Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T00:03:49.131Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

23 - Network-based methods for accessing hard-to-survey populations using standard surveys

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 September 2014

Tyler H. Mccormick
Affiliation:
University of Washington
Tian Zheng
Affiliation:
Columbia University
Roger Tourangeau
Affiliation:
Westat Research Organisation, Maryland
Brad Edwards
Affiliation:
Westat Research Organisation, Maryland
Timothy P. Johnson
Affiliation:
University of Illinois, Chicago
Kirk M. Wolter
Affiliation:
University of Chicago
Nancy Bates
Affiliation:
US Census Bureau
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Standard surveys often exclude members of certain groups, known as hard-to-survey groups. One reason these individuals are excluded is difficulty accessing group members. Persons who are homeless are very unlikely to be reached by a survey that uses random digit dialing, for example. Other individuals can be accessed using standard survey techniques, but are excluded because of issues in reporting. Members of these groups are often reluctant to self-identify because of social pressure or stigma (Shelley, Bernard, Killworth, Johnsen, & McCarty, 1995). Individuals who are homosexual, for example, may not be comfortable revealing their sexual preferences to an unfamiliar survey enumerator. A third group of individuals is difficult to reach because of issues with both access and reporting (commercial sex workers, for example). Even basic demographic information about these groups is typically unknown, especially in developing nations.

One approach to estimating demographic information about hard-to-reach groups is to reach members of these groups through their social network. Some network-based approaches, such as respondent-driven sampling (RDS), recruit respondents directly from other respondents’ networks (Heckathorn, 1997, 2002), making the sampling mechanism similar to a stochastic process on the social network (Goel & Salganik, 2009). RDS (see Chapter 24 in this volume) affords researchers face-to-face contact with members of hard-to-reach groups, facilitating exhaustive interviews and even genetic or medical testing. The price for an entry to these groups is high, however, as RDS uses a specially designed link-tracing framework for sampling. Estimates from RDS are also biased because of the network structure captured during selection, with much statistical work surrounding RDS being intended to re-weigh observations from RDS to have properties resembling a simple random sample. Though methods such as RDS can be advantageous (researchers interview members of hard-to-survey groups directly, for example), financial and logistical challenges often prevent researchers from employing these methods, especially on a large scale.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bernard, H. R., Johnsen, E. C., Killworth, P. D., McCarty, C., Shelley, G. A., & Robinson, S. (1990). Comparing four different methods for measuring personal social networks. Social Networks, 12, 179–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernard, H. R., Johnsen, E. C., Killworth, P. D., & Robinson, S. (1991). Estimating the size of an average personal network and of an event subpopulation: some empirical results. Social Science Research, 20, 109–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dempster, A. P., Laird, N. M., & Rubin, D. B. (1997). Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 39(1), 1–38.Google Scholar
Freeman, L. C., & Thompson, C. R. (1989). Estimating acquaintanceship volume. In Kochen, M. (ed.), The Small World (pp. 147–58). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.Google Scholar
Goel, S., & Salganik, M. (2009). Respondent-driven sampling as Markov Chain Monte Carlo. Statistics in Medicine, 28(17), 2202–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heckathorn, D. (1997). Respondent-driven sampling: a new approach to the study of hidden populations. Social Problems, 44(2), 174–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heckathorn, D. (2002). Respondent-driven sampling II: deriving valid population estimates from chain-referral samples of hidden populations. Social Problems, 49(1), 11–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Killworth, P. D., & Bernard, H. R. (1978). The reverse small-world experiment. Social Networks, 1(2), 159–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Killworth, P. D., Bernard, H. R., & McCarty, C. (1984). Measuring patterns of acquaintanceship. Current Anthropology, 23, 318–97.Google Scholar
Killworth, P. D., Johnsen, E. C., Bernard, H. R., Shelley, G. A., & McCarty, C. (1990). Estimating the size of personal networks. Social Networks, 12, 289–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Killworth, P. D., McCarty, C., Bernard, H. R., Johnsen, E. C., Domini, J., & Shelley, G. A. (2003). Two interpretations of reports of knowledge of subpopulation sizes. Social Networks, 25, 141–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Killworth, P. D., McCarty, C., Bernard, H. R., Shelley, G. A., & Johnsen, E. C. (1998). Estimation of seroprevalence, rape, and homelessness in the U. S. using a social network approach. Evaluation Review, 22, 289–308.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Killworth, P. D., McCarty, C., Johnsen, E. C., Bernard, H. R., & Shelley, G. A. (2006). Investigating the variation of personal network size under unknown error conditions. Sociological Methods & Research, 35(1), 84–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laumann, E. O. (1969). Friends of urban men: an assessment of accuracy in reporting their socioeconomic attributes, mutual choice, and attitude agreement. Sociometry, 32(1), 54–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawson, C. L., & Hanson, R. J. (1974). Solving Least Squares Problems. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Lohr, S. L. (1999). Sampling: Design and Analysis. Boston, MA: Duxbury Press.Google Scholar
McCarty, C., Killworth, P. D., Bernard, H. R., Johnsen, E. C., & Shelley, G. A. (2001). Comparing two methods for estimating network size. Human Organization, 60, 28–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCormick, T. H., & Zheng, T. (2012). Latent demographic profile estimation in hard-to-reach groups. Annals of Applied Statistics, 6, 1795–813.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCormick, T. H., Salganik, M. J., & Zheng, T. (2010). How many people do you know? Efficiently estimating personal network size. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 105, 59–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milgram, S. (1967). The small world problem. Psychology Today, 1, 62–67.Google Scholar
Pool, I., & Kochen, M. (1978). Contacts and influence. Social Networks, 1, 5–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shelley, G. A., Bernard, H. R., Killworth, P. D., Johnsen, E., & McCarty, C. (1995). Who knows your HIV status? What HIV+ patients and their network members know about each other. Social Networks, 17, 189–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shelley, G. A., Killworth, P. D., Bernard, H. R., McCarty, C., Johnsen, E. C., & Rice, R. E. (2006). Who knows your HIV status II? Information propogation within social networks of seropositive people. Human Organization, 65(4), 430–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zheng, T., Salganik, M. J., & Gelman, A. (2006). How many people do you know in prison?: Using overdispersion in count data to estimate social structure. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 101, 409–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×