Experiencing Intercultural

Communication: An Introduction 6th

Edition (eBook PDF)
Go to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebooksecure.com/product/experiencing-intercultural-communication-an-introdu
ction-6th-edition-ebook-pdf/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Experiencing Intercultural Communication: An

Introduction 7th Edition Judith N. Martin - eBook PDF

https://ebooksecure.com/download/experiencing-intercultural-
communication-an-introduction-ebook-pdf/

(eBook PDF) Experiencing Phenomenology: An Introduction

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-experiencing-
phenomenology-an-introduction/

(eBook PDF) An Introduction to Intercultural

Communication: Identities in a Global Community 9th
Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-an-introduction-to-
intercultural-communication-identities-in-a-global-community-9th-
edition/

An Introduction to Intercultural Communication:

Identities in a Global Community 9th Edition (eBook
PDF)

http://ebooksecure.com/product/an-introduction-to-intercultural-
communication-identities-in-a-global-community-9th-edition-ebook-
pdf/
(eBook PDF) An Introduction to Intercultural
Communication: Identities in a Global Community Eighth
Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-an-introduction-to-
intercultural-communication-identities-in-a-global-community-
eighth-edition/

(eBook PDF) Understanding Intercultural Communication

2nd Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-understanding-
intercultural-communication-2nd-edition/

(eBook PDF) Intercultural Communication in Contexts 7th

Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-intercultural-
communication-in-contexts-7th-edition/

(eBook PDF) Intercultural Communication: A Contextual

Approach 7th Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-intercultural-
communication-a-contextual-approach-7th-edition/

(eBook PDF) Globalizing Intercultural Communication: A

Reader 1st Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-globalizing-
intercultural-communication-a-reader-1st-edition/
 Types of Nonprobability Samples
Comparing Probability and Nonprobability Samples
Guidelines for Good Sampling
How Good Must the Sample Be?
General Advice
Supplemental Reading
6. Sampling II: Population Definition and Sampling Frames
Defining the Survey Population
Framing the Population
For More In-Depth Reading
7. Sampling III: Sample Size and Sample Design
Sampling Error Illustrated
Confidence Interval Approach to Sample Size
Power Analysis Approach to Sample Size
Nonstatistical Approaches to Sample Size
Stratified Sample Designs
Cluster Sampling to Improve Cost-Effectiveness
Computing Sampling Errors
Additional Resources
Methodology Appendix 1: Using Models in Sampling
8. Questionnaire Development I: Measurement Error and Question Writing
Measurement Error and Response Error
A Model of the Response Process
Response Task Problems
Questionnaire Design as Process
Factors in Questionnaire Development
Writing Questions
The Structure of Survey Questions
The Use of Qualifiers in Survey Questions
Response Categories
Rating Scales
Avoiding or Identifying Common Weaknesses in Survey Questions
Supplemental Readings
9. Questionnaire Development II: Questionnaire Structure
Introducing the Survey
What Questions Should the Questionnaire Begin With?
Grouping Questions Into Sections
Questionnaire Length and Respondent Burden
Formatting Instruments for Multimode Data Collection
Supplemental Reading
Methodology Appendix 2: Questionnaire Evaluation Workshop
10. Questionnaire Development III: Pretesting
Objectives of Pretesting
Types of Response Problems

8
 Samples for Pretests
Pretesting Procedures
Conventional Pretests and Interviewer Debriefings
Postinterview Interviews
Behavior Coding
Cognitive Interviews
Respondent Debriefing
Expert Panel
Assessing Interviewer Tasks
Experimental Design for Question Evaluation
Revising and Retesting
Pilot Tests
Some Last Advice
For More In-Depth Reading
Methodology Appendix 3: Cognitive Interviewing Workshop
11. Data Collection II: Controlling Error in Data Collection
Measures of Survey Quality
Unit Nonresponse
Recent Increases in Nonresponse
Item Nonresponse
Balancing Survey Goals and Ethical Obligations to Participants
Controlling Error in Data Collection
Interviewer-Administered Surveys
Computer-Assisted Data Collection
Minimizing Item Nonresponse
Interviewer Effects
Self-Administered Surveys: Mail and Internet
Data Collection Costs and Contingencies: Planning for the Unexpected
For More In-Depth Reading
Methodology Appendix 4: An Overview of Organization Surveys
12. Postsurvey Statistical Adjustments and the Methodology Report
Nonresponse Bias
Data Adjustments: Weighting and Imputation
The Methodology Report
Surveys in Other National and Cultural Contexts
Supplemental Reading
Appendix A: University of Maryland Undergraduate Student Survey
Appendix B: Maryland Crime Survey
Appendix C: AAPOR Code of Professional Ethics
Appendix D: Internet Resources
References
Index

9
10
 PREFACE

T
here were 9 years between the first (1996) and second (2005) editions of this book. Although fewer years have
elapsed since that last edition than between the first two, the revisions are substantially larger, reflecting the
evolution of a field driven by rapid technological and societal change, but also by the effect of advances in
survey methodology. In addition to the necessary updates, we have expanded the technical range of the book.
First, the chapters on sampling (Chapters 5 7) have been completely restructured and expanded. This revision
is consistent with the increased focus on survey error (Chapter 2) as a framework for thinking about each stage
of survey design and implementation. Second, we have added four Methodology Appendixes to address some
topics of special interest (Using Models in Sampling and An Overview of Organization Surveys) and to
provide in-depth workshop treatments on topics that are crucial to containing measurement error, often the
major threat to survey quality (Questionnaire Evaluation Workshop and Cognitive Interviewing Workshop).
In this edition, we have also taken a broader view of the needs of diverse researchers who may employ the
survey method. We use examples drawn from a wide range of social research—including sociological, political,
educational, public health, marketing, and business applications—and we consider issues faced by researchers
in varying contexts, including academic versus nonacademic research, surveys of organizations versus
households or individuals, and cross-cultural surveys.
The treatments of data collection (Chapters 4 and 11) and questionnaire development (Chapters 8–10)
reflect a wider range of methodologies (including online, cell phone, intercept, and multimode surveys), as
well as contributions to survey practice from recent survey methods research (e.g., the use of cognitive models
for understanding the response process and effective design of response categories and rating scales). Finally,
from Chapter 1 (Survey Practice) through Chapter 12 (Postsurvey Statistical Adjustments and the
Methodology Report), we have integrated the ethical treatment of research subjects into survey design,
questionnaire construction, and data collection.
The guidance of our editor, Vicki Knight, has been essential in this effort. The technical assistance
provided by Nadra Garas was critical, and the efficient support of Kalie Koscielak and Lyndsi Stephens of
SAGE Publications contributed greatly to the timely editing and processing of the manuscript. We appreciate
the extensive, helpful comments on a draft of the book provided by reviewers engaged by SAGE Publications:
Jennifer Reid Keene, University of Nevada, Las Vegas; Lisa House, University of Florida; Julio Borquez,
University of Michigan, Dearborn; Yasar Yesilcay, University of Florida; Chadwick L. Menning, Ball State
University; Brenda D. Phillips, Oklahoma State University; Bob Jeffery, Sheffield Hallam University; Michael
F. Cassidy, Marymount University; Young Ik Cho, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee; Richard J. Harris,
University of Texas at San Antonio; Valentin Ekiaka Nzai, Texas A&M University, Kingsville; and Mary-
Kate Lizotte, Birmingham-Southern College.
In particular, we want to recognize our intellectual debt to the late Seymour Sudman, a seminal figure in
modern survey research, who was our teacher and mentor for many years, beginning when we were all, in
various capacities, at the University of Illinois Survey Research Laboratory. This book would not have been
possible without the guidance of his scholarship and his example as a researcher.

11
 ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Johnny Blair is an independent consultant in survey methodology. Previously, he was a Principal Scientist at
Abt Associates and a manager of survey operations at the University of Maryland Survey Research Center and
the University of Illinois (Urbana-Champaign) Survey Research Laboratory. Over a 40-year career in survey
research, he has designed and/or implemented surveys for health (including HIV high-risk populations),
education (including large-scale student assessments), environment (including contingent valuation), and
criminal victimization (including proxy reporting) surveys, among other areas. He has conducted
methodological research on sampling rare populations, measurement error in proxy reporting, cognitive and
usability testing of computer-based student writing assessments, and data quality in converted refusal
interviews. He has been involved in a decade-long program of research on cognitive interview pretesting, most
recently on the theory of pretest sample size and the validation of pretest problem identification. He has been
a member of the editorial board of Public Opinion Quarterly, has served on several National Research Council
Panels, and has been a consultant to many federal agencies, academic organizations, law firms, and other
companies. Since 1996, he has served on the Design and Analysis Committee (DAC) for the National
Assessment of Educational Progress, NAEP, the Nation’s Report Card.

Ronald F. Czaja is Associate Professor Emeritus of Sociology and Anthropology at North Carolina State
University. He taught courses in both undergraduate and graduate research methodology and medical
sociology. His methodological research focused on sampling rare populations, response effects in surveys, and
the cognitive aspects of questionnaire design. From 1969 to 1990, he worked at the Survey Research
Laboratory, University of Illinois at Chicago, as project coordinator, co-head of sampling, assistant director,
and principal investigator.

Edward A. Blair is the Michael J. Cemo Professor of Marketing & Entrepreneurship and Chair of the
Department of Marketing & Entrepreneurship in the C. T. Bauer College of Business, University of
Houston. He has served as chair of the American Statistical Association Committee on Energy Statistics,
which advises the U.S. Energy Information Administration on the gathering, analysis, and dissemination of
information. He also has served on the U.S. Census Bureau Census Advisory Committee of Professional
Associations and as a National Science Foundation panelist in Innovation and Organizational Change. His
research has been published in journals such as the Journal of Marketing, the Journal of Marketing Research, the
Journal of Consumer Research, Public Opinion Quarterly, Sociological Methods and Research, the Journal of
Advertising Research, the Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, the Journal of Retailing, and elsewhere. He
has served on the editorial boards of the Journal of Marketing Research, the Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, and the Journal of Business Research and as national conference chair for the American Marketing
Association (AMA). In addition to teaching university classes, Dr. Blair has taught in a variety of professional
programs, including the AMA’s School of Marketing Research (for research professionals) and Advanced
Research Techniques Forum.

12
 ONE
SURVEY PRACTICE

I
t would be difficult to name another social science method that has so quickly and pervasively penetrated our
society as the sample survey. In fewer than two generations, the notion of relying on relatively small samples
to measure attitudes and behaviors has grown from a little-noted curiosity to the dominant data collection
practice. Surveys are used by academic researchers, governments, businesses, political parties, media, and
anyone who wants insights into what people are thinking and doing. Survey data underlie our knowledge
regarding

• demographic characteristics of the population;

• economic variables such as household incomes, unemployment rates, business hiring intentions, and
consumer confidence;
• education variables such as levels of educational attainment, dropout rates, and educational practices in
schools;
• health variables such as access to health care, immunization rates, nutritional practices, obesity rates, and
engagement in health risk behaviors;
• political variables such as party identification, candidate preferences, voting intentions, and public opinions
on policy issues;
• marketing variables such as product preferences and purchase intentions;
• and many more.

The requirements of these diverse survey applications have naturally spawned a wide range of performance
practices. How a survey is designed and implemented for a federal agency is vastly different than one for a
newspaper poll.
A large and rapidly expanding survey literature reflects both the numerous applications of survey data
collection and the inherently multidisciplinary nature of survey research. To successfully design and
implement a survey, we need to understand the basics of a few disciplines and techniques. At some points, we
can rely on scientific understanding and training; at others, we need a knowledge of accepted practices and,
throughout the process, a healthy dose of common sense.

13
WHAT IS A SURVEY?

Surveys collect information by interviewing a sample of respondents from a well-defined population. The
survey population may comprise individuals, households, organizations, or any element of interest. The
boundaries of the population may be defined by demographic characteristics (e.g., persons 18 years of age or
older), geographic boundaries (residing in Maryland), behaviors (who voted in the last election), intentions
(and intend to vote in the next election), or other characteristics. The population should be defined so that its
members can be unequivocally identified. In addition, we must be convinced that the majority of respondents
will know the information we ask them to provide. It makes little sense to ask people questions, such as the
net worth of their family that many in the targeted population, maybe most, will not be able to answer.
Surveys can be conducted in person, by phone, by mail, or over the Internet, among other methods. The
identifying characteristic of a survey interview is the use of a fixed questionnaire with prespecified questions.
The questions are most often, but not always, in a closed format in which a set of response alternatives is
specified. Using a fixed questionnaire allows a researcher to control the interview without being present,
which allows the interview to be conducted at relatively low cost, either through self-administration by
respondents (as in Internet or mail surveys) or through administration by interviewers who, although trained,
are typically paid at a modest rate. The resulting data are then entered into a data file for statistical analysis.
Surveys are, of course, not the only method used by social researchers to gather data. Alternatives include
observation, depth interviews, focus groups, panels, and experiments. Key points of comparison between
surveys and other methods, as well as examples of how other methods are sometimes used to support survey
design, are as follows:

• As the term suggests, we gather observational data by observing events rather than by asking questions.
Observation can capture information about inanimate phenomena that can’t be questioned directly, and
observation doesn’t suffer from respondents misunderstanding the question, forgetting what happened, or
distorting their answers to make a good impression. However, for observational data to be feasible, the
phenomenon of interest must be observable; mental states such as attitudes or intentions are out. After an
election, we can observe how precincts voted, but before the election, we cannot observe how they intend to
vote. We can observe how precincts voted, but not why they voted that way. It also may not be cost-effective
to gather observational data. We can observe how someone uses public transportation by following that person
for a month, but it is much less costly to ask him or her about last month’s behavior.
In some situations, observation may be used to learn more about a particular population while developing
plans for a survey. For example, in preparing for a survey of parents about their children’s dietary habits, we
observed kids at a few school lunches. Behaviors such as discarding, sharing, or exchanging foods between
children led to some improvements in the parent survey. More important, it showed that some of the
children’s eating could not be fully reported by the parents.

• Depth interviews, like surveys, gather data through questioning. However, depth interviews do not use a
fixed questionnaire. The interviewer usually has a list of topics to be covered and may use fixed questions to
get respondents started on these topics, but the overall goal is to let respondents express their thoughts freely
and to probe as needed. This approach is good for getting deep, detailed, complex information that doesn’t
work well in a survey. However, these interviews usually must be administered in person, and a highly skilled
interviewer is needed to manage the unstructured interaction, resulting in much higher cost than a survey
interview and consequently less ability to interview a broad sample. So, for example, if you want to know how
top officials in city government interact and make decisions, then you might do depth interviews with a small
number of city leaders, but if you want to know how the broad electorate rates the performance of city
government using standard questions, a survey will be more useful.
In planning a survey, depth interviews can be used to uncover issues that are important to include in the
questionnaire, learn how potential respondents think about the topic, develop response alternatives, and learn
how the population might react to survey procedures (such as those for gaining cooperation). This can be
especially useful when the population and/or topics are not familiar to the researcher.

• Focus groups, like depth interviews, do not use a fixed questionnaire. Unlike depth interviews, which are
conducted one-on-one, focus groups facilitate interaction among group participants. This interaction can
inform the researcher about reasons for differences in a population on an issue, or other social dynamics. As

14
with depth interviews, focus groups are sometimes used in the survey planning process to uncover issues that
are important to include in the questionnaire, learn how potential respondents think about the topic, develop
response alternatives, and learn how the population might react to survey procedures.

• Panels are groups of research participants that provide information over time. This information can be
collected through observation or self-reports, including diaries where people record their behavior over time or
repeated surveys of the same respondents. The greatest strength of panels is that measures of change over time
are precise and not subject to variation due to shifting samples of respondents. The greatest weakness of panel
research is the fact that many people are not willing to accept the commitment required by a panel, while
many others drop out after a short stay, so it is difficult to keep panels representative of the population. Also,
panels tend to be more expensive than most onetime surveys because panel members must be given some
reward for their ongoing effort, while most surveys do not reward respondents. Therefore, if a researcher
wants to study how political preferences evolve through a campaign, she might recruit a panel of registered
voters and track them, but if her focus is on accurate estimates of candidate preference at any given point in
time, she is more likely to use a series of independent surveys.

• An experiment is a study in which the researcher actively manipulates one or more experimental variables,
then measures the effects of these manipulations on a dependent variable of interest, which can be measured
by either observation or self-report. For example, a researcher interested in knowing which of two
advertisements has a stronger effect on willingness to buy a product could conduct a survey that measures
respondents’ awareness of each ad and willingness to buy, and correlate willingness to buy with awareness of
each ad. Alternately, the researcher could show participants either one ad or the other, with random
assignment, and measure subsequent willingness to buy. The goal of experimentation is to verify that the
observed relationships are causal, not just correlational.
In survey research, experiments have proved to be powerful tools for studying effects of survey question
wording on response. Much of what we know about how to write good survey questions is a product of
experimental research, in which alternative versions of questions intended to measure the same construct are
compared. For example, through experimentation, researchers learned that asking whether respondents
thought a certain behavior should be “allowed” or “forbidden” can produce different response distributions,
even when the alternative wordings logically mean the same thing. There is a very large literature on this
response effects research. Classic works include Sudman and Bradburn (1974), Schuman and Presser (1981),
and Tourangeau, Rips, and Rasinski (2000).
Exhibit 1.1 summarizes how surveys relate to other data collection methods.

Exhibit 1.1 Other Data Collection Methods

Method Strength vs. Surveys Weakness vs. Surveys

Observation Not subject to reporting bias Can’t measure mental states; not efficient for
measuring infrequent behaviors

Depth Can probe freely and go into depth Expensive, poor population coverage
interviews

Focus Can probe freely and go into depth; can Expensive, poor population coverage
groups see social dynamics

Panels Shows changes over time Expensive; a limited number of people will
participate

Experiments Strong test of causation Difficult to do outside lab

15
16
THE COMBINATION OF DISCIPLINES

Survey research is inherently interdisciplinary. Sampling and estimation have a theoretical basis in probability
theory and statistics; to select an efficient sample requires some knowledge of those areas. Data collection
involves persuasion of respondents and then, on some level, social interaction between them and interviewers.
Developing questionnaires and conducting interviews require writing skills to construct questions that elicit
desired information using language that respondents can easily understand and do not find too difficult to
answer. Interviews or questionnaires that use computers or the Internet require programming or other
specialized skills. Very few survey professionals have hands-on expertise in all of these areas, but they do have
a basic understanding of what needs to be done to successfully implement each part of a survey.
Unlike some scientific or scholarly enterprises, surveys are usually a team effort of many people with diverse
skills. One can find examples of surveys designed and implemented by the lone researcher, but they are the
exception. Even if the researcher who formulates the research questions also designs the questionnaire and
analyzes the data, that person will almost always use help in sample design, data collection, and database
construction. Whether a survey is done by a research organization or as a class project, there is division of
labor, coordination of tasks, and management of the costs.
To design and implement a quality survey within available resources, the practitioner relies on a relatively
small number of statistical principles and practical guidelines. The goal of this book is to explain those
fundamentals and illustrate how they are applied to effectively conduct small- to moderate-scale surveys.

17
THE SOCIAL AND SOCIETAL CONTEXT

Survey practices and methodology change as our knowledge grows and our experience increases. And, of
course, just as in every other field, changes in technology affect survey design and implementation. It is also
important to be sensitive to the impact of societal, demographic, and cultural changes on survey practice.
For example, 40 years ago, most national surveys in the United States were conducted only in English. The
proportion of the population that was fluent only in some other language was considered small enough that
the cost of interviewing in those languages could not be justified. The decrease in coverage was too small to be
of concern. Today, any important national survey allows for, at a minimum, Spanish-language interviews and
often interviews in additional languages. This allows inclusion of both people who do not speak English at all
and those who, although they can communicate in English, are much more at ease in their first language.
Likewise, many states, or smaller areas, have large enclaves of non-English-language groups. The California
Health Interview Survey is conducted in several Asian languages, partly for reasons of coverage of the entire
state population, but also because of the need to sample enough people in some of these groups for their
separate analysis.
The need to accommodate different languages is just part of a larger imperative to be aware of different
cultural norms. A more detailed discussion is beyond the scope of this book, but this is just one example of
how changes within society affect how we go about conducting surveys.
General social norms can also have important effects. People’s willingness to allow a stranger into their
homes has greatly changed since the middle of the last century when in-person household interviews were the
norm. Such surveys are still conducted, but the costs and procedures necessary to make them successful have
limited the practice to only the most well-funded programs. Similarly, in recent decades, the rise of
telemarketing and telephone screening devices has affected researchers’ success in contacting members of the
general population by telephone and, once contacted, securing their participation in telephone surveys. The
rise of cell phones and the Internet continues the accelerating technological change that can be a benefit or an
obstacle to conducting surveys. One indicator of the impact of these factors on survey practice can be seen in
the shifting proportions of surveys administered by mail, phone, web, or in person, as shown in Figure 1.1.
Societal changes can occur at different rates in different parts of the population. Some new technologies, for
example, may be initially adopted more heavily by younger than older people or by the more affluent than less
affluent. Such patterns can become fixed or be only a step along the way to wider diffusion through the
population. How important it is for a survey designer to take account of some technical development or
changing social norm may depend on what population the survey targets.

Figure 1.1 Survey Mode by Year

18
Source: Adapted from information in the newsletter Survey Research, a publication of the Survey Research Laboratory, University of Illinois,
Chicago and Urbana-Champaign.

19
ETHICAL TREATMENT OF SAMPLE MEMBERS

A subtext in the discussion of the societal context of a survey is that the survey designer must accommodate
the potential survey respondents. Respondents are volunteers we depend on. They are not obligated to
participate, but the extent to which they agree to participate affects the survey’s success, its cost, and, in some
ways, its quality. Later, we will consider in detail methods to elicit the cooperation of sample members.
However, the methods we can use are not just determined by their effectiveness. There are ethical boundaries
we cannot cross. There are two concepts central to our treatment of respondents: informed consent and
protection of confidentiality.
While we apply extensive efforts to obtain respondents’ cooperation in the survey, the respondents’
agreement must be reasonably informed. This means that we must not mislead respondents as to the nature
and purpose of the research. We must honestly answer their questions about the project, including who is
sponsoring it, its major purposes, the amount of time and effort that will be required of respondents, the
general nature of the subject matter, and the use that will be made of the data. We must not badger or try to
intimidate respondents either into participating or into answering particular questions after they agree to be
interviewed.
Once respondents have agreed to be interviewed, we then assume an obligation to protect the
confidentiality of their answers. This is true whether or not we have explicitly told respondents we will do so.
Results or data sets that permit the identification of individual respondents should never be made available to
others.
These ethical guidelines are recognized by the major professional organizations of survey researchers and
are typically overseen by human subjects review committees at universities and other organizations that engage
in population research.
These obligations are no less applicable when a project is conducted by a class or a large team of researchers
than when a single researcher is involved. In fact, additional cautions may need to be observed in the former
situation because there are additional opportunities for inadvertent breaches of these ethical guidelines when
many people are privy to the sample and the data.
Revealing or discussing an individual respondent’s answers outside of the research group is inappropriate.
Also, it is not proper to recontact survey respondents for purposes not related to the research for which they
originally agreed to participate. The sample list used for a survey should not be made available to others (even
other legitimate researchers) without the additional consent of the respondents. If the data are made available
to another party, all identifiers that would permit linking answers to individuals should be removed.

20
APPROACH AND OVERVIEW

The main concern in designing and conducting a survey is to achieve the research or other data collection
objectives within available resources. Sometimes the initial objectives may be adjusted along the way to
accommodate resource constraints or practical obstacles, but we must not lose sight of them. For example,
assume that during planning, we determine that the budget is insufficient for both the preferred sample size
and number of survey questions. In such a circumstance, it may be necessary either to reduce the sample size
and forego separate analyses of some subgroups that will not be possible with fewer respondents or to reduce
the length of the interview and eliminate topics of secondary interest. But we still proceed toward a clear set of
objectives. Along with those objectives, we need a sense of how good the survey needs to be for our purposes.
“Good” can be specified in a number of ways, which we will return to. Many conceptions of survey quality
involve the idea of accuracy or, conversely, of error. In the next chapter, we consider the types of error surveys
are subject to. Following this, we provide an overview of survey planning and implementation, from
determining the main survey methods to the decisions and tasks at each stage of carrying out the survey. The
means of collecting the data is, along with sample size, the main factor in survey cost. Factors in choosing a
method of data collection are covered in the next chapter. Three chapters each are devoted to sampling and
then to questionnaire development. Following these topics is a chapter on conducting data collection while
controlling the main sources of error in that stage of the survey. The last chapter describes the key post–data
collection activities, including preparing a report of the survey methodology.
Two Methodology Appendixes deal with topics of particular importance, at a greater level of detail:
Questionnaire Evaluation Workshop and Cognitive Interviewing Workshop. Two other Methodology
Appendixes focus on Using Models in Sampling and An Overview of Organization Surveys. Throughout the
book, we emphasize the value of resources available on the Internet. Appendix D lists several sources that are
of particular importance themselves or that provide links to additional information.

21
 TWO
SURVEY ERROR

S
urvey researchers use the term error to refer to “deviations of obtained survey results from those that are true
reflections of the population” (Groves, 1989 p. 6). In this chapter, we provide a framework for understanding:

• The types of error that occur in surveys

• The sources of error in each stage of the survey
• The idea of total survey error

Survey findings are essentially probabilistic generalizations. The sampling process provides a statistical basis
for making inferences from the survey sample to the population. The implementation of the sampling and
data collection are subject to error that can erode the strength of those inferences.
We can visualize how this erosion happens if we imagine the perfect sample survey. The survey design and
questionnaire satisfy all the research goals. A list is available that includes accurate information about every
population member for sampling purposes. The selected sample precisely mirrors all facets of the population
and its myriad subgroups. Each question in the instrument is absolutely clear and captures the dimension of
interest exactly. Every person selected for the sample is contacted and immediately agrees to participate in the
study. The interviewers conduct the interview flawlessly and never—by their behavior or even their mere
presence—affect respondents’ answers. The respondents understand every question exactly as the researcher
intended, know all the requested information, and always answer truthfully and completely. Their responses
are faithfully recorded and entered, without error, into a computer file. The resulting data set is a model of
validity and reliability.
Except for trivial examples, we cannot find such a paragon. Each step in conducting a survey has the
potential to move us away from this ideal, sometimes a little, sometimes a great deal. Just as all the processes
and players in our survey can contribute to obtaining accurate information about the target population, so can
each reduce that accuracy. We speak of these potential reductions in accuracy as sources of survey error.1
Every survey contains survey errors, most of which cannot be totally eliminated within the limits of our
resources.
To design and implement an effective survey, we must recognize which sources of error pose the greatest
threat to survey quality and how the design and implementation of the survey will affect its exposure to various
sources of error. The critical sources of error will differ depending on the survey objectives, topic, population,
and its methods of sampling and data collection.

22
TYPES AND SOURCES OF ERROR

When we work with survey data, we typically want our data to provide an accurate representation of the
broader population. For example, assume that your friend is running for election to the local school district
board, and you agree to do a survey to help her learn what people think about the issues. If your data show
that 64% of the respondents want the school district to place more emphasis on reading skills, you want this
64% figure to be an accurate reflection of feelings among the population at large. There are three reasons why
it might not be:

• Sampling error, also known as sample variance

• Sample bias
• Nonsampling error

Sampling Error

Sampling error refers to the fact that samples don’t always reflect a population’s true characteristics, even if
the samples are drawn using fair procedures. For example, if you flip a coin 10 times, then 10 more times,
then 10 more times, and so on, you won’t always get five “heads” out of 10 flips. The percentage of “heads” in
any given sample will be affected by chance variation. In the same way, if you ask 100 people whether the
school district should cut other programs to place more emphasis on reading, the percentage that answer
affirmatively will be affected by chance variation in the composition of the sample.
The level of sampling error is controlled by sample size. Ultimately, if the sample encompasses the entire
population (i.e., the sample is a complete census of the population), then sampling error would be zero,
because the sample equals the population. More generally, as samples get larger and larger, the distribution of
possible sample outcomes gets tighter and tighter around the true population figure, as long as the samples are
not biased in some way. To put it another way, larger samples have less chance of producing results that are
uncharacteristic of the population as a whole. We expand upon these points in Chapters 5, 6, and 7 and show
how to set sample size based on acceptable levels of sampling error.

Sample Bias

Sample bias refers to the possibility that members of a sample differ from the larger population in some
systematic fashion. For example, if you are conducting a survey related to a school bond election, and you limit
interviews to people with school children, then your results may not reflect opinions among voters at large; if
nothing else, people with school children may be more likely to support bonds to pay for school
improvements. Similarly, if your sample contains a disproportionately large percentage of older people because
you didn’t make the callbacks needed to find younger people, or if your sampling procedure underrepresents
married versus single people, then you are likely to have sample bias.
Sample bias can arise in three general ways. Coverage bias will occur if some segment of the population is
improperly excluded from consideration in the sample or is not available through the method employed in the
research. Conducting interviews near school grounds with parents as they arrive to pick up their children and
implicitly limiting the sample to people with school children is an example of potential coverage bias if the
population of interest is the broader electorate. Likewise, conducting a telephone survey implicitly limits the
sample to people with telephones, and conducting an online survey implicitly limits the sample to people with
online access, either of which will exclude some low-income households, resulting in potential coverage bias if
these households differ from the broader population on the items being measured.
Selection bias will occur if some population groups are given disproportionately high or low chances of
selection. For example, if you conduct telephone interviews using conventional household landlines, and you
take the first adult to answer the phone, then married people will only have one chance in two of being
selected within their household, while single people have one chance in one, and married people will thus tend
to be underrepresented in a sample of possible voters.
Finally, even if the sample is fairly drawn, nonresponse bias will occur if failure to respond is
disproportionate across groups. For example, if you send e-mails inviting people to click through to a survey
on issues related to the local schools, people who are less interested in those issues are probably less likely to

23
respond. If one of the topics on the survey concerns willingness to pay higher taxes to support the schools,
there may be substantial differences between respondents and nonrespondents on this topic, resulting in
nonresponse bias.
Unlike sampling error, sample bias is not controlled by sample size. Increasing the sample size does nothing
to remove systematic biases. Rather, sample bias is controlled by defining the population of interest prior to
drawing the sample, attempting to maximize population coverage, selecting a sample that fairly represents the
entire population, and obtaining data from as much of the selected sample as possible.

Nonsampling Error

Nonsampling error consists of all error sources unrelated to the sampling of respondents. Sources of
nonsampling error include interviewer error related to the administration of the survey, response error related
to the accuracy of response as given, and coding error related to the accuracy of response as recorded. All of
these may result in either random or systematic errors in the data. If random, they will add to random
sampling error to increase the level of random variation in the data. If systematic, they will be a source of bias
in the data, much like sample bias.
One source of interviewer error is cheating; the interviewer fails to administer the questionnaire, or portions
of the questionnaire, and simply fabricates the data. Cheating is controlled through some form of validation,
in which a supervisor or a third party verifies that the interview was conducted and key questions were asked.
This is typically done by telephone; when the interview is conducted, whether face-to-face or by phone, the
respondent is asked for a telephone number and told that a supervisor may call to verify the interview for
quality control purposes. Typically, 10% to 20% of interviews are validated. For surveys that are done on
location, validation may be done on site by a supervisor. For telephone surveys that are conducted in
centralized telephone interviewing facilities, validation may be replaced by monitoring interviews as they are
conducted, so the interviewer never knows when the supervisor will be listening in.
Interviewer error also may stem from question administration error, in which the interviewer does
something other than read the question as intended, or probing error. Regarding errors in question
administration, the interviewer may skip a question that should not be skipped, ask a question that should be
skipped, omit part of the question, misread the question, add to the question, or add some vocal inflection or
body language that conveys a point of view. Any of these actions, of course, may influence the response. With
respect to probing, if the respondent expresses confusion about the question or gives an inadequate answer,
interviewers are usually instructed to give neutral probes that do not presume an answer or convey a point of
view; for example:

• If the respondent says he or she did not follow the question, simply reread it.
• If the respondent asks about the meaning of some term, read a preset definition or say “whatever it means
to you.”
• If the respondent gives an answer to an open-ended question that is insufficiently specific, ask, “Can you
be more specific?” or “When you say X, what do you mean?”
• If the respondent gives an answer to a closed-ended question that does not match the categories, ask,
“Would you say [reread categories]?”

If the interviewer fails to probe an answer that should be probed, probes in a manner that changes the
question, presumes a certain answer, or leads the respondent toward a certain answer, then any of these
actions may influence the quality of response.
Question administration error and probing error are controlled through interviewer training. When first
hired, interviewers receive training that covers general principles such as “ask the question as written” and
when and how to probe. Subsequently, interviewers are given specific instructions and training for any survey
that they work on. This training normally includes at least one practice interview conducted under a
supervisor’s direction. The better the training, the lower the exposure to errors of this type. Also, data
collection may be spread across multiple interviewers, so any idiosyncrasies among interviewers manifest
themselves as variance across interviewers rather than bias from a single data source.
The next general source of nonsampling error is response error. Response error may occur for at least three
different reasons. Comprehension error will occur if the respondent does not understand a question correctly
or if different respondents understand it in different ways. For example, in a survey of school district issues, if

24
you ask respondents what priority they would give to programs for the development of reading skills, will they
know what you mean by programs and skills? Will some of them think about instruction for preschoolers while
others think about older students with reading deficiencies? Will this affect their answers? Comprehension
errors often stem from questions that are poorly thought out or poorly written, and they are controlled
through careful question design as well as pretesting the questionnaire to ensure that respondents understand
the questions as intended.
Knowledge error may occur if respondents do not know the answer to the question, or cannot recall it
accurately, but still provide an answer to the best of their ability. For example, if you ask parents how often
their children fail to eat all of their lunches at school, will parents know the answer? If you ask parents how
many hours per evening their children have spent on homework over the past month, will they be able to
recall accurately over this time frame? As with other forms of nonsampling error, knowledge errors may be
either random or systematic and hence a source of either increased variance or bias in the data. These errors
are generally controlled by getting the right respondent, screening for knowledge if appropriate, writing
questions that are realistic about what people might know, and matching the time frame of the question to a
plausible recall period for the phenomenon in question.
Reporting error may occur if respondents hesitate to provide accurate answers, perhaps because certain
responses are socially desirable or undesirable, or perhaps because respondents wish to maintain privacy. For
example, if you ask parents to report their children’s grades, they may be tempted to give answers that are
higher than the truth. If you ask parents to report how often their children have been given disciplinary
actions at school, they may underreport. Reporting errors may be random but often are a source of systematic
bias for sensitive questions These errors are controlled in a variety of ways, including professionalism in the
survey to convince respondents that you care whether they answer but not what they answer, or using self-
report methods so the respondent does not have to present himself or herself to an interviewer.
The final source of nonsampling error is coding error. For open-ended questions, the coder may
misinterpret the answer and assign the wrong numerical code to be entered in the data. For categorical
questions, the interviewer (or respondent) may mark the wrong category. Also, for paper questionnaires,
interviewers or coders may select the correct code or category, but at the data entry stage, someone may enter
data incorrectly. To control such errors, open-ended questions may be assigned to at least two coders to
identify and resolve inconsistencies. Likewise, data may be double-entered to identify and resolve
inconsistencies. Also, questionnaires are edited to verify that the answers appear to be correctly recorded and
to check for interitem consistency where applicable (this process is automated for computer-based
questionnaires). In some cases, respondents may be recontacted to resolve apparent errors or inconsistencies.
Overall, nonsampling error is controlled, to the extent possible, by doing a good job of training and
supervising interviewers, using good questionnaire design, and exercising good control over coding and data
entry.

25
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
need scarcely be added—expressed by his father for his tastes and
occupation. Rupert has half a dozen graceful talents, which, if the roof of
the house is not to be blown off, must be hidden under a pile of bushels. Sir
George must be kept in ignorance that his last surviving son stoops to
singing in a Madrigal Society, draws clever caricatures of Tory statesmen
for a weekly, and writes brilliant little leaders for a new Liberal daily paper.
When he has been away Lavinia has always missed her cousin. This last
time has seemed more irksome than any previous one; partly because more
has happened than is usually the case in the week of his absence; partly, as
she tells herself with heartfelt congratulation, because she must have grown
much fonder of him. There can be no question now as to its being “to please
herself” that she is marrying Rupert, since she plainly cannot do without
him.
They have left the farm behind them, and, dipping down into a valley-
let, are passing through a hop-garden, where the eye travels through the
long vista of bare poles to little blue air-pictures at the end. From a
chestnut-brake near by, a nightingale, mimicked by a throstle, is whit-
whitting and glug-glugging. They pause to listen.
“I wish it was over,” says Lavinia, presently, continuing a theme which
Philomel had interrupted. “I dread it unaccountably; no, not unaccountably!
I suppose ’twould be odd if I did not?”
“I can’t help grudging him to Féodorovna!” answers Rupert, rather sadly.
“We have so much more right to him.”
“But we could not have made him a quarter as comfortable,” rejoins
Lavinia. “You know how elaborate her arrangements were; and since Mr.
Prince put his foot down about allowing her to have only two at a time,
Captain Binning has had the benefit of almost all her attentions.”
“A doubtful good that!”
“She does not think much of the other one!” pursues Lavinia, half-
laughing. “He has had a bit of his nose and half his upper lip shot away,
poor fellow! but, unfortunately, it was not in action, but while he was sitting
at luncheon on the veldt.”
“And Binning! Was my father much upset by the interview?”
Lavinia sighs. “At first I thought he was going to have one of those
dreadful dry agonies such as he used to have at first; but, thank God, that
passed off, and then he could talk a little—tell me a little about him.” With
an afterthought, “He was quite nice in what he said.”
“You mean that he did not institute any comparisons!” says the young
man, reading between the lines, and with that unfortunate plate-glass view
into his companion’s thoughts which she often inwardly deplores.
“None. I had much rather have put off my visit a little later,” continues
Miss Carew—they are strolling on again—“until the poor man had
recovered his strength a little. His wound is not half healed yet, and he was
much exhausted by his journey; but Féodorovna insists on my going to-day;
she says that he has expressed a great wish to see me, and that, as far as her
power to gratify him goes, he shall not be balked in his slightest whim.”
Rupert lifts his eyebrows. “Already, my Féo?” he says, in sarcastic
apostrophe of the absent fair one.
Lavinia has indulged herself in a light mimicry of Miss Prince’s tones,
which always amuses them both; and they walk on mutually pleased.
“I shall just have time to run into the Rectory before I go!” says Lavinia,
an hour later, when their pleasantly sauntering steps have brought them
home again.
A very slight cloud passes over the young man’s face.
“I have never yet known an action of yours which was not prefaced by
that run,” he says. “If you were to be told that the last trump was to sound in
ten minutes, you would answer, ‘I shall just have time to run into the
Rectory first.’ ”
“Perhaps I should!” answers she, aggravatingly, walking off and kissing
her hand.
It is in compliance with an offer from the younger Darcys to exhibit the
newly hatched turkeys, that Lavinia is running counter to her lover’s
prejudice. She finds them on the banks of the “Tugela River,” a somewhat
duck-muddied ditch which runs under the hedge by the henhouse, and is at
once led to the pen where Daphne is feeding the turkey-chicks with a mess
in which chopped onion—of which, in its bulb state, she mostly carries a
specimen in her pocket as a precautionary measure—predominates.
“Clergyman has brought out three more than he did last year,” says the
child, triumphantly, looking up from the pipkin in her lap.
 “Clergyman!” repeats Miss Carew, with a cavilling glance at the large
and motherly Brahma hen under the coop. “I thought all your hens were
soldiers.”
“So they are,” answers Phillida, matter-of-factly. “Clergyman is an Army
chaplain.”
“Do you perceive that Daphne has become a walking onion?” asks Mrs.
Darcy, joining the party, and holding her pocket-handkerchief to her nose.
“The smell goes all through the house! It wakes us at night.”
She says it with humorous resignation, and they both laugh. The
situation between the friends is no longer strained. Susan is almost quite
silent; and Lavinia is almost quite confident on the subject upon which they
know that they differ so widely. Like a generous opponent, Mrs. Darcy has
thrown herself heart and soul into the clothes—not many—and the
rearrangements of the house—not many either—which the approaching
wedding entails.
“There never could be a marriage which made so little change in
anybody’s life.”
Lavinia has said, in a tone of self-congratulation, “The thing that hath
been shall be!” and Susan has answered inoffensively in appearance, “Yes?”
But the “Yes” is interrogative, and its monosyllable brings to the girl the
flashed realization that what she has said is absolutely false; that though she
will live within the same walls, take the same walks, look on the same
windmills and oast-houses, yet the change to herself will be enormous,
irrevocable, unescapable. But that it will be wholly for the better, she has so
nearly convinced herself, that it is with a very stout look and high courage,
that she now says—
“Rupert came back last night. I was so thankful. We had so much to talk
about.”
“You have been telling him of the event of the neighbourhood, I
suppose?” answers Mrs. Darcy; her eye fixed rather intentionally upon her
two elder daughters, who between them are lugging a large turkey-hen, who
is not intended to sit, from a primrosy nest improvised in the Tugela bank
—“the opening of Féodorovna Prince’s hospital?”
“I am on my way to visit one of the patients,” replies Lavinia. “That
reminds me I must be off! I wish it was over! I wonder why I dread it so
much?”
 “It is never pleasant to have one’s old cuts torn open,” answers Mrs.
Darcy.
The explanation is rational, even to obviousness; but it is not
satisfactory. Painful and tear-producing as the scene between herself and the
man who was the innocent cause of poor Bill’s death must naturally be, the
feeling that had existed between herself and her cousin, though warm and
true, had not been of a nature to account for the state of trepidating dread
with which she approaches the interview. And yet is it all dread? Is not
there, too, a strong element of excited anticipation, that has no kinship with
pain? Is it the spring, that incorrigible merry-maker, that is answerable for
her elation? Is it the determined budding of everything about her, that
makes her feel as if she were budding too? Is it because Rupert has
returned? For a quarter of a mile she tries to persuade herself that this is the
reason; but the negative that is given in her for intérieur is so emphatic and
persistent that she has to accept it.
Passing the edge of the King’s Wood, she steps aside to pick one or two
of the myriad wood anemones that, vanquishing the piled dead leaves more
successfully than the primroses, floor it with their pensive poetic heads and
graceful green collars. Rupert is always pleased when she presents him with
a posy. They would be fresher if she waited to gather them on her way
back; but some obscure instinct, which she does not in the least recognize,
hints darkly to her that on her way back she will perhaps not remember to
pay the little attention. As she looks at the drooped heads blushing pinkily
in her hand, she tries idly to picture what her impression of Rupert would be
were it he whom she were about to see for the first time. She tries to picture
his head lying in patient pain upon a pillow—yes; so far imagination obeys
easily: Rupert would be patient enough; he has had a good apprenticeship,
poor fellow!—his cheeks hollowed with suffering—yes; fancy runs along
docilely enough still: they are not too plump already; no one can accuse
Rupert of superfluous flesh—his chest swathed in bandages, where the
Mauser bullet took its clean course through his body, so closely shaving his
heart. No!
She has gone too far! Imagination strikes work; confessing its utter
inability to represent her future husband as prostrated by a wound received
in battle! She walks on, quickening her pace, and vaguely irritated with
herself. It was a senseless and mischievous exercise of fancy, and she had
no business to indulge in it.
 CHAPTER VIII
The spring—or is it the spring?—has been playing its genial game with
Mrs. Prince, too, as is evident by the restored importance of her gait, as she
sweeps out of the orchid-house, whither Lavinia has pursued her, and by the
smoothed and satisfied visage—changed, indeed, from that which she had
worn two months ago in announcing her daughter’s mysterious
correspondence with the Cavalry Officer Commanding at Canterbury—
which she turns towards her visitor.
“Did you walk,” she asks, “this warm day? Sir George wanted the
horses, I suppose? It must be awkward having only one pair. If I had
known, I should have been so delighted to send for you!”
There is sincere welcome in words and voice, coupled with that touch of
patronage which—as employed towards a member of the oldest and
somewhile most important family of the countryside, Mrs. Prince and
Lavinia have—before the former’s parental woes had made both forget it—
found respectively so agreeable and so galling.
“Thanks, but I like walking.”
“Féo will be here in a minute. I told them to let her know the moment
you arrived. She is with her patients! She is never anywhere else now!
Thrown up all her engagements; devotes herself wholly to them.”
It is clear that, in pre-Candle days, Mrs. Prince had said “ ’olly;” but the
victory over the early infirmity is so complete as to be marked only by an
intensity of aspirate unknown to those whose h’s have grown up with them.
“It is certainly the most unobjectionable craze she has ever had!” replies
Lavinia, whose withers are still slightly wrung by the allusion to her
horselessness; and who is reflecting how much less under-bred a thing
adversity is than prosperity.
“When I say ‘patients,’ ” pursues Mrs. Prince, not in the least offended
by, in fact, not hearing, Miss Carew’s observation, “I ought to put it in the
singular; for I must own she does not take much notice of poor
Smethurst”—pausing to laugh; then, proceeding in a tone of wondering
admiration, “Isn’t it astonishing what they do in the way of surgery now?
Nurse Blandy tells me that they are going—the doctors, I mean—to make
him a new end to his nose, and turn his lip inside out, and I don’t know
what all!”
“Poor creature! How terrible!”—shuddering.
“As for the other one, Binning, there is nothing good enough for him! At
first she was all for nursing him entirely herself, not letting Nurse Blandy,
no, nor Nurse Rice either, go near him; but there her father put his foot
down!—you know Mr. Prince does put his foot down now and then—and
he said to her, ‘No, Féo, my child, you may turn my house into a
shambles’—we thought then there would have to be an operation—‘and a
drug store, but I will not have my daughter lay herself open to a prosecution
for manslaughter; and that is what it would come to—for as sure as ever
you nurse him, he’ll die!”
Lavinia had not felt inclined to laugh before, but she now smiles broadly
in pleased approval.
“She was mad at first,” continues the narrator; “but she had to give in;
and I really do not see that she has much to complain of, for she is with him
all day, and half the night!”
Lavinia hopes that the slight shudder with which she hears this statement
—a shudder born of a compassion sharper and deeper than poor Mr.
Smethurst’s ingloriously shattered features had called forth—is not visible
to the eye of Miss Prince’s mother.
“Of course, at first,” pursues the latter, “the great attraction was that he
had been in General ——’s Brigade—that dreadful business!”—with a
distressful crease of reminiscence on her placid brow. “It seems like a
horrible nightmare now! Yet, for the last day or two, I can’t help thinking it
is for himself that she is so taken up with him.” After a moment’s reflection,
“Well, after all, we know that he must be a fine fellow, by what he has
done; and though all his people are in India, I fancy he is highly
connected.”
The trend of the mother’s thoughts towards future developments is
apparent. But Lavinia is spared the effort to hide how dearly, in her opinion,
the wounded officer would buy his cure under the contingency glanced at,
by the appearance of Féodorovna herself—Féodorovna, beautified, vivified,
animated almost past recognition. It is not only that Miss Prince wears the
most becoming of created garbs, whose bewitchingness many a mother of
succumbing sons has cursed—the dress of a nurse; but her very features
seem to have lost some of their poverty and paltriness; and gained in
meaning and interest.
“Will you come at once, please? Mother, you have no right to delay
Lavinia,” she says, scarcely sparing time for the curtest greeting. “He
expects you, and a sick man should never be kept waiting.”
There is the authority and importance if a certificated official in voice
and manner, and Lavinia would be sarcastically amused, if once again and
more strongly than before, that trepidating dread of the coming interview
had not laid hold of her.
“I am ready,” she answers quietly. “I was only waiting for you.” She is
fighting tooth and nail with her agitation; telling herself what a Bedlamite
thing it is, all the way across the tesselated marble of the pretentious sitting-
hall, up the flights of the profoundly carpeted stairs, through the hot-water-
warmed passages; and in outward appearance it is conquered by the time
they reach and pause at a closed door.
“You must understand that he is not to be agitated in any way; that you
must not approach any painful subject,” says Féodorovna, in an
exasperating whisper of command.
“Wouldn’t it be better to put it off?” asks Miss Carew, in jarred recoiling
from the just-opening portal; but her companion frowns her down.
The bed is in a recess of the room, and the window-blind, partly drawn
down in defence against the westering blaze, confuses Miss Carew’s sight;
besides which her feet have halted near the threshold to allow time for her
own introduction, so that she hears the voice before she sees the face of the
wounded man.
“Miss Carew has come to see you!” Féodorovna explains, in a tiresome
carneying voice, leaning over the pillows. “But you must send her away the
moment you are tired of her; and you must not let her talk to you about
anything that is not quite pleasant and cheerful.”
Thus agreeably heralded by an implication of her own morose garrulity,
Lavinia approaches the invalid, hearing his answer, “I am exceedingly
grateful to her,” before she sees his face.
Often and often, in after-days, the fact that his first words concerning her
were an expression of gratitude recurs to her with a sense of the keenest
irony.
 “Do you wish to be tête-à-tête?” asks Féodorovna, when the whole and
the sick have silently touched each other’s hands; “or had you rather I
would stay?” and the answer, courteous in its subtlety—
“I am sure that you ought to rest; I am ashamed to think of how much
you have been doing for me to-day,” is divined by Lavinia to be not what
the asker had expected.
However, without flagrant breach of her own axiom, that a sick man is
not to be thwarted, she cannot avoid compliance, and with an officious
parting question, “Where shall she sit? Would you like her to be beside you,
or where you can see her better?” and a final fussing over phials and drinks,
takes her cap, her apron, and her cuffs away.
A sense of relief at her departure, coupled with a strong, shy impulse to
follow her, and that again with a far stronger one to snatch another look at
the just-glanced-at face of him for whom Bill had died, join to silence
Lavinia for the first moment or two. That the wish to be acquainted with
each other’s features must be reciprocal, is proved by the sick man’s first
words—
“Would you mind sitting in that chair?”
Her eyes first seek, then follow the direction of his, to see which chair he
means; and by the time she sits down obediently in it, they both know—will
know to the end of their lives—what each looks like.
He has been a strong man, will be a strong man again, thank God!
Why should she thank God for it? She flashes herself the inward
question, with an already catching breath. Large-framed, and as he lies on
his back in bed he looks prodigiously long, far longer than he really is; and,
thanks to the falling-in of his cheeks, his eyes, which in their normal state
must be of no greater size than they ought to be—and saucer-eyes are no
beauty in a man—oppress her with the large intentness of their gaze. In
their depths she seems to read an acquaintance with death that has yet not
flinched from him; but she knows that it is not death which is looking out at
her from them.
“Thank you for coming.”
“I liked to come.” She is sitting perfectly quiet; instinct and experience
combining to tell her how many sick-beds have cursed the rustling gown,
the meddling fingers, and the lugubriously watching eye. Her repose seems
to enter like balm into his soul.
 “You have been used to nursing?” he asks, though it sounds more like an
assertion than a question.
“Sometimes, when they have been ill, I have nursed”—“my men,” she is
going to say; but checks herself: to a perfect stranger she must not employ
her silly home-phrases—“I have nursed my uncle several times, and Rupert
twice, and—Bill once.” Her voice drops at framing the name which forms
the one sad link between them; and she has time to reproach herself for
having had the maladroitness and bad taste to introduce it before Binning
speaks again.
“Thank you for mentioning him to me,” he says, physical weakness
making him less master of his emotion than she divines that he would
normally be. “I was afraid that you would not be able to bear it.”
A panic of remorse at having done exactly what his improvised nurse
had forbidden her to do, and at once introduced a painful and agitating
theme, chokes for an imperceptible moment Lavinia’s answer. It is only the
reflection that, as a golden rule, whatever Féodorovna says or bids is sure to
have common sense and right as its exact opposite, calms her, and gives her
the power of steady and reassuring response.
“We always talk of him.”
“But to me?” he says, struggling in his agitation into what her nurse-
instinct tells her to be a forbidden effort to sit up.
At once her noiseless gown and her noble still figure are beside him.
“You must not get excited!” she says, laying a capable cool hand on his
gaunt shoulder; and at once he lies back, with a sudden sense of intense
well-being.
“I felt that you must all hate me,” he says in almost a whisper; and she
answers slow and stilly—
“I do not think we do.”
At that he lies content a while, drinking her in with the privileged
directness of the sick. What hair! What a beautiful, generous, rather large
mouth! What a divine sorrowful pity! What would have become of him, if
the likely, the almost certain, had happened, and she had hated him?
And Lavinia! He is the first to meet her eyes of the costly wreckage with
which the South African storm has strewn the shores of the motherland; he
is the comrade for whose life dear brave Bill thought it a small thing to lay
down his own; and as she knows that the deed which has stretched him in
suffering and weakness before her was as madly gallant as the one by
whose means he lived to do it, is it any wonder that she stands in a tranced
silence, drinking him in, as he is drinking her?
“I felt it very strongly when his father came to see me,” says Binning,
presently, still scarcely above his breath, and harking back to the fears he
had expressed of being abhorred by his dead friend’s family.
“It did him good to talk to you!” After a second or two, “He did not
grudge Bill—we none of us did; and it is the very death that Bill himself
would have chosen.”
“Yes; I know it is.”
There is, or she thinks it, a kind of envy in the acquiescent voice.
“And we all felt that you would have changed places with him if you
could, wouldn’t you?”
The surface motive of the speech is the kind and Christian one of
bringing comfort to a spirit that she divines to be as sorely wounded as the
brave body that holds it; but underneath there lurks another, scarcely known
even to herself. It is the question she had put to Rupert two months ago—to
Rupert, the unblushing candour of whose answering negative had given her
one of those accesses of repulsion towards him, which for the future it will
be a crime for her to indulge. A feverish and senseless curiosity prompts her
to repeat it now.
“Yes, I would.”
There is no asseveration to strengthen the assent; yet it carries a
conviction as deep—nay, much deeper, for she had tried not to believe the
latter—than Rupert’s confession that he would much rather not have died
for his brother. Retribution speedily overtakes her, in the sting of sudden
pain caused by the contrast she herself has brought out, into salience; and
conscious of the unworthiness of her double motive, she finds herself
unable to bear the gratitude of his eyes. They are hazel, and have eagleish
yellow lights in them, as one part of herself tells another part some time
after she has left him.
“It was such a strange coincidence that I should be sent here!” he says
presently, moving his languid head so that he may get a better view of her,
for she has sat down again, a little way off; “that I, of all people, should be
the first result of Miss Prince’s request to General —— at Canterbury to
have some of us to nurse. When I realized what neighbourhood it was that I
was to be brought to—when I heard that you were near neighbours, I had
almost given it up at the last moment!”
“We should have been sorry for that.”
There is a measured reassuring kindness in her words; but he feels
suddenly chilled. It must strike her own ears as too measured; for she adds
—
“We should have liked to have had you ourselves; my uncle has said so
repeatedly; but we have no appliances! We could not have made you nearly
so comfortable as you are here!”
His eyes, large with leanness, roll round the spacious airiness of the
apartment.
“I am in the lap of luxury!” he says; but though there is gratitude in his
tone, enthusiasm is absent.
After that they are silent for a little space. He must be talking too much.
She has been enjoined not to tire him, and if she sends up his temperature,
she will not be allowed to come again! The first two are confessed
apprehensions walking boldly up the front stairs of her mind. The third, on
shoeless feet, is creeping up the back! To him, it appears that her last
retirement to her chair has left her more distant than at first, and he marvels
at the subtlety of his own ruse to bring her back to the bedside.
“Would you mind telling me the name of the flowers you are wearing?”
“Wood anemones.”
“Do they smell good?”
“I do not think they have any scent.” There is a moment’s struggle
between the maiden and the nurse in her; and then the nurse prevails.
“Would you like to try?” she asks, with her first smile—first epoch-making
curving into dimples of her grave mouth.
She is beside him once again, and gives the blossoms into his fever-
wasted hand. He holds them gratefully to his nostrils; and it is, of course, by
accident that they touch his lips too.
“Not smell! Why, they have the whole blessed spring crammed into
them!”
Again she smiles—her slow, rich smile—not claiming her posy—
Rupert’s posy—back; but just standing by him, enjoying his enjoyment.
Not, however, for long. The door opens with a fidgetingly careful turning of
the handle, and a needlessly cautious foot crosses the carpet. Féodorovna, a
bovril-bearing tray in her hand, stands between them.
“You are quite worn out!” she says, in a voice of mixed condolence and
counsel. “Miss Carew shall not stay a moment longer! She shall go at
once!”
The tone implies that Lavinia has shamelessly outstayed her welcome,
and her cheek burns for a moment, then resumes its cool pink. Féodorovna
means no offence. It is only her way of showing what an adept she is in her
new profession. The speech’s effect upon the patient is a much stronger one.
“Oh no! Why should she?” he exclaims energetically, with another of
those forbidden struggles of his to sit up.
In authoritatively compelling him into recumbence again, Miss Prince’s
cap-strings somehow get into her victim’s eyes. Lavinia’s last sight of him
is lying back exhausted by the remedies applied, much more than by his
own imprudent movement; smiling faintly, with a patience much superior
even to that which he had exhibited while lying wounded at the donga-
bottom, through the endless hours of the winter night; smiling, while
Féodorovna, taking it for granted that he feels faint, fans him with a vigour
that makes the end of his pinched nose and his tired eyelids tremble.
 CHAPTER IX
Féodorovna has ejected her so early that she need not go home at once.
This is Lavinia’s first thought on getting outside the house. It is but rarely
that Miss Carew is not wanted in her own little milieu; but to-day she would
be superfluous. Her uncle and Rupert are busy with the lawyer, who has
come down from London—busy over settlements: a settlement upon
herself; provision for the younger children—her younger children, hers and
Rupert’s! If she walk very fast, perhaps she may outwalk this last thought.
But it is a good walker; it keeps up with her. Possibly she might lose it in
the wood. The idea results in a détour, which will involve passing through a
portion of it. The word “wood” is perhaps a misnomer, for the grown trees
are few and sparse; and yet by what other name can you describe these
silvan miles of young chestnut, oak, and birch growths, that every ten years
fall beneath the hatchet, to continually renew their tireless upspringing?
Where only recently amputated stumps remain, the flowers grow far the
lushest.
She pauses on reaching a spot where a quarter-acre of ground is utterly
given over to the innocent loveliness of the cuckoo-flower, dog-violet,
primrose, “firstborn child of Ver,” and purpling wood anemone. She stands
looking down at them, as if she had never seen them before; as if these
lowly, lifelong friends were the new-seen blossoms of a nobler planet. What
has happened to her senses, that she sees and hears and smells with such
three-fold keenness? Why does she feel so startlingly alive? The wonder
drives Rupert’s younger children successfully into the background of her
mind. Yet this bounding new consciousness of the splendour of life—life
actual, this bursting irrepressible life of the field and the woodland—and
life possible—cannot answer, when the roll-call of emotions is called, to the
name of pleasure.
Life possible!—it is a hooded anonymous thing, that she dare not
interrogate. In its presence her thoughts draw in their antennæ, like a sea-
creature’s suddenly touched. She starts away from the little woodland
garden, and walks hurriedly on, down a rough cart-track, rutty and caked
with the winter’s dried mud. Foolish extravagant analogies and comparisons
dart through her brain—not only dart, but tarry and pitch tents there. Her
life has been like this parched wintry road—a dull track for heavy-wheeled
days to grind and plough along; now it has turned suddenly into a
blossoming brake. Her eyes lift themselves in a frightened rapture to where
the descending sun’s beams thread with evening light the lovely thin green
of the birches, exquisitely breaking and shaming the tardier chestnuts.
“It is the spring!” she says to herself. “It has always made me feel
drunk!”
But the long vista of branches, all brownly, redly, greenly bursting, with
opulent variety of ideas, ahead of her, tells her that she lies.
* * * * *
Sir George is on the look out for her when she reaches home, and the
sight of his familiar figure, coupled with a remorseful fear of having been
wanted and not been within reach—an almost unparalleled occurrence in
her history—pulls her down to fact and earth again, without a moment’s
delay. Yet a single glance at her uncle’s face tells her that, despite her
truancy, she finds him in the best possible of humours.
“And where have you been gadding, miss?” he asks, in a tone that
reveals the highest complacency of which one so habitually gloomy is
capable.
“I thought you were busy with Mr. Ingram,” she answers, involuntarily
shirking the question.
“And so we have been,” returns he, his sombre face breaking into a
smile; “both Rupert and I! And very glad you ought to be that we have.”
“Ought I?”
“I was determined that you should have no excuse for wishing to hurry
me off,” continues Sir George, with rather acrid pleasantry, that has yet
every intention of being agreeable. “After all, what do I want?—a crust and
a glass of Marsala, an armchair and a pipe. So I have made over the whole
of his mother’s money to Rupert, and he has settled every penny of it on
you and your children.”
For a moment or two Lavinia is quite silent. Possibly surprise at her
uncle’s flight of imagination in the matter of the exiguity of his own needs;
possibly also choking gratitude; and possibly, again, the sudden
confrontation with the younger children, whom she had thought to have
buried in the wood, keep her dumb.
 “You are very good to me,” she answers at last, in a tone which sounds
to herself the ne plus ultra of thankless flatness; but in which her hearer
happily recognizes only an acknowledgment, faltering from the excess of its
obligation.
“Whom else have we got to be good to but our little Mosquito?” he asks,
using the perfectly inappropriate pet-name which has always indicated the
high-water mark of his favour. “And now that we have her safe for life—I
have sometimes had my misgivings as to our doing that—we must do what
we can for her; yes, we must do what we can for her!”
There is always something oppressive in the lightness of the habitually
heavy, in the jollity of the habitually morose; and Sir George’s elation sits
like lead upon his niece’s heart. She reproaches herself bitterly for it. Has
not her whole life’s aim been to make him happy? And now that by his
manner he is showing a cheerfulness higher than he had ever enjoyed even
before the news of Bill’s death reached him, by what odious perversity are
her own spirits dropping down to zero? Her one consolation is that he
departs complacently, without the dimmest suspicion of her mental attitude.
With Rupert—Rupert, who knows her like the palm of his own hand—her
task will be incalculably harder. It has to be undertaken almost
immediately; for her betrothed at once takes his father’s place.
“Has he told you?” asks the young man, coming up to her, as she stands
slowly pulling off her gloves by the needless drawing-room fire. “Isn’t it
splendid of him? He would have stripped himself even more entirely if I
had let him—to the bone, in fact.”
The speaker’s eyes, sometimes gently cynical, are alive and shining with
recent emotion, gratitude, and pleasure. In them she also reads the desire for
an embrace. Why she does not meet it with the not particularly reluctant
acquiescence that is usual to her, she could not tell you, if you had asked
her. With tactful self-denial, Rupert at once resigns his pretensions to a
congratulatory kiss.
“He called me ‘my boy’ over and over again!” he says, with a
gratification none the less intense for being quiet. “You know that I always
feel as if I could die a hundred deaths for him, when he calls me ‘my boy.’ ”
“You are a ‘Boy’ and I am a ‘Mosquito’!” replies she, with what she
feels to be a hateful dry laugh. Hitherto one of the qualities she has most
admired in her cousin has been the gentle forgivingness and self-restraint
which has characterized his attitude towards his father—the filial piety,
which has survived so many buffets. Now she tells herself that the
sentiment which makes his voice quiver is hysterical, and that a man’s tears
should not be so near his eyes. No one but Rupert, however—and she trusts
that not even he—would read these harsh comments between the lines of
the hastily candid “Yes, I know you would,” with which she supplements
her first utterance.
Does his changing the subject mean that he comprehends? Impossible!
Yet he does change it.
“Rather an unlucky thing has happened,” he says, in a voice that has
altered, like his theme. “You have heard me mention Dubary Jones?”
For a moment she looks perfectly vague, then, “Of course I have! He
introduced you to the editor of the Flail; and he writes poetry himself?”
It is the measure of how far her thoughts have strayed from Rupert and
his group of æsthetics, that she should be so painstakingly detailed in
proving that they have come back.
“His translations of Verlaine were very remarkable, if you remember,”
replies Rupert, kindly jogging her memory. It needs the assistance given,
presenting for the time a perfect blank as to what the bard in question’s bid
for immortality consists of. “I have had a wire from him, asking me to put
him up for the night. He is staying with the Tanquerays. He has been of
great use to me in various ways, and I did not quite like to refuse him.”
Between each sentence the young man makes a slight pause, as if to give
room for an expression of approval or acquiescence, but it is not before the
full stop at the end that Lavinia is ready.
“Of course you accepted him? You were perfectly right. What else could
you do?”
“It is a nuisance that it should have happened at this moment. My father
will not be able to endure him; as I have often told you about him—he is
like me, only more so!” Rupert smiles rather humorously, relieved at her
acceptance of his news.
She gives a smile too; but there is a shudder under it—a shudder which
recurs more than once during the dinner and evening that follow, when,
faithful to her lifelong profession of buffer, she draws the conversation of
Mr. Dubary Jones upon herself, to avert the catastrophe that must ensue if it
is directed to Sir George. In a party of four it is no easy task to prevent the
talk becoming general; but ably seconded by Rupert, and by the exercise of
ceaseless vigilance, attention, and civility, Miss Carew succeeds in securing
the couple of tête-à-têtes, by which only a thunderbolt can be warded off.
But while kindly and graciously smiling, listening, and asking, Rupert’s
descriptive phrase, “like me, only more so,” drips like melted lead upon her
heart. Does she indeed see before her what Rupert will come to in the ten
years by which his friend is richer than he? Is this his logical conclusion?—
this little decadent, who is trying to fit his conversation to a hostess whom
he suspects of being sporting?
“How delightful hunting must be!”
She assents, “Very.”
“And shooting! That must be so exciting!”
Again she acquiesces with creditable gravity, adding that salmon-fishing
is considered by many people to be the most engrossing of sports.
For a moment he looks nonplussed, and at a loss for a suitable rejoinder;
but quickly recovering himself, says brightly—
“Oh yes, it must be great fun, skipping from rock to rock.”
This evidence of how clearly he has grasped the nature of the
amusement alluded to, finishes her for a while; but she presently recovers,
as he has done, and for the rest of dinner they continue under the almost
insuperable difficulties indicated, the class of conversation which he
supposes suited to her capacity and tastes; nor does she care to undeceive
him.
After all, contemptible and uncongenial as he is, and hideous as is the
thought that the rudiments of him lie in Rupert, Lavinia has reason to be
grateful to the translator of Verlaine. But for him she would have had to
undergo a close interrogatory as to her visit of the afternoon. She catches
herself up in mid-congratulation. Why should it be to undergo? Why should
she mind retailing the little incidents which must be of equal interest to all
three of them? What that is not good and touching is there to tell—whether
it be the man’s affecting fear lest he should be unendurable in all their eyes,
or the heroic patience with which he bears the cruel kindness of
Féodorovna’s terrible ministrations? Yet she cannot help a feeling of
discreditable relief that the tale which must be told is by the stranger’s
presence deferred till next morning.
 And next morning, sure enough, the demand for it comes. An early train
removes Mr. Dubary Jones, and Sir George having dismissed him with the
comparatively Christian observation that he wonders what Rupert can see in
such a despicable little worm, and having added the still more Christian
rider that he supposes all tastes are respectable, gladly changes the subject
for the dreaded one—now better prepared for than it was last evening.
“So you saw Binning! Come into the study, and tell me all about him.”
She tells him all, repeats almost word for word the little talk—how little!
—that had passed between them, keeping back for herself only the one tiny
episode of the wood anemones. Sir George is perfectly indifferent to
flowers, and could not enter into a sick man’s craving for their grace and
perfume. Talk with her uncle has throughout her life meant judicious
suppressions; yet this one small kept-back piece of the price of her land
makes her feel like Ananias.
“He said much the same sort of thing to me,” is her hearer’s half-
disappointed comment. “No doubt he will repeat it to Rupert to-day.”
“Is Rupert going to see him to-day?”
“I have made a point of it. I confess I rather wonder that the proposal did
not emanate from himself! If the poor fellow has this idea in his head, that
we shrink from him, we must do all we can to drive it out.”
Lavinia nods slightly. Difficulties loom vaguely ahead of her, born of
this utterance, yet her heart feels suddenly light. Can it be because a vista of
possible repetitions of yesterday open before her?
“And though I may not rate our society very highly,” pursues Sir George,
with one of his scarce smiles, “I think it may, perhaps, compare not
unfavourably with Féo’s.”
Lavinia turns to go, thinking her task ended, and relieved that it is over.
But another awaits her.
“Stop!” says Sir George. “Why are you in such a hurry to run away? I
have not half done with you yet.” There is great kindness, and the unwonted
pleasure of being conscious that he is about to give pleasure in his voice,
and in the gesture with which he draws towards him and opens one after
another half a dozen obviously not new jewel-cases. “They have not seen
the light for nearly twenty years,” he says, passing his hand with a
movement that is almost a caress over the faded velvet of one of them. “I
suppose the settings are old-fashioned, but I believe the stones are good; I
know that the pearls are. Garrard took five years collecting them one by
one! The—the person who last wore them was very proud of them.”
It is the nearest approach Sir George has ever made towards mentioning
his departed wife to Lavinia, and she listens in reverent silence.
He has taken the string of pearls from its long-occupied bed, and,
holding it between his fingers, eyes it pensively. Then, stretching hand and
necklace out to her, he says, in a voice of command, whose harshness is the
cover for an emotion that it angers him should have escaped from its two
decades of prison in his heart—
“Put it on! Wear it always!”
She obeys; but her fingers, usually quick and clever, fumble over the
diamond clasp.
“I would not give it you till I was quite sure we had really got hold of
you!” continues Sir George, regarding with evident satisfaction the jewels
—a little discoloured and damaged by their long incarceration, but still
beautiful, as they circle his niece’s throat. “Until lately I have had my
doubts, but I have been watching. I often notice things, more than you
think”—with a shrewd look—“I saw how out of spirits you were in
Rupert’s absence, and how you brightened up when he returned, and I said
to myself, ‘It is all right.’ So don’t say anything more”—almost pushing her
to the door, in obvious dread and yet expectation of the tide of her thanks
that must wash over him—“but take them with you, and be off!”
“Am I to say nothing?” she stammers.
“Nothing! Actions speak louder than words! Marry Rupert, and give me
a grandson as quick as you can!”
CHAPTER X