two topics are included (in random order), and the same questions are asked for each concept to eliminate bias.

Based on Data Source

Primary data.

Data obtained directly from the source or target population is referred to as primary survey data. When it comes to primary data collection, researchers usually devise a set of questions and invite people with knowledge of the subject to respond. The main sources of primary data are interviews, questionnaires, surveys, and observation methods.

Compared to secondary data, primary data is gathered from first-hand sources and is more reliable. However, the process of primary data collection is both costly and time-consuming.

Secondary Data

Survey research is generally used to collect first-hand information from a respondent. However, surveys can also be designed to collect and process secondary data. It’s collected from third-party sources or primary sources in the past.

This type of data is usually generic, readily available, and cheaper than primary data collection. Some common sources of secondary data are books, data collected from older surveys, online data, and data from government archives. Beware that you might compromise the validity of your findings if you end up with irrelevant or inflated data.

Based on Research Method

Quantitative research.

Quantitative research is a popular research methodology that is used to collect numeric data in a systematic investigation. It’s frequently used in research contexts where statistical data is required, such as sciences or social sciences. Quantitative research methods include polls, systematic observations, and face-to-face interviews.

Qualitative Research

Qualitative research is a research methodology where you collect non-numeric data from research participants. In this context, the participants are not restricted to a specific system and provide open-ended information. Some common qualitative research methods include focus groups, one-on-one interviews, observations, and case studies.

Based on Deployment Method

Online surveys.

With technology advancing rapidly, the most popular method of survey research is an online survey. With the internet, you can not only reach a broader audience but also design and customize a survey and deploy it from anywhere. Online surveys have outperformed offline survey methods as they are less expensive and allow researchers to easily collect and analyze data from a large sample.

Paper or Print Surveys

As the name suggests, paper or print surveys use the traditional paper and pencil approach to collect data. Before the invention of computers, paper surveys were the survey method of choice.

Though many would assume that surveys are no longer conducted on paper, it's still a reliable method of collecting information during field research and data collection. However, unlike online surveys, paper surveys are expensive and require extra human resources.

Telephonic Surveys

Telephonic surveys are conducted over telephones where a researcher asks a series of questions to the respondent on the other end. Contacting respondents over a telephone requires less effort, human resources, and is less expensive.

What makes telephonic surveys debatable is that people are often reluctant in giving information over a phone call. Additionally, the success of such surveys depends largely on whether people are willing to invest their time on a phone call answering questions.

One-on-one Surveys

One-on-one surveys also known as face-to-face surveys are interviews where the researcher and respondent. Interacting directly with the respondent introduces the human factor into the survey.

Face-to-face interviews are useful when the researcher wants to discuss something personal with the respondent. The response rates in such surveys are always higher as the interview is being conducted in person. However, these surveys are quite expensive and the success of these depends on the knowledge and experience of the researcher.

Based on Distribution

The easiest and most common way of conducting online surveys is sending out an email. Sending out surveys via emails has a higher response rate as your target audience already knows about your brand and is likely to engage.

Buy Survey Responses

Purchasing survey responses also yields higher responses as the responders signed up for the survey. Businesses often purchase survey samples to conduct extensive research. Here, the target audience is often pre-screened to check if they're qualified to take part in the research.

Embedding Survey on a Website

Embedding surveys on a website is another excellent way to collect information. It allows your website visitors to take part in a survey without ever leaving the website and can be done while a person is entering or exiting the website.

Post the Survey on Social Media

Social media is an excellent medium to reach abroad range of audiences. You can publish your survey as a link on social media and people who are following the brand can take part and answer questions.

Based on Frequency of Deployment

Cross-sectional studies.

Cross-sectional studies are administered to a small sample from a large population within a short period of time. This provides researchers a peek into what the respondents are thinking at a given time. The surveys are usually short, precise, and specific to a particular situation.

Longitudinal Surveys

Longitudinal surveys are an extension of cross-sectional studies where researchers make an observation and collect data over extended periods of time. This type of survey can be further divided into three types:

- Trend surveys are employed to allow researchers to understand the change in the thought process of the respondents over some time.

- Panel surveys are administered to the same group of people over multiple years. These are usually expensive and researchers must stick to their panel to gather unbiased opinions.

- In cohort surveys, researchers identify a specific category of people and regularly survey them. Unlike panel surveys, the same people do not need to take part over the years, but each individual must fall into the researcher’s primary interest category.

Retrospective Survey

Retrospective surveys allow researchers to ask questions to gather data about past events and beliefs of the respondents. Since retrospective surveys also require years of data, they are similar to the longitudinal survey, except retrospective surveys are shorter and less expensive.

Why Should You Conduct Research Surveys?

“In God we trust. All others must bring data” - W. Edwards Deming

In the information age, survey research is of utmost importance and essential for understanding the opinion of your target population. Whether you’re launching a new product or conducting a social survey, the tool can be used to collect specific information from a defined set of respondents. The data collected via surveys can be further used by organizations to make informed decisions.

Furthermore, compared to other research methods, surveys are relatively inexpensive even if you’re giving out incentives. Compared to the older methods such as telephonic or paper surveys, online surveys have a smaller cost and the number of responses is higher.

What makes surveys useful is that they describe the characteristics of a large population. With a larger sample size , you can rely on getting more accurate results. However, you also need honest and open answers for accurate results. Since surveys are also anonymous and the responses remain confidential, respondents provide candid and accurate answers.

Common Uses of a Survey

Surveys are widely used in many sectors, but the most common uses of the survey research include:

- Market research : surveying a potential market to understand customer needs, preferences, and market demand.

- Customer Satisfaction: finding out your customer’s opinions about your services, products, or companies .

- Social research: investigating the characteristics and experiences of various social groups.

- Health research: collecting data about patients’ symptoms and treatments.

- Politics: evaluating public opinion regarding policies and political parties.

- Psychology: exploring personality traits, behaviors, and preferences.

6 Steps to Conduct Survey Research

An organization, person, or company conducts a survey when they need the information to make a decision but have insufficient data on hand. Following are six simple steps that can help you design a great survey.

Step 1: Objective of the Survey

The first step in survey research is defining an objective. The objective helps you define your target population and samples. The target population is the specific group of people you want to collect data from and since it’s rarely possible to survey the entire population, we target a specific sample from it. Defining a survey objective also benefits your respondents by helping them understand the reason behind the survey.

Step 2: Number of Questions

The number of questions or the size of the survey depends on the survey objective. However, it’s important to ensure that there are no redundant queries and the questions are in a logical order. Rephrased and repeated questions in a survey are almost as frustrating as in real life. For a higher completion rate, keep the questionnaire small so that the respondents stay engaged to the very end. The ideal length of an interview is less than 15 minutes. ( 2 )

Step 3: Language and Voice of Questions

While designing a survey, you may feel compelled to use fancy language. However, remember that difficult language is associated with higher survey dropout rates. You need to speak to the respondent in a clear, concise, and neutral manner, and ask simple questions. If your survey respondents are bilingual, then adding an option to translate your questions into another language can also prove beneficial.

Step 4: Type of Questions

In a survey, you can include any type of questions and even both closed-ended or open-ended questions. However, opt for the question types that are the easiest to understand for the respondents, and offer the most value. For example, compared to open-ended questions, people prefer to answer close-ended questions such as MCQs (multiple choice questions)and NPS (net promoter score) questions.

Step 5: User Experience

Designing a great survey is about more than just questions. A lot of researchers underestimate the importance of user experience and how it affects their response and completion rates. An inconsistent, difficult-to-navigate survey with technical errors and poor color choice is unappealing for the respondents. Make sure that your survey is easy to navigate for everyone and if you’re using rating scales, they remain consistent throughout the research study.

Additionally, don’t forget to design a good survey experience for both mobile and desktop users. According to Pew Research Center, nearly half of the smartphone users access the internet mainly from their mobile phones and 14 percent of American adults are smartphone-only internet users. ( 3 )

Step 6: Survey Logic

Last but not least, logic is another critical aspect of the survey design. If the survey logic is flawed, respondents may not continue in the right direction. Make sure to test the logic to ensure that selecting one answer leads to the next logical question instead of a series of unrelated queries.

How to Effectively Use Survey Research with Starlight Analytics

Designing and conducting a survey is almost as much science as it is an art. To craft great survey research, you need technical skills, consider the psychological elements, and have a broad understanding of marketing.

The ultimate goal of the survey is to ask the right questions in the right manner to acquire the right results.

Bringing a new product to the market is a long process and requires a lot of research and analysis. In your journey to gather information or ideas for your business, Starlight Analytics can be an excellent guide. Starlight Analytics' product concept testing helps you measure your product's market demand and refine product features and benefits so you can launch with confidence. The process starts with custom research to design the survey according to your needs, execute the survey, and deliver the key insights on time.

Survey research in the United States: roots and emergence, 1890-1960 https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/10733873
How to create a survey questionnaire that gets great responses https://luc.id/knowledgehub/how-to-create-a-survey-questionnaire-that-gets-great-responses/
Internet/broadband fact sheet https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/internet-broadband/

Real-life voice of customer examples & takeaways.

Voice of Customer (VoC) is a market research term that describes customer experiences, expectations, and needs.

How to Determine Market Potential of a Product (The 2022 Guide)

How do you determine the market potential, or demand for a product of service? Learn the basics and beyond from the experts at Starlight Analytics.

Price Testing 101: How to Do it The Right Way

Tired of playing the guessing game with your pricing strategy? Learn the 101 of price testing and how to do it the right way with Starlight Analytics.

Moments of Truth: Building Brand Loyalty Among Your Customers

Learn about the four discrete Moments of Truth and how they influence a customer’s perception of—and loyalty to—your brand.

The Hidden Reason Why Market Research Matters

While there are many self-evident reasons why market research matters, they all tend to center around one hidden reason: your intuition is not always right. By recognizing these implicit biases, and regularly challenging your intuition, you open yourself up to new business opportunities, and insights about your market + customers that run counter to your gut.

How to Write a Survey Paper: Brief Overview

Every student wishes there was a shortcut to learning about a subject. Writing a survey paper can be an effective tool for synthesizing and consolidating information on a particular topic to gain mastery over it.

There are several techniques and best practices for writing a successful survey paper. Our team is ready to guide you through the writing process and teach you how to write a paper that will benefit your academic and professional career.

What is a Survey Paper

A survey paper is a type of academic writing that aims to give readers a comprehensive understanding of the current state of research on a particular topic. By synthesizing and analyzing already existing research, a survey paper provides good shortcuts highlighting meaningful achievements and recent advances in the field and shows the gaps where further research might be needed.

The survey paper format includes an introduction that defines the scope of the research domain, followed by a thorough literature review section that summarizes and critiques existing research while showcasing areas for further research. A good survey paper must also provide an overview of commonly used methodologies, approaches, key terms, and recent trends in the field and a clear summary that synthesizes the main findings presented.

Our essay writing service team not only provides the best survey paper example but can also write a custom academic paper based on your specific requirements and needs.

How to Write a Survey Paper: Important Steps

If you have your head in your hands, wondering how to write a survey paper, you must be new here. Luckily, our team of experts got you! Below you will find the steps that will guide you to the best approach to writing a successful survey paper. No more worries about how to research a topic . Let's dive in!

Obviously, the first step is to choose a topic that is both interesting to you and relevant to a large audience. If you are struggling with topic selection, go for only the ones that have the most literature to compose a comprehensive research paper.

Once you have selected your topic, define the scope of your survey paper and the specific research questions that will guide your literature review. This will help you establish boundaries and ensure that your paper is focused and well-structured.

Next, start collecting existing research on your topic through various academic databases and literature reviews. Make sure you are up to date with recent discoveries and advances. Before selecting any work for the survey, make sure the database is credible. Determine what sources are considered trustworthy and reputable within the specific domain.

Continue survey paper writing by selecting the most relevant and significant research pieces to include in your literature overview. Make sure to methodically analyze each source and critically evaluate its relevance, rigor, validity, and contribution to the field.

At this point, you have already undertaken half of the job. Maybe even more since collecting and analyzing the literature is often the most challenging part of writing a survey paper. Now it's time to organize and structure your paper. Follow the well-established outline, give a thorough review, and compose compelling body paragraphs. Don't forget to include detailed methodology and highlight key findings and revolutionary ideas.

Finish off your writing with a powerful conclusion that not only summarizes the key arguments but also indicates future research directions.

Feeling Overwhelmed by All the College Essays?

Our expert writers will ensure that you submit top-quality papers without missing any deadlines!

Survey Paper Outline

The following is a general outline of a survey paper.

Introduction - with background information on the topic and research questions
Literature Overview - including relevant research studies and their analysis
Methodologies and Approaches - detailing the methods used to collect and analyze data in the literature overview
Findings and Trends - summarizing the key findings and trends from the literature review
Challenges and Gaps - highlighting the limitations of studies reviewed
Future Research Direction - exploring future research opportunities and recommendations
Conclusion - a summary of the research conducted and its significance, along with suggestions for further work in this area.
References - a list of all the sources cited in the paper, including academic articles and reports.

You can always customize this outline to fit your paper's specific requirements, but none of the components can be eliminated. Our custom essay writer

Further, we can explore survey paper example formats to get a better understanding of what a well-written survey paper looks like. Our custom essay writer can assist in crafting a plagiarism-free essay tailored to meet your unique needs.

Survey Paper Format

Having a basic understanding of an outline for a survey paper is just the beginning. To excel in survey paper writing, it's important to become proficient in academic essay formatting techniques. Have the following as a rule of thumb: make sure each section relates to the others and that the flow of your paper is logical and readable.

Title - You need to come up with a clear and concise title that reflects the main objective of your research question.

Survey paper example title: 'The analysis of recommender systems in E-commerce.'

Abstract - Here, you should state the purpose of your research and summarize key findings in a brief paragraph. The abstract is a shortcut to the paper, so make sure it's informative.

Introduction - This section is a crucial element of an academic essay and should be intriguing and provide background information on the topic, feeding the readers' curiosity.

Literature with benefits and limitations - This section dives into the existing literature on the research question, including relevant studies and their analyses. When reviewing the literature, it is important to highlight both benefits and limitations of existing studies to identify gaps for future research.

Result analysis - In this section, you should present and analyze the results of your survey paper. Make sure to include statistical data, graphs, and charts to support your conclusions.

Conclusion - Just like in any other thesis writing, here you need to sum up the key findings of your survey paper. How it helped advance the research topic, what limitations need to be addressed, and important implications for future research.

Future Research Direction - You can either give this a separate section or include it in a conclusion, but you can never overlook the importance of a future research direction. Distinctly point out areas of limitations and suggest possible avenues for future research.

References - Finally, be sure to include a list of all the sources/references you've used in your research. Without a list of references, your work will lose all its credibility and can no longer be beneficial to other researchers.

Writing a Good Survey Paper: Helpful Tips

After mastering the basics of how to write a good survey paper, there are a few tips to keep in mind. They will help you advance your writing and ensure your survey paper stands out among others.

Select Only Relevant Literature

When conducting research, one can easily get carried away and start hoarding all available literature, which may not necessarily be relevant to your research question. Make sure to stay within the scope of your topic. Clearly articulate your research question, and then select only literature that directly addresses the research question. A few initial readings might not reveal the relevance, so you need a systematic review and filter of the literature that is directly related to the research question.

Use Various Sources and Be Up-to-Date

Our team suggests only using up-to-date material that was published within the last 5 years. Additional sources may be used if they contribute significantly to the research question, but it is important to prioritize current literature.

Use more than 10 research papers. Though narrowing your pool of references to only relevant literature is important, it's also crucial that you have a sufficient number of sources.

Rely on Reputable Sources

Writing a survey paper is a challenge. Don't forget that it is quality over quantity. Be sure to choose reputable sources that have been peer-reviewed and are recognized within your field of research. Having a large number of various research papers does not mean that your survey paper is of high quality.

Construct a Concise Research Question

Having a short and to-the-point research question not only helps the audience understand the direction of your paper but also helps you stay focused on a clear goal. With a clear research question, you will have an easier time selecting the relevant literature, avoiding unnecessary information, and maintaining the structure of your paper.

Use an Appropriate Format

The scholarly world appreciates when researchers follow a standard format when presenting their survey papers. Therefore, it is important to use a suitable and consistent format that adheres to the guidelines provided by your academic institution or field.

Our paper survey template offers a clear structure that can aid in organizing your thoughts and sources, as well as ensuring that you cover all the necessary components of a survey paper.

Don't forget to use appropriate heading, font, spacing, margins, and referencing style. If there is a strict word limit, be sure to adhere to it and use concise wording.

Use Logical Sequence

A survey paper is different from a regular research paper. Every element of the essay needs to relate to the research question and tie into the overall objective of the paper.

Writing research papers takes a lot of effort and attention to detail. You will have to revise, edit and proofread your work several times. If you are struggling with any aspect of the writing process, just say, ' Write my research paper for me ,' and our team of tireless writers will be happy to assist you.

Starting Point: Survey Paper Example Topics

Learning how to write a survey paper is important, but it is only one aspect of the process.

Now you need a powerful research question. To help get you started, we have compiled a list of survey paper example topics that may inspire you.

Survey of Evolution and Challenges of Electronic Search Engines
A Comprehensive Survey Paper on Machine Learning Algorithms
Survey of Leaf Image Analysis for Plant Species Recognition
Advances in Natural Language Processing for Sentiment Analysis
Emerging Trends in Cybersecurity Threat Detection
A Comprehensive Survey of Techniques in Big Data Analytics in Healthcare
A Survey of Advances in Digital Art and Virtual Reality
A Systematic Review of the Impact of Social Media Marketing Strategies on Consumer Behavior
A Survey of AI Systems in Artistic Expression
Exploring New Research Methods and Ethical Considerations in Anthropology
Exploring Data-driven Approaches for Performance Analysis and Decision Making in Sports
A Survey of Benefits of Optimizing Performance through Diet and Supplementation
A Critical Review of Existing Research on The Impact of Climate Change on Biodiversity Conservation Strategies
Investigating the Future of Blockchain Technology for Secure Data Sharing
A Critical Review of the Literature on Mental Health and Innovation in the Workplace

Final Thoughts

Next time you are asked to write a survey paper, remember it is not just following an iterative process of gathering and summarizing existing research; it requires a deep understanding of the subject matter as well as critical analysis skills. Creative thinking and innovative approaches also play a key role in producing high-quality survey papers.

Our expert writers can help you navigate the complex process of writing a survey paper, from topic selection to data analysis and interpretation.

Finding It Difficult to Write a Survey Paper?

Our essay writing service offers plagiarism-free papers tailored to your specific needs.

Are you looking for advice on how to create an engaging and informative survey paper? This frequently asked questions (FAQ) section offers valuable responses to common inquiries that researchers frequently come across when writing a survey paper. Let's delve into it!

What is Survey Paper in Ph.D.?

What is the difference between survey paper and literature review paper, related articles.

How to Write a Policy Analysis Paper Step-by-Step

Root out friction in every digital experience, super-charge conversion rates, and optimize digital self-service

Uncover insights from any interaction, deliver AI-powered agent coaching, and reduce cost to serve

Increase revenue and loyalty with real-time insights and recommendations delivered to teams on the ground

Know how your people feel and empower managers to improve employee engagement, productivity, and retention

Take action in the moments that matter most along the employee journey and drive bottom line growth

Whatever they’re are saying, wherever they’re saying it, know exactly what’s going on with your people

Get faster, richer insights with qual and quant tools that make powerful market research available to everyone

Run concept tests, pricing studies, prototyping + more with fast, powerful studies designed by UX research experts

Track your brand performance 24/7 and act quickly to respond to opportunities and challenges in your market

Explore the platform powering Experience Management

Free Account
For Digital
For Customer Care
For Human Resources
For Researchers
Financial Services
All Industries

Popular Use Cases

Customer Experience
Employee Experience
Employee Exit Interviews
Net Promoter Score
Voice of Customer
Customer Success Hub
Product Documentation
Training & Certification
XM Institute
Popular Resources
Customer Stories
Market Research
Artificial Intelligence
Partnerships
Marketplace

The annual gathering of the experience leaders at the world’s iconic brands building breakthrough business results, live in Salt Lake City.

English/AU & NZ
Español/Europa
Español/América Latina
Português Brasileiro
REQUEST DEMO
Experience Management
What is a survey?
Survey Research

Try Qualtrics for free

What is survey research.

15 min read Find out everything you need to know about survey research, from what it is and how it works to the different methods and tools you can use to ensure you’re successful.

Survey research is the process of collecting data from a predefined group (e.g. customers or potential customers) with the ultimate goal of uncovering insights about your products, services, or brand overall .

As a quantitative data collection method, survey research can provide you with a goldmine of information that can inform crucial business and product decisions. But survey research needs careful planning and execution to get the results you want.

So if you’re thinking about using surveys to carry out research, read on.

Get started with our free survey maker tool

Types of survey research

Calling these methods ‘survey research’ slightly underplays the complexity of this type of information gathering. From the expertise required to carry out each activity to the analysis of the data and its eventual application, a considerable amount of effort is required.

As for how you can carry out your research, there are several options to choose from — face-to-face interviews, telephone surveys, focus groups (though more interviews than surveys), online surveys , and panel surveys.

Typically, the survey method you choose will largely be guided by who you want to survey, the size of your sample , your budget, and the type of information you’re hoping to gather.

Here are a few of the most-used survey types:

Face-to-face interviews

Before technology made it possible to conduct research using online surveys, telephone, and mail were the most popular methods for survey research. However face-to-face interviews were considered the gold standard — the only reason they weren’t as popular was due to their highly prohibitive costs.

When it came to face-to-face interviews, organizations would use highly trained researchers who knew when to probe or follow up on vague or problematic answers. They also knew when to offer assistance to respondents when they seemed to be struggling. The result was that these interviewers could get sample members to participate and engage in surveys in the most effective way possible, leading to higher response rates and better quality data.

Telephone surveys

While phone surveys have been popular in the past, particularly for measuring general consumer behavior or beliefs, response rates have been declining since the 1990s .

Phone surveys are usually conducted using a random dialing system and software that a researcher can use to record responses.

This method is beneficial when you want to survey a large population but don’t have the resources to conduct face-to-face research surveys or run focus groups, or want to ask multiple-choice and open-ended questions .

The downsides are they can: take a long time to complete depending on the response rate, and you may have to do a lot of cold-calling to get the information you need.

You also run the risk of respondents not being completely honest . Instead, they’ll answer your survey questions quickly just to get off the phone.

Focus groups (interviews — not surveys)

Focus groups are a separate qualitative methodology rather than surveys — even though they’re often bunched together. They’re normally used for survey pretesting and designing , but they’re also a great way to generate opinions and data from a diverse range of people.

Focus groups involve putting a cohort of demographically or socially diverse people in a room with a moderator and engaging them in a discussion on a particular topic, such as your product, brand, or service.

They remain a highly popular method for market research , but they’re expensive and require a lot of administration to conduct and analyze the data properly.

You also run the risk of more dominant members of the group taking over the discussion and swaying the opinions of other people — potentially providing you with unreliable data.

Online surveys

Online surveys have become one of the most popular survey methods due to being cost-effective, enabling researchers to accurately survey a large population quickly.

Online surveys can essentially be used by anyone for any research purpose – we’ve all seen the increasing popularity of polls on social media (although these are not scientific).

Using an online survey allows you to ask a series of different question types and collect data instantly that’s easy to analyze with the right software.

There are also several methods for running and distributing online surveys that allow you to get your questionnaire in front of a large population at a fraction of the cost of face-to-face interviews or focus groups.

This is particularly true when it comes to mobile surveys as most people with a smartphone can access them online.

However, you have to be aware of the potential dangers of using online surveys, particularly when it comes to the survey respondents. The biggest risk is because online surveys require access to a computer or mobile device to complete, they could exclude elderly members of the population who don’t have access to the technology — or don’t know how to use it.

It could also exclude those from poorer socio-economic backgrounds who can’t afford a computer or consistent internet access. This could mean the data collected is more biased towards a certain group and can lead to less accurate data when you’re looking for a representative population sample.

When it comes to surveys, every voice matters.

Find out how to create more inclusive and representative surveys for your research.

Panel surveys

A panel survey involves recruiting respondents who have specifically signed up to answer questionnaires and who are put on a list by a research company. This could be a workforce of a small company or a major subset of a national population. Usually, these groups are carefully selected so that they represent a sample of your target population — giving you balance across criteria such as age, gender, background, and so on.

Panel surveys give you access to the respondents you need and are usually provided by the research company in question. As a result, it’s much easier to get access to the right audiences as you just need to tell the research company your criteria. They’ll then determine the right panels to use to answer your questionnaire.

However, there are downsides. The main one being that if the research company offers its panels incentives, e.g. discounts, coupons, money — respondents may answer a lot of questionnaires just for the benefits.

This might mean they rush through your survey without providing considered and truthful answers. As a consequence, this can damage the credibility of your data and potentially ruin your analyses.

What are the benefits of using survey research?

Depending on the research method you use, there are lots of benefits to conducting survey research for data collection. Here, we cover a few:

1. They’re relatively easy to do

Most research surveys are easy to set up, administer and analyze. As long as the planning and survey design is thorough and you target the right audience , the data collection is usually straightforward regardless of which survey type you use.

2. They can be cost effective

Survey research can be relatively cheap depending on the type of survey you use.

Generally, qualitative research methods that require access to people in person or over the phone are more expensive and require more administration.

Online surveys or mobile surveys are often more cost-effective for market research and can give you access to the global population for a fraction of the cost.

3. You can collect data from a large sample

Again, depending on the type of survey, you can obtain survey results from an entire population at a relatively low price. You can also administer a large variety of survey types to fit the project you’re running.

4. You can use survey software to analyze results immediately

Using survey software, you can use advanced statistical analysis techniques to gain insights into your responses immediately.

Analysis can be conducted using a variety of parameters to determine the validity and reliability of your survey data at scale.

5. Surveys can collect any type of data

While most people view surveys as a quantitative research method, they can just as easily be adapted to gain qualitative information by simply including open-ended questions or conducting interviews face to face.

How to measure concepts with survey questions

While surveys are a great way to obtain data, that data on its own is useless unless it can be analyzed and developed into actionable insights.

The easiest, and most effective way to measure survey results, is to use a dedicated research tool that puts all of your survey results into one place.

When it comes to survey measurement, there are four measurement types to be aware of that will determine how you treat your different survey results:

Nominal scale

With a nominal scale , you can only keep track of how many respondents chose each option from a question, and which response generated the most selections.

An example of this would be simply asking a responder to choose a product or brand from a list.

You could find out which brand was chosen the most but have no insight as to why.

Ordinal scale

Ordinal scales are used to judge an order of preference. They do provide some level of quantitative value because you’re asking responders to choose a preference of one option over another.

Ratio scale

Ratio scales can be used to judge the order and difference between responses. For example, asking respondents how much they spend on their weekly shopping on average.

Interval scale

In an interval scale, values are lined up in order with a meaningful difference between the two values — for example, measuring temperature or measuring a credit score between one value and another.

Step by step: How to conduct surveys and collect data

Conducting a survey and collecting data is relatively straightforward, but it does require some careful planning and design to ensure it results in reliable data.

Step 1 – Define your objectives

What do you want to learn from the survey? How is the data going to help you? Having a hypothesis or series of assumptions about survey responses will allow you to create the right questions to test them.

Step 2 – Create your survey questions

Once you’ve got your hypotheses or assumptions, write out the questions you need answering to test your theories or beliefs. Be wary about framing questions that could lead respondents or inadvertently create biased responses .

Step 3 – Choose your question types

Your survey should include a variety of question types and should aim to obtain quantitative data with some qualitative responses from open-ended questions. Using a mix of questions (simple Yes/ No, multiple-choice, rank in order, etc) not only increases the reliability of your data but also reduces survey fatigue and respondents simply answering questions quickly without thinking.

Find out how to create a survey that’s easy to engage with

Step 4 – Test your questions

Before sending your questionnaire out, you should test it (e.g. have a random internal group do the survey) and carry out A/B tests to ensure you’ll gain accurate responses.

Step 5 – Choose your target and send out the survey

Depending on your objectives, you might want to target the general population with your survey or a specific segment of the population. Once you’ve narrowed down who you want to target, it’s time to send out the survey.

After you’ve deployed the survey, keep an eye on the response rate to ensure you’re getting the number you expected. If your response rate is low, you might need to send the survey out to a second group to obtain a large enough sample — or do some troubleshooting to work out why your response rates are so low. This could be down to your questions, delivery method, selected sample, or otherwise.

Step 6 – Analyze results and draw conclusions

Once you’ve got your results back, it’s time for the fun part.

Break down your survey responses using the parameters you’ve set in your objectives and analyze the data to compare to your original assumptions. At this stage, a research tool or software can make the analysis a lot easier — and that’s somewhere Qualtrics can help.

Get reliable insights with survey software from Qualtrics

Gaining feedback from customers and leads is critical for any business, data gathered from surveys can prove invaluable for understanding your products and your market position, and with survey software from Qualtrics, it couldn’t be easier.

Used by more than 13,000 brands and supporting more than 1 billion surveys a year, Qualtrics empowers everyone in your organization to gather insights and take action. No coding required — and your data is housed in one system.

Get feedback from more than 125 sources on a single platform and view and measure your data in one place to create actionable insights and gain a deeper understanding of your target customers .

Automatically run complex text and statistical analysis to uncover exactly what your survey data is telling you, so you can react in real-time and make smarter decisions.

We can help you with survey management, too. From designing your survey and finding your target respondents to getting your survey in the field and reporting back on the results, we can help you every step of the way.

And for expert market researchers and survey designers, Qualtrics features custom programming to give you total flexibility over question types, survey design, embedded data, and other variables.

No matter what type of survey you want to run, what target audience you want to reach, or what assumptions you want to test or answers you want to uncover, we’ll help you design, deploy and analyze your survey with our team of experts.

Ready to find out more about Qualtrics CoreXM?

Get started with our free survey maker tool today

Related resources

Survey bias types 24 min read, post event survey questions 10 min read, best survey software 16 min read, close-ended questions 7 min read, survey vs questionnaire 12 min read, response bias 13 min read, double barreled question 11 min read, request demo.

Ready to learn more about Qualtrics?

Have your assignments done by seasoned writers. 24/7
Contact us:
+1 (213) 221-0069
[email protected]

How to Write a Survey Paper: A stepwise Guide with Examples

How to Write a Survey Paper

Some of you may be wondering what a survey paper is. A survey paper contains the interpretation that has been drawn by the author after they have reviewed and analyzed various research papers that are centered on a specific topic. Those research papers should be already published.

Now that we have understood what a survey paper is, let us explore the various steps that have to be taken when coming up with a survey paper. As noted, a survey paper lists and analyzes the most recent research work in a particular area of study.

To write a good survey paper, you need to research the representative papers, come up with a title, a good abstract, and writing the introduction, the body, and conclusions that reflect the findings as well as the challenges of the study.

To do this, there is a challenge of research. As such, the first challenge is to find the most recent and appropriate research papers for the topic. The 9 steps below should be followed when writing a survey paper.

Need Help with your Homework or Essays?

Step 1: selecting the representative papers.

The first step when writing a survey paper is selecting the most relevant representative papers that are within the scope of your research and summarizing them effectively. As you will note, there can be a lot of research papers, and the space required to create a survey paper is limited.

During such, it can be challenging when trying to pick the key work within the scope of your study.

As an author of the survey paper, you will have to read the research papers’ abstracts and conclusions and pick the subset that captures your area of study.

To ensure that the selected research papers are appropriate or relevant, they should be recent, contain more citations, and be published in journals with a high reputation.

The research papers should not be less than 10.

Step 2: Coming up with an Appropriate Title

The second step is coming up with a captivating title that provides a clear summary of your paper’s contents. As such, the title should be clear and brief. To achieve this, the title should utilize active verbs rather than complex phrases that are based on nouns.

A good title of your survey paper should contain between 10 and 12 words because a title with more words will divert the attention of the readers from the central point.

A longer title will also appear unfocused. Therefore, the title should have the keywords of your survey paper in such a way that it defines the study’s nature.

Step 3: Creating an Abstract

Another important step to be taken when writing a survey paper is to create an abstract. The abstract acts as a summary of your survey paper.

It should provide a summary of the problem that has been investigated, the methods used, the results of the study, and the conclusion.

Abstracts summarize the most important contents of your survey paper in a single paragraph of between 200 and 300 words.

When creating an abstract, make sure that it contains or highlights the key points while convincing the readers or the target audience to continue reading the whole survey paper. Should always include an abstract in your survey paper.

Step 4: Listing Key Terms

While the keywords help the target audience or other researchers understand the field of the survey paper, the subfield, research issue, the topic, and so on, the main purpose of this section is to help readers or researchers locate your paper when they are doing searches on the topic.

Most of the databases, electronic search engines such as Google, and journal websites will utilize keywords when deciding whether to display the survey paper to interested readers and when this should be done.

With the proper keywords, your survey paper will be more searchable and it will be cited by more researchers because it can be easily located.

Step 5: Writing the Introduction

The next step when writing a survey paper is to include a good introduction.

A good introduction paragraph will explain to the target readers how the research problem has been tackled by the research papers that you have included in your paper.

The introduction should arouse the readers’ interest in knowing more about the topic and the research domain. If they are interested, they will continue reading your survey paper.

Unlike the abstract, the introduction within a survey paper does not contain a very strict word limit. However, it should be concise because it introduces the paper’s topic, provides a broader context of the study, and gradually narrows the scope down to the research problem.

Therefore, make sure that your introduction sets a scene and contextualizes your paper. It can begin with a historical narrative bringing the narrative to the present day and ending with a research question. Ensure that the very last sentence of your introduction is the thesis statement.

Step 6: Providing the Approaches Used in the Survey Paper

This is a very important step in any survey paper. This is where you are required to provide the methodologies used to conduct your research or survey in a logical order.

You are required to logically move from one method to the next as you clearly define each approach at the beginning of every section.

To ensure that your readers are at par with you, you should share the motivation behind each methodology. This is achieved by giving a high-level summary of every approach and then narrowing it down to the specific approaches.

You should also demonstrate the applicability and the practicability of every approach used in the research, and the areas that need to be improved. You should graphically visualize at least one method used.

Step 7: Writing About the Paper Surveys

This step should take the bulk of your survey paper because it is the point where you survey the papers you have selected. Here, you should decide what you are going to inform your readers about each research paper.

Therefore, it is important to first read the research papers in a manner that you can know what to inform your readers about them.

For each research paper, make sure that you tell your readers about their research direction. Also, ensure that you identify the algorithms or mathematical techniques the research papers rely on and whether they are application or theory papers.

You should also state whether the selected research papers are an improvement on other works or they are a continuation of other works.

Then, state whether the research papers utilize simulations, theoretical proofs, real-life deployment, and so on. Finally, you should state the strengths and weaknesses of each research paper, authors’ claims, and assumptions.

Step 8: Research Challenges

After surveying every research paper you have utilized, the next step is to state the challenges you encountered while conducting research.

When writing a survey paper, you will always face various challenges.

Such challenges can be finding the best or most appropriate research papers, comparing them to determine their strengths, and so on.

Other challenges can arise from the research papers themselves. This can include their delivery of results. Some research papers will contain confusing data.

Step 9: Coming up with a Conclusion

Finally, the conclusion should answer the questions that have been raised by your survey paper’s objectives and goals.

Though it should be interesting and captivating, it should still be presented academically. It should be objective and offer a final say concerning the survey’s subject.

The conclusion should synthesize the results by proving their interpretation, propose the course of action as per the results, and offer solutions to the issues that have been identified.

The reader should be capable of understanding the whole survey paper by reading the conclusion. Therefore, ensure that your conclusion synthesizes your paper.

Get a Brilliant Essay today!

Let our essay writing experts help you get that A in your next essay. Place your order today, and you will enjoy the benefits.

Tips When Writing a Good Survey Paper

The first tip in writing a good survey paper is to select the most appropriate and latest research papers that will be used in the paper. This is a very important tip because the survey paper will be completely based on them. Old research papers will render your survey paper useless.

Research papers that are not within the scope of your research or topic will also render the survey paper useless.

The second tip is to make sure that you come up with a concise topic that will summarize what your paper is about.

It is also very important to follow the appropriate format of a survey paper.

The format, after you have written your title, should be abstract, key terms, introduction, approaches or methodologies, conducting surveys for every paper used, research challenges, and finally the conclusion.

Another important tip is to utilize more than 10 research papers for the survey. Then can be even more than 20 depending on the scope of your study. The more the research papers used in your survey paper, the more professional and credible it will appear.

It should be noted that a good survey paper will utilize research papers that are recent (not more than 5 years) and have more academic sources.

To increase the credibility of your survey paper, the research papers used should come from reputable journal sources or publications. In our guide to writing good research papers , we explained more about references. Check it out.

Also, note that the process of writing a survey paper is much different from that of writing an issue paper or doing opinion essays . Therefore, each step needs to relate to the survey.

15 Examples of Topics for Writing a Survey Paper

Advances in leaf image analysis for bacterial disease detection
A survey on the impact of social media among youths in the united states
A Survey on leaf image analysis for bacterial disease detection
Recent trends in the electric cars manufacturing industry
Recent trends in perinatal care: Exploring the major causes of perinatal mortality
Leaf image analysis for bacterial disease detection
Advances in curriculum-based education: A survey on educational trends in sub-Saharan Africa
Recent trends in environmental awareness campaigns in low-income countries
A survey on COVID-19 pandemic impact on the united states economy
Recent trends in the immunization approach taken by third world countries after the second and third wave of COVID-19 disease
Advances in semiconductor manufacturing for BMW electronic cars
A survey on the impact of 5-G connectivity among SMEs in Britain
Recent trends in the space race: A survey of how the founders of Virgin Atlantic, Tesla, and Amazon are competing to dominate space travel
Advances in care for pressure ulcers: A survey on the impact of frequent automated turning on older immobile patients in Germany
A survey on the impact of geopolitics on peace within the Middle East

Josh Jasen or JJ as we fondly call him, is a senior academic editor at Grade Bees in charge of the writing department. When not managing complex essays and academic writing tasks, Josh is busy advising students on how to pass assignments. In his spare time, he loves playing football or walking with his dog around the park.

Overcoming the feeling and fear of writing essays

Overcoming the Feeling and Fear of Writing Essays

Spaces between Paragraphs in an Essay

How Many Spaces between Paragraphs in an Essay

Double Space an Essay

Should You Double Space an Essay: When and When Not To

Survey research

Affiliation.

1 Ann Arbor, Mich. From the Section of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, The University of Michigan Medical Center; and Division of General Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan.
PMID: 20885261
DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181ea44f9

Survey research is a unique methodology that can provide insight into individuals' perspectives and experiences and can be collected on a large population-based sample. Specifically, in plastic surgery, survey research can provide patients and providers with accurate and reproducible information to assist with medical decision-making. When using survey methods in research, researchers should develop a conceptual model that explains the relationships of the independent and dependent variables. The items of the survey are of primary importance. Collected data are only useful if they accurately measure the concepts of interest. In addition, administration of the survey must follow basic principles to ensure an adequate response rate and representation of the intended target sample. In this article, the authors review some general concepts important for successful survey research and discuss the many advantages this methodology has for obtaining limitless amounts of valuable information.

Publication types

Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Data Collection / methods*
Quality Control
Reproducibility of Results
Research Design
Surgery, Plastic*
Surveys and Questionnaires*
United States

Program Finder
Admissions Services
Course Directory
Academic Calendar
Hybrid Campus
Lecture Series
Convocation
Strategy and Development
Implementation and Impact
Integrity and Oversight
In the School
In the Field
In Baltimore
Resources for Practitioners
Articles & News Releases
In The News
Statements & Announcements
At a Glance
Student Life
Strategic Priorities
Inclusion, Diversity, Anti-Racism, and Equity (IDARE)
What is Public Health?

Research Identifies Characteristics of Cities That Would Support Young People’s Mental Health

Survey responses from global panel that included young people provide insights into what would make cities mental health-friendly for youth

As cities around the world continue to draw young people for work, education, and social opportunities, a new study identifies characteristics that would support young urban dwellers’ mental health. The findings, based on survey responses from a global panel that included adolescents and young adults, provide a set of priorities that city planners can adopt to build urban environments that are safe, equitable, and inclusive.

To determine city characteristics that could bolster youth mental health, researchers administered an initial survey to a panel of more than 400, including young people and a multidisciplinary group of researchers, practitioners, and advocates. Through two subsequent surveys, participants prioritized six characteristics that would support young city dwellers’ mental health: opportunities to build life skills; age-friendly environments that accept young people’s feelings and values; free and safe public spaces where young people can connect; employment and job security; interventions that address the social determinants of health; and urban design with youth input and priorities in mind.

The paper was published online February 21 in Nature .

The study’s lead author is Pamela Collins, MD, MPH, chair of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health’s Department of Mental Health. The study was conducted while Collins was on the faculty at the University of Washington. The paper was written by an international, interdisciplinary team, including citiesRISE, a global nonprofit that works to transform mental health policy and practice in cities, especially for young people.

Cities have long been a draw for young people. Research by UNICEF projects that cities will be home to 70 percent of the world’s children by 2050. Although urban environments influence a broad range of health outcomes, both positive and negative, their impacts manifest unequally. Mental disorders are the leading causes of disability among 10- to 24-year-olds globally. Exposure to urban inequality, violence, lack of green space, and fear of displacement disproportionately affects marginalized groups, increasing risk for poor mental health among urban youth.

“Right now, we are living with the largest population of adolescents in the world’s history, so this is an incredibly important group of people for global attention,” says Collins. “Investing in young people is an investment in their present well-being and future potential, and it’s an investment in the next generation—the children they will bear.”

Data collection for the study began in April 2020 at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. To capture its possible impacts, researchers added an open-ended survey question asking panelists how the pandemic influenced their perceptions of youth mental health in cities. The panelists reported that the pandemic either shed new light on the inequality and uneven distribution of resources experienced by marginalized communities in urban areas, or confirmed their preconceptions of how social vulnerability exacerbates health outcomes.

For their study, the researchers recruited a panel of more than 400 individuals from 53 countries, including 327 young people ages 14 to 25, from a cross-section of fields, including education, advocacy, adolescent health, mental health and substance use, urban planning and development, data and technology, housing, and criminal justice. The researchers administered three sequential surveys to panelists beginning in April 2020 that asked panelists to identify elements of urban life that would support mental health for young people.

The top 37 characteristics were then grouped into six domains: intrapersonal, interpersonal, community, organizational, policy, and environment. Within these domains, panelists ranked characteristics based on immediacy of impact on youth mental health, ability to help youth thrive, and ease or feasibility of implementation.

Taken together, the characteristics identified in the study provide a comprehensive set of priorities that policymakers and urban planners can use as a guide to improve young city dwellers' mental health. Among them: Youth-focused mental health and educational services could support young people’s emotional development and self-efficacy. Investment in spaces that facilitate social connection may help alleviate young people’s experiences of isolation and support their need for healthy, trusting relationships. Creating employment opportunities and job security could undo the economic losses that young people and their families experienced during the pandemic and help cities retain residents after a COVID-era exodus from urban centers.

The findings suggest that creating a mental health-friendly city for young people requires investments across multiple interconnected sectors like transportation, housing, employment, health, and urban planning, with a central focus on social and economic equity. They also require urban planning policy approaches that commit to systemic and sustained collaboration, without magnifying existing privileges through initiatives like gentrification and developing green spaces at the expense of marginalized communities in need of affordable housing.

The authors say this framework underscores that responses by cities should include young people in the planning and design of interventions that directly impact their mental health and well-being.

“ Making cities mental health friendly for adolescents and young adults ” was co-authored by an international, interdisciplinary team of 31 researchers led by the University of Washington Consortium for Global Mental Health, Urban@UW, the University of Melbourne, and citiesRISE. Author funding is listed in the Acknowledgements section of the paper.

Student Spotlight: Glendedora Dolce

A child drinking water from tap with her hands.

Study Estimates Nearly 70 Percent of Children Under Six in Chicago May Be Exposed to Lead-Contaminated Tap Water

A girl sits alone in a school cafeteria with little to no food for lunch

Hidden Food Insecurity: The Adolescents Who Aren’t Getting Enough to Eat

A child looks out at a hazy skyline from an overlook in midtown Manhattan on July 19, 2023 in New York City.

A Zero-Emissions Transition Would Save Kids’ Lives

Sahil, a 7-month-old child suffering from diarrhea, lies in a bed at the district hospital on May 21, 2022 in Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh, India.

Child Diarrhea Has a Cheap and Easy Fix—Why Isn’t It Reaching Patients?

Open access
Published: 12 December 2023

Examining the role of community resilience and social capital on mental health in public health emergency and disaster response: a scoping review

C. E. Hall 1 , 2 ,
H. Wehling 1 ,
J. Stansfield 3 ,
J. South 3 ,
S. K. Brooks 2 ,
N. Greenberg 2 , 4 ,
R. Amlôt 1 &
D. Weston 1

BMC Public Health volume 23 , Article number: 2482 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

1752 Accesses

21 Altmetric

Metrics details

The ability of the public to remain psychologically resilient in the face of public health emergencies and disasters (such as the COVID-19 pandemic) is a key factor in the effectiveness of a national response to such events. Community resilience and social capital are often perceived as beneficial and ensuring that a community is socially and psychologically resilient may aid emergency response and recovery. This review presents a synthesis of literature which answers the following research questions: How are community resilience and social capital quantified in research?; What is the impact of community resilience on mental wellbeing?; What is the impact of infectious disease outbreaks, disasters and emergencies on community resilience and social capital?; and, What types of interventions enhance community resilience and social capital?

A scoping review procedure was followed. Searches were run across Medline, PsycInfo, and EMBASE, with search terms covering both community resilience and social capital, public health emergencies, and mental health. 26 papers met the inclusion criteria.

The majority of retained papers originated in the USA, used a survey methodology to collect data, and involved a natural disaster. There was no common method for measuring community resilience or social capital. The association between community resilience and social capital with mental health was regarded as positive in most cases. However, we found that community resilience, and social capital, were initially negatively impacted by public health emergencies and enhanced by social group activities.

Several key recommendations are proposed based on the outcomes from the review, which include: the need for a standardised and validated approach to measuring both community resilience and social capital; that there should be enhanced effort to improve preparedness to public health emergencies in communities by gauging current levels of community resilience and social capital; that community resilience and social capital should be bolstered if areas are at risk of disasters or public health emergencies; the need to ensure that suitable short-term support is provided to communities with high resilience in the immediate aftermath of a public health emergency or disaster; the importance of conducting robust evaluation of community resilience initiatives deployed during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Peer Review reports

For the general population, public health emergencies and disasters (e.g., natural disasters; infectious disease outbreaks; Chemical, Biological, Radiological or Nuclear incidents) can give rise to a plethora of negative outcomes relating to both health (e.g. increased mental health problems [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ]) and the economy (e.g., increased unemployment and decreased levels of tourism [ 4 , 5 , 6 ]). COVID-19 is a current, and ongoing, example of a public health emergency which has affected over 421 million individuals worldwide [ 7 ]. The long term implications of COVID-19 are not yet known, but there are likely to be repercussions for physical health, mental health, and other non-health related outcomes for a substantial time to come [ 8 , 9 ]. As a result, it is critical to establish methods which may inform approaches to alleviate the longer-term negative consequences that are likely to emerge in the aftermath of both COVID-19 and any future public health emergency.

The definition of resilience often differs within the literature, but ultimately resilience is considered a dynamic process of adaptation. It is related to processes and capabilities at the individual, community and system level that result in good health and social outcomes, in spite of negative events, serious threats and hazards [ 10 ]. Furthermore, Ziglio [ 10 ] refers to four key types of resilience capacity: adaptive, the ability to withstand and adjust to unfavourable conditions and shocks; absorptive, the ability to withstand but also to recover and manage using available assets and skills; anticipatory, the ability to predict and minimize vulnerability; and transformative, transformative change so that systems better cope with new conditions.

There is no one settled definition of community resilience (CR). However, it generally relates to the ability of a community to withstand, adapt and permit growth in adverse circumstances due to social structures, networks and interdependencies within the community [ 11 ]. Social capital (SC) is considered a major determinant of CR [ 12 , 13 ], and reflects strength of a social network, community reciprocity, and trust in people and institutions [ 14 ]. These aspects of community are usually conceptualised primarily as protective factors that enable communities to cope and adapt collectively to threats. SC is often broken down into further categories [ 15 ], for example: cognitive SC (i.e. perceptions of community relations, such as trust, mutual help and attachment) and structural SC (i.e. what actually happens within the community, such as participation, socialising) [ 16 ]; or, bonding SC (i.e. connections among individuals who are emotionally close, and result in bonds to a particular group [ 17 ]) and bridging SC (i.e. acquaintances or individuals loosely connected that span different social groups [ 18 ]). Generally, CR is perceived to be primarily beneficial for multiple reasons (e.g. increased social support [ 18 , 19 ], protection of mental health [ 20 , 21 ]), and strengthening community resilience is a stated health goal of the World Health Organisation [ 22 ] when aiming to alleviate health inequalities and protect wellbeing. This is also reflected by organisations such as Public Health England (now split into the UK Health Security Agency and the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities) [ 23 ] and more recently, CR has been targeted through the endorsement of Community Champions (who are volunteers trained to support and to help improve health and wellbeing. Community Champions also reflect their local communities in terms of population demographics for example age, ethnicity and gender) as part of the COVID-19 response in the UK (e.g. [ 24 , 25 ]).

Despite the vested interest in bolstering communities, the research base establishing: how to understand and measure CR and SC; the effect of CR and SC, both during and following a public health emergency (such as the COVID-19 pandemic); and which types of CR or SC are the most effective to engage, is relatively small. Given the importance of ensuring resilience against, and swift recovery from, public health emergencies, it is critically important to establish and understand the evidence base for these approaches. As a result, the current review sought to answer the following research questions: (1) How are CR and SC quantified in research?; (2) What is the impact of community resilience on mental wellbeing?; (3) What is the impact of infectious disease outbreaks, disasters and emergencies on community resilience and social capital?; and, (4) What types of interventions enhance community resilience and social capital?

By collating research in order to answer these research questions, the authors have been able to propose several key recommendations that could be used to both enhance and evaluate CR and SC effectively to facilitate the long-term recovery from COVID-19, and also to inform the use of CR and SC in any future public health disasters and emergencies.

A scoping review methodology was followed due to the ease of summarising literature on a given topic for policy makers and practitioners [ 26 ], and is detailed in the following sections.

Identification of relevant studies

An initial search strategy was developed by authors CH and DW and included terms which related to: CR and SC, given the absence of a consistent definition of CR, and the link between CR and SC, the review focuses on both CR and SC to identify as much relevant literature as possible (adapted for purpose from Annex 1: [ 27 ], as well as through consultation with review commissioners); public health emergencies and disasters [ 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 ], and psychological wellbeing and recovery (derived a priori from literature). To ensure a focus on both public health and psychological research, the final search was carried across Medline, PsycInfo, and EMBASE using OVID. The final search took place on the 18th of May 2020, the search strategy used for all three databases can be found in Supplementary file 1 .

Selection criteria

The inclusion and exclusion criteria were developed alongside the search strategy. Initially the criteria were relatively inclusive and were subject to iterative development to reflect the authors’ familiarisation with the literature. For example, the decision was taken to exclude research which focused exclusively on social support and did not mention communities as an initial title/abstract search suggested that the majority of this literature did not meet the requirements of our research question.

The full and final inclusion and exclusion criteria used can be found in Supplementary file 2 . In summary, authors decided to focus on the general population (i.e., non-specialist, e.g. non-healthcare worker or government official) to allow the review to remain community focused. The research must also have assessed the impact of CR and/or SC on mental health and wellbeing, resilience, and recovery during and following public health emergencies and infectious disease outbreaks which affect communities (to ensure the research is relevant to the review aims), have conducted primary research, and have a full text available or provided by the first author when contacted.

Charting the data

All papers were first title and abstract screened by CH or DW. Papers then were full text reviewed by CH to ensure each paper met the required eligibility criteria, if unsure about a paper it was also full text reviewed by DW. All papers that were retained post full-text review were subjected to a standardised data extraction procedure. A table was made for the purpose of extracting the following data: title, authors, origin, year of publication, study design, aim, disaster type, sample size and characteristics, variables examined, results, restrictions/limitations, and recommendations. Supplementary file 3 details the charting the data process.

Analytical method

Data was synthesised using a Framework approach [ 32 ], a common method for analysing qualitative research. This method was chosen as it was originally used for large-scale social policy research [ 33 ] as it seeks to identify: what works, for whom, in what conditions, and why [ 34 ]. This approach is also useful for identifying commonalities and differences in qualitative data and potential relationships between different parts of the data [ 33 ]. An a priori framework was established by CH and DW. Extracted data was synthesised in relation to each research question, and the process was iterative to ensure maximum saturation using the available data.

Study selection

The final search strategy yielded 3584 records. Following the removal of duplicates, 2191 records remained and were included in title and abstract screening. A PRISMA flow diagram is presented in Fig. 1 .

PRISMA flow diagram

At the title and abstract screening stage, the process became more iterative as the inclusion criteria were developed and refined. For the first iteration of screening, CH or DW sorted all records into ‘include,’ ‘exclude,’ and ‘unsure’. All ‘unsure’ papers were re-assessed by CH, and a random selection of ~ 20% of these were also assessed by DW. Where there was disagreement between authors the records were retained, and full text screened. The remaining papers were reviewed by CH, and all records were categorised into ‘include’ and ‘exclude’. Following full-text screening, 26 papers were retained for use in the review.

Study characteristics

This section of the review addresses study characteristics of those which met the inclusion criteria, which comprises: date of publication, country of origin, study design, study location, disaster, and variables examined.

Date of publication

Publication dates across the 26 papers spanned from 2008 to 2020 (see Fig. 2 ). The number of papers published was relatively low and consistent across this timescale (i.e. 1–2 per year, except 2010 and 2013 when none were published) up until 2017 where the number of papers peaked at 5. From 2017 to 2020 there were 15 papers published in total. The amount of papers published in recent years suggests a shift in research and interest towards CR and SC in a disaster/ public health emergency context.

Graph to show retained papers date of publication

Country of origin

The locations of the first authors’ institutes at the time of publication were extracted to provide a geographical spread of the retained papers. The majority originated from the USA [ 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 ], followed by China [ 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 ], Japan [ 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 ], Australia [ 51 , 52 , 53 ], The Netherlands [ 54 , 55 ], New Zealand [ 56 ], Peru [ 57 ], Iran [ 58 ], Austria [ 59 ], and Croatia [ 60 ].

There were multiple methodological approaches carried out across retained papers. The most common formats included surveys or questionnaires [ 36 , 37 , 38 , 42 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 57 , 59 ], followed by interviews [ 39 , 40 , 43 , 51 , 52 , 60 ]. Four papers used both surveys and interviews [ 35 , 41 , 45 , 58 ], and two papers conducted data analysis (one using open access data from a Social Survey [ 44 ] and one using a Primary Health Organisations Register [ 56 ]).

Study location

The majority of the studies were carried out in Japan [ 36 , 42 , 44 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 ], followed by the USA [ 35 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 ], China [ 43 , 45 , 46 , 53 ], Australia [ 51 , 52 ], and the UK [ 54 , 55 ]. The remaining studies were carried out in Croatia [ 60 ], Peru [ 57 ], Austria [ 59 ], New Zealand [ 56 ] and Iran [ 58 ].

Multiple different types of disaster were researched across the retained papers. Earthquakes were the most common type of disaster examined [ 45 , 47 , 49 , 50 , 53 , 56 , 57 , 58 ], followed by research which assessed the impact of two disastrous events which had happened in the same area (e.g. Hurricane Katrina and the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in Mississippi, and the Great East Japan earthquake and Tsunami; [ 36 , 37 , 38 , 42 , 44 , 48 ]). Other disaster types included: flooding [ 51 , 54 , 55 , 59 , 60 ], hurricanes [ 35 , 39 , 41 ], infectious disease outbreaks [ 43 , 46 ], oil spillage [ 40 ], and drought [ 52 ].

Variables of interest examined

Across the 26 retained papers: eight referred to examining the impact of SC [ 35 , 37 , 39 , 41 , 46 , 49 , 55 , 60 ]; eight examined the impact of cognitive and structural SC as separate entities [ 40 , 42 , 45 , 48 , 50 , 54 , 57 , 59 ]; one examined bridging and bonding SC as separate entities [ 58 ]; two examined the impact of CR [ 38 , 56 ]; and two employed a qualitative methodology but drew findings in relation to bonding and bridging SC, and SC generally [ 51 , 52 ]. Additionally, five papers examined the impact of the following variables: ‘community social cohesion’ [ 36 ], ‘neighbourhood connectedness’ [ 44 ], ‘social support at the community level’ [ 47 ], ‘community connectedness’ [ 43 ] and ‘sense of community’ [ 53 ]. Table 1 provides additional details on this.

How is CR and SC measured or quantified in research?

The measures used to examine CR and SC are presented Table 1 . It is apparent that there is no uniformity in how SC or CR is measured across the research. Multiple measures are used throughout the retained studies, and nearly all are unique. Additionally, SC was examined at multiple different levels (e.g. cognitive and structural, bonding and bridging), and in multiple different forms (e.g. community connectedness, community cohesion).

What is the association between CR and SC on mental wellbeing?

To best compare research, the following section reports on CR, and facets of SC separately. Please see Supplementary file 4 for additional information on retained papers methods of measuring mental wellbeing.

Community resilience

CR relates to the ability of a community to withstand, adapt and permit growth in adverse circumstances due to social structures, networks and interdependencies within the community [ 11 ].

The impact of CR on mental wellbeing was consistently positive. For example, research indicated that there was a positive association between CR and number of common mental health (i.e. anxiety and mood) treatments post-disaster [ 56 ]. Similarly, other research suggests that CR is positively related to psychological resilience, which is inversely related to depressive symptoms) [ 37 ]. The same research also concluded that CR is protective of psychological resilience and is therefore protective of depressive symptoms [ 37 ].

Social capital

SC reflects the strength of a social network, community reciprocity, and trust in people and institutions [ 14 ]. These aspects of community are usually conceptualised primarily as protective factors that enable communities to cope and adapt collectively to threats.

There were inconsistencies across research which examined the impact of abstract SC (i.e. not refined into bonding/bridging or structural/cognitive) on mental wellbeing. However, for the majority of cases, research deems SC to be beneficial. For example, research has concluded that, SC is protective against post-traumatic stress disorder [ 55 ], anxiety [ 46 ], psychological distress [ 50 ], and stress [ 46 ]. Additionally, SC has been found to facilitate post-traumatic growth [ 38 ], and also to be useful to be drawn upon in times of stress [ 52 ], both of which could be protective of mental health. Similarly, research has also found that emotional recovery following a disaster is more difficult for those who report to have low levels of SC [ 51 ].

Conversely, however, research has also concluded that when other situational factors (e.g. personal resources) were controlled for, a positive relationship between community resources and life satisfaction was no longer significant [ 60 ]. Furthermore, some research has concluded that a high level of SC can result in a community facing greater stress immediately post disaster. Indeed, one retained paper found that high levels of SC correlate with higher levels of post-traumatic stress immediately following a disaster [ 39 ]. However, in the later stages following a disaster, this relationship can reverse, with SC subsequently providing an aid to recovery [ 41 ]. By way of explanation, some researchers have suggested that communities with stronger SC carry the greatest load in terms of helping others (i.e. family, friends and neighbours) as well as themselves immediately following the disaster, but then as time passes the communities recover at a faster rate as they are able to rely on their social networks for support [ 41 ].

Cognitive and structural social capital

Cognitive SC refers to perceptions of community relations, such as trust, mutual help and attachment, and structural SC refers to what actually happens within the community, such as participation, socialising [ 16 ].

Cognitive SC has been found to be protective [ 49 ] against PTSD [ 54 , 57 ], depression [ 40 , 54 ]) mild mood disorder; [ 48 ]), anxiety [ 48 , 54 ] and increase self-efficacy [ 59 ].

For structural SC, research is again inconsistent. On the one hand, structural SC has been found to: increase perceived self-efficacy, be protective of depression [ 40 ], buffer the impact of housing damage on cognitive decline [ 42 ] and provide support during disasters and over the recovery period [ 59 ]. However, on the other hand, it has been found to have no association with PTSD [ 54 , 57 ] or depression, and is also associated with a higher prevalence of anxiety [ 54 ]. Similarly, it is also suggested by additional research that structural SC can harm women’s mental health, either due to the pressure of expectations to help and support others or feelings of isolation [ 49 ].

Bonding and bridging social capital

Bonding SC refers to connections among individuals who are emotionally close, and result in bonds to a particular group [ 17 ], and bridging SC refers to acquaintances or individuals loosely connected that span different social groups [ 18 ].

One research study concluded that both bonding and bridging SC were protective against post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms [ 58 ]. Bridging capital was deemed to be around twice as effective in buffering against post-traumatic stress disorder than bonding SC [ 58 ].

Other community variables

Community social cohesion was significantly associated with a lower risk of post-traumatic stress disorder symptom development [ 35 ], and this was apparent even whilst controlling for depressive symptoms at baseline and disaster impact variables (e.g. loss of family member or housing damage) [ 36 ]. Similarly, sense of community, community connectedness, social support at the community level and neighbourhood connectedness all provided protective benefits for a range of mental health, wellbeing and recovery variables, including: depression [ 53 ], subjective wellbeing (in older adults only) [ 43 ], psychological distress [ 47 ], happiness [ 44 ] and life satisfaction [ 53 ].

Research has also concluded that community level social support is protective against mild mood and anxiety disorder, but only for individuals who have had no previous disaster experience [ 48 ]. Additionally, a study which separated SC into social cohesion and social participation concluded that at a community level, social cohesion is protective against depression [ 49 ] whereas social participation at community level is associated with an increased risk of depression amongst women [ 49 ].

What is the impact of Infectious disease outbreaks / disasters and emergencies on community resilience?

From a cross-sectional perspective, research has indicated that disasters and emergencies can have a negative effect on certain types of SC. Specifically, cognitive SC has been found to be impacted by disaster impact, whereas structural SC has gone unaffected [ 45 ]. Disaster impact has also been shown to have a negative effect on community relationships more generally [ 52 ].

Additionally, of the eight studies which collected data at multiple time points [ 35 , 36 , 41 , 42 , 47 , 49 , 56 , 60 ], three reported the effect of a disaster on the level of SC within a community [ 40 , 42 , 49 ]. All three of these studies concluded that disasters may have a negative impact on the levels of SC within a community. The first study found that the Deepwater Horizon oil spill had a negative effect on SC and social support, and this in turn explained an overall increase in the levels of depression within the community [ 40 ]. A possible explanation for the negative effect lays in ‘corrosive communities’, known for increased social conflict and reduced social support, that are sometimes created following oil spills [ 40 ]. It is proposed that corrosive communities often emerge due to a loss of natural resources that bring social groups together (e.g., for recreational activities), as well as social disparity (e.g., due to unequal distribution of economic impact) becoming apparent in the community following disaster [ 40 ]. The second study found that SC (in the form of social cohesion, informal socialising and social participation) decreased after the 2011 earthquake and tsunami in Japan; it was suggested that this change correlated with incidence of cognitive decline [ 42 ]. However, the third study reported more mixed effects based on physical circumstances of the communities’ natural environment: Following an earthquake, those who lived in mountainous areas with an initial high level of pre-community SC saw a decrease in SC post disaster [ 49 ]. However, communities in flat areas (which were home to younger residents and had a higher population density) saw an increase in SC [ 49 ]. It was proposed that this difference could be due to the need for those who lived in mountainous areas to seek prolonged refuge due to subsequent landslides [ 49 ].

What types of intervention enhance CR and SC and protect survivors?

There were mixed effects across the 26 retained papers when examining the effect of CR and SC on mental wellbeing. However, there is evidence that an increase in SC [ 56 , 57 ], with a focus on cognitive SC [ 57 ], namely by: building social networks [ 45 , 51 , 53 ], enhancing feelings of social cohesion [ 35 , 36 ] and promoting a sense of community [ 53 ], can result in an increase in CR and potentially protect survivors’ wellbeing and mental health following a disaster. An increase in SC may also aid in decreasing the need for individual psychological interventions in the aftermath of a disaster [ 55 ]. As a result, recommendations and suggested methods to bolster CR and SC from the retained papers have been extracted and separated into general methods, preparedness and policy level implementation.

General methods

Suggested methods to build SC included organising recreational activity-based groups [ 44 ] to broaden [ 51 , 53 ] and preserve current social networks [ 42 ], introducing initiatives to increase social cohesion and trust [ 51 ], and volunteering to increase the number of social ties between residents [ 59 ]. Research also notes that it is important to take a ‘no one left behind approach’ when organising recreational and social community events, as failure to do so could induce feelings of isolation for some members of the community [ 49 ]. Furthermore, gender differences should also be considered as research indicates that males and females may react differently to community level SC (as evidence suggests males are instead more impacted by individual level SC; in comparison to women who have larger and more diverse social networks [ 49 ]). Therefore, interventions which aim to raise community level social participation, with the aim of expanding social connections and gaining support, may be beneficial [ 42 , 47 ].

Preparedness

In order to prepare for disasters, it may be beneficial to introduce community-targeted methods or interventions to increase levels of SC and CR as these may aid in ameliorating the consequences of a public health emergency or disaster [ 57 ]. To indicate which communities have low levels of SC, one study suggests implementing a 3-item scale of social cohesion to map areas and target interventions [ 42 ].

It is important to consider that communities with a high level of SC may have a lower level of risk perception, due to the established connections and supportive network they have with those around them [ 61 ]. However, for the purpose of preparedness, this is not ideal as perception of risk is a key factor when seeking to encourage behavioural adherence. This could be overcome by introducing communication strategies which emphasise the necessity of social support, but also highlights the need for additional measures to reduce residual risk [ 59 ]. Furthermore, support in the form of financial assistance to foster current community initiatives may prove beneficial to rural areas, for example through the use of an asset-based community development framework [ 52 ].

Policy level

At a policy level, the included papers suggest a range of ways that CR and SC could be bolstered and used. These include: providing financial support for community initiatives and collective coping strategies, (e.g. using asset-based community development [ 52 ]); ensuring policies for long-term recovery focus on community sustainable development (e.g. community festival and community centre activities) [ 44 ]; and development of a network amongst cooperative corporations formed for reconstruction and to organise self-help recovery sessions among residents of adjacent areas [ 58 ].

This scoping review sought to synthesise literature concerning the role of SC and CR during public health emergencies and disasters. Specifically, in this review we have examined: the methods used to measure CR and SC; the impact of CR and SC on mental wellbeing during disasters and emergencies; the impact of disasters and emergencies on CR and SC; and the types of interventions which can be used to enhance CR. To do this, data was extracted from 26 peer-reviewed journal articles. From this synthesis, several key themes have been identified, which can be used to develop guidelines and recommendations for deploying CR and SC in a public health emergency or disaster context. These key themes and resulting recommendations are summarised below.

Firstly, this review established that there is no consistent or standardised approach to measuring CR or SC within the general population. This finding is consistent with a review conducted by the World Health Organization which concludes that despite there being a number of frameworks that contain indicators across different determinants of health, there is a lack of consensus on priority areas for measurement and no widely accepted indicator [ 27 ]. As a result, there are many measures of CR and SC apparent within the literature (e.g., [ 62 , 63 ]), an example of a developed and validated measure is provided by Sherrieb, Norris and Galea [ 64 ]. Similarly, the definitions of CR and SC differ widely between researchers, which created a barrier to comparing and summarising information. Therefore, future research could seek to compare various interpretations of CR and to identify any overlapping concepts. However, a previous systemic review conducted by Patel et al. (2017) concludes that there are nine core elements of CR (local knowledge, community networks and relationships, communication, health, governance and leadership, resources, economic investment, preparedness, and mental outlook), with 19 further sub-elements therein [ 30 ]. Therefore, as CR is a multi-dimensional construct, the implications from the findings are that multiple aspects of social infrastructure may need to be considered.

Secondly, our synthesis of research concerning the role of CR and SC for ensuring mental health and wellbeing during, or following, a public health emergency or disaster revealed mixed effects. Much of the research indicates either a generally protective effect on mental health and wellbeing, or no effect; however, the literature demonstrates some potential for a high level of CR/SC to backfire and result in a negative effect for populations during, or following, a public health emergency or disaster. Considered together, our synthesis indicates that cognitive SC is the only facet of SC which was perceived as universally protective across all retained papers. This is consistent with a systematic review which also concludes that: (a) community level cognitive SC is associated with a lower risk of common mental disorders, while; (b) community level structural SC had inconsistent effects [ 65 ].

Further examination of additional data extracted from studies which found that CR/SC had a negative effect on mental health and wellbeing revealed no commonalities that might explain these effects (Please see Supplementary file 5 for additional information)

One potential explanation may come from a retained paper which found that high levels of SC result in an increase in stress level immediately post disaster [ 41 ]. This was suggested to be due to individuals having greater burdens due to wishing to help and support their wide networks as well as themselves. However, as time passes the levels of SC allow the community to come together and recover at a faster rate [ 41 ]. As this was the only retained paper which produced this finding, it would be beneficial for future research to examine boundary conditions for the positive effects of CR/SC; that is, to explore circumstances under which CR/SC may be more likely to put communities at greater risk. This further research should also include additional longitudinal research to validate the conclusions drawn by [ 41 ] as resilience is a dynamic process of adaption.

Thirdly, disasters and emergencies were generally found to have a negative effect on levels of SC. One retained paper found a mixed effect of SC in relation to an earthquake, however this paper separated participants by area in which they lived (i.e., mountainous vs. flat), which explains this inconsistent effect [ 49 ]. Dangerous areas (i.e. mountainous) saw a decrease in community SC in comparison to safer areas following the earthquake (an effect the authors attributed to the need to seek prolonged refuge), whereas participants from the safer areas (which are home to younger residents with a higher population density) saw an increase in SC [ 49 ]. This is consistent with the idea that being able to participate socially is a key element of SC [ 12 ]. Overall, however, this was the only retained paper which produced a variable finding in relation to the effect of disaster on levels of CR/SC.

Finally, research identified through our synthesis promotes the idea of bolstering SC (particularly cognitive SC) and cohesion in communities likely to be affected by disaster to improve levels of CR. This finding provides further understanding of the relationship between CR and SC; an association that has been reported in various articles seeking to provide conceptual frameworks (e.g., [ 66 , 67 ]) as well as indicator/measurement frameworks [ 27 ]. Therefore, this could be done by creating and promoting initiatives which foster SC and create bonds within the community. Papers included in the current review suggest that recreational-based activity groups and volunteering are potential methods for fostering SC and creating community bonds [ 44 , 51 , 59 ]. Similarly, further research demonstrates that feelings of social cohesion are enhanced by general social activities (e.g. fairs and parades [ 18 ]). Also, actively encouraging activities, programs and interventions which enhance connectedness and SC have been reported to be desirable to increase CR [ 68 ]. This suggestion is supported by a recent scoping review of literature [ 67 ] examined community champion approaches for the COVID-19 pandemic response and recovery and established that creating and promoting SC focused initiatives within the community during pandemic response is highly beneficial [ 67 ]. In terms of preparedness, research states that it may be beneficial for levels of SC and CR in communities at risk to be assessed, to allow targeted interventions where the population may be at most risk following an incident [ 42 , 44 ]. Additionally, from a more critical perspective, we acknowledge that ‘resilience’ can often be perceived as a focus on individual capacity to adapt to adversity rather than changing or mitigating the causes of adverse conditions [ 69 , 70 ]. Therefore, CR requires an integrated system approach across individual, community and structural levels [ 17 ]. Also, it is important that community members are engaged in defining and agreeing how community resilience is measured [ 27 ] rather than it being imposed by system leads or decision-makers.

In the aftermath of the pandemic, is it expected that there will be long-term repercussions both from an economic [ 8 ] and a mental health perspective [ 71 ]. Furthermore, the findings from this review suggest that although those in areas with high levels of SC may be negatively affected in the acute stage, as time passes, they have potential to rebound at a faster rate than those with lower levels of SC. Ongoing evaluation of the effectiveness of current initiatives as the COVID-19 pandemic progresses into a recovery phase will be invaluable for supplementing the evidence base identified through this review.

Recommendations

As a result of this review, a number of recommendations are suggested for policy and practice during public health emergencies and recovery.

Future research should seek to establish a standardised and validated approach to measuring and defining CR and SC within communities. There are ongoing efforts in this area, for example [ 72 ]. Additionally, community members should be involved in the process of defining how CR is measured.

There should be an enhanced effort to improve preparedness for public health emergencies and disasters in local communities by gauging current levels of SC and CR within communities using a standardised measure. This approach could support specific targeting of populations with low levels of CR/SC in case of a disaster or public health emergency, whilst also allowing for consideration of support for those with high levels of CR (as these populations can be heavily impacted initially following a disaster). By distinguishing levels of SC and CR, tailored community-centred approaches could be implemented, such as those listed in a guide released by PHE in 2015 [ 73 ].

CR and SC (specifically cognitive SC) should be bolstered if communities are at risk of experiencing a disaster or public health emergency. This can be achieved by using interventions which aim to increase a sense of community and create new social ties (e.g., recreational group activities, volunteering). Additionally, when aiming to achieve this, it is important to be mindful of the risk of increased levels of CR/SC to backfire, as well as seeking to advocate an integrated system approach across individual, community and structural levels.

It is necessary to be aware that although communities with high existing levels of resilience / SC may experience short-term negative consequences following a disaster, over time these communities might be able to recover at a faster rate. It is therefore important to ensure that suitable short-term support is provided to these communities in the immediate aftermath of a public health emergency or disaster.

Robust evaluation of the community resilience initiatives deployed during the COVID-19 pandemic response is essential to inform the evidence base concerning the effectiveness of CR/ SC. These evaluations should continue through the response phase and into the recovery phase to help develop our understanding of the long-term consequences of such interventions.

Limitations

Despite this review being the first in this specific topic area, there are limitations that must be considered. Firstly, it is necessary to note that communities are generally highly diverse and the term ‘community’ in academic literature is a subject of much debate (see: [ 74 ]), therefore this must be considered when comparing and collating research involving communities. Additionally, the measures of CR and SC differ substantially across research, including across the 26 retained papers used in the current review. This makes the act of comparing and collating research findings very difficult. This issue is highlighted as a key outcome from this review, and suggestions for how to overcome this in future research are provided. Additionally, we acknowledge that there will be a relationship between CR & SC even where studies measure only at individual or community level. A review [ 75 ] on articulating a hypothesis of the link to health inequalities suggests that wider structural determinants of health need to be accounted for. Secondly, despite the final search strategy encompassing terms for both CR and SC, only one retained paper directly measured CR; thus, making the research findings more relevant to SC. Future research could seek to focus on CR to allow for a comparison of findings. Thirdly, the review was conducted early in the COVID-19 pandemic and so does not include more recent publications focusing on resilience specifically in the context of COVID-19. Regardless of this fact, the synthesis of, and recommendations drawn from, the reviewed studies are agnostic to time and specific incident and contain critical elements necessary to address as the pandemic moves from response to recovery. Further research should review the effectiveness of specific interventions during the COVID-19 pandemic for collation in a subsequent update to this current paper. Fourthly, the current review synthesises findings from countries with individualistic and collectivistic cultures, which may account for some variation in the findings. Lastly, despite choosing a scoping review method for ease of synthesising a wide literature base for use by public health emergency researchers in a relatively tight timeframe, there are disadvantages of a scoping review approach to consider: (1) quality appraisal of retained studies was not carried out; (2) due to the broad nature of a scoping review, more refined and targeted reviews of literature (e.g., systematic reviews) may be able to provide more detailed research outcomes. Therefore, future research should seek to use alternative methods (e.g., empirical research, systematic reviews of literature) to add to the evidence base on CR and SC impact and use in public health practice.

This review sought to establish: (1) How CR and SC are quantified in research?; (2) The impact of community resilience on mental wellbeing?; (3) The impact of infectious disease outbreaks, disasters and emergencies on community resilience and social capital?; and, (4) What types of interventions enhance community resilience and social capital?. The chosen search strategy yielded 26 relevant papers from which we were able extract information relating to the aims of this review.

Results from the review revealed that CR and SC are not measured consistently across research. The impact of CR / SC on mental health and wellbeing during emergencies and disasters is mixed (with some potential for backlash), however the literature does identify cognitive SC as particularly protective. Although only a small number of papers compared CR or SC before and after a disaster, the findings were relatively consistent: SC or CR is negatively impacted by a disaster. Methods suggested to bolster SC in communities were centred around social activities, such as recreational group activities and volunteering. Recommendations for both research and practice (with a particular focus on the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic) are also presented.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

Social Capital

Zortea TC, Brenna CT, Joyce M, McClelland H, Tippett M, Tran MM, et al. The impact of infectious disease-related public health emergencies on suicide, suicidal behavior, and suicidal thoughts. Crisis. 2020;42(6):474–87.

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Davis JR, Wilson S, Brock-Martin A, Glover S, Svendsen ER. The impact of disasters on populations with health and health care disparities. Disaster Med Pub Health Prep. 2010;4(1):30.

Article Google Scholar

Francescutti LH, Sauve M, Prasad AS. Natural disasters and healthcare: lessons to be learned. Healthc Manage Forum. 2017;30(1):53–5.

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Jones L, Palumbo D, Brown D. Coronavirus: How the pandemic has changed the world economy. BBC News; 2021. Accessible at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51706225 .

Below R, Wallemacq P. Annual disaster statistical review 2017. Brussels: CRED, Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters; 2018.

Google Scholar

Qiu W, Chu C, Mao A, Wu J. The impacts on health, society, and economy of SARS and H7N9 outbreaks in China: a case comparison study. J Environ Public Health. 2018;2018:2710185.

Worldometer. COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic. 2021.

Harari D, Keep M. Coronavirus: economic impact house of commons library. Briefing Paper (Number 8866); 2021. Accessible at: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8866/ .

Nabavi N. Covid-19: pandemic will cast a long shadow on mental health, warns England’s CMO. BMJ. 2021;373:n1655.

Ziglio E. Strengthening resilience: a priority shared by health 2020 and the sustainable development goals. No. WHO/EURO: 2017-6509-46275-66939. World Health Organization; Regional Office for Europe; 2017.

Asadzadeh A, Kotter T, Salehi P, Birkmann J. Operationalizing a concept: the systematic review of composite indicator building for measuring community disaster resilience. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct. 2017;25:147.

Sherrieb K, Norris F, Galea S. Measuring capacities for community resilience. Soc Indicators Res. 2010;99(2):227.

Poortinga W. Community resilience and health: the role of bonding, bridging, and linking aspects of social capital. Health Place. 2011;18(2):286–95.

Ferlander S. The importance of different forms of social capital for health. Acta Sociol. 2007;50(2):115–28.

Nakagawa Y, Shaw R. Social capital: a missing link to disaster recovery. Int J Mass Emerge Disasters. 2004;22(1):5–34.

Grootaert C, Narayan D, Jones VN, Woolcock M. Measuring social capital: an integrated questionnaire. Washington, DC: World Bank Working Paper, No. 18; 2004.

Adler PS, Kwon SW. Social capital: prospects for a new concept. Acad Manage Rev. 2002;27(1):17–40.

Aldrich DP, Meyer MA. Social capital and community resilience. Am Behav Sci. 2015;59(2):254–69.

Rodriguez-Llanes JM, Vos F, Guha-Sapir D. Measuring psychological resilience to disasters: are evidence-based indicators an achievable goal? Environ Health. 2013;12(1):115.

De Silva MJ, McKenzie K, Harpham T, Huttly SR. Social capital and mental Illness: a systematic review. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2005;59(8):619–27.

Bonanno GA, Galea S, Bucciarelli A, Vlahov D. Psychological resilience after disaster: New York City in the aftermath of the september 11th terrorist attack. Psychol Sci. 2006;17(3):181.

World Health Organization. Health 2020: a European policy framework and strategy for the 21st century. World Health Organization. Regional Office for Europe; 2013.

Public Health England. Community-Centred Public Health: Taking a Whole System Approach. 2020.

SPI-B. The role of Community Champion networks to increase engagement in the context of COVID19: Evidence and best practice. 2021.

Public Health England. Community champions: A rapid scoping review of community champion approaches for the pandemic response and recovery. 2021.

Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19–32.

World Health Organisation. WHO health evidence network synthesis report: what quantitative and qualitative methods have been developed to measure health-related community resilience at a national and local level. 2018.

Hall C, Williams N, Gauntlett L, Carter H, Amlôt R, Peterson L et al. Findings from systematic review of public perceptions and responses. PROACTIVE EU. Deliverable 1.1. 2019. Accessible at: https://proactive-h2020.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/PROACTIVE_20210312_D1.1_V5_PHE_Systematic-Review-of-Public-Perceptions-and-Responses_revised.pdf .

Weston D, Ip A, Amlôt R. Examining the application of behaviour change theories in the context of Infectious disease outbreaks and emergency response: a review of reviews. BMC Public Health. 2020;20(1):1483.

Article PubMed PubMed Central CAS Google Scholar

Patel SS, Rogers MB, Amlôt R, Rubin GJ. What do we mean by ‘community resilience’? A systematic literature review of how it is defined in the literature. PLoS Curr. 2017;9:ecurrents.dis.db775aff25efc5ac4f0660ad9c9f7db2.

PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Brooks SK, Weston D, Wessely S, Greenberg N. Effectiveness and acceptability of brief psychoeducational interventions after potentially traumatic events: a systematic review. Eur J Psychotraumatology. 2021;12(1):1923110.

Pawson R, Greenhalgh T, Harvey G, Walshe K. Realist review-a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005;10(1_suppl):21–34.

Gale NK, Heath G, Cameron E, Rashid S, Redwood S. Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13:1–8.

Bearman M, Dawson P. Qualitative synthesis and systematic review in health professions education. Med Educ. 2013;47(3):252–60.

Heid AR, Pruchno R, Cartwright FP, Wilson-Genderson M. Exposure to Hurricane Sandy, neighborhood collective efficacy, and post-traumatic stress symptoms in older adults. Aging Ment Health. 2017;21(7):742–50.

Hikichi H, Aida J, Tsuboya T, Kondo K, Kawachi I. Can community social cohesion prevent posttraumatic stress disorder in the aftermath of a disaster? A natural experiment from the 2011 Tohoku Earthquake and tsunami. Am J Epidemiol. 2016;183(10):902–10.

Lee J, Blackmon BJ, Cochran DM, Kar B, Rehner TA, Gunnell MS. Community resilience, psychological resilience, and depressive symptoms: an examination of the Mississippi Gulf Coast 10 years after Hurricane Katrina and 5 years after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Disaster med. 2018;12(2):241–8.

Lee J, Blackmon BJ, Lee JY, Cochran DM Jr, Rehner TA. An exploration of posttraumatic growth, loneliness, depression, resilience, and social capital among survivors of Hurricane Katrina and the deepwater Horizon oil spill. J Community Psychol. 2019;47(2):356–70.

Lowe SR, Sampson L, Gruebner O, Galea S. Psychological resilience after Hurricane Sandy: the influence of individual- and community-level factors on mental health after a large-scale natural disaster. PLoS One. 2015;10(5):e0125761.

Rung AL, Gaston S, Robinson WT, Trapido EJ, Peters ES. Untangling the disaster-depression knot: the role of social ties after deepwater Horizon. Soc Sci Med. 2017;177:19–26.

Weil F, Lee MR, Shihadeh ES. The burdens of social capital: how socially-involved people dealt with stress after Hurricane Katrina. Soc Sci Res. 2012;41(1):110–9.

Hikichi H, Aida J, Matsuyama Y, Tsuboya T, Kondo K, Kawachi I. Community-level social capital and cognitive decline after a Natural Disaster: a natural experiment from the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami. Soc Sci Med. 2018;257:111981.

Lau AL, Chi I, Cummins RA, Lee TM, Chou KL, Chung LW. The SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) pandemic in Hong Kong: effects on the subjective wellbeing of elderly and younger people. Aging Ment Health. 2008;12(6):746–60.

Sun Y, Yan T. The use of public health indicators to assess individual happiness in post-disaster recovery. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(21):4101.

Wong H, Huang Y, Fu Y, Zhang Y. Impacts of structural social capital and cognitive social capital on the psychological status of survivors of the yaan Earthquake. Appl Res Qual Life. 2018;14:1411–33.

Xiao H, Zhang Y, Kong D, Li S, Yang N. Social capital and sleep quality in individuals who self-isolated for 14 days during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak in January 2020 in China. Med Sci Monit. 2020;26:e923921.

PubMed PubMed Central CAS Google Scholar

Matsuyama Y, Aida J, Hase A, Sato Y, Koyama S, Tsuboya T, et al. Do community- and individual-level social relationships contribute to the mental health of disaster survivors? A multilevel prospective study after the great East Japan earthquake. Soc Sci Med. 2016;151:187–95.

Ozaki A, Horiuchi S, Kobayashi Y, Inoue M, Aida J, Leppold C, Yamaoka K. Beneficial roles of social support for mental health vary in the Japanese population depending on disaster experience: a nationwide cross-sectional study. Tohoku J Exp Med. 2018;246(4):213–23.

Sato K, Amemiya A, Haseda M, Takagi D, Kanamori M, Kondo K, et al. Post-disaster changes in Social Capital and Mental Health: a natural experiment from the 2016 Kumamoto Earthquake. Am J Epidemiol. 2020;189(9):910–21.

Tsuchiya N, Nakaya N, Nakamura T, Narita A, Kogure M, Aida J, Tsuji I, Hozawa A, Tomita H. Impact of social capital on psychological distress and interaction with house destruction and displacement after the great East Japan earthquake of 2011. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2017;71(1):52–60.

Brockie L, Miller E. Understanding older adults’ resilience during the Brisbane floods: social capital, life experience, and optimism. Disaster Med Pub Health Prep. 2017;11(1):72–9.

Caldwell K, Boyd CP. Coping and resilience in farming families affected by drought. Rural Remote Health. 2009;9(2):1088.

PubMed Google Scholar

Huang Y, Tan NT, Liu J. Support, sense of community, and psychological status in the survivors of the Yaan earthquake. J Community Psychol. 2016;44(7):919–36.

Wind T, Fordham M, Komproe H. Social capital and post-disaster mental health. Glob Health Action. 2011;4(1):6351.

Wind T, Komproe IH. The mechanisms that associate community social capital with post-disaster mental health: a multilevel model. Soc Sci Med. 2012;75(9):1715–20.

Hogg D, Kingham S, Wilson TM, Ardagh M. The effects of spatially varying earthquake impacts on mood and anxiety symptom treatments among long-term Christchurch residents following the 2010/11 Canterbury Earthquakes, New Zealand. Health Place. 2016;41:78–88.

Flores EC, Carnero AM, Bayer AM. Social capital and chronic post-traumatic stress disorder among survivors of the 2007 earthquake in Pisco, Peru. Soc Sci Med. 2014;101:9–17.

Rafiey H, Alipour F, LeBeau R, Salimi Y, Ahmadi S. Exploring the buffering role of social capital in the development of posttraumatic stress symptoms among Iranian earthquake survivors. Psychol Trauma. 2019;14(6):1040–6.

Babcicky P, Seebauer S. The two faces of social capital in private Flood mitigation: opposing effects on risk perception, self-efficacy and coping capacity. J Risk Res. 2017;20(8):1017–37.

Bakic H, Ajdukovic D. Stability and change post-disaster: dynamic relations between individual, interpersonal and community resources and psychosocial functioning. Eur J Psychotraumatol. 2019;10(1):1614821.

Rogers RW. A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change. J Psychol. 1975;91(1):93–114.

Lindberg K, Swearingen T. A reflective thrive-oriented community resilience scale. Am J Community Psychol. 2020;65(3–4):467–78.

Leykin D, Lahad M, Cohen O, Goldberg A, Aharonson-Daniel L. Conjoint community resiliency assessment measure-28/10 items (CCRAM28 and CCRAM10): a self-report tool for assessing community resilience. Am J Community Psychol. 2013;52:313–23.

Sherrieb K, Norris FH, Galea S. Measuring capacities for community resilience. Soc Indic Res. 2010;99:227–47.

Ehsan AM, De Silva MJ. Social capital and common mental disorder: a systematic review. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2015;69(10):1021–8.

Pfefferbaum B, Van Horn RL, Pfefferbaum RL. A conceptual framework to enhance community resilience using social capital. Clin Soc Work J. 2017;45(2):102–10.

Carmen E, Fazey I, Ross H, Bedinger M, Smith FM, Prager K, et al. Building community resilience in a context of climate change: the role of social capital. Ambio. 2022;51(6):1371–87.

Humbert C, Joseph J. Introduction: the politics of resilience: problematising current approaches. Resilience. 2019;7(3):215–23.

Tanner T, Bahadur A, Moench M. Challenges for resilience policy and practice. Working paper: 519. 2017.

Vadivel R, Shoib S, El Halabi S, El Hayek S, Essam L, Bytyçi DG. Mental health in the post-COVID-19 era: challenges and the way forward. Gen Psychiatry. 2021;34(1):e100424.

Article CAS Google Scholar

Pryor M. Social Capital Harmonised Standard. London: Government Statistical Service. 2021. Accessible at: https://gss.civilservice.gov.uk/policystore/social-capital/ .

Public Health England NE. A guide to community-centred approaches for health and wellbeing. 2015.

Hawe P. Capturing the meaning of ‘community’ in community intervention evaluation: some contributions from community psychology. Health Promot Int. 1994;9(3):199–210.

Uphoff EP, Pickett KE, Cabieses B, Small N, Wright J. A systematic review of the relationships between social capital and socioeconomic inequalities in health: a contribution to understanding the psychosocial pathway of health inequalities. Int J Equity Health. 2013;12:1–12.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

This study was supported by the National Institute for Health Research Research Unit (NIHR HPRU) in Emergency Preparedness and Response, a partnership between Public Health England, King’s College London and the University of East Anglia. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR, Public Health England, the UK Health Security Agency or the Department of Health and Social Care [Grant number: NIHR20008900]. Part of this work has been funded by the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities, Department of Health and Social Care, as part of a Collaborative Agreement with Leeds Beckett University.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Behavioural Science and Insights Unit, Evaluation & Translation Directorate, Science Group, UK Health Security Agency, Porton Down, Salisbury, SP4 0JG, UK

C. E. Hall, H. Wehling, R. Amlôt & D. Weston

Health Protection Research Unit, Institute of Psychology, Psychiatry and Neuroscience, King’s College London, 10 Cutcombe Road, London, SE5 9RJ, UK

C. E. Hall, S. K. Brooks & N. Greenberg

School of Health and Community Studies, Leeds Beckett University, Portland Building, PD519, Portland Place, Leeds, LS1 3HE, UK

J. Stansfield & J. South

King’s Centre for Military Health Research, Institute of Psychology, Psychiatry and Neuroscience, King’s College London, 10 Cutcombe Road, London, SE5 9RJ, UK

N. Greenberg

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

DW, JSo and JSt had the main idea for the review. The search strategy and eligibility criteria were devised by CH, DW, JSo and JSt. CH conducted the database searches. CH and DW conducted duplicate, title and abstract and full text screening in accordance with inclusion criteria. CH conducted data extraction, CH and DW carried out the analysis and drafted the initial manuscript. All authors provided critical revision of intellectual content. All authors approved the final manuscript.

Authors’ information

Corresponding author.

Correspondence to D. Weston .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate, consent for publication, competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1., additional file 2., additional file 3., additional file 4., additional file 5., rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Hall, C.E., Wehling, H., Stansfield, J. et al. Examining the role of community resilience and social capital on mental health in public health emergency and disaster response: a scoping review. BMC Public Health 23 , 2482 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-17242-x

Download citation

Received : 04 April 2022

Accepted : 16 November 2023

Published : 12 December 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-17242-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Mental health
Community cohesion
Public health emergency

BMC Public Health

ISSN: 1471-2458

Submission enquiries: [email protected]
General enquiries: [email protected]

Open access
Published: 01 April 2024

Paramedic attitudes and experiences working as a community paramedic: a qualitative survey

Aarani Paramalingam 1 ,
Andrea Ziesmann 1 ,
Melissa Pirrie 1 ,
Francine Marzanek 1 ,
Ricardo Angeles 1 &
Gina Agarwal 1 , 2

BMC Emergency Medicine volume 24 , Article number: 50 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

71 Accesses

3 Altmetric

Metrics details

Community paramedicine (CP) is an extension of the traditional paramedic role, where paramedics provide non-acute care to patients in non-emergent conditions. Due to its success in reducing burden on hospital systems and improving patient outcomes, this type of paramedic role is being increasingly implemented within communities and health systems across Ontario. Previous literature has focused on the patient experience with CP programs, but there is lack of research on the paramedic perspective in this role. This paper aims to understand the perspectives and experiences, both positive and negative, of paramedics working in a CP program towards the community paramedic role.

An online survey was distributed through multiple communication channels (e.g. professional organizations, paramedic services, social media) and convenience sampling was used. Five open-ended questions asked paramedics about their perceptions and experiences with the CP role; the survey also collected demographic data. While the full survey was open to all paramedics, only those who had experience in a CP role were included in the current study. The data was qualitatively analyzed using a comparative thematic analysis.

Data was collected from 79 respondents who had worked in a CP program. Three overarching themes, with multiple sub-themes, were identified. The first theme was that CP programs fill important gaps in the healthcare system. The second was that they provide paramedics with an opportunity for lateral career movement in a role where they can have deeper patient connections. The third was that CP has created a paradigm shift within paramedicine, extending the traditional scope of the practice. While paramedics largely reported positive experiences, there were some negative perceptions regarding the slower pace of work and the “soft skills” required in the role that vary from the traditional paramedic identity.

Conclusions

CP programs utilize paramedic skills to fill a gap in the healthcare system, can improve paramedic mental health, and also provide a new pathway for paramedic careers. As a new role, there are some challenges that CP program planners should take into consideration, such as additional training needs and the varying perceptions of CP.

Peer Review reports

Community paramedicine (CP) is an emerging professional role where paramedics use their training and skills in emergency response to respond to individuals with non-acute needs who do not require transport to hospital [ 1 ]. In Ontario, Canada, CP programs have begun to garner attention as an innovative approach to support independent living in an aging older adult population with complex health conditions [ 2 ]. Although there were some very early adopters of CP programs in Ontario, these programs began to gain momentum in 2013 [ 3 ]. By 2014, 13 Paramedic Services in Ontario reported having CP programs [ 2 ]. Community paramedicine programs can be diverse in scope, and can include paramedics completing home visits to frequent 911 callers, supporting clients with healthcare navigation, providing community-based education, and conducting drop-in clinic style wellness programs [ 1 ]. The structure, mandate, and resources required for CP programs tend to vary by paramedic service and local contexts. Staffing and training arrangements can also vary, with some programs designating full-time ‘community paramedics’ while others deploy paramedics on modified duties to staff programs.

Our literature review found that few studies have sought to understand how paramedics experience and view these programs. Evaluations of CP tend to focus on patient experiences, such as their health outcomes and health service utilization [ 4 , 5 , 6 ]. While participants have generally expressed support for and acceptance of CP [ 5 , 6 ], it is unclear exactly how paramedics perceive CP programs, particularly as it relates to their understanding of paramedic professional identity and their mental health.

As the CP role becomes a more permanent part of paramedic practice, it is expected to redefine and broaden the paramedic identity beyond its traditional boundaries. Historically, service users and healthcare providers have defined paramedics as thrill seekers who provide transport, emergency response, and trauma care [ 7 ]. However, as the delivery of healthcare has become more complex and integrated, paramedic identity has also shifted. Paramedics in Canada have already adopted broad professional identities such as ‘clinician,’ ‘educator,’ ‘team member,’ and ‘patient advocate’ [ 8 ]. This expansion of the paramedic identity is expected to accelerate as CP programs are increasingly adopted in Ontario. CP programs require paramedics to work with individuals on a repeat basis, provide chronic disease management services, and use ‘soft’ skills such as motivational interviewing and advocacy. How paramedics feel about these changes to their professional identity as a result of CP has yet to be understood.

Additionally, participation in the CP role may alter paramedics’ mental health experience. Paramedics in traditional emergency response roles tend to experience Occupational Stress Injury (OSI) due to demanding work environments and exposure to traumatic incidents [ 9 , 10 ]. Occupational Stress Injury refers to any form of psychological stress resulting from the duties one performs on the job [ 9 ]. While OSI is common for all public safety personnel, some studies suggest a higher incidence of post traumatic stress disorder for paramedics when compared to police officers and firefighters [ 11 , 12 ]. Paramedics are estimated to be at higher risk of screening positive for a DSM-IV mental disorder than municipal or provincial police services, firefighters, and dispatchers [ 12 ]. While some preliminary research in one CP program suggests that paramedics who practice CP experience reduced stress and a greater quality of work life [ 9 ], it is unclear how working in CP programs in different capacities may alter paramedics’ exposure to OSI and affect one’s overall mental health.

This paper seeks to describe the positive and negative experiences of paramedics working in a CP program and assess CP’s impacts on paramedic professional identity and paramedic’s mental health experience. As paramedic experiences may not be aligned with the experiences of CP program participants or even paramedic leadership, this paper also seeks to identify workplace elements (e.g., training, supports, paramedic leadership and culture) that may promote or hinder the expansion of CP programs in Ontario.

A survey tool was developed and distributed by the McMaster Community Paramedicine Research Team in 2016, using the online platform FluidSurveys, to assess paramedics’ perceptions and experiences working in a CP role. The survey was developed based on recurring themes and insights from a focus group and three key informant interviews with paramedics. The survey drafts were also reviewed and approved by a paramedic and a paramedic superintendent with research experience. The survey tool used open-ended questions to have paramedics describe their perception of the CP role prior to, and after working in a CP program, including both positive and negative aspects.

Population and recruitment

Paramedics were invited to participate in a survey that was distributed through social media by the Ontario Paramedic Association and the CP@clinic program. On Twitter, the invitation to complete the survey was re-tweeted by multiple accounts including paramedic services, paramedic staff, and other accounts. In addition, some Paramedic Services in Ontario delivering CP programs emailed the survey link to their paramedic staff. All paramedics (with and without CP experience) were invited to complete the full survey, but only those who indicated that they had worked in a CP role were included in this study (screening question in the survey). Respondents were informed about the purpose of the research study and informed consent was obtained. This study was approved by the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board (Project #13-466).

Data collection

A convenience sample was collected using an online survey. The survey was available for 16 weeks from October 2016 to January 2017, to provide ample time to gather responses from all potential participants. Data from the open-ended questions were collated into a single transcript.

The survey collected the following demographic information: age, sex, years of service, type of paramedic training (i.e., primary care, advanced care, critical care), whether the paramedic was on modified duty while working in a CP program (i.e., awaiting return to regular duties), length of time working in CP programs, and types of programs they worked in. Fivetypes of CP programs were provided as options: home visit program, clinic style program, paramedic navigator style program, triage program, and other.

The following open-ended questions were asked to elicit responses about paramedics’ experience of the CP role:

What was your opinion of community paramedicine before working a community paramedicine role?

Please explain how your opinion of community paramedicine has changed since working in a community paramedic role?

What was positive about your experience working in a community paramedic role? What did you enjoy about this role?

What were the negative aspects in your experience working as a community paramedic?

Would you like to change anything about the community paramedic role?

A comparative thematic analysis was used to describe the experiences of community paramedics before and after working in a CP role. Two members of the research team (AP, AZ) independently coded responses and identified emergent themes. Using a phenomenological approach during secondary coding, coders grounded the emergent themes within paramedics’ lived experience of the community paramedicine role, finding explanations for their experience within the context of the data itself. Responses with thick narrative descriptions were retained for analysis. Incomplete or partial responses were included in the qualitative analysis. Themes were then synthesized, refined, and were validated and triangulated by research team members (GA, AZ, MP, FM, RA). The demographic data was analyzed using descriptive analysis.

Demographics

Of the total survey respondents ( n =434), 79 reported working in a CP role. These respondents were predominantly male (57.0%), had 10 or more years of experience in a paramedic role (77.2%), and were not on modified duty while working in a CP role (86.1%). Respondents reported experience with working in multiple types of CP programs, with the most common type being clinic style programs (68.4%) (see Table 1 ). While the survey was open to all paramedics, the majority of respondents report working in Ontario ( n =61, 77.2%) and 16 respondents (20.3%) did not provide the province in which they worked.

A number of themes and sub-themes emerged from the analysis. Before having worked in a CP program, paramedics broadly identified three unique opportunities and impacts of the CP role: 1) filling gaps in emergency response and the healthcare system at large, 2) providing opportunity for lateral career movement, and 3) creating practice paradigm shifts. After working in a CP role, respondents were able to describe in detail the positive and negative aspects of these three opportunities and impacts. These themes are conceptualized in Fig. 1 .

Diagram depicting the major themes and the positive and negative experiences of paramedics working in a CP role

Theme 1: CP programs can fill important gaps in emergency response and the healthcare system at large, but come with new professional challenges

Before working in a CP role, the majority of respondents viewed the CP role positively. CP was thought to fill important gaps in emergency response and the health system at large. It offered paramedics an opportunity to practice continuity of care by providing prevention and disease management support to older adults who were often inappropriately accessing emergency care services. Paramedics felt that the needs of these individuals were not being fulfilled through traditional emergency response.

There are several individuals I have come across in my career who would have benefitted from a regularly scheduled home visit. ...There are a lot of individuals who require that [health] maintenance… it greatly reduces the workload of Emergency Services and frees them up for what they are actually required for – emergencies. (P.24)

[I thought] it was a vital service that filled gaps in the health care sector that was having excellent results where implemented (P.43)

After working in a CP program, respondents expanded on these initial sentiments. They described delivering a different level of care to their communities that involved stepping into a novel helping role, building relationships with participants and their families, supporting participant health outcomes, and taking part in interprofessional collaboration. This new level of care also came with new professional challenges such as increased emotional burden, managing participant expectations, and conflicts with other health and social service providers.

Sub-theme 1A: being in a helping role

Helping program participants in a CP role was described as novel and different when compared to the emergency response role. Community paramedics worked with participants on a long-term basis and witnessed their health and quality of life improvements. Paramedics enjoyed helping participants who were part of vulnerable or underserved communities. By taking time to listen to these participants and hear their stories, paramedics were able to exercise more compassion and felt less judgemental about participants’ situations. This was a rewarding aspect of the CP role, even having a powerful positive effect on paramedics’ own mental health.

Making a difference in people's lives ... often the people in the community who are ignored and shunned by others. I enjoyed going out in the community, solving problems, working with other services, having the time to LISTEN to patients rather than be worried about my scene time...this is one of the most important things for Paramedic mental health as well. (P.46)

...the knowledge that community paramedics, with sometimes very simple interventions/strategies can make all the difference in people's lives, preventing people from falling through the cracks, or helping them out of that situation…(P.61)

Sub-theme 1B: relationship building with program participants

Paramedics enjoyed building relationships with participants and getting to know them on a personal level, which was not possible in an emergency response role due to limited time on scene during acute calls. Building rapport with participants in the comfort of their homes created a sense of trust that fostered into natural friendships, with some paramedics describing themselves as building a ‘family’ with participants. Others noted that this trust allowed participants to share more details about their health and medical history, allowing paramedics to better assist in their care. Paramedics felt it was important to build these strong social relationships with participants in order to encourage and affect health behaviour changes for participants. Strong relationships with participants allow paramedics to thoroughly follow-up after initial visits and engage in conversations about participants’ short- and long-term health goals. Additionally, although the CP role lacked the adrenaline rush, this increased socialization was described as filling this gap.

The paramedics have built a rapport with [participants] and have really built a family with them.(P.19)

Getting to know [participants] beyond the 30 minutes to an hour we’re used to being with [them in an emergency capacity]. I found as they got to know me, they were more willing to share health concerns they were having and trusted me more. (P.26)

I realized that community paramedicine can be more enjoyable than I thought…where it lacks in adrenaline it makes up for in a social aspect. (P.10)

Seeing how much they trust us and tell us some of their most intimate issues. (P.49)

Sub-theme 1C: emotional burden

While paramedics enjoyed the rapport and relationships built with participants, they also felt they were making greater emotional investments in participants who were in poor health, may have been in a palliative state or dealing with addictions issues. Burnout, attachment fatigue, and difficulty dealing with participant deaths were common experiences. For some paramedics, having built rapport with certain participants meant that they were the primary contact for follow-up care even on their days off, leading to poor work-life balance. Similar to other clinical practitioners who work one-on-one with individuals over a long period of time (e.g., physicians, social workers), one respondent emphasized the need for paramedics in a CP role to be trained to reflect on their experience and make adjustments to how they work with participants.

Can be emotionally draining working over the long term with [participants]... who are very sick, some are palliative, difficult personalities, addictions, etc. Paramedics historically aren’t used to becoming emotionally involved with [people] … but this is difficult not to do when you are seeing people over and over again, and getting involved with their families and other circles of care as well. (P.5)

Couldn't just leave work behind at work like a traditional paramedic could - had to field phone calls on my vacation to help make arrangements for a [participant]... because no other community paramedics were available or as familiar with [them]. (P. 9)

Paramedics are not usually trained, educated, or encouraged to engage in self-reflective or reflective practice and it’s essential for a role like community paramedicine. (P. 34)

Sub-theme 1D: participant outcomes

Paramedics reported a better understanding of the impact of CP programing on participants’ health and well-being. Identifying ‘silent’ health issues before they resulted in emergency transport, making appropriate referrals and reducing 911 calls were some of the positive outcomes. For some, their CP training had become an integral part of their role as a paramedic overall, providing valuable transferable skills that could also be used during an emergency response to further improve health outcomes and close gaps in care. Additionally, beyond identifying health issues and making appropriate referrals, some paramedics felt that CP programs help build a sense of community, which may in turn also improve participant health and well-being. Paramedics particularly appreciated being able to witness these positive outcomes first-hand.

I have realized that community paramedicine has a very broad impact in the community. It is very underappreciated ... It has improved the livelihood of many [participants], and can (with the aid of other resources), assist them [with] their healthcare needs. (P.9)

Seeing them get proper treatment for an illness they did not know they had (i.e. hypertension, diabetes). (P.62)

Seeing the direct benefit of timely and appropriate interventions; having a big impact on people's quality of life, even when palliative (P. 60)

I see that most [people] don't want to go to the hospital and really don't need to. The issue is [that in] our current system people expect to be taken as they think that's the only way a doctor will see them. When they realised someone could see them at home and then refer them to the required service less 911 calls were made. (P.10)

I'm fortunate enough to work in a service that has integrated some aspects of community paramedicine into every response. Being trained to recognize signs in a [participant]'s home that indicate a higher need for home care and offering ways for them to access more care is deeply satisfying. The relief on a person's face when told they could get some home care, or help with day to day chores makes me feel like I made a difference to their quality of life. (P.36)

Seeing how much change we were able to create in a short period of time. Watching the sense of community flourish in the buildings while we were there. (P.49)

Sub-theme 1E: managing participant expectations

Managing the expectations of program participants and trying to elicit health behaviour change was a challenging aspect of the CP role. While seeing positive improvements in participants' lives motivated community paramedics and likely provided them with increased job satisfaction, working with participants who were not able to achieve these positive outcomes in some participants despite working to identify their health issues, and referring and connecting them to services, was a frustrating aspect of the role. Paramedics experienced frustration when participants did not follow their health advice, did not experience improvements in their health, or when participants expressed dissatisfaction with the help they received. Some of this frustration was also directed towards referral agencies who were not able to help the participant.

Some people are noncompliant with their medications or taking the advice of their physicians. It can be frustrating having people come to you for help for the same problems but not be receptive to the advice that you give. (P. 42)

There have been moments of frustration when patients don't follow through or even attempt to follow advice given to them by myself or the agency that has been tasked with giving them assistance. (P. 42)

[Some] clients who are out of the normal scope of practice for a paramedic who are better served by other agencies but those agencies failing the client. Even when you help put services in place for a client they are not happy and want more. (P.7)

Sub-theme 1F: interprofessional collaboration

Paramedics enjoyed working with differenthealthcare providers in their community. Collaboration with different services and providers was felt by paramedics to benefit program participants and improve their career satisfaction. Collaboration with different healthcare providers outside of an emergency paramedicine context made paramedics feel respected and part of a valued healthcare team that was centred around improving participant health. This collaboration provided better coordinated care and also showcased paramedics’ clinical skills beyond that of transport and ambulance-driving to other healthcare professions.

The integration, collaboration, and cooperation with health care and with allied health care providers. We truly make a difference in people's lives, keeping them in their homes longer, safer, and healthier. (P. 67)

Building relationships and pathways with community health care providers and showing them that paramedics are more than just ambulance drivers. (P. 13)

Interacting with the [primary care provider] as we caught early onset [urinary tract infections (UTIs)] and [upper respiratory tract infections] with treatment started based solely on our assessment and conversation via cell phone with [the provider] saving [the participant] stress and cost of travelling to their office. (P. 49)

...Enjoy working more closely with physicians to develop treatment plans.(P.56)

Sub-theme 1G: conflicts with other service providers

While paramedics appreciated the interprofessional collaboration offered by the CP role, they also described conflicts and challenges working with other service providers in the health and social work sector. Paramedics described some service providers as failing and unable to meet participant needs. Overlap between CP activities and other healthcare roles also led to tensions regarding professional boundaries, including physician concerns about CPs diagnosing their patients.

Some doctors did not like paramedics assessing and diagnosing issues (e.g. chest infections, UTIs, and muscular-skeletal injuries). (P. 39)

Don't know if referrals are getting back to [participants]…[There are] already programs in place that have [the] same mandate as CP, like Health Link, forcing medics to do home visits when [participants] don’t need them any more. (P. 12)

Oftentimes, navigating the system was a challenge and often wait times with family doctors or other services were unavoidable. (P. 29)

Theme 2: CP offers paramedics an opportunity for lateral career movement that is free from the demands of shift work and allows them to be connected to the community in a clinical capacity that is slower paced.

Some respondents viewed CP as a new opportunity for lateral career movement within the paramedic profession, ideal for paramedics in the late-stage of their career as it offered less physically demanding work. It was also noted that CP could help keep aging paramedics in the service for a longer period of time and the community could continue benefiting from their skill set.

After having worked in the new role, paramedics described CP as offering greater freedoms compared to the demands of shift work in traditional emergency response roles. CP offered freedom from the demands of shift work by providing better hours, increased autonomy, reduced physical demands, and reduced paramedic stress. For paramedics with longer years of service, this was a welcomed change of pace, with some reporting mental and physical health improvements. Others noted the importance of still being connected to the community in this new role. For others, adjustment to the slower pace of the CP role was difficult due to their preference for emergency work..

I enjoyed being still involved with the community but not having to have the daily physical demands of responding to 911 calls. The role is less stressful and after being a paramedic on the road for 14 years it is an amazing and a welcome change of pace both mentally and physically. (P. 58)

The autonomy to structure my day without the oversight of dispatch or supervisors. (P.63)

[It] would be great for light duty/modified work, could keep aging medics on for [a] longer period of time, good idea for last years of work. (P.51)

I prefer a higher paced environment dealing with acute injuries…(P.30)

Theme 3: Paramedics viewed and experienced the CP role as a practice paradigm shift

Before working in a CP role, paramedics viewed ed CP to be a practice paradigm shift for the profession. For some, this shift in practice was thought to be in opposition to the traditional emergency care role while others felt it was a natural extension of paramedic practice.

I did not feel that was something I would enjoy as it does not have the same adrenaline rush you get when on emergency calls. (P. 13)

[I] felt it was long overdue and a natural extension of what we were already doing in an emergency capacity. (P. 43)

I thought that it would be the next step in emergency medicine, our next frontier. Fire has prevention, we should have health promotion. (P. 26)

After working in a CP role and experiencing the practice paradigm shift first-hand, paramedics noted being largely satisfied by their newly expanded skill set, but also felt that it was a significant learning curve. Paramedics experienced negative sentiments from their peers in traditional emergency response regarding the CP role, highlighting the diverging paradigms between the two roles.

Sub-theme 3A: expanded skill set

The CP program expanded paramedics’ skill set to provide better care to program participants. Some of the new clinical skills described included medication provision, suturing, catheterization, point-of-care testing. Paramedics felt these skills improved their overall ability to perform when returning to emergency response duties. Others felt these new clinical skills were not used or required for the CP role because participants were mainly looking to socialize and interact.

I very much enjoyed the increased scope of practice. I believe that it allows me to provide better care and assist people in the community more than I have before. Moreover, I feel that the additional training has made me a better, and more well-rounded medic overall. (P.34)

I enjoyed the expanded roles (phlebotomy, catheterization, suturing etc)...(P.25).

Sub-theme 3B: learning curve

Working in a CP role was a significant learning curve for some paramedics. Challenges included learning soft skills such as communication, confidence leading sessions with older adults, and learning administrative tasks such as new documentation and computer skills. For paramedics working in both emergency response and CP roles, it was difficult to shift between emergency response protocols and CP protocols. This may have been due to competing priorities between emergency response and CP protocols, such as deciding whether to transport an individual to hospital or keeping an individual at home.

It is a difficult shift in frame of mind to go from 911 assessments to CP assessments and having to switch back into 911 mode when necessary...It can be tough to play the role of both emerg[ency] response and CP. (P.18)

Adapting to new ways, changing the way you do calls, learning the CP documentation and computer programs, being confident with [program participants] and visits, knowing when to communicate with the providers and how. (P. 2)

Much more patient advocacy & health teaching then I had expected. (P.14)

Sub-theme 3C: negative paramedic culture

Community paramedics described a negative paramedic culture that is unaccepting of the CP role and its softer skill set. Lack of buy-in from paramedics in traditional emergency response roles, along with poor understanding of the positive impacts of CP programming, have led to negative perceptions of the role in the paramedic workforce. Community paramedics felt that their emergency response colleagues did not respect their role and felt misunderstood by the profession at large.

Paramedic culture that needs to be educated and changed on the value of CP work. (P.32)

Misunderstood by co-workers and some management. Labeled the tea and cookie brigade. (P.24)

I also found that EMS crews treated CP with very little mutual respect and understanding... (P. 41)

There were a number of positive and negative aspects of the CP role identified by paramedic respondents. While the majority of respondents felt that working in a CP program was a largely positive experience, some expressed dissatisfaction and difficulty adapting to the role. Many positive aspects of the CP role also had unintended negative aspects, particularly as it related to paramedics’ sense of professional identity and their mental health experience when working in the CP role. In order to ensure paramedic job satisfaction and understand the future state of CP programs, these opposing experiences need to be further examined and addressed.

Paramedic professional identity

While many paramedics felt CP was an extension of the paramedic identity, some felt it was a threat to the traditional paramedic identity, removing the defining element of ‘emergency response’ and blurring professional boundaries with other health and social service roles. These diverging experiences and attitudes towards the CP role and its place in the paramedicine profession suggest that there are different fractional identities within the paramedic workforce. Donelley et al. found that emergency service workers often define their role using four domains: caregiving (helping individuals in need), thrill seeking (the adrenaline rush experienced during critical incidents), capacity (having the knowledge, skills, and training to act), and duty (obligation to one’s community and service) [ 7 ]. Paramedics who understand their professional identity as falling within the ‘caregiving’ or ‘duty’ domain may be more accepting of the CP role and understand its fit within their existing paramedic mandates. However, paramedics who understand their professional identity as falling within the ‘thrill seeking’ and ‘capacity to conduct an emergency response’ domain may view CP as not only redefining and expanding the profession, but a threat to the professional identity. Expansion and further resourcing of CP programs may exacerbate divisions and tensions between staff who have different professional motivations if these concerns are not addressed.

Paramedic mental health

Working in a CP role may have also led to some improvements in paramedic mental health. In the traditional emergency response role, paramedics take on shift work, are often exposed to traumatic emergency response incidents, and are limited in their interactions with individuals in their care (single touchpoint and limited time). In contrast, community paramedics experienced more freedom to structure their day, new opportunities to build relationships with program participants due to multiple touchpoints and they experienced reduced physical demands. These experiences likely contributed to a less stressful, flexible work environment which in turn improved mental health for some.

However, increased socialization with participants also introduced new emotional burdens and stressors for some community paramedics. Increased attachment to program participants often made it difficult to deal with their deaths. Participants are often vulnerable populations who face complex health and social issues, such as poverty and addiction. Increased contact with vulnerable populations may increase paramedics’ exposure to vicarious trauma or ‘compassion fatigue,’ which refers to the secondary trauma experienced by working closely with individuals who have experienced trauma first-hand [ 13 , 14 , 15 ]. Vicarious trauma and compassion fatigue can have similar negative impacts on paramedic mental health as first-hand trauma, leading to emotional disturbances, stress, intrusive thoughts, and reduced productivity [ 15 ]. Particularly for community paramedics with a strong orientation towards empathy and caregiving, compassion fatigue may be experienced as a negative or challenging consequence of the role [ 15 ].

Considerations for CP programming

The experiences of paramedics working in a CP program suggests the CP role comes with new opportunities and challenges for staff and the profession at large. Paramedics have broad and diverse understandings of their professional identity, leading some to view CP as a natural fit within the profession while others view it as extending too far beyond the boundaries of paramedicine. This suggests the need for paramedic leaders to clearly define the purpose, mandate, and function of the CP role within the paramedic workforce. Paramedic services interested in implementing and expanding on CP programs to achieve program outcomes such as a reduction in emergency calls and improving participant health outcomes should reflect on their workplace culture and consider the role of their leadership in promoting this role. Champions of CP programming may be identified to better support the workforce’s understanding of this role and how it fits within larger paramedic mandates and objectives. Paramedic leaders who are championing the CP role should consider what factors may contribute to a paramedic feeling alienated in a CP role and how staff are selected to fill this role. In addition, negative perceptions of the CP role as ‘soft’ or ‘easy’ in comparison to emergency response roles needs to be dispelled if community paramedics are to feel valued for their efforts and contributions.

In addition, a number of training supports may need to be provided that take into consideration the new emotional burdens of the CP role. While the CP role may contribute to good mental health by providing a flexible work environment, reducing exposure to traumatic incidents, and allowing paramedics to socialize with individuals in their care, it may also put some paramedics at risk for vicarious trauma and compassion fatigue. Drawing from professions such as social work and counselling, a number of training and professional development supports can be provided to reduce compassion fatigue. Examining compassion fatigue in community paramedics, Cornelius et al. suggests that paramedics should establish boundaries when working with program participants, ensuring that participants recognize the relationship between them and the paramedic is time limited [ 15 ]. Additionally, the caseload of community paramedics should be examined and managed by supervisors in terms of size and complexity of cases [ 15 ]. Other paramedic supports could include resiliency training, counselling services, and stress management workshops [ 15 ]. Training provided should match the type and scope of the CP program the paramedic is working in and their work environment.

Limitations

A limitation of this study is that it used an online survey with predefined open-ended questions to extract information on lived experience rather than a semi-structured interview. This approach prevented researchers from prompting paramedics on their responses and engaging in discussion to obtain a deeper description of their experiences. However, the survey approach allowed the research team to obtain responses from a large number of paramedics and collect responses from across Ontario. Another limitation is that due to the inherent nature of the survey link, it cannot be guaranteed that unique responses were captured. However, multiple entries from respondents are unlikely.

Future research should attempt to engage paramedics on the issues described in this paper and should consider how the relative impacts of working in different types of CP programs (e.g., clinic style programs, at home visits, etc.) may affect paramedic experiences. This approach may provide more detailed data to inform future CP training and program design.

This paper found paramedics who have worked in a CP role, reported that the role offered opportunities to fill a gap in the healthcare system, to move laterally within the paramedic profession, and to create a practice paradigm shift within the profession. Most described having positive perceptions of their professional identity after working as a CP, as they were able to fulfill stepping into a helping role to a greater extent. In contrast, some came out of the experience with negative perceptions. It is important for CP program planners to consider these diverse experiences when planning for the expansion of these programs. A workforce culture that views CP programming negatively and as potentially eroding the traditional paramedic identity may work to hinder the program’s ability to achieve positive outcomes such as a reduction in emergency calls and an improvement in participant health outcomes. Incorporating the CP role within larger paramedic mandates and objectives by paramedic leadership may support this work, as well as CP champions who clarify the role and impacts of CP to staff.

Availability of data and materials

The data that support the findings of this study are not publicly available due to them containing information that could compromise participant privacy. De-identified, limited data will be shared by the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Abbreviations

Community Paramedicine

Occupational Stress Injury

Chan J, Griffith LE, Costa AP, Leyenaar MS, Agarwal G. Community paramedicine: a systematic review of program descriptions and training. CJEM. 2019;21(6):749–61. https://doi.org/10.1017/cem.2019.14 .

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. Ontario Expanding Community Role for Paramedics. Ontario Newsroom. January 21, 2014 published. Accessed 9 Feb 2023. https://news.ontario.ca/mohltc/en/2014/01/ontario-expanding-community-role-for-paramedics.html.

County of Renfrew. About Us. Community Paramedic. Accessed 9 Feb 2023. http://www.communityparamedic.ca/pages/home/about-us.php.

Agarwal G, Angeles R, Pirrie M, et al. Effectiveness of a community paramedic-led health assessment and education initiative in a seniors’ residence building: the Community Health Assessment Program through Emergency Medical Services (CHAP-EMS). BMC Emerg Med. 2017;17:8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12873-017-0119-4 .

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Brydges M, Denton M, Agarwal G. The CHAP-EMS health promotion program: a qualitative study on participants’ views of the role of paramedics. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016;16:9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-016-1687-9 .

Article Google Scholar

Martin A, O’Meara P, Farmer J. Consumer perspectives of a community paramedicine program in rural Ontario. Aust J Rural Health. 2016;24(4):278–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajr.12259 .

Donnelly EA, Siebert D, Siebert C. Development of the Emergency Medical Services Role Identity Scale (EMS-RIS). Soc Work Health Care. 2015;54(3):212–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/00981389.2014.999979 .

Tavares W, Bowles R, Donelon B. Informing a Canadian paramedic profile: framing concepts, roles and crosscutting themes. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016;16:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-016-1739-1 .

Nixon J. Paramedic perspectives of community paramedicine and quality of work life in Northern Ontario, Canada. Master's Thesis. Laurentian University; 2019. Accessed February 09, 2023. https://zone.biblio.laurentian.ca/bitstream/10219/3241/1/Nixon%20-%20Thesis%20Document%20-%20April25-2019-FINAL.pdf.

Ad-hoc Committee on Operational Stress Injury. Operational Stress Injury in Paramedic Services: A Briefing to the Paramedic Chiefs of Canada. Paramedic Chiefs of Canada; 2014. Accessed 9 Feb 2023. https://www.paramedicchiefs.ca/docs/PCC%20Ad%20hoc%20Committee%20on%20Stress%20Injury%20Report.doc.

Drewitz-Chesney C. Posttraumatic stress disorder among paramedics: exploring a new solution with occupational health nurses using the Ottawa Charter as a framework. Workplace Health Saf. 2012;60(6):257–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/216507991206000605 .

Carleton RN, Afifi TO, Turner S, et al. Mental disorder symptoms among public safety personnel in Canada. Can J Psychiatry. 2018;63(1):54–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/0706743717723825 .

Figley CR. Compassion fatigue: Toward a new understanding of the costs of caring. In B. H. Stamm, ed. Secondary traumatic stress: Self-care issues for clinicians, researchers, and educators. The Sidran Press; 1995: 3-28.

Figley CR. Compassion Fatigue: Coping with Secondary Traumatic Stress Disorder in those who Treat the Traumatized. Brunner/Routledge; 1995.

Cornelius, C. Compassion Fatigue: A Hidden Stress in Providers of Mobile-Integrated Healthcare. J Emerg Med Serv. 40(8). Retrieved from https://www.jems.com/2015/08/17/compassion-fatigue-a-hidden-stress-in-providers-of-mobile-integrated-healthcare/ .

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge the assistance of Brent McLeod and the OPA (Ontario Paramedic Association).

Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Family Medicine, McMaster University, 100 Main St W, Hamilton, ON, L8P 1H6, Canada

Aarani Paramalingam, Andrea Ziesmann, Melissa Pirrie, Francine Marzanek, Ricardo Angeles & Gina Agarwal

Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario, L8S 4L8, Canada

Gina Agarwal

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

The study was conceived of by GA, RA, FM and AP, AZ, GA, RA, FM and MP analysed the data. AP drafted the article under the supervision of GA and all authors were involved in editing to produce a final draft. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gina Agarwal .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Respondents were informed about the purpose of the research study and informed consent was obtained. This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board (Project #13-466).

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Supplementary material 1., rights and permissions.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Paramalingam, A., Ziesmann, A., Pirrie, M. et al. Paramedic attitudes and experiences working as a community paramedic: a qualitative survey. BMC Emerg Med 24 , 50 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12873-024-00972-5

Download citation

Received : 15 February 2023

Accepted : 21 March 2024

Published : 01 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12873-024-00972-5

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Professional identity
Mental health
Thematic analysis

BMC Emergency Medicine

ISSN: 1471-227X

General enquiries: [email protected]

ASA Connect

Community Home
Discussion 12.1K
Library 761
Members 15.9K

Health Survey Research Methods Conference call for papers

1. health survey research methods conference call for papers.

Hi all. Reposting this to ASA in case there is interest:

The 12th Health Survey Research Methods Conference (HSRMC) will continue the series that began 50 years ago, in 1975, to discuss innovative survey research methods that improve the quality of health survey data. The next conference will be held in Williamsburg, VA from March 4-7, 2025.

The HSRMC steering committee is seeking abstracts for papers to be presented at the 2025 conference, including: general overview papers that summarize and integrate current knowledge, papers that identify and address future research challenges, innovative theoretical essays, and other papers that describe new empirical research that advances the field of survey methods and their application to health-related issues.

Read more about the 2025 call, submit your abstracts and learn more about the history of the HSRMC at the link below.

Call for Papers | HSRM Conference

Hoping to see many AAPOR friends at HSRMC 2025!

HSRMC Steering Committee member

New Best Answer

Related content, 2022 fcsm conference: call for papers, job opening: mathematical statistician (survey methodologist) at cdc, 2020 fall technical conference call for papers, call for papers - spring research conference 2016.

American Statistical Association 732 North Washington Street Alexandria, VA 22314-1943 Email: [email protected] Phone: (703) 684-1221

Join Benefits Learn More

About Us Code of Conduct

Help | Advanced Search

Computer Science > Artificial Intelligence

Title: a survey on large language model-based game agents.

Abstract: The development of game agents holds a critical role in advancing towards Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). The progress of LLMs and their multimodal counterparts (MLLMs) offers an unprecedented opportunity to evolve and empower game agents with human-like decision-making capabilities in complex computer game environments. This paper provides a comprehensive overview of LLM-based game agents from a holistic viewpoint. First, we introduce the conceptual architecture of LLM-based game agents, centered around six essential functional components: perception, memory, thinking, role-playing, action, and learning. Second, we survey existing representative LLM-based game agents documented in the literature with respect to methodologies and adaptation agility across six genres of games, including adventure, communication, competition, cooperation, simulation, and crafting & exploration games. Finally, we present an outlook of future research and development directions in this burgeoning field. A curated list of relevant papers is maintained and made accessible at: this https URL .

Submission history

Access paper:.

HTML (experimental)
Other Formats

References & Citations

Google Scholar
Semantic Scholar

BibTeX formatted citation

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Code, data and media associated with this article, recommenders and search tools.

Institution

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs .

College & Research Libraries News ( C&RL News ) is the official newsmagazine and publication of record of the Association of College & Research Libraries, providing articles on the latest trends and practices affecting academic and research libraries.

C&RL News became an online-only publication beginning with the January 2022 issue.

C&RL News Reader Survey

Give us your feedback in the 2024 C&RL News reader survey ! The survey asks a series of questions today to gather your thoughts on the contents and presentation of the magazine and should only take approximately 5-7 minutes to complete. Thank you for taking the time to provide your feedback and suggestions for C&RL News , we greatly appreciate and value your input.

ALA JobLIST

Advertising Information

Preparing great speeches: A 10-step approach (211526 views)
The American Civil War: A collection of free online primary sources (197953 views)
2018 top trends in academic libraries: A review of the trends and issues affecting academic libraries in higher education (77572 views)

Scholarly Communication

Call for Paper Submissions

C&RL News Scholarly Communication Column

T he Scholarly Communication column of C&RL News is looking for papers for the June, July/August, and September 2024 issues. Edited by a subgroup of the ACRL Research and Scholarly Environment Committee, columns are not quite feature/research articles and not quite editorials, but tend to fall somewhere in between. Citations should be kept to a reasonable number. Authors can and do express their opinions in their pieces, and these opinions do not necessarily need to be shared by the column editors. The editors reserve the right to decline to publish pieces, even pieces they previously agreed to publish, for any reason. Columns will typically be in the 1,800–2,000 word range, counting citations. The absolute minimum length should be 1,500 words, and the max is 2,200 words.

Key topics covered by this column (not limited to these topics)

Open access (OA)
Open educational resources (OER)
Publishing industry
Impact of research and scholarly work (including bibliometrics and altmetrics)
Institutional repositories
Data repositories
Diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) in scholarly communication
Assessment of scholarly communication needs
Open monographs
Data management
Transformative agreements
Copyright and fair use
Associations, groups, communities of practices related to scholarly communication

For complete details on publishing with C&RL News , visit the Instructions for Authors at https://crln.acrl.org/index.php/crlnews/about/submissions#authorGuidelines . Interested in submitting a proposal or topic for review? Please email the column editors at [email protected] .

Article Views (Last 12 Months)

Contact ACRL for article usage statistics from 2010-April 2017.

Article Views (By Year/Month)

Print ISSN: 0099-0086 | Online ISSN: 2150-6698

ALA Privacy Policy

ISSN: 2150-6698

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
Front Psychol

Following Up on Employee Surveys: A Conceptual Framework and Systematic Review

Lena-alyeska huebner.

1 Wilhelm Wundt Institute of Psychology, Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany

2 Volkswagen AG, Wolfsburg, Germany

Hannes Zacher

Associated data.

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/ Supplementary Material , further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author/s.

Employee surveys are often used to support organizational development (OD), and particularly the follow-up process after surveys, including action planning, is important. Nevertheless, this process is oftentimes neglected in practice, and research on it is limited as well. In this article, we first define the employee survey follow-up process and differentiate it from other common feedback practices. Second, we develop a comprehensive conceptual framework that integrates the relevant variables of this process. Third, we describe the methods and results of a systematic review that synthesizes the literature on the follow-up process based on the conceptual framework with the purpose of discussing remaining research gaps. Overall, this paper contributes to a better understanding of the organizational and human factors that affect this process. This is useful for practitioners, as it provides guidance for the successful implementation of this human resource practice. For example, research suggests that it is important to enable managers as change agents and to provide them with sufficient resources.

Introduction

Employee surveys are widely used in organizations today, and their popularity continues to grow ( Church and Waclawski, 2017 ). Their implementation varies from annual surveys to surveying in shorter intermittent time intervals (e.g., “pulse surveys;” Welbourne, 2016 ). The purposes of employee surveys include, but are not limited to, enhancing communication between management and staff, giving employees a voice, reducing social distance between management and employees, and intervention/organizational development (OD) ( Hartley, 2001 ; Kraut, 2006 ). The implementation of an employee survey is not limited to only one of these purposes, but can serve several of them simultaneously ( Burke et al., 1996 ). The success of employee surveys for OD depends heavily on the implementation of a proper follow-up process, that is, the use of the collected data for the initiation of organizational changes ( Falletta and Combs, 2002 ).

Despite its importance, the employee survey follow-up process is often neglected, limiting the effectiveness of this widely used management tool ( De Waal, 2014 ). Many times, organizations view the employee survey process as completed once the data have been collected, consequently failing to properly follow-up on the results and use them as a tool to drive change ( Church et al., 2012 ). Similarly, the literature on the employee survey follow-up process is scarce, as this stage receives less attention by researchers in comparison to numerous studies examining the actual surveying process ( Fraser et al., 2009 ). For example, research has investigated why surveys are conducted at all and what types of items they include ( Sugheir et al., 2011 ), as well as the issue of social desirability in survey responses ( Keiser and Payne, 2019 ). In addition, the sparse literature on the employee survey follow-up process is conceptually fragmented, published across various academic disciplines, and uses inconsistent labels (e.g., employee survey follow-up, feedback intervention). This is especially disadvantageous for practitioners, as it makes it difficult for them to locate reliable evidence-based research, even though employee surveys are a common OD technique ( Falletta and Combs, 2002 ). Also, practitioners lack an extensive overview of relevant factors to consider during implementation, as no comprehensive theoretical model of the process exists. Lastly, there have been reviews on survey feedback interventions or that included such as one of other OD practices, but the most recent work was published over 30 years ago (see Neuman et al., 1989 ). However, more research on the topic has been conducted since then, but we lack guidance on what variables and domains in this line of research to examine with future studies. Hence, the lack of an updated review of the employee survey follow-up process literature prevents systematic theoretical and empirical research on this important topic and practical progress in this area.

To advance this area of research and practice, we conducted a systematic literature review ( Daniels, 2018 ; Siddaway et al., 2019 ) on the employee survey follow-up process. First, we define employee surveys, conceptually integrate them into the existing feedback and change management/OD literature, and differentiate them from other feedback practices, such as 360 degree feedback. Describing the nomological network of employee surveys is important because past literature on the topic has been mainly on “survey feedback interventions,” rather than specifically the employee survey follow-up process. Also, differentiating this process from other feedback practices (e.g., 360 degree feedback) demonstrates the necessity of treating this concept as a distinct human resource practice even though it shows similarities to other feedback processes. Second, we developed a conceptual framework to depict the relationships between the relevant variables for the employee survey follow-up process as a change tool. Third, we systematically reviewed and evaluated the literature on the follow-up of employee surveys based on the components of the comprehensive conceptual model. With this approach, the present systematic review explores the following research question: Which variables of our conceptual model have been sufficiently informed by past research and which variables require future research? Finally, we discuss the implications of our review for future research and offer several recommendations for organizational practice.

Overall, our conceptual framework and systematic review contribute to the organizational change and development literature and to practice in four important ways. First, based on a conceptual integration and framework, our review highlights which variables research in this area has investigated, and which variables have been neglected and require further attention. Second, the employee survey follow-up process can generally be categorized as a survey feedback intervention, but is nevertheless a distinct process that deserves focused attention. For example, in contrast to reviews on survey feedback interventions, this review excludes studies conducted with student samples (e.g., Brown, 1972 ), and on the other hand includes other empirical research conducted on the topic, as for example cross-sectional work (e.g., Church et al., 1995 ) or qualitative interviews with survey practitioners (e.g., Gable et al., 2010 ). Third, past reviews on survey feedback are outdated, as more research has been conducted on the topic since then. Hence, our review includes all relevant literature that has been published until today. Fourth, the results of our review are useful for practitioners as they provide an integrated overview of the current state of knowledge on the employee survey follow-up process and of the factors that should be taken into account for the successful implementation of this human resource practice.

Theoretical Background

We begin by conceptually integrating the employee survey follow-up process into the literature on related and overarching topics, including feedback, feedback interventions, survey feedback interventions, and other formats (see Figure 1 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is fpsyg-12-801073-g001.jpg

The nomological network of employee surveys. 360 degree-, multisource-, and upward feedback practices are by definition also survey feedback interventions, but generally not explicitly labeled as such in the literature, hence the dotted line.

In the broadest sense, an employee survey is a form of feedback, defined as a communication process in which a sender sends a message to a recipient, with the message containing information about the recipient ( Ilgen et al., 1979 ). The term feedback is poorly defined and used inconsistently in the literature ( Besieux, 2017 ). It has been conceptualized and labeled in many different ways, for example as process feedback (how) and performance feedback (what) ( Besieux, 2017 ), as feedback to the individual or the group ( Nadler, 1979 ), or as cognitive (how and why) and outcome feedback (what) ( Jacoby et al., 1984 ). This has led to a plethora of literature on feedback, for example on how to give effective feedback (e.g., Aguinis et al., 2012 ) or on recipients’ reactions to feedback (e.g., Fedor et al., 1989 ).

Feedback Interventions

When feedback is used as an intentional intervention by providing information about a recipient’s task performance and actions being taken by an agent to intervene, this is called a feedback intervention ( Kluger and DeNisi, 1996 ). A meta-analysis on feedback interventions by Kluger and DeNisi (1996) showed large variability in its effects, but there was also large variability in the types of feedback interventions included in the analyses, for example feedback for memory tasks, test performances, and physical tasks.

Feedback interventions have also been considered in the change literature. Guzzo et al. (1985) examined 11 different types of organizational interventions, with feedback interventions being one of them. They found positive effects for this type of intervention practice, yet their scope was broad, too, in that they also included performance appraisal techniques and access to performance data. Nadler’s review ( 1979 ) of experimental research on feedback regarding task group behavior, on the other hand, found conflicting results for the effectiveness of feedback interventions to groups. However, feedback was again considered in a broad sense, including feedback for coding or sorting tasks, problem solving exercises, or group discussions.

Survey Feedback Interventions

When feedback is solicited through the medium of surveying and transferred back to relevant stakeholders for the purpose of diagnosis and intervention, it is called survey feedback (intervention) ( Nadler, 1976 ). Throughout the industrial and organizational (IO) psychology literature, this is generally referred to as “survey feedback,” whereas such interventions can also be applied in different contexts, as for example education or research (e.g., Gehlbach et al., 2018 ). In the work context, survey feedback interventions entail systematic data collection and feeding the results back to organizational members ( Nadler, 1976 ).

Studies on survey feedback interventions are scattered across the OD literature. Several reviews and meta-analyses have included them as one of many OD interventions. For example, Friedlander and Brown (1974) conducted a review on several different approaches to OD, with survey feedback being one of them. They summarized ten survey feedback intervention studies and concluded that such can have positive effects on the attitudes of those involved. Shortly after, Margulies et al. (1977) summarized six studies relevant to this type of OD intervention and concluded that more research was needed on this technique to understand under which circumstances it produces the most benefits. A few years later, Porras and Berg (1978) and Porras (1979) reviewed four survey feedback intervention studies as one of several different OD techniques, but could not find superiority of this technique over others. Another example of survey feedback relevant for the OD literature is a meta-analysis by Neuman et al. (1989) . The authors identified six survey feedback intervention studies out of 84 studies implementing other human processes approaches to OD, meaning such techniques attempt to achieve improved organizational performance via improved human functioning. Indeed, the human approach techniques were found to be more effective than techno-structural interventions (i.e., modifications to work or the work environment) in changing organizational attitudes. Lastly, Hopkins (1982) reviewed the use of survey feedback in educational settings and concluded that it is generally useful as a tool in educational organizations. In summary, there is much research on survey feedback interventions, but previous reviews and meta-analyses on this topic have shown mixed results. The majority of authors concluded that more research is needed on this topic, and this assumption holds up until today.

Other Types of Feedback Practices

Other related human resource practices, for example performance appraisals, such as 360 degree-, multisource-, and upward feedback also rely on systematic data collection and feeding it back to organizational members ( DeNisi and Kluger, 2000 ). Due to the necessity of collecting anonymous feedback, the data for these practices are usually collected with surveys ( Bracken et al., 2001 ), similarly to employee surveys. Therefore, by definition, these practices are survey feedback interventions, but are usually not labeled as such throughout the literature (see dotted line in Figure 1 ). Also, as the following discussion will show, the specific processes of these practices differ from those of employee surveys.

360 Degree Feedback

One popular practice of performance management is 360 degree feedback, which is a type of performance appraisal that solicits feedback from several sources, mostly for employees in management positions ( Atwater et al., 2007 ). As the name implies, the vertical and horizontal feedback that is collected from multiple rating sources can be conceptualized as a circle. A full circle of feedback constitutes feedback from superiors and subordinates (vertical feedback), peers (horizontal feedback), and self-ratings ( Foster and Law, 2006 ). The goal is to provide feedback to a single person regarding their management qualities ( Vukotich, 2014 ). The two general frameworks in which 360 degree feedback programs are implemented are either for developmental purposes of the rated manager or for administrative purposes, such as promotions ( Hannum, 2007 ).

Generally though, only a small group of people provides feedback. Usually, these are individuals capable of making statements about leadership behaviors because they have worked closely with the rated person. However, the effectiveness of the process is rather limited when the recipients of feedback are left with acting on it without training, which is why it is recommended to have trained facilitators or consultants deliver the anonymous feedback and support managers in understanding the data ( Nowack and Mashihi, 2012 ; Vukotich, 2014 ).

Multisource Feedback

The term multisource feedback (MSF) is often used interchangeably with 360 degree feedback, even though this is not accurate ( Foster and Law, 2006 ). MSF constitutes more than one source of feedback (e.g., self-ratings and peer-ratings), but it must not necessarily involve the full circle of 360 degree feedback. Hence, 360 degree feedback is a type of MSF, but MSF is not necessarily 360 degree feedback ( Foster and Law, 2006 ). However, MSF programs share similar processes with 360 degree feedback initiatives and generally also provide feedback to a single recipient, most often a leader ( Atwater et al., 2007 ). They can also be implemented for developmental or administrative purposes, for example as part of performance appraisal processes ( Timmreck and Bracken, 1997 ).

Upward Feedback

Upward feedback is a more narrow form of 360 degree feedback and MSF. It is the vertical feedback derived from subordinates with the purpose of appraising a manager’s performance ( van Dierendonck et al., 2007 ). Upward feedback programs typically include self-ratings of leader behaviors that can then be compared to subordinates’ ratings to help feedback recipients identify development needs and subsequently improve their leadership skills. Similar to 360 degree feedback or MSF programs, upward feedback programs aim to support leadership development or administrative decision-making and entail comparable processes ( Atwater et al., 2000 ).

Comparing Other Feedback Practices to Employee Surveys

Employee surveys are similar to the above mentioned human resource feedback practices, but are nevertheless distinct in their processes and goals. Their most overlap occurs when an employee survey contains items on leadership behavior, specifically direct leaders. In such a case, the employee survey functions as upward feedback to managers in addition to the assessment of general work conditions ( Church and Oliver, 2006 ). The most prominent differences between the various human resource feedback practices and the employee survey is the type of feedback that is solicited and the handling of the data following the survey. Employee surveys only utilize vertical feedback, meaning feedback is carried up the organizational hierarchy starting at the bottom. They entail formal feedback derived from large groups of or all employees in an organization (best case at least from a representative sample), and the results are aimed at evaluating general work conditions. The goal is therefore not to evaluate a specific employee’s leadership skills, but to obtain feedback from a wide range of employees on more general work-related topics ( Bungard et al., 2007 ).

The employee survey follow-up process then entails using the group-level feedback data for organizational change initiatives. Some organizations choose to implement top–down initiatives in reaction to survey results in which management or other stakeholders review the data at a higher and aggregated level than that of single teams. They then decide on overarching action plans for the whole company or certain departments, such as the implementation of new performance appraisal systems, overhauling internal communication, or changing the company strategy ( Linke, 2018 ). Such top–down approaches are not the focus of this review, but the interested reader is referred to different case study descriptions (see e.g., Chesler and Flanders, 1967 ; Goldberg and Gordon, 1978 ; Rollins, 1994 ; Falletta and Combs, 2002 ; Feather, 2008 ; Tomlinson, 2010 ; Costello et al., 2011 ; Cattermole et al., 2013 ).

The focus of this review is the bottom–up approach to change, which focuses on employee involvement and participation and is of a more decentralized nature ( Conway and Monks, 2011 ). The employee follow-up in line with this approach entails the discussion of psychosocial working-environment data between managers and their teams and having a dialogue about results that pose areas with need for action. Ideally, action planning and proper action plan implementation should follow these discussions ( Welbourne, 2016 ).

As mentioned previously, such follow-up steps after the survey are oftentimes neglected in practice ( Church et al., 2012 ). One reason for this could be that employee surveys generally have different purposes in comparison to 360 degree, multisource, and upward feedback approaches. They are mostly used for OD or assessment purposes ( Hartley, 2001 ). They are much less likely to be tied to personal rewards, such as promotions of specific managers. Hence, the responsibility to review the data and to implement changes based on it does not lie as clearly with managers as it does with the feedback practices described above.

Overall, there is little empirical evidence regarding the follow-up on employee surveys, and the research that is available is scattered and labeled inconsistently (e.g., employee satisfaction survey, opinion survey, engagement survey). As noted above, researchers have offered reviews and meta-analyses on different types of feedback, feedback interventions, and specifically survey feedback interventions. From a holistic perspective, however, the results of these reviews are mixed and inconsistent, calling for a systematic review on the distinct concept of the employee survey follow-up. In the following section, we offer a conceptual framework for presenting research on this topic.

A Conceptual Framework of the Employee Survey Follow-Up Process

We developed a conceptual framework of the employee survey process, with particular focus on the follow-up (see Figure 2 ). For its development, we drew from existing theory and research. Mainly, the OD/change and organizational behavior literature informed this model, more specifically models proposed by Nadler and Tushman (1980) ; Burke and Litwin (1992) , and Porras and Robertson (1992) .

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is fpsyg-12-801073-g002.jpg

Conceptual framework of the employee survey process, specifically the follow-up process. Variables listed as external factors serve as examples; list is not exhaustive.

Nadler and Tushman’s Congruence Model of Organizational Behavior (1980) informed the general structure of our model with its input-, transformation process-, and output approach to behavioral systems in an organization, which is in alignment with open systems theory ( Katz and Kahn, 1978 ). According to their conceptualization, there are inputs for the behavioral system (i.e., the organization). This behavioral system consists of specific organizational elements and produces behaviors that ultimately lead to certain levels of organizational performance (i.e., outputs).

This systems and transformation view of the organization is applicable to the employee survey (follow-up), as this process itself is an approach to identifying and solving organizational problems. Specifically, the post-survey follow-up is an organizational transformation process fed with data from certain input sources, such as the employee survey ( Falletta and Combs, 2002 ). This transformation process emerges, like any other organizational process, through the interaction of human and organizational factors and the resulting behaviors ( Nadler and Tushman, 1980 ). Lastly, such systems put forth outputs that can be categorized into organizational and individual performance ( Nadler, 1981 ).

Two other common and popular change models inform the more specific variables of the model; Burke and Litwin’s Model of Organizational Performance and Change (1992) and Porras and Robertson’s Change-Based Organizational Framework (1992). Figure 2 attempts to portray the primary variables and components relevant to the employee survey follow-up process. Below we will describe each component of the model in more detail.

The Employee Survey

The employee survey itself produces the necessary data for all subsequent steps (i.e., teams receive their results and plan actions based on them) ( Linke, 2018 ), hence it can be considered as an antecedent of the survey follow-up process. Much research has been accumulated on survey development and administration, but it stands mostly in isolation from the steps following the actual survey, meaning most studies do not connect this knowledge to the survey follow-up steps, creating a disconnect between these bodies of literature.

External Factors

Besides the survey delivering data as input for the follow-up process, there are also factors external to the organization that provide input for the follow-up. As other researchers have noted, external factors affect and sometimes initiate organizational change ( Burke and Litwin, 1992 ; Porras and Robertson, 1992 ). These factors can include any outside conditions that influence the organization, for example political circumstances, culture, marketplaces, or even industry category ( Burke and Litwin, 1992 ). These external factors represent the context in which the employee survey is embedded and therefore also have an effect on the employee survey and follow-up. For example, the culture of the country that the company resides in will most likely influence what kind of questions are asked in an employee survey (e.g., collectivist vs. individualistic cultures). Culture most likely also influences participation rates in an employee survey (e.g., there might be low participation rates when the survey content does not fit the cultural context).

The Employee Survey Follow-Up Process

Consistent with Porras and Robertson’s (1992) Change-Based Organizational Framework, we identified two main factors that are relevant for the follow-up process: The work setting (i.e., organizational system) and its organizational members (i.e., the human system).

Organizational System

There are many ways to think about the components of an organization, hence there is no one way agreed upon description ( Nadler and Tushman, 1980 ). Generally, these components refer to the organizational arrangements that characterize how an organization functions. We have listed the components we deemed most important for the implementation of employee surveys and their follow-up: Structure, resources, culture/climate, and strategy. Structure refers to the arrangement of people and their functions into different levels of responsibility and authority ( Duncan, 1979 ). As employee survey follow-up processes take place in work groups, the structure of an organization becomes defining for the constellations in which the process is carried out ( Nadler, 1980 ). Resources refer to any organizational, physical, psychological, or social aspects of work that help achieve work goals ( Demerouti et al., 2001 ) and are hence also relevant for all work-related processes, such as employee surveys and their follow-up. Culture and climate are related constructs, with culture referring to the collection of rules, values, and principles that guide organizational behavior. Climate refers to the collective impressions, feelings, and expectations of members in a team or work unit ( Burke and Litwin, 1992 ). Culture has long been recognized to play an important role in OD ( Beer and Walton, 1987 ), and with the follow-up process being a team-level task, there is reason to believe that especially the climate in a work unit will affect this process as well. Strategy is how an organization intends to achieve effectiveness over an extended time frame ( Burke and Litwin, 1992 ), and the literature on employee surveys suggests that the goals of employee surveys (including their follow-up) should be aligned with the company’s strategy ( Falletta and Combs, 2002 ). Generally, surveys can and should also be used to support the organization’s strategy ( Macey and Fink, 2020 ).

Human System

The human system refers to any participants and change agents involved in the process of the employee survey and its follow-up. Leaders are important change agents in OD ( Beer and Walton, 1987 ), and the employee survey (follow-up) process requires dedication from top management down to direct supervisors ( Knapp and Mujtaba, 2010 ). Whereas the top–down approach to change is of a strategic and centralized nature and managed from higher levels of the organization, the bottom–up approach to change focuses on employee involvement and participation ( Conway and Monks, 2011 ). Hence, employees are also important to the process und take on the role of change agents.

Lastly, whereas some literature on employee surveys recommends that only employees and team leaders are present during the feedback and action planning meetings (see e.g., Knapp and Mujtaba, 2010 ), some sources recommend that trainers or consultants help facilitate during the process by supporting managers in making sense of the data and engaging in action planning discussions with their teams (see e.g., Bungard et al., 2007 ; Linke, 2018 ). Consequently, other change agents besides managers and employees can play an important role in the process.

Output is what the organization produces, more specifically its performance ( Nadler and Tushman, 1980 ), but there is a lack of consensus as to what constitutes a valid set of performance criteria in an organization ( Ostroff, 1992 ). There is, however, general agreement that performance is multi-dimensional and applies to the multiple levels of an organization (i.e., the individual-, team-, and organizational level) ( Sonnentag and Frese, 2002 ). In the context of this research, we drew from the above mentioned change models by Nadler and Tushman (1980) ; Burke and Litwin (1992) , and Porras and Robertson (1992) and differentiate between individual (psychological vs. physiological) and organizational outcomes, assuming that these two can influence each other.

Feedback Loops

The feedback loops pertain to the process of reviewing developed action plans and evaluating them regarding their effectiveness and sustainability. This helps create accountability and guide future decisions regarding readjustment of action plans or the necessity to develop additional action plans based on the current survey cycle (see smaller loop circling back to the follow-up process in Figure 2 ; Bungard et al., 2007 ).

The second loop connects back to a new survey cycle, restarting the process of action plan development based on newly collected data (see Figure 2 ). This feedback loop informs the future survey and follow-up process in that new action plans can be informed by the outcomes of previous action plans. For example, if an action plan was not successfully implemented, an additional action might be developed. Also, past research has shown that previous experiences with change initiatives can shape attitudes toward future change initiatives, such as levels of trust in future change programs ( Bordia et al., 2011 ). More specifically, past research suggests that the quality of handling survey data and conducting a follow-up process might influence attitudes toward future surveys, including perceptions of its usefulness ( Thompson and Surface, 2009 ) or the intent to participate in future surveys ( Rogelberg et al., 2000 ).

Literature Search

From September 2020 to December 2020 and in June 2021, we conducted several comprehensive literature searches in Google Scholar and PsycInfo. We used the search terms “employee survey,” “survey feedback,” “organizational survey,” “employee engagement survey,” “employee opinion survey,” “employee satisfaction survey,” “survey feedback intervention,” and “survey key driver analysis.” We also searched “upward feedback” as we expected for this term might not only refer to traditional upward feedback programs, but that this term might also put forth research that refers to vertical feedback.

The literature seldom discusses the follow-up process without the preceding surveying process. Therefore, during the initial phase of the database search, we included all titles that indicated a discussion of employee surveys in general. An important distinction was whether the title of the study indicated merely the use of surveys as the data collection method for other research purposes or whether the record discussed the process of conducting an employee survey. This especially posed a challenge for this review, as surveys are the most popular method of research in psychology ( Dillman et al., 2014 ). The search resulted in 462 initial records (see Figure 3 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is fpsyg-12-801073-g003.jpg

Systematic literature review process.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA-P) protocol ( Moher et al., 2015 ), we screened all articles. 1 The inclusion criteria applied during the scanning of abstracts and full texts were that the record (1) primarily discusses the bottom–up approach to organizational change in the context of the employee survey follow-up process, which constitutes the group discussion of fed back psychosocial data, (2) constitutes primary empirical literature published in peer-reviewed academic journals or book chapters of edited books, and (3) it is written in English or German. Regarding point (2), we chose to not include gray literature (e.g., dissertations, conference papers) to ensure a sufficient level of quality of the included literature, which is guaranteed by the peer-review process of academic journals and of edited books.

We excluded general books on the matter because, as a common and popular human resource practice, there are numerous books on employee surveys, which are ultimately based on the empirical literature we summarize in this review. The employee survey process at organizations is defined by the dynamics between managers and teams, and this is different to a teacher and student context. Hence, we excluded research conducted in educational settings when it was conducted with teacher and student samples (e.g., Brown, 1972 ; Hand et al., 1975 ). We did, however, include studies in educational settings when the survey feedback was used among educational staff (e.g., between principals and teachers) for the development of the educational institution as an organization (e.g., Miles et al., 1969 ). We also excluded non-primary literature, such as book reviews and commentaries, because these are also based on the primary work we summarize in this review. Finally, we searched the references of relevant papers until no new records were identified, which resulted in an additional 11 records. The final sample constitutes 53 records published between 1952 and 2021.

For each paper, we tabulated and extracted the following information: Author(s), year of publication, the research field the study was published in, the terms used to describe the employee survey/the follow-up process, the study type/analytic methods, and a short summary of findings (see Appendix). We also coded all records according to which components of the conceptual model they inform. When the record contained information pertaining specifically to a variable as listed in the conceptual model, the record was coded and listed accordingly in Table 1 . In addition, we coded records according to whether the study indicated the involvement of an external change agent, more specifically the level of involvement of another change agent. We coded a study as indicating low change agent involvement when there was no involvement or little involvement either during the preparation stage of feedback meetings or during the actual feedback meetings. We coded a study as indicating medium involvement of a change agent when such supported managers thoroughly either during the preparation phase (e.g., thoroughly briefed managers on how to conduct meetings) or during the actual feedback meetings (e.g., they moderated the feedback meetings for or with managers), or when they supported moderately during both phases. We coded the record as indicating high involvement of an external change agent when they thoroughly supported managers during preparation and during the actual feedback meetings.

Reviewed empirical studies coded according to which components of the conceptual model of the employee survey follow-up process they inform.

Total number of studies: 53. *For according citations, see Appendix. **Studies were coded according to involvement levels of additional change agents other than managers: Low (no involvement or little involvement before or during feedback meetings); medium (thorough involvement either before or during feedback meetings or moderate involvement during both phases); high (high involvement before and during feedback meetings).

Coder(s) also recoded 10% of the studies to check their consistency ( Daniels, 2018 ). 2

Six records indicated that data was used for multiple publications (i.e., constituting three unique publications) and were marked as such in the Appendix. We suspected eight additional records to constitute only four unique publications based on the analog study design descriptions. We were able to acquire contact information from at least one author of two (i.e., four) manuscripts. One confirmed the multiple use of data and one was not able to provide information due the long time that had passed since publication.

In the following, we summarize and integrate the findings derived from the records we identified via our literature searches and structure them according to the components of our conceptual model with the purpose of revealing domains in which our evidence-based knowledge remains underdeveloped.

None of the studies included in this review investigated the characteristics of the employee survey as antecedents to the follow-up process. A variety of different questionnaires served as the basis for follow-up activities, and there was also much variety in the extent of information that the authors provided about the questionnaires. Whereas some provided many details and item examples, others merely named the survey. In some instances, the questionnaires were matched to the specific context and circumstances of the organization, for example to a military setting [the Army’s General Organizational Questionnaire (GOQ); Adams and Sherwood, 1979 ], or to mining and milling (the Work Attitudes Survey; Gavin and Krois, 1983 ).

Overall, the surveys contained items regarding a variety of psychosocial constructs relevant to the workplace. Examples include, but are not limited to, job demands, control at work, social interactions, leadership, and commitment to the organization ( Björklund et al., 2007 ), as well as rewards, communication, quality of management, participation, employee satisfaction, organizational climate, and effectiveness ( Amba-Rao, 1989 ). More examples include items on response to stress, the need for work development, and perceived work environment ( Elo et al., 1998 ), as well as items regarding quality of work life, individual morale, individual distress, supportive leadership, role clarity ( Jury et al., 2009a , b ).

Results by Gavin and McPhail (1978) of an implemented employee survey at an Admissions and Records Department suggest that it might be more beneficial to use items developed for the specific context of an organization, rather than general organizational climate measures, as those items improved more in comparison to the general items. Consequently, the authors suggested that tailored survey interventions might be more effective than global initiatives. Similarly, Adams and Sherwood (1979) also suggested that items tailored to the specific context might be more beneficial than general items.

Lastly, one study discussed the usefulness of survey key driver analysis (SKDA) for managers in the survey data analysis process, which is a statistical procedure to identify topics that can be prioritized for action planning among a variety of other measured topics in a survey. More specifically, the identified key drivers are most highly associated with the outcome (oftentimes employee engagement). Cucina et al. (2017) called for the moratorium of this practice, which evoked a series of commentaries (see Hyland et al., 2017 ; Johnson, 2017 ; Klein et al., 2017 ; Macey and Daum, 2017 ; Rotolo et al., 2017 ; Scherbaum et al., 2017 ). Similarly, some authors have suggested that managers do not need statistical training to recognize significant differences, but instead can deal best with their data by examining percentages of favorable and unfavorable results and comparing them to other departments or past survey results ( Dodd and Pesci, 1977 ). However, in some studies, managers received survey results prepared through survey key driver analysis (SKDA) (e.g., Griffin et al., 2000 ; Ward, 2008 ).

In summary, whereas all studies provide a mostly sufficient description of the employee survey that was used for the intervention, we recognized a disconnect between the survey items and their significance as antecedents to the action planning process. It is reasonable to assume though that the questionnaires help participants structure their subjective feelings and guide subsequent action planning by providing relevant concepts for discussion. Also, the way the data is prepared by or for managers most likely also affects the subsequent action planning process.

None of the studies included in this review explicitly examined external factors, but as we described in earlier sections, such are complex and difficult to define and measure. One important factor to consider could be, for example, the national culture in which the organization is embedded. None of the empirical studies examined the employee survey follow-up process from a cross-national perspective, but our review yielded studies conducted in Australia, Germany, Finland, South Africa, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Also, the studies included in this review were implemented in a variety of different industries, as for example military, banking, schools, hospitals, manufacturing, and mining, but none of them examined effects across different industries. Therefore, our results suggest that the role of external factors is yet to be explored in the context of employee surveys and their follow-up.

The classic structure for the implementation of employee surveys is the waterfall design in work families. Within this approach, higher level feedback sessions serve as role models for lower level work groups, and results are presented to and in the according work families (i.e., a manager with her/his subordinates) ( Nadler, 1980 ). Most reviewed intervention studies made use of this model (see Table 1 ); Adams and Sherwood (1979) for example reported some improvements following an employee survey conducted in a military setting with strong hierarchical structures, which matched the classic waterfall and work family design.

However, some researchers have suggested the superiority of other structure models for survey feedback meetings. For example, Alderfer and Ferriss (1972) found that higher level managers denied their problems in feedback meetings, while exhibiting a decline in workplace morale. The authors suggested that the traditional work family model might not be the most effective way to conduct survey feedback meetings, as it might lack psychological safety for participants. Instead, it could be useful to first conduct peer meetings, which can be followed by work family meetings. One year later, Alderfer and Holbrook (1973) followed up with a study in which they implemented a peer-/intergroup model instead of a work family design with which they found some positive effects: Individuals that shared a common organizational fate, for instance because they had similar tasks, but they did not have direct authority relationships, were brought together for the employee survey follow-up meetings. Managers also met among each other, and these meetings were followed-up by intergroup sessions in which members of the different systems at different levels of authority interacted. The authors proposed that there might be less hesitance of employees to speak up in such meetings because direct managers are not present.

Eklöf et al. (2004) compared other types of structure models during which feedback was provided by a trained ergonomist: Individually to each person in the group, to only the group supervisors, and to the entire group with the supervisor present. Results suggested potential benefits in giving feedback to only supervisors. This was the most cost effective intervention group, as it resulted in a higher average number of psychosocial modification types per individual (i.e., different types of modifications to the workplace) and required the least time investment. It is important to note though that the average number of psychosocial modification types per individual decreased for all groups during this intervention, but the supervisor feedback group merely showed the least decrease.

In summary, research suggests that other implementation structures besides the classic waterfall and work family design for the employee survey follow-up could be useful, but we require additional research to compare and further explore such implementation strategies.

Only three of the studies specifically examined resources in the employee survey follow-up context. Dodd and Pesci (1977) found that managers who received feedback training seemed to conduct more feasible, measureable, visible, and timely action programs than managers without training. Trained managers were also more likely to improve employee attitudes and morale through the feedback intervention. Wiley (2012) surveyed 31 survey practitioners from a sample of large organizations, and the top three barriers to effective post-survey action planning named were execution (following through), importance (lacking attention by executive management), and resources (especially time, but also lacking training, technical, and financial resources). Lastly, Fraser et al. (2009) interviewed 18 managers from large multi-site companies that had implemented employee surveys in the past. Results indicated that important resources for the implementation of a successful follow-up process included a clear action purpose of the survey itself, senior management endorsement of the implementation, experienced leaders, and the support of trained change agents to drive the process.

Some other studies mentioned almost in passing different types of resources (e.g., time, financial resources, training) that affected the employee survey process. For example, participation in the survey intervention implemented by Elo et al. (1998) was voluntary, but sessions were held at times where shift workers could participate immediately before or after their working hours, and the company paid compensation to those who participated. Church et al. (2012) provided some qualitative data from employees who reported that action was not taken based on their survey results, and they named a lack of commitment by managers to follow through as one of the reasons. The participants also named the lack of other resources, including time, funding, or manpower. Lastly, Baker et al. (2003) reported in their study that some managers noted that the pressures of their daily work made it difficult to disseminate the results to the entire staff.

Overall, resources seemed to not find much attention in the reviewed literature. The reason for this neglect could be that the majority of study contexts might not have suffered from lacking resources because organizations consenting to collaborate in research and the research teams implementing the intervention are likely to ensure that the research can be carried out appropriately with sufficient resources.

Culture/climate

Similarly to resources, organizational culture/climate was given little attention throughout the literature. An exception was a study by Bowers (1973) , in which he examined organizational climate as a mediator. He found that the positive effects of survey feedback on measures of organizational functioning were weaker when controlling for climate. Other anecdotal descriptions provide inferential information about the importance of culture/climate to the employee survey follow-up. Swanson and Zuber (1996) described the hostile organizational culture of the mailing company that their intervention was attempted to be implemented in. There was high turnover with managers routinely being fired or demoted without clearly stated reasons, which resulted in managers maintaining low profiles and not speaking up. Top management generally showed defensiveness toward the survey reports and an unwillingness to change. Overall, the organizational culture was hostile, hierarchical, and demonstrated low ability to change which contributed to the employee survey intervention to fail.

In strong contrast to this stands a case study by Ward (2008) . It describes the successful implementation of a survey endeavor at Fujitsu through a consulting firm, whose methodology was “say, stay, strive.” This strategy was aimed at giving employees a voice, giving them incentive to stay with the company, and striving to be better. This fit Fujitsu’s organizational culture well, and top management was very supportive of the survey implementation. The company made an effort to share best practices, and improvements in employee engagement were noted through action planning at the local level.

In summary, only one study specifically examined climate or culture, but we can draw inferences from the descriptions provided by some of the authors. Most likely, this research topic has been given little attention for similar reasons as the neglect of resources. An organization is not likely to collaborate in intervention research when their culture does not allow such efforts.

None of the studies included in this review contained specific information pertaining to organizational strategy, which poses a large research gap.

Nearly all studies provided descriptions of the employees involved in the studies, as they constituted the participants of their research. Only five studies examined the relevance of group composition and the characteristics of employees participating in feedback meetings. For example, Alderfer and Holbrook (1973) found that group composition was related to the length of time that different topics were discussed. Branch managers mainly discussed authority, control, communication, and conflict, whereas management trainees were mainly concerned with communication, conflict, and careers. Church et al. (2012) examined whether the same pattern of results (i.e., groups that reported action was being taken based on their survey results showed more favorable survey responses over the years) held up for different groups of employees, such as frontline employees, executives, and professionals. Results suggested that frontline managers were more dissatisfied when results were not acted on in comparison to the other two groups, but they were equally satisfied when results were acted upon. Hence, the results held up across different groups of employees.

Gavin and Krois (1983) examined the demographic characteristics of the feedback groups, including employees. For example, younger groups displayed more constructive problem-solving and fewer avoidance behaviors. More highly educated groups spent relatively more time on problem resolution. Nadler et al. (1976 , 1980) found differing effects in different departments of a bank (i.e., tellers, financial consultants). The authors concluded that different approaches may be called for in different types of work units that are made up of different kinds of organizational members. Tellers, for example, have little control over their tasks, and higher performance might be less rewarding for them as for financial consultants, who have more autonomy in their tasks. Hence, these groups might have different levels of motivation to engage with the survey feedback data.

Overall, we still know very little about employees’ roles in the survey feedback process and how different individuals might perform and engage in it. Church et al. (2012) already highlighted this gap in the literature almost 10 years ago and noted that different individual predispositions might lead to differing response profiles and subsequently might also affect all following steps (e.g., action planning).

Leaders/managers

It is widely accepted throughout the change management literature that leaders and managers play a central role as change agents ( Conway and Monks, 2011 ). Nevertheless, only nine studies gave specific attention to leadership (see Table 1 ). For example, results suggest that teams led by managers with poor leadership skills potentially benefit most from survey feedback interventions ( Solomon, 1976 ), but managers with low ratings on leadership questions might also be less likely to use the feedback with their units, even though they have the most need to do so ( Born and Mathieu, 1996 ). On the contrary, Conlon and Short (1984) found that managers with higher ratings on an item asking how the manager performs under pressure and how often the manager holds group meetings for communication purposes, were more likely to provide survey feedback to their teams. Even though these items were weak predictors, the authors concluded that supervisors who have preexisting processes in place to discuss work related matters with their teams might be at an advantage to continue such behavior within the scope of the employee survey follow-up. Supervisor ratings also improved after the intervention; more specifically, the intervention had the greatest effect on supervisor ratings in comparison to all other measures (e.g., climate or resources).

Jöns (2000) examined leadership and the type of feedback discussions (with or without a neutral presenter/moderator) as moderators of perceived quality of the feedback meetings and their outcomes. However, the author jointly examined leadership assessments (upward feedback) and employee surveys while acknowledging their close parallels. Self-guided feedback meetings, in comparison to moderated meetings, led to greater improvements in leadership behaviors, but only for groups in which leaders were rated as satisfactory, in comparison to high and very high ratings. Results also suggested that managers improved in their moderation skills over time.

In summary, the results of these studies suggest that managers and leaders play a central role in the employee survey follow-up process, but only few studies examined the characteristics of leaders in-depth to determine which factors contribute to and which might inhibit the employee survey follow-up.

Other change agents

Overall, most studies included some kind of change agent or consultant (internal or external) who accompanied the employee survey endeavors in addition to work unit managers. Their involvement in the process differed with regard to intensity, but also with regard to the steps of the employee survey process they supported. However, only three studies specifically examined the role of change agents. For example, Alderfer and Ferriss (1972) found that managers who received support from a consulting team that consisted of insider and outsider consultants were more likely to view the intervention positively and showed more awareness of interpersonal problems. This suggests that it might be beneficial to utilize the expertise of an external consultant who can foster communication across organizational boundaries, but to also have an internal consultant present who understands the specific needs of the team and can evaluate the feasibility of action plans.

We will now provide a few study examples of different levels of change agent involvement from least to most (see Table 1 for an overview). Some studies described no or low involvement of other change agents, which meant that there was, if any, little involvement either during the preparation stage or during the feedback meetings. For example, some studies did not mention any consultant or other change agent supporting the survey feedback process ( Björklund et al., 2007 ; Huebner and Zacher, 2021 ). Other studies described low involvement of other change agents. For example, in a study of survey feedback in neonatal intensive care units, Baker et al. (2003) reported that team leaders participated in some exercises to foster their understanding of the data, which the study heavily relied on, rather than interpreting the data for managers. However, respondents in several care center units commented that a facilitator or an expert in organizational behavior would have been helpful to support them during the actual feedback meetings in reviewing, interpreting, and highlighting the relevant results and deciding on which topics to target with action planning.

Other studies described a medium level of involvement of consultants, which means that managers received thorough support either during the preparation phase of feedback meetings or during the actual meetings. For example, Born and Mathieu (1996) provided thorough training for supervisors in which they were coached on how to conduct feedback meetings with their teams and how to develop action plans. Then, supervisors were independently responsible for holding the according meetings with their teams. Similarly, Solomon (1976) reported that managers participated in a workshop in which they received the result reports of their teams, received help in interpreting the data, and were guided on how to develop action plans. Subsequently, they held feedback meetings with their teams.

Lastly, some studies described high involvement of other change agents, which means managers received thorough support before and during feedback meetings. For example, in an intervention study by Elo et al. (1998) , occupational health physicians and nurses took on active roles by providing consultative support in the face-to-face discussions with work teams and managers, which was furthermore supported by an external researcher–consultant. The occupational health personnel also ensured the continuity of the process and kept participating in the meetings.

Overall, the different grades of change agent involvement and the contrasting results across studies make a definite statement regarding the effectiveness of involving other change agents in the process challenging.

Individual Outcomes

Psychological outcomes.

The majority of studies (38) provided information about a variety of psychological outcomes following employee survey follow-up processes (see Table 1 ). For example, a large-scale survey feedback intervention showed improvements in all areas measured by the survey, which mainly related to indicators of workplace culture, such as quality of work life, morale, opportunity for professional growth, and supportive leadership ( Jury et al., 2009a , b ). Survey feedback has also been shown to lead to increases in readiness to change among executives of the organization ( Alderfer and Holbrook, 1973 ), or improvements in communication, ease in tension in organization, satisfaction, and employee relations ( Amba-Rao, 1989 ). Conlon and Short (1984) reported improved ratings of supervisor behavior, goal clarity, task perceptions, and opportunity for advancement improved during their intervention, whereas at least a medium level of feedback was needed to produce meaningful changes.

However, most results of the studies included in this review were rather mixed. In a short case description by Miles et al. (1969) , survey feedback meetings among school staff led to improvements in participant ratings of own openness and collaborative problem-solving, but other improvements, such as in communication, were short-lived. The authors suspected a lack of follow-through regarding the planned actions and a relatively low number of actions generally were the reason that changes did not persist. Björklund et al. (2007) reported that groups with feedback and action plans showed improvements on leadership factors and commitment to the organization, but job demands and control at work did not improve. Adams and Sherwood (1979) reported that one of the intervention groups in a military setting even showed a decline in job satisfaction. However, this group experienced a change in commanders during the intervention, which could have been a possible confound to the study.

Anderzén and Arnetz (2005) found improvements 1 year after their intervention in terms of employee well-being, work-related exhaustion, performance feedback, participatory management, skills development, efficiency, and leadership, but no changes for goal clarity. Church and Oliver (2006) showed that respondents who reported that their survey results had been used for action, rated overall job satisfaction more favorably. Church et al. (2012) followed up on these results with more longitudinal data of the same organization and found that the group that indicated that its survey results had been shared and acted upon, were consistently more favorable raters across all items and across all years.

Another type of psychological outcome is the satisfaction of participants with the feedback process, which most likely influences their motivation to participate in the following feedback sessions. In a study by Peter (1994) , the necessary follow-up survey could not be administered to conduct a proper comparison of employee attitudes and turnover intentions before and after the survey feedback intervention due to administrative changes in the organization. However, nursing manages reported high satisfaction with the survey intervention and process in general. Specifically, 75% responded they would want to use the intervention again and 25% indicated that they would probably use it again. In a follow-up study, improvements on job satisfaction could be found for one work unit ( Peter et al., 1997 ). Klein et al. (1971) found that variables such as quality of meetings, the person presenting the information, and the number of meetings influenced how satisfied participants were with the feedback process and data utilization. Also, ratings of feedback quality were higher when meetings were held in person by frontline managers.

In summary, most studies were able to find improvements on a variety of psychosocial outcomes, but results were generally mixed and seemed to differ depending on different factors that could have acted as moderators of the found relationships.

Physiological outcomes

Only four studies examined physiological changes following survey feedback interventions, and they were all published in medical and health journals, rather than in industrial and organizational psychology journals. For example, Anderzén and Arnetz (2005) found that improvements in psychosocial work factors were associated with improvements in self-rated health and ratings of quality of sleep. Also, levels of stress-related hormones (i.e., serum triglycerides and serum cholesterol) in blood samples were reduced at an aggregate level after the intervention, and serum testosterone (an important restorative hormone) increased. The authors also measured increased levels of cortisol; low levels of cortisol are indicative of chronic fatigue and burnout. Similarly, Elo et al. (1998) reported reduced mental, but also physical strain for one of the three departments (i.e., finishing department of a factory) in which the survey feedback was implemented.

Eklöf et al. (2004) examined the proportion of workgroup members who reported any workplace modifications with regard to ergonomics (e.g., screen placement, visual conditions, etc.) or with regard to psychosocial aspects (e.g., social support, support from supervisor) following a survey feedback intervention. They found that both outcomes decreased for all feedback groups (i.e., feedback to groups, only to supervisors, only to individual employees) and for the control group. However, the feedback groups positively differed from the control group in that there was less decrease in ergonomic workplace modifications. Importantly, this study did not measure actual modifications or physiological benefits, such as reduced musculoskeletal complaints. The authors also caution that intervention effects could have been inflated or diminished due to a variety of confounds, such as recall bias, control-group effects, and social desirability. This study was followed up on by Eklöf and Hagberg (2006) using the same intervention implementation. The researchers could not find any intervention effects for symptom indicators, such as eye discomfort or musculoskeletal symptoms, which were self-reported as pain or discomfort in neck, shoulder, upper or lower back. There was, however, an improvement in social support measures when feedback was fed back to supervisors only.

In sum, results suggest that physiological benefits can be derived from employee surveys, but results were generally mixed and require further investigation.

Organizational Outcomes

Nine studies examined organizational outcomes following survey feedback. For example, Church and Oliver (2006) found that groups that reported action was taken following their surveys showed 50% lower incident rates of accidents on the job and 48% less lost time in days due to accidents. Those groups also showed lower turnover intentions and actual turnover. However, as the turnover data was not longitudinal, causality cannot be inferred. Similarly, Nadler et al. (1976) reported reduced turnover in one of the branches for bank tellers that used the feedback system effectively. Branches that used the feedback system ineffectively even showed a slight increase in turnover. Hautaluoma and Gavin (1975) reported a lower turnover rate for older employees and less absenteeism for blue-collar workers at an organization in which consultants held quite intense survey feedback meetings with staff.

Anderzén and Arnetz (2005) found that as self-rated health ratings increased following the survey intervention, absenteeism decreased. Also, decreased work tempo and improved work climate were related to decreased absenteeism. In contrast, Björklund et al. (2007) could not replicate these findings and did not find decreased sick leave for any of the comparison groups (a group without any feedback, a group with feedback only, and a group with feedback and action planning).

In summary, employee surveys seem to have the potential to lead to improvements in organizational outcomes, such as reduced turnover or absenteeism, but results are mixed and do not seem to hold up in every context.

With an increasing number of organizations that survey their employees ( Welbourne, 2016 ), it is likely that the topic of implementing a proper follow-up process will also continue to gain importance. We reviewed the literature on this topic based on an integrative conceptual model that we developed drawing from Nadler and Tushman’s Congruence Model of Organizational Behavior (1980), Burke and Litwin’s Model of Organizational Performance and Change (1992), and Porras and Robertson’s Change-Based Organizational Framework (1992).

In the following, we summarize the major insights of our review pertaining to each component of the model. By doing so, we answer our research question regarding which variables of our conceptual model have been sufficiently informed by past research and which variables require future research. Based on this discussion, we also provide implications for practice and offer suggestions for future research. Overall, we conclude that research on the employee survey follow-up process has investigated some of the relevant aspects, but large gaps of knowledge remain. Most of the research we reviewed focused on the measurement and achievement of human or organizational outcomes following a survey feedback intervention, which was mostly accomplished with pre/post designs. There were less studies focusing on the process of the employee survey follow-up. Some studies did investigate the process with other research designs, including qualitative interviews with survey practitioners or managers (e.g., Fraser et al., 2009 ; Wiley, 2012 ) or by surveying managers who conducted employee follow-up meetings (e.g., Gable et al., 2010 ). Researchers use longitudinal designs to measure change and to answer questions of causality ( Wang et al., 2017 ). However, there may be also value in other designs that collect cross-sectional or qualitative data.

In this regard, we suggest that more attention should be paid to the organizational actors who drive the employee survey (follow-up) process. In the majority of studies, managers and employees played what seemed a rather passive role in the process in the sense that they were described as attendees to the survey feedback meetings, but their specific characteristics were often not examined. Sometimes, demographic variables (e.g., age, education, marital status) were merely treated as correlates, rather than independent variables (e.g., Peter, 1994 ). However, these actors are the main organizational stakeholders that drive the process and are mostly affected by it as well. Hence, they play an essential role and should receive more research attention.

Especially the topic of leadership is of great significance. Leaders generally constitute important change agents in organizations ( Conway and Monks, 2011 ) and, accordingly, they play an important role in the employee survey process ( Welbourne, 2016 ). Despite their importance, only few studies examined leadership in this context. However, several studies included in this review mentioned the potential for tension between leaders and subordinates and the resulting lack of psychological safety for participants in the employee survey process (e.g., Alderfer and Holbrook, 1973 ; Dodd and Pesci, 1977 ; Baker et al., 2003 ). This potential for tension between managers/supervisors and subordinates during the employee survey follow-up has not yet been fully explored, but instead was mostly named as a limitation to or challenge of the included studies. In contrast, the issue of reactions to received feedback has received more attention in the upward feedback and 360 degree feedback literature (e.g., Atwater et al., 2000 ; Atwater and Brett, 2005 ) and in the performance appraisal literature as well (e.g., Pichler, 2012 ).

Experts often recommend that an additional change agent should be involved in these other feedback practices to support the recipients of the feedback in the process of understanding the data and using it for developmental purposes. The majority of studies included in this review involved change agents in addition to managers, such as human resource personnel or consultants. However, their level of involvement varied greatly between studies, and differences between groups with and without support by a change agent remain largely unexplored. Some results suggest that some type of support for managers, such as training, may present advantages for the process ( Dodd and Pesci, 1977 ).

Furthermore, other additional research gaps emerged in light of our conceptual model, including the effects of survey items/questionnaires as antecedents to the follow-up tasks. Whereas most studies sufficiently described the surveys they were using, none of them examined the characteristics of the survey as predictors. Related to this, another gap concerns the interpretation of the survey data after it is available to managers. It remains unclear, how the data should best be presented to managers (and also employees), and how much support managers should receive in the process. Another gap concerns the effects of organizational culture/climate, organizational strategy, and the availability of resources on the follow-up process. Almost none of the studies explicitly examined these factors, whereas the results of some case study descriptions suggest that organizational culture and climate could be important to consider (e.g., Swanson and Zuber, 1996 ; Ward, 2008 ). As the majority of research described some type of intervention in an organization, it is possible that the above mentioned factors were not explicitly studied because it is likely that they were sufficient when an organization agrees to collaborate in such research. Examining natural settings, for example by retrospectively asking survey practitioners about their experiences in the survey implementation process, could deem useful to further explore these variables.

Generally, this body of literature remains underdeveloped, which stands in contrast to research on more specific workplace interventions that aim to improve worker well-being and job attitudes (e.g., Fox et al., 2021 ; Solinger et al., 2021 ). However, other OD interventions are more clearly defined in terms of their goals and, hence, they must be carefully chosen to match the characteristics of the target group ( Bowers and Hausser, 1977 ). For example, a team building intervention might be appropriate to help ameliorate issues pertaining to communication and collaboration in a team ( Margulies et al., 1977 ). There have also been suggestions for interventions targeted at supporting an age-diverse workforce ( Truxillo et al., 2015 ).

In contrast, the employee survey is much less clearly defined as an intervention tool, as the reasons to implement an employee survey vary. Research suggests that, generally, employee surveys are implemented for the purpose of organizational assessment, organizational change ( Hartley, 2001 ), or for improving communication ( Kraut, 2006 ). Also, the assessment of a current situation or current state of organizational culture might be to prepare for the upcoming implementation of change interventions ( Hartley, 2001 ). Hence, the survey is the diagnostic tool that precedes an intervention and is an indicator for the kind of action plans that could be useful. Based on the variety of topics a survey can cover, the types of identified needs to implement a change initiative can be just as versatile and can target different levels of the organization ( Falletta and Combs, 2002 ).

Therefore, examining employee surveys as change tools might be more challenging in comparison to targeted change initiatives with predefined goals. As the following discussion will show, this also hinders a general estimation of employee surveys’ effectiveness in achieving changes. It does, however, argue for the necessity to view the employee survey follow-up in a more differentiated manner, rather as a dichotomous process (i.e., action planning was or was not completed). Different types of interventions following the survey might require different implementation and research approaches than those that are currently applied.

The Effectiveness of Employee Surveys for Change

Generally, findings were mixed regarding the effectiveness of survey feedback and the employee survey follow-up process. Several studies found benefits for a variety of outcomes, but others could not replicate those findings. As Born and Mathieu (1996) already noted, the quality of change interventions is difficult to gauge between and even within studies, as any given survey feedback intervention is most likely not implemented equally well. For example, Nadler et al. (1980) reported varying levels of intervention implementation between departments regarding the number of meetings held, the people who led discussions, and the extent to which employees got involved in the action planning process. Also, throughout the literature included in this review, some employees received the survey results shortly after the survey (e.g., 2 weeks later; Hautaluoma and Gavin, 1975 ), and others waited 12 weeks or longer (e.g., Jury et al., 2009a , b ). However, most practitioner books and other resources on the topic recommend that results should be available as quickly as possible after survey participation, so that feelings and thoughts during the survey are still present when results are discussed (e.g., Kraut, 2006 ; Bungard et al., 2007 ). Also, study durations and the (number of) measurement time points varied greatly from a few weeks or months (e.g., Eklöf et al., 2004 ; Eklöf and Hagberg, 2006 ) to several years (e.g., Church et al., 2012 ). Some results suggested though that the more time participants had to conduct action planning (e.g., 2 years vs. 1 year), the more scores tended to improve ( Church and Oliver, 2006 ; Huebner and Zacher, 2021 ).

Furthermore, many studies reported issues during the implementation and confounds that could have diluted the results. For example, some researchers reported major restructuring of the organization during the intervention period of 2 years and generally much skepticism and apprehension of the workforce to participate in the survey ( Jury et al., 2009a , b ). Alderfer and Holbrook (1973) reported that some executives of the company thought that the researchers might have exaggerated the degree of problems that persisted in the company, which indicated a general lack of trust toward the research endeavor.

Related to this issue, we found that the literature provided differing levels of information and descriptions of the actual feedback meetings and developed action plans. Some studies described the intervention with much detail. For example, as one of few studies, Gavin and Krois (1983) examined specifically the topics discussed in feedback meetings and the duration of those discussions. Other studies, on the other hand, reported that feedback meetings were conducted, but the authors admitted that they did not examine how these meetings were conducted (e.g., Björklund et al., 2007 ; Huebner and Zacher, 2021 ). Furthermore, very few studies reported or discussed the effect sizes of their interventions, (for exceptions see e.g., La Grange and Geldenhuys, 2008 ; Huebner and Zacher, 2021 ). Even though the reporting of standardized effect sizes is widely recommended ( Appelbaum et al., 2018 ), it is oftentimes neglected in research, which hinders the ability to draw interferential conclusions from the study results ( Kelley and Preacher, 2012 ).

In summary, we conclude that such a great variety in quality of implementation and descriptions of the interventions limits their comparability and the conclusions that can be drawn from this research. Nevertheless, the majority of studies were able to find positive effects on some outcomes, which suggests that employee surveys can have beneficial effects in organizations when used to implement a proper follow-up. These conclusions should be viewed with caution though, as results might have been affected by publication bias because null results tend to not get published ( Landis et al., 2014 ).

Implications for Practice

Even though there are many books on the topic, the employee survey process remains challenging, and many organizations fail to harvest the full benefits of this common human resource practice ( Brown, 2021 ). Depending on the organization, different change agents or organizational actors might be responsible for the implementation of the process (e.g., internal or external consultants/survey practitioners, human resource administrators, or managers), which creates ambiguity and the difficulty of finding the best implementation strategy. It is important for the responsible organizational actors to acknowledge that there is no “one size fits all” approach to employee surveys and their follow-up. Different organizations will thrive with different implementation models, depending on their culture, work environment, and staff.

Nevertheless, some recommendations can be offered based on this review. It seems to be most effective to not only provide survey feedback data, but to also make sure that actual action planning takes place ( Bowers, 1973 ; Björklund et al., 2007 ; Church et al., 2012 ). Also, it is beneficial when the questionnaire fits the organization, and the items are actionable for managers and their teams ( Church et al., 2012 ). Managers should be properly involved in the follow-up process, as they are the key change agents who must drive the implementation of action plans ( Mann and Likert, 1952 ; Welbourne, 2016 ). However, it is also important that managers receive the necessary tools to do the job. These tools include training, sufficient time, support from top management, and other necessary resources ( Wiley, 2012 ). The involvement of other change agents, such as consultants who help analyze the data, can be beneficial, but managers should not create the habit of relying too heavily on such resources. They should rather be enabled and trained to understand and utilize the data self-reliantly in collaboration with their teams. On that note, other supporting tools, such as SKDA can be useful aids, but they do not exempt managers from properly understanding the data. Supporting change agents might also be helpful in situations where there is much tension between managers and subordinates, which could potentially inhibit fruitful feedback discussions. Lastly, high involvement of all stakeholders seems to most beneficial as it creates accountability and a deeper understanding and acceptance of the actions following the survey ( Mann and Likert, 1952 ).

Whereas following this set of recommendations will not guarantee a perfect employee survey follow-up implementation, we believe it can help. Implementing employee surveys is costly, and designing a useful follow-up can support organizations in getting the most out of their investment. Benefits can manifest as improvements in employee attitudes, physiological outcomes, and even organizational factors, as for example reduced turnover. Consequently, organizations should evaluate how ready their workforce is to master the employee survey follow-up. In the beginning, managers might require more support, but as they become more acquainted and comfortable with the process, and they have been enabled to function as active change agents in the organization, they might need less resources as support.

Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

There are a few limitations to this systematic review worth noting. One limitation includes our method of searching for relevant literature in Google Scholar. One of this database’s shortcomings is that the search algorithm changes every day, making the search not completely replicable at a later point in time ( Bramer et al., 2016 ). Also, Google Scholar has low recall capabilities (only the first 1000 results are viewable), which is why it is preferable to also search in an additional database ( Bramer et al., 2016 ).

Another limitation is the exclusion of gray literature. As we only included studies published in peer-reviewed journals and edited books, the overall results might be subject to publication bias as null results tend to not get published ( Landis et al., 2014 ). Hence, as previously mentioned, the results of this review regarding the effectiveness of employee surveys for the purpose of OD should be viewed with caution.

Overall, drawing from other areas of industrial and organizational psychology, as for example the literature on leadership, teams, employee voice, and engagement could prove useful to examine the variables of the model that have not been sufficiently explored. For example, research on leadership suggests that different kinds of leadership behaviors contribute to the job performance of employees, but that such effects also depend on certain characteristics of employees ( Breevaart et al., 2016 ). Hence, leadership is an important variable that deserves more research attention, which could be accomplished by the application of leadership theories. Group voice climate also seems to be related to perceptions of leadership and group performance ( Frazier and Bowler, 2015 ), but as can be seen in Table 1 , culture and climate have not been fully explored as predictors or moderators of the employee survey process. Hence, we recommend cross-cultural examinations of post-survey practices. The alignment between company and employee survey strategy could also be crucial for this process, and we suggest examining such by conducting research in which the degree of alignment is measured. We also suggest that external factors should be examined in this research context. For example, the type of industry that the feedback meetings are held in could influence meeting effectiveness because action planning could be more or less influential, depending on industry-bound work environments.

Furthermore, we believe that research on the post-survey process would benefit from integrating and drawing from survey research, as for example research pertaining to survey modes (e.g., Borg and Zuell, 2012 ; Mueller et al., 2014 ) or questionnaire design and development (e.g., Roberson and Sundstrom, 1990 ; Alden, 2007 ). The survey itself should be considered an antecedent of the follow-up, as the type of data and data format could influence how the follow-up is carried out. Lastly, most studies included additional change agents who were involved in the survey feedback process, but future research should investigate these organizational actors in more depth. For example, qualitative data from experienced change agents could render important findings in regards to factors that inhibit or enhance the process from their perspective.

Overall, this body of literature provides much opportunity for the further integration of adjacent research areas, including other areas within industrial and organizational psychology, and for more theory-driven research. Whereas most records were published in industrial and organizational psychology journals, we also found some studies in journals of other disciplines, such as education or medicine (see Appendix). We propose that research in this area would benefit from more cross-disciplinary approaches. For example, research regarding physiological outcomes of survey feedback interventions might require the expertise of medical professionals.

Other disciplines, such as social psychology, could also provide useful insights for this research area. For example, the theory of planned behavior ( Ajzen, 2002 ) or control theory ( Carver and Scheier, 1982 ) could help explain certain behaviors during the employee survey follow-up discussions and render important findings for these processes. Applying other behavioral theories to the employee survey context could also put forth important findings, as for example goal setting theory ( Locke and Latham, 1990 ) or fundamental attribution error ( Ross, 1977 ).

Due to the applied nature of employee survey research, using experimental designs, specifically randomized controlled trials, can be challenging. Nevertheless, we believe this would be useful to examine the factors named above in more detail. Such designs could aid in systematically testing different process variables that are relevant for the employee survey follow-up. Also, examining the differing time intervals between the survey, receiving feedback, and action planning, should be examined, especially in light of the growing popularity of pulse surveys ( Welbourne, 2016 ). However, natural experiments can also render important findings regarding for example resources, as deficits in such might not become exposed unless natural settings are studied.

Overall, research on this topic has seemed to almost come to a halt. Out of 53 studies, 47 (∼90%) were published before 2010 – over 10 years ago. However, with increasing digitalization and the influx of new tools and ways of collaborating at the workplace, we require more research in this area to meet the newly emerging needs of organizations. This is especially relevant in light of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, which has started to change everyday life at work ( Allen et al., 2020 ; Rudolph et al., 2021 ).

Even though leaders can talk to their subordinates daily and on a regular basis, the employee survey and its follow-up remains an important communication forum for them. Generally, the results of this review suggest that the employee survey follow-up can lead to a variety of benefits for and improvements in organizations, but we have not sufficiently explored all factors that can support or inhibit this process. The literature yields many important findings for practitioners regarding the implementation and effectiveness of the process, but some research gaps remain. Hence, future research in this area should focus more on the relevant process variables and organizational actors involved, especially leaders who function as the main change agents in this data-based approach to OD.

Data Availability Statement

Author contributions.

L-AH and HZ contributed to conception and planning of the systematic review. L-AH performed the literature searches, organized the data, and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. Both authors contributed to manuscript revision, read, and approved the submitted version.

Author Disclaimer

The results, opinions, and conclusions expressed in this paper are not necessarily those of Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft.

Conflict of Interest

L-AH was employed by company Volkswagen AG. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

1 The protocol can be found here: https://osf.io/y5be9/?view_only=f0ca973da2334db1b504291318b7c402

2 The list of all references can be found here: https://osf.io/y5be9/?view_only=f0ca973da2334db1b504291318b7c402

We acknowledge support from Leipzig University for Open Access Publishing.

Supplementary Material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.801073/full#supplementary-material

Adams J., Sherwood J. J. (1979). An evaluation of organizational effectiveness: an appraisal of how army internal consultants use survey feedback in a military setting. Group Organ. Stud. 4 170–182. 10.1177/105960117900400205 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Aguinis H., Gottfredson R. K., Joo H. (2012). Delivering effective performance feedback: the strengths-based approach. Bus. Horiz. 55 105–111. 10.1016/j.bushor.2011.10.004 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Ajzen I. (2002). Residual effects of past behavior on later behavior: habituation and reasoned action perspectives. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 6 107–122. 10.1207/S15327957PSPR0602_02 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Alden J. (2007). Surveying attitudes: questionnaires versus opinionnaires. Perform. Improv. 46 42–48. 10.1002/pfi.141 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Alderfer C. P., Ferriss R. (1972). “ Understanding the impact of survey feedback ,” in The Social Technology of Organization Development , eds Burke W. W., Hornstein H. A. (Bethel, ME: National Training Laboratories; ), 234–243. [ Google Scholar ]
Alderfer C. P., Holbrook J. (1973). A new design for survey feedback. Educ. Urban Soc. 5 437–464. 10.1177/001312457300500405 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Allen J. B., Jain S., Church A. H. (2020). Using a pulse survey approach to drive organizational change. Organ. Dev. Rev. 52 62–68. [ Google Scholar ]
Amba-Rao S. (1989). Survey feedback in a small manufacturing firm: an application. Organ. Dev. J. 7 92–100. [ Google Scholar ]
Anderzén I., Arnetz B. B. (2005). The impact of a prospective survey-based workplace intervention program on employee health, biologic stress markers, and organizational productivity. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 47 671–682. 10.1097/01.jom.0000167259.03247.1e [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Appelbaum M., Cooper H., Kline R. B., Mayo-Wilson E., Nezu A. M., Rao S. M. (2018). Journal article reporting standards for quantitative research in psychology: the APA publications and communications board task force report. Am. Psychol. 73 3–25. 10.1037/amp0000191 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Atwater L. E., Brett J. F. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of reactions to developmental 360 ° feedback. J. Vocat. Behav. 66 532–548. 10.1016/j.jvb.2004.05.003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Atwater L. E., Brett J. F., Charles A. C. (2007). Multisource feedback: lessons learned and implications for practice. Hum. Resour. Manag. 46 285–307. 10.1002/hrm.20161 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Atwater L. E., Waldman D. A., Atwater D., Cartier P. (2000). An upward feedback field experiment: supervisors’ cynicism, reactions, and commitment to subordinates. Pers. Psychol. 53 275–297. 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2000.tb00202.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Baker R. G., King H., MacDonald J. L., Horbar J. D. (2003). Using organizational assessment surveys for improvement in neonatal intensive care. Pediatrics 111 419–425. 10.1542/peds.111.SE1.e419 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Beer M., Walton A. E. (1987). Organization change and development. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 38 339–367. 10.1146/annurev.ps.38.020187.002011 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Besieux T. (2017). Why I hate feedback: anchoring effective feedback within organizations. Bus. Horiz. 60 435–439. 10.1016/j.bushor.2017.03.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Björklund C., Grahn A., Jensen I., Bergström G. (2007). Does survey feedback enhance the psychosocial work environment and decrease sick leave? Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 16 76–93. 10.1080/13594320601112169 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bordia P., Restubog S. L. D., Jimmieson N. L., Irmer B. E. (2011). Haunted by the past: effects of poor change management history on employee attitudes and turnover. Group Organ. Manag. 36 191–222. 10.1177/1059601110392990 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Borg I., Zuell C. (2012). Write-in comments in employee surveys. Int. J. Manpow. 33 206–220. 10.1108/01437721211225453 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Born D., Mathieu J. (1996). Differential effects of survey-guided feedback. Group Organ. Manag. 21 388–403. 10.1177/1059601196214002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bowers D. G. (1973). OD techniques and their results in 23 organizations: the Michigan ICL study. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 9 21–43. 10.1177/002188637300900103 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bowers D. G., Hausser D. L. (1977). Work group types and intervention effects in organizational development. Adm. Sci. Q. 22 76–94. 10.2307/2391747 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bracken D. W., Timmreck C. W., Fleenor J. W., Lynn S. (2001). 360 feedback from another angle. Hum. Resour. Manag. 40 3–20. 10.1002/hrm.4012 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bramer W. M., Giustini D., Kramer B. M. R. (2016). Comparing the coverage, recall, and precision of searches for 120 systematic reviews in Embase, MEDLINE, and google scholar: a prospective study. Syst. Rev. 5 1–7. 10.1186/s13643-016-0215-7 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Breevaart K., Bakker A. B., Demerouti E., Derks D. (2016). Who takes the lead? A multi-source diary study on leadership, work engagement, and job performance. J. Organ. Behav. 37 309–325. 10.1002/job.2041 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Brown L. D. (1972). “Research action”: organizational feedback, understanding, and change. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 8 697–711. 10.1177/002188637200800606 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Brown M. I. (2021). Does action planning create more harm than good? Common challenges in the practice of action planning after employee surveys . J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 10.1177/00218863211007555 [Epub ahead of print]. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bungard W., Müller K., Niethammer C. (eds). (2007). Mitarbeiterbefragung - Was Dann …? MAB und Folgeprozesse Erfolgreich Gestalten [Employee surveys – and then what …? Successfully Designing Employee Surveys and the Follow-Up Process]. Heidelberg: Springer Medizin Verlag, 10.1007/978-3-540-47841-6 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Burke W. W., Coruzzi C. A., Church A. H. (1996). “ The organizational survey as an intervention for change ,” in Organizational Surveys: Tools for Assessment and Change , ed. Kraut A. I. (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; ), 41–66. [ Google Scholar ]
Burke W. W., Litwin G. H. (1992). A causal model of organizational performance and change. J. Manag. Dev. 18 523–545. 10.1177/014920639201800306 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Carver C. S., Scheier M. F. (1982). Control theory: a useful conceptual framework for personality–social, clinical, and health psychology. Psychol. Bull. 92 111–135. 10.1037/0033-2909.92.1.111 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Cattermole G., Johnson J., Roberts K. (2013). Employee engagement welcomes the dawn of an empowerment culture. Strateg. HR Rev. 12 250–254. 10.1108/shr-04-2013-0039 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Chesler M., Flanders M. (1967). Resistance to research and research utilization: the death and life of a feedback attempt. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 3 469–487. 10.1177/002188636700300403 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Church A. H., Golay L. M., Rotolo C. T., Tuller M. D., Shull A. C., Desrosiers E. I. (2012). “ Without effort there can be no change: reexamining the impact of survey feedback and action planning on employee attitudes ,” in Research in Organizational Change and Development , Vol. 20 eds Woodman R. W., Pasmore W. A., Rami Shani A. B. (Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing; ), 223–264. [ Google Scholar ]
Church A. H., Margiloff A., Coruzzi C. (1995). Using surveys for change: an applied example in a pharmaceuticals organization. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 16 3–11. 10.1108/01437739510089049 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Church A. H., Oliver D. H. (2006). “ The importance of taking action, not just sharing survey feedback ” in Getting Action From Organizational Surveys: New Concepts, Technologies, and Applications , ed. Kraut A. I. (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; ), 102–130. [ Google Scholar ]
Church A. H., Waclawski J. (2017). Designing and Using Organizational Surveys. London: Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
Conlon E. J., Short L. O. (1984). An empirical examination of survey feedback as an organizational change device. Group Organ. Stud. 9 399–416. 10.5465/ambpp.1983.4976350 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Conway E., Monks K. (2011). Change from below: the role of middle managers in mediating paradoxical change. Hum. Resour. Manag. J. 21 190–203. 10.1111/j.1748-8583.2010.00135.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Costello J., Clarke C., Gravely G., D’Agostino-Rose D., Puopolo R. (2011). Working together to build a respectful workplace: transforming OR culture. AORN J. 93 115–126. 10.1016/j.aorn.2010.05.030 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Cucina J. M., Walmsey P. T., Gast I. F., Martin N. R., Curtin P. (2017). Survey key driver analysis: are we driving down the right road? Ind. Organ. Psychol. 10 234–257. 10.1017/iop.2016.97 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Daniels K. (2018). Guidance on conducting and reviewing systematic reviews (and meta-analyses) in work and organizational psychology. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 28 1–10. 10.1080/1359432X.2018.1547708 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
De Waal A. (2014). The employee survey: benefits, problems in practice, and the relation with the high performance organization. Strateg. HR Rev. 13 227–232. 10.1108/SHR-07-2014-0041 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Demerouti E., Bakker A. B., Nachreiner F., Schaufeli W. B. (2001). The job demands-resources model of burnout. J. Appl. Psychol. 86 499–512. 10.1037//0021-9010.86.3.499 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
DeNisi A. S., Kluger A. N. (2000). Feedback effectiveness: can 360-degree appraisals be improved? Acad. Manag. Exec. 14 129–139. 10.5465/ame.2000.2909845 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Dillman D. A., Smyth J. D., Christian L. M. (2014). Internet, Phone, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method , 4th Edn. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. [ Google Scholar ]
Dodd W. E., Pesci M. L. (1977). Managing morale through survey feedback. Bus. Horiz. 20 36–45. 10.1016/0007-6813(77)90069-6 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Duncan R. (1979). What is the right organization structure? Decision tree analysis provides the answer. Organ. Dyn. 7 59–80. 10.1016/0090-2616(79)90027-5 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Eklöf M., Hagberg M. (2006). Are simple feedback interventions involving workplace data associated with better working environment and health? A cluster randomized controlled study among Swedish VDU workers. Appl. Ergon. 37 201–210. 10.1016/j.apergo.2005.04.003 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Eklöf M., Hagberg M., Toomingas A., Tornqvist E. W. (2004). Feedback of workplace data to individual workers, workgroups or supervisors as a way to stimulate working environment activity: a cluster randomized controlled study. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 77 505–514. 10.1007/s00420-004-0531-4 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Elo A.-L., Leppänen A., Sillanpää P. (1998). Applicability of survey feedback for an occupational health method in stress management. Occup. Med. 48 181–188. 10.1093/occmed/48.3.181 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Falletta S. V., Combs W. (2002). “ Surveys as a tool for organization development and change ,” in Organization Development: A Data-Driven Approach to Organizational Change , eds Waclawski J., Church A. H. (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; ), 78–101. [ Google Scholar ]
Feather K. (2008). Helping HR to measure up: arming the “soft” function with hard metrics. Strateg. HR Rev. 7 28–33. 10.1108/14754390810847531 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Fedor D. B., Eder R. W., Buckley M. R. (1989). The contributory effects of supervisor intentions on subordinate feedback responses. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 44 396–414. 10.1016/0749-5978(89)90016-2 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Foster C. A., Law M. R. F. (2006). How many perspectives provide a compass? Differentiating 360-degree feedback and multi-source feedback. Int. J. Sel. Assess. 14 288–291. 10.1111/j.1468-2389.2006.00347.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Fox K. E., Johnson S. T., Berkman L. F., Sianoja M., Soh Y., Kubzansky L. D., et al. (2021). Organisational- and group-level workplace interventions and their effect on multiple domains of worker well-being: a systematic review . Work Stress. 10.1080/02678373.2021.1969476 [Epub ahead of print]. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Fraser K. J., Leach D. J., Webb S. (2009). Employee surveys: guidance to facilitate effective action. Eur. Work Organ. Psychol. Pract. 3 16–23. [ Google Scholar ]
Frazier M. L., Bowler W. M. (2015). Voice climate, supervisor undermining, and work outcomes. J. Manag. 41 841–863. 10.1177/0149206311434533 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Friedlander F., Brown L. D. (1974). Organization development. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1 313–341. 10.1146/annurev.ps.25.020174.001525 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Gable S. A., Chyung S. Y., Marker A., Winiecki D. (2010). How should organizational leaders use employee engagement survey data? Perform. Improv. 49 17–25. 10.1002/pfi.20140 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Gavin J. F., Krois P. A. (1983). Content and process of survey feedback sessions and their relation to survey responses: an initial study. Group Organ. Stud. 8 221–247. 10.1177/105960118300800208 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Gavin J. F., McPhail S. M. (1978). Intervention and evaluation: a proactive team approach to OD. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 14 175–194. 10.1177/002188637801400203 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Gehlbach H., Robinson C. D., Finefter-Rosenbluh I., Benshoof C., Schneider J. (2018). Questionnaires as interventions: can taking a survey increase teachers’ openness to student feedback surveys? Educ. Psychol. 38 350–367. 10.1080/01443410.2017.1349876 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Goldberg B., Gordon G. G. (1978). Designing attitude surveys for management action. Pers. J. 57 546–549. [ Google Scholar ]
Griffin M. A., Hart P. M., Wilson-Evered E. (2000). “ Using employee opinion surveys to improve organizational health ,” in Healthy and Productive Work: An International Perspective , eds Murphy L. R., Cooper C. L. (London: Taylor & Francis; ), 15–36. [ Google Scholar ]
Guzzo R. A., Jette R. D., Katzell R. A. (1985). The effects of psychologically based intervention programs on worker productivity: a meta-analysis. Pers. Psychol. 38 275–291. 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1985.tb00547.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Hand H. H., Estafen B. D., Sims H. P., Jr. (1975). How effective is data survey and feedback as a technique of organization development? An experiment. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 11 333–347. 10.1177/002188637501100306 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Hannum K. M. (2007). Measurement equivalence of 360 ° assessment data: are different raters rating the same constructs. Int. J. Sel. Assess. 27 293–301. 10.1111/j.1468-2389.2007.00389.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Hartley J. (2001). Employee surveys–strategic aid or hand-grenade for organisational and cultural change? Int. J. Public Sect. Manag. 14 184–204. 10.1108/09513550110390846 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Hautaluoma J. E., Gavin J. F. (1975). Effects of organizational diagnosis and intervention on blue-collar “blues”. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 11 475–496. 10.1177/002188637501100408 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Hopkins D. (1982). Survey feedback as an organisation development intervention in educational settings: a review. Educ. Manag. Adm. 10 203–215. 10.1177/174114328201000304 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Huebner L.-A., Zacher H. (2021). Effects of action planning after employee surveys . J. Pers. Psychol. 10.1027/1866-5888/a000285 Advance online publication [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Hyland P. K., Woo V. A., Reeves D. W., Garrad L. (2017). In defense of responsible survey key driver analysis. Ind. Organ. Psychol. 10 277–283. 10.1017/iop.2017.19 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Ilgen D. R., Fisher C. D., Taylor S. M. (1979). Consequences of individual feedback on behavior in organizations. J. Appl. Psychol. 64 349–371. 10.1037//0021-9010.64.4.349 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Jacoby J., Mazursky D., Troutman T. (1984). When feedback is ignored: disutility of outcome feedback. J. Appl. Psychol. 69 531–545. 10.1037/0021-9010.69.3.531 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Johnson J. W. (2017). Best practice recommendations for conducting key driver analysis. Ind. Organ. Psychol. 10 298–305. 10.1017/iop.2017.22 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Jöns I. (2000). “ Supervisors as moderators of survey feedback and change processes in teams ,” in Innovative Theories, Tools and Practices in Work and Organizational Psychology , eds Vartiainen M., Avallone F., Anderson N. (Toronto, ON: Hogrefe & Huber; ), 155–171. [ Google Scholar ]
Jury C., Goh H. E., Olsen S. P., Elston J., Phillips J. (2009a). Actions and results from the Queensland health “better workplaces” staff opinion survey. Aust. Health Rev. 33 371–376. 10.1071/AH090371 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Jury C., Machin M. A., Phillips J., Goh H. E., Olsen S. P., Patrick J. (2009b). Developing and implementing an action-oriented staff survey: Queensland health and the “better workplaces” initiative. Australian Health Review 33 365–370. 10.1071/AH090365 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Katz D., Kahn R. L. (eds). (1978). The Social Psychology of Organizations , Vol. 2 . New York, NY: Wiley. [ Google Scholar ]
Keiser N. L., Payne S. C. (2019). Are employee surveys biased? Impression management as a response bias in workplace safety constructs. Saf. Sci. 118 453–465. 10.1016/j.ssci.2019.05.051 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Kelley K., Preacher K. J. (2012). On effect size. Psychol . Methods 17 , 137–152. 10.1037/a0028086 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Klein C., Synovec R., Zhang H., Lovato C., Howes J., Feinzig S. (2017). Survey key driver analysis: perhaps the right question is, “are we there yet?”. Ind. Organ. Psychol. 10 283–290. 10.1017/iop.2017.20 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Klein S., Kraut A., Wolfson A. (1971). Employee reactions to attitude survey feedback: a study of the impact of structure and process. Adm. Sci. Q. 16 497–514. 10.2307/2391769 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Kluger A. N., DeNisi A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: a historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychol. Bull. 119 254–284. 10.1037//0033-2909.119.2.254 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Knapp P., Mujtaba B. (2010). Designing, administering, and utilizing an employee attitude survey. J. Behav. Stud. Bus. 2 1–14. [ Google Scholar ]
Kraut A. I. (ed.) (2006). Getting Action from Organizational Surveys: New Concepts, Technologies, and Applications. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. [ Google Scholar ]
La Grange A., Geldenhuys D. J. (2008). The impact of feedback on changing organisational culture. South. Afr. Bus. Rev. 12 37–66. [ Google Scholar ]
Landis R. S., James L. R., Lance C. E., Pierce C. A., Rogelberg S. G. (2014). When is nothing something? Editorial for the null results special issue of journal of business and psychology. J. Bus. Psychol. 29 163–167. 10.1007/s10869-014-9347-8 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Linke R. (2018). Mitarbeiterbefragungen Optimieren: Von der Befragung zum Wirksamen Management-Instrument [Optimizing Employee Surveys: From the Survey to the Effective Management Tool]. Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler. [ Google Scholar ]
Locke E. A., Latham G. P. (1990). A Theory of Goal Setting & Task Performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc. [ Google Scholar ]
Macey W. H., Daum D. L. (2017). SKDA in context. Ind. Organ. Psychol. 10 268–277. 10.1017/iop.2017.18 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Macey W. H., Fink A. A. (2020). “ Surveys and sensing: realizing the promise of listening to employees ,” in Employee Surveys and Sensing: Challenges and Opportunities , eds Macey W. H., Fink A. A. (Oxford: Oxford University Press; ), 1–22. [ Google Scholar ]
Mann F., Likert R. (1952). The need for research on the communication of research results. Hum. Organ. 11 15–19. [ Google Scholar ]
Margulies N., Wright P. L., Scholl R. W. (1977). Organization development techniques: their impact on change. Group Organ. Stud. 2 428–448. 10.1177/105960117700200405 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Miles M. B., Hornstein H. A., Callahan D. M., Calder P. H., Schiavo S. R. (1969). “ The consequence of survey feedback: theory and evaluation ,” in The Planning of Change , 2nd Edn, eds Bennis W. G., Benne K. D., Chin R. (New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston; ), 457–468. [ Google Scholar ]
Moher D., Shamseer L., Clarke M., Ghersi D., Liberati A., Petticrew M., et al. (2015). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst. Rev. 4 1–9. 10.1186/2046-4053-4-1 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Mueller K., Straatmann T., Hattrup K., Jochum M. (2014). Effects of personalized versus generic implementation of an intra-organizational online survey on psychological anonymity and response behavior: a field experiment. J. Bus. Psychol. 29 169–181. 10.1007/s10869-012-9262-9 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Nadler D. A. (1976). The use of feedback for organizational change: promises and pitfalls. Group Organ. Stud. 1 177–186. 10.1177/105960117600100205 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Nadler D. A. (1979). The effects of feedback on task group behavior: a review of the experimental research. Organ. Behav. Hum. Perform. 23 309–338. 10.1016/0030-5073(79)90001-1 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Nadler D. A. (1980). “ Using organizational assessment data for planned organizational change ,” in Organizational Assessment: Perspectives on the Measurement of Organizational Behavior and the Quality of Work Life , eds Lawler E. E., III, Nadler D., Cammann C. (New York, NY: Wiley; ), 72–90. [ Google Scholar ]
Nadler D. A. (1981). Managing organizational change: an integrative perspective. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 17 191–211. 10.1177/002188638101700205 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Nadler D. A., Cammann C., Mirvis P. H. (1980). Developing a feedback system for work units: a field experiment in structural change. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 16 41–62. 10.1177/002188638001600105 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Nadler D. A., Mirvis P., Cammann C. (1976). The ongoing feedback system: experimenting with a new managerial tool. Organ. Dyn. 4 63–80. 10.1016/0090-2616(76)90045-0 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Nadler D. A., Tushman M. L. (1980). A model for diagnosing organizational behavior. Organ. Dyn. 9 35–51. 10.1016/0090-2616(80)90039-x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Neuman G. A., Edwards J. E., Raju N. S. (1989). Organizational development interventions: a meta-analysis of their effects on satisfaction and other attitudes. Pers. Psychol. 42 461–489. 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1989.tb00665.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Nowack K. M., Mashihi S. (2012). Evidence-based answers to 15 questions about leveraging 360-degree feedback. Consult. Psychol. J. Pract. Res. 64 157–182. 10.1037/a0030011 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Ostroff C. (1992). The relationship between satisfaction, attitudes, and performance: an organizational level analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 77 963–974. 10.1037//0021-9010.77.6.963 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Peter M. A. (1994). Making the hidden obvious. Management education through survey feedback. J. Nurs. Adm. 24 13–19. 10.1097/00005110-199406000-00006 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Peter M. A., Lytle K. S., Swearengen P. (1997). Feedback to nurse managers about staff nurses’ perceptions of their jobs. Semin. Nurse Manag. 5 209–216. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Pichler S. (2012). The social context of performance appraisal and appraisal reactions: a meta-analysis. Hum. Resour. Manag. 51 709–732. 10.1002/hrm.21499 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Porras J. I. (1979). The comparative impact of different OD techniques and intervention intensities. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 15 156–178. 10.1177/002188637901500204 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Porras J. I., Berg P. O. (1978). The impact of organization development. Acad. Manag. Rev. 3 249–266. 10.2307/257666 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Porras J. I., Robertson P. J. (1992). “ Organizational development: theory, practice, and research ,” in Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology , 3rd Edn, eds Dunnette M. D., Hough L. M. (Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press; ), 719–822. [ Google Scholar ]
Roberson M., Sundstrom E. (1990). Questionnaire design, return dates, and response favorableness in an employee attitude questionnaire. J. Appl. Psychol. 75 354–357. 10.1037/0021-9010.75.3.354 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Rogelberg S. G., Luong A., Sederburg M. E., Cristol D. S. (2000). Employee attitude surveys: examining the attitudes of noncompliant employees. J. Appl. Psychol. 85 284–293. 10.1037/0021-9010.85.2.284 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Rollins T. (1994). Turning employee survey results into high-impact improvements. Employ. Relat. Today 21 35–44. 10.1002/ert.3910210105 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Ross L. (1977). “ The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: distortions in the attribution process ,” in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology , 10th Edn, ed. Berkowitz L. (New York, NY: Academic Press; ), 173–220. [ Google Scholar ]
Rotolo C. T., Price B. A., Fleck C. R., Smoak V. J., Jean V. (2017). Survey key driver analysis: our GPS to navigating employee attitudes. Ind. Organ. Psychol. Perspect. Sci. Pract. 10 306–313. 10.1017/iop.2017.23 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Rudolph C. W., Allan B., Clark M., Hertel G., Hirschi A., Kunze F., et al. (2021). Pandemics: implications for research and practice in industrial and organizational psychology. Indus. Organ. Psychol. 14 1–35. 10.1017/iop.2020.48 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Scherbaum C. A., Black J., Weiner S. P. (2017). With the right map, survey key driver analysis can help get organizations to the right destination. Indus. Organ. Psychol. 10 290–298. 10.1017/iop.2017.21 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Siddaway A. P., Wood A. M., Hedges L. V. (2019). How to do a systematic review: a best practice guide for conducting and reporting narrative reviews, meta-analyses, and meta-syntheses. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 70 747–770. 10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102803 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Solinger O. N., Joireman J., Vantillborgh T., Balliet D. P. (2021). Change in unit-level job attitudes following strategic interventions: a meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. J. Organ. Behav. 42 964–986. 10.1002/job.2523 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Solomon R. J. (1976). An examination of the relationship between a survey feedback O.D. technique and the work environment. Pers. Psychol. 29 583–594. 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1976.tb02081.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Sonnentag S., Frese M. (2002). “ Performance concepts and performance theory ,” in Psychological Management of Individual Performance , ed. Sonnentag S. (Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; ), 3–25. [ Google Scholar ]
Sugheir J., Coco M., Kaupins G. (2011). Perceptions of organizational survey within employee engagement efforts. Int. J. Bus. Public Adm. 8 48–61. [ Google Scholar ]
Swanson R. A., Zuber J. A. (1996). A case study of a failed organization development intervention rooted in the employee survey process. Perform. Improv. Q. 9 42–56. 10.1111/j.1937-8327.1996.tb00719.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Thompson L. F., Surface E. A. (2009). Promoting favorable attitudes toward personnel surveys: the role of follow-up. Mil. Psychol. 21 139–161. 10.1080/08995600902768693 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Timmreck C. W., Bracken D. W. (1997). Multisource feedback: a study of its use in decision making. Employ. Relat. Today 24 21–27. 10.1002/ert.3910240104 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Tomlinson G. (2010). Building a culture of high employee engagement. Strateg. HR Rev. 9 25–31. 10.1108/14754391011040046 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Truxillo D. M., Cadiz D. M., Hammer L. B. (2015). Supporting the aging workforce: a review and recommendations for workplace intervention research. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2 351–381. 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032414-111435 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
van Dierendonck D., Haynes C., Borrill C., Stride C. (2007). Effects of upward feedback on leadership behaviour toward subordinates. J. Manag. Dev. 26 228–238. 10.1108/02621710710732137 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Vukotich G. (2014). 360 ° feedback: ready, fire, aim - issues with improper implementation. Perform. Improv. 53 30–35. 10.1002/pfi.21390 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Wang M., Beal D. J., Chan D., Newman D. A., Vancouver J. B., Vandenberg R. J. (2017). Longitudinal research: a panel discussion on conceptual issues, research design, and statistical techniques. Work Aging Retire. 3 1–24. 10.1093/workar/waw033 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Ward P. (2008). Reinventing the employee survey at Fujitsu Services. Strateg. Commun. Manag. 12 32–35. [ Google Scholar ]
Welbourne T. M. (2016). The potential of pulse surveys: transforming surveys into leadership tools. Employ. Relat. Today 43 33–39. 10.1002/ert.21548 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Wiley J. (2012). Achieving change through a best practice employee survey. Strateg. HR Rev. 11 265–271. 10.1108/14754391211248675 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

IMAGES

Questionnaire Sample For Research Paper PDF
Research Survey Questions
Survey Examples For Research
🎉 Survey research paper. How to Cite Surveys in a Research Paper. 2019
How to write a survey research paper. How to write better Survey Paper
Primary Research Methods

VIDEO

Finding validated scales for survey research using ChatGPT
Difference between Survey paper Vs Review Article Vs Research Paper
How to write good survey paper
Public opinion and survey research pols 204 question paper
Surveys and Questionnaires: Research
Survey Research

COMMENTS

Survey Research
Survey research uses a list of questions to collect data about a group of people. You can conduct surveys online, by mail, or in person. FAQ ... Sending out a paper survey by mail is a common method of gathering demographic information (for example, in a government census of the population).
Understanding and Evaluating Survey Research
Survey research is defined as "the collection of information from a sample of individuals through their responses to questions" ( Check & Schutt, 2012, p. 160 ). This type of research allows for a variety of methods to recruit participants, collect data, and utilize various methods of instrumentation. Survey research can use quantitative ...
(PDF) Questionnaires and Surveys
Abstract. Survey methodologies, usually using questionnaires, are among the most popular in. the social sciences, but they are also among the most mis-used. The ir popularity in. small-scale ...
Survey Research
Survey Research. Definition: Survey Research is a quantitative research method that involves collecting standardized data from a sample of individuals or groups through the use of structured questionnaires or interviews. The data collected is then analyzed statistically to identify patterns and relationships between variables, and to draw conclusions about the population being studied.
Doing Survey Research
Survey research means collecting information about a group of people by asking them questions and analysing the results. To conduct an effective survey, follow these six steps: Determine who will participate in the survey. Decide the type of survey (mail, online, or in-person) Design the survey questions and layout. Distribute the survey.
Mastering The Art Of Writing A Survey Paper: A Step-By-Step Guide
A survey paper, also known as a review paper or a literature review, is a type of academic paper that synthesizes and analyzes existing research on a particular topic. It goes beyond summarizing individual studies and aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the field. The goal of a survey paper is to identify trends, patterns, and gaps in ...
Reporting Survey Based Studies
Abstract. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to a massive rise in survey-based research. The paucity of perspicuous guidelines for conducting surveys may pose a challenge to the conduct of ethical, valid and meticulous research. The aim of this paper is to guide authors aiming to publish in scholarly journals regarding the ...
Survey Research: Definition, Examples and Methods
Survey Research Definition. Survey Research is defined as the process of conducting research using surveys that researchers send to survey respondents. The data collected from surveys is then statistically analyzed to draw meaningful research conclusions. In the 21st century, every organization's eager to understand what their customers think ...
A Comprehensive Guide to Survey Research Methodologies
Before the invention of computers, paper surveys were the survey method of choice. Though many would assume that surveys are no longer conducted on paper, it's still a reliable method of collecting information during field research and data collection. However, unlike online surveys, paper surveys are expensive and require extra human resources
How to Write a Survey Paper: Best Guide and Practices
The survey paper format includes an introduction that defines the scope of the research domain, followed by a thorough literature review section that summarizes and critiques existing research while showcasing areas for further research. A good survey paper must also provide an overview of commonly used methodologies, approaches, key terms, and ...
A quick guide to survey research
Medical research questionnaires or surveys are vital tools used to gather information on individual perspectives in a large cohort. Within the medical realm, there are three main types of survey: epidemiological surveys, surveys on attitudes to a health service or intervention and questionnaires assessing knowledge on a particular issue or topic. 1
Survey Research
Survey designs. Kerry Tanner, in Research Methods (Second Edition), 2018. Conclusion. Survey research designs remain pervasive in many fields. Surveys can appear deceptively simple and straightforward to implement. However valid results depend on the researcher having a clear understanding of the circumstances where their use is appropriate and the constraints on inference in interpreting and ...
PDF Survey Research
Survey research is a specific type of field study that in- volves the collection of data from a sample of ele- ments (e.g., adult women) drawn from a well-defined population (e.g., all adult women living in the United States) through the use of a questionnaire (for more lengthy discussions, see Babbie, 1990; Fowler, 1988; ...
Guidelines for Reporting Survey-Based Research Submitted to ...
Surveys are ubiquitous in health professions education (HPE). Phillips et al 1 recently reported that 52% of all original research articles in three high-impact HPE journals included a survey. Yet, as stated in this issue of Academic Medicine, Artino et al 2 found flaws in the design of surveys and the reporting of validity and reliability evidence in those same journals.
Survey Research: Definition, Examples & Methods
Survey research is the process of collecting data from a predefined group (e.g. customers or potential customers) with the ultimate goal of uncovering insights about your products, services, or brand overall.. As a quantitative data collection method, survey research can provide you with a goldmine of information that can inform crucial business and product decisions.
How to Write a Survey Paper: A stepwise Guide with Examples
Step 1: Selecting the Representative Papers. The first step when writing a survey paper is selecting the most relevant representative papers that are within the scope of your research and summarizing them effectively. As you will note, there can be a lot of research papers, and the space required to create a survey paper is limited.
Survey research
Abstract. Survey research is a unique methodology that can provide insight into individuals' perspectives and experiences and can be collected on a large population-based sample. Specifically, in plastic surgery, survey research can provide patients and providers with accurate and reproducible information to assist with medical decision-making.
How to assess a survey report: a guide for readers and peer reviewers
The reported results should directly address the primary and secondary research questions posed. Survey findings should be reported with sufficient detail to be clear and transparent. Readers should assess whether the methods used to handle missing data and to conduct analyses have been reported.
Research Identifies Characteristics of Cities That Would Support Young
Survey responses from a global panel that included young people provide insights into what would make cities mental health-friendly for youth. ... The paper was written by an international, interdisciplinary team, including citiesRISE, a global nonprofit that works to transform mental health policy and practice in cities, especially for young ...
Examining the role of community resilience and social capital on mental
Searches were run across Medline, PsycInfo, and EMBASE, with search terms covering both community resilience and social capital, public health emergencies, and mental health. 26 papers met the inclusion criteria. The majority of retained papers originated in the USA, used a survey methodology to collect data, and involved a natural disaster.
Paramedic attitudes and experiences working as a community paramedic: a
The survey drafts were also reviewed and approved by a paramedic and a paramedic superintendent with research experience. The survey tool used open-ended questions to have paramedics describe their perception of the CP role prior to, and after working in a CP program, including both positive and negative aspects. Population and recruitment
Health Survey Research Methods Conference call for papers
The 12th Health Survey Research Methods Conference (HSRMC) will continue the series that began 50 years ago, in 1975, to discuss innovative survey research methods that improve the quality of health survey data. ... 2025. The HSRMC steering committee is seeking abstracts for papers to be presented at the 2025 conference, including: general ...
[2404.02039] A Survey on Large Language Model-Based Game Agents
The development of game agents holds a critical role in advancing towards Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). The progress of LLMs and their multimodal counterparts (MLLMs) offers an unprecedented opportunity to evolve and empower game agents with human-like decision-making capabilities in complex computer game environments. This paper provides a comprehensive overview of LLM-based game ...
A critical look at online survey or questionnaire-based research
1. Introduction. Online survey or questionnaire-based studies collect information from participants responding to the study link using internet-based communication technology (e.g. E-mail, online survey platform). There has been a growing interest among researchers for using internet-based data collection methods during the COVID-19 pandemic ...
Machine Learning Techniques for Crowd Counting: A Survey
Machine Learning Techniques for Crowd Counting: A Survey. Dakshi Chavan, Anuradha Purohit. Published in International Journal of… 25 October 2023. Computer Science. View via Publisher. Save to Library.
Call for Paper Submissions: C&RL News Scholarly Communication
College & Research Libraries News (C&RL News) is the official newsmagazine and publication of record of the Association of College & Research Libraries, providing articles on the latest trends and practices affecting academic and research libraries.. C&RL News became an online-only publication beginning with the January 2022 issue.. C&RL News Reader Survey
Following Up on Employee Surveys: A Conceptual Framework and Systematic
Employee surveys are often used to support organizational development (OD), and particularly the follow-up process after surveys, including action planning, is important. Nevertheless, this process is oftentimes neglected in practice, and research on it is limited as well. In this article, we first define the employee survey follow-up process ...

Have a language expert improve your writing

Survey Research | Definition, Examples & Methods

Table of contents

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Populations

Questionnaires

Open-ended vs closed-ended questions

The content of the survey questions

Phrasing the survey questions

Ordering the survey questions

Cite this Scribbr article

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Survey Research – Types, Methods, Examples

Survey Research

Survey Research Methods

Types of Survey Research

Types Based on Methodology

Quantitative Survey Research

Data Analysis Methods

Applications of Survey Research

Examples of Survey Research

Survey Sample

When to use Survey Research

How to Conduct Survey Research

Advantages of Survey Research

Limitations of Survey Research

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

You may also like

Questionnaire – Definition, Types, and Examples

Case Study – Methods, Examples and Guide

Observational Research – Methods and Guide

Quantitative Research – Methods, Types and...

Qualitative Research Methods

Explanatory Research – Types, Methods, Guide

Have a language expert improve your writing

Doing Survey Research | A Step-by-Step Guide & Examples

Table of contents

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

Populations

Questionnaires

Open-ended vs closed-ended questions

The content of the survey questions

Phrasing the survey questions

Ordering the survey questions

Cite this Scribbr article

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Mastering The Art Of Writing A Survey Paper: A Step-By-Step Guide

Importance of survey papers in academic research

Purpose of the blog post

Understanding the Basics

Definition of a survey paper

Different types of survey papers

Benefits of writing a survey paper

Choosing a Topic

Identifying a Research Gap

Selecting a Specific Area of Interest

Ensuring the Topic is Relevant and Significant

Conducting a Literature Review

Searching for relevant sources

Evaluating the credibility of the sources

Organizing and summarizing the literature

Outlining the Structure

Writing the Survey Paper

Editing and Proofreading

Formatting and Presentation

Finalizing the Survey Paper

Online tools and platforms for organizing research

List of sources cited in the blog post

Checking for grammar and spelling errors

Ensuring clarity and coherence

Seeking feedback from peers or mentors

Following the required citation style

Properly formatting headings, subheadings, and paragraphs

Including tables, figures, and graphs if necessary

Reviewing the overall structure and content

Making necessary revisions and improvements

Proofreading the final version