Face-To-Face and Online Surveys in the Aviation Industry Essay (Critical Writing)

Introduction

The specific purpose of the article was to compare and discuss face-to-face and online surveys in the aviation industry. The researchers stated this goal directly, and the article’s content clearly followed the announced topic. The global purpose of the article was to help other researchers (psychologists, sociologists, and ergonomists) provide analytical data. By looking at the resulting comparison data, it was expected that other researchers could more easily decide which surveys and interviews they needed for scientific papers. Investigators made the comparison without clear criteria; for instance, they did not provide any tables with standards for better understanding and visualization. However, some aspects, such as the participants’ cost, time, and motivation, were highlighted in parallel.

The global goal lays the groundwork for the need for research by Rice et al. (2017). The scientific community and other researchers, especially beginners, need this benchmarking to validate their research design. The authors describe the importance of a clear and in-depth understanding of how to deal with data collection and interviews. Some researchers spend several months on this, while those who decide to do an online interview spend only a few hours on it. Rice et al. (2017) explicitly state that fellow scientists need this comparative study and can build on it when preparing.

Based on what the authors have stated, the research question was not directly submitted to the readers. However, formulating the research question is possible within the framework of the comparative analysis. It is assumed that the research questions covered by the comparison may sound like this:

• Is it true that online interviews are highly beneficial in terms of results in aviation research?
• Is it true that online interviews and surveys are more convenient for aviation researchers?
• When researching aviation issues and seeking to organize interviews with pilots and crew members, which method is better to rely on an online survey or laboratory interviews?
• What is the difference between online and laboratory interviews in the research framework on the topic of aviation and many others?

Methodology

The study is funded by the method of internet-based surveys and lies entirely within the scope of internet research. It, however, is only the prevailing method, and the authors prefer the mixed approach. They selected two of the most popular Internet survey platforms: SurveyMonkeyH and Amazon MTurk. They based their results on the rules of these sites and how interviews are usually conducted there. Given the popularity of SurveyMonkeyH and Amazon MTurk, it can be assumed that the researchers used convenience sampling in this part of the article.

The authors chose the observational option when organizing the comparative study design. Rice et al. (2017) analyzed retrospective data from various studies and, in general, the possible behavior and attitudes of participants on the above Internet platforms. The qualitative research was connected to grounded theory, and the lack of a straightforward research question is related to this. Through careful comparison, Rice et al. (2017) found specific aspects of online interviews for aviation workers that were not anticipated initially.

The study involved a scientists’ group, which made the results less subjective. The researchers followed common goals and objectives, and they prepared extensive lists of the advantages and disadvantages of interviewing. Consequently, investigator triangulation has been appropriately developed to achieve comprehensive results. Data triangulation has been created properly since the researchers experimented with two modes. Information was used from two sources: literature and online platforms. The literature described the conduct of laboratory interviews, while websites provided information for completing surveys remotely. The theory of triangulation was not presented since the article does not directly rely on any particular theory about psychology, sociology, or aviation. The triangulation of the methodology has been demonstrated to a reasonable extent, as the researchers tried to combine literature analytics and direct Internet research. They discussed other methods of working with interviewees; for example, short five-minute interviews on the Internet were contrasted with surveys with an introductory interview, after which the participants proceeded to the assessment. Sometimes classical methodological models of laboratory interviews, which took at least an hour, were opposed to models of Internet research for 20-30 minutes.

Regarding validating, the authors paid the most attention to transferability. Researchers state that this study is being created for the benefit of the scientific community. They suggest that their comparison will help investigators who want to explore the professional subculture of pilots and crew and support choosing the right type of interview. Although the authors, judging by their rhetoric, act as apologists for the Internet method, their data and analysis generally satisfy confirmability. The report does not contradict sociological data and methodologies for conducting interviews. The authors needlessly do not pay due attention to the credibility of their article since they spend all their time on comparative analysis. Despite many plausible arguments and the support of scientific sources, readers may question credibility because of apologetic rhetoric for Internet research. In this context, it can be assumed that this article suits scientific student discussion and debate. The paper has above-average dependability; there is no doubt that since 2017 it has been repeatedly approached by people interested in related topics. However, because the Internet is developing quickly, article dependability may drop dramatically with the removal of SurveyMonkeyH or Amazon MTurk.

Results and Conclusion

Rice et al. (2017) partly described the contextual data and mainly dealt with the arguments against laboratory interviews. The authors gave examples of airport surveys and how companies protect trade secrets and confidential information. The aviation context extends in many respects to the fact that civil aviation pilots do not use sites for surveys, so access to their work experience is closed. Civil aviation companies are not willing to tie researchers and pilots together, nor are they willing to give workers the tools to experiment. As for the context of Survey MonkeyH and Amazon MTurk sites, the authors did not talk about the platforms. They primarily used data from Amazon MTurk but often reduced the two platforms to an identical tool. Contextual analytics were not provided here, so readers may have a wrong picture of the platforms discussed after reading.

The main findings are presented in a reader-friendly form and can easily be converted into lists.

The advantages of Internet surveys include:

• easy access to populations, including the new ones;
• easy ability to generalize information from specific groups;
• easy search for suitable participants by gender and age;
• large sample;
• financial costs are much lower than in laboratory studies (about 8-10 times lower);
• ideal for researchers who want to save time when collecting data; anonymity; and high-quality data.

The disadvantages include:

• non-representative samples;
• lack of access to portals (relevant for time zones and different countries);
• answer rating;
• the expectation of payment by participants at the expense of the quality of responses;
• fraud of participants (putting identical points or letters on different questions in a row);
• participants do not want to spend a lot of time;
• usually, such surveys cannot measure behavior but only attitudes towards phenomena;
• inability to instruct face-to-face and answer questions;
• failure to conduct a longitudinal study.

The conclusion emphasizes that some of the shortcomings of online research can be corrected. For example, this is possible in the case of response scores, as the platforms in question can provide data to researchers about incredibly attentive participants using their past surveys. The researchers recommend their article to other scientists to choose the most appropriate type of interview. They connect that different groups of scientists need unique designs and interviews.

Critique

The authors convincingly justify the need of the scientific community for their unique comparative study. However, going deeper into the analytics, they sometimes go far from the context of aviation, which can create a gap between practice and this theoretical justification. Readers may have doubts about whether the studies relate to this topic. To improve the connection between aviation and surveys, the psychological aspects of interviews in conjunction with the heavy workload of pilots could be further considered. The authors insist on the usefulness of this study for novice scientists. This article can become, if not a foundation, an assistant in understanding which interview is better to conduct with a focus group to obtain the expected results. A possible credible case, which the authors did not touch upon, is that this flock can be used in the profession of pilots and crew. This study will help sociologists and psychologists who want to organize interviews with athletes and some military, trade, and business workers. The latter often have busy work schedules and interact with different time zones, especially in e-commerce and resale through online stores.

The authors overestimate the transferability, and after reading, some researchers may have the idea that they could find similar information on the Internet on specialized sites. The transferability of a report is only high if it is supported by scholars with no experience in interviewing or unfamiliar with the context of aviation research. The conformability is highly rated, and the writing is a significant part of the cohort of research on interview and survey methodology. The report does not contradict previous studies, and the authors try to follow the sociological avant-garde. The credibility is rated at an average level, as the researchers build an apology for Internet research, although they did not initially declare such goals. Generally, the article still looks verified and adequate regarding scientific disinterest. The authors maturely assess the dependability of their paper and directly mention the rapid development of both Internet technologies and aviation. Article dependability is rated as average or above average; the authors lack a description of the technological context.

The authors did not provide a thick description, except for parts of the article that explain face-to-face interactions in the laboratory. Essential components of a thick description include identical answers to different questions with an intended motivation, but some readers may not notice them. It is not enough for a high assessment of a thick description, so this research mechanism remains for face-to-face experiments, including ethnographic ones. In addition, the authors did not directly mention the lack of thick description as a lack of online research. They touch on this topic in passing, emphasizing more that in the laboratory, it is easier to keep the attention of the interviewees.

The reviewed theoretical data from the literature and the retrospective study of the once-conducted interviews became a mine of data. In the end, the researchers’ conclusions and conjectures were supported by the data and provided readers with the idea that surveys of pilots via the Internet can be effective. Rice et al. (2017) argue that it will be easier to conduct an online survey with pilots along with the benefits of anonymity, speed, and no high fees. Despite this, there is a risk of misunderstanding the instructions by the pilots, which negatively affects the possible results. It should be noted that the authors use a collective, or eclectic, picture of the study, not focusing on any specific pilot and crew interviews. Rice et al. (2017) draw combined conclusions from several relevant articles at once and proceed from materials on Internet platforms.

The study’s main strengths are the smooth structure of the text and scientific language. It makes the article a good helper for students and novice researchers. The convenient design of the article helps to take the authors’ words out of context and easily cite them in further research. This text is generally easy to refer to during conferences. It differs in a well-balanced structure from the many articles read, where a long, complex scientific text is written in large paragraphs with statistics and other data. The main weaknesses of the paper are the lack of interest and apologetic rhetoric, the lack of tables and visualizations, and a short introduction to the context of aviation studies. In addition, researchers delving into comparative analysis deviate far from the aviation context.

Conclusion

Despite the perceived shortcomings of analysis without deep context, the article’s credibility can be rated average-high. The scientific context of the article makes it an essential part of sociological research in aviation and becomes a support for other researchers. This article differs from many ‘live experiments’ where the researchers had to work in the field. The paper can be called an extensive and thoughtful study done in cooperation with two Internet platforms focused on conducting surveys. It is part of a theoretical work that can later help other researchers move to action.

Reference

Rice, S., Winter, S. R., Doherty, S., & Milner, M. (2017). Advantages and Disadvantages of Using Internet-Based Survey Methods in Aviation-Related Research. Journal of Aviation Technology and Engineering, 7(1). Web.