Talk:Survey methodology/Archives/2019
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Survey methodology. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Merge Survey research into Survey methodology
All the text in the Survey research article seems to be about survey methodology, so I think it should be merged into Survey methodology. In fact, I don't think we should have a Survey research article at all, where users may start to dump any material about any random survey that has been performed in history. Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- Survey research is much more than survey methodology; much more than, as stated in the Survey methodology article, "A field of applied statistics". Thus, the text in Survey research should not be merged into Survey methodology. Some aspects of survey research that are other than methodological include, for example, question wording, effects of survey researcher on respondents, respondents' lack of relevant knowledge, issues related to the documented differences that often occur between self-reports and respondents' actual beliefs and behaviors, etc. In this respect, it seems to me that it might make more sense to merge some, but not all, material from Survey methodology into Survey research via a section on Methodology with a link to a more complete discussion of survey research methodology/applied statistics in Survey methodology DASTOG26 (talk) 21:10, 26 May 2016 (UTC) DASTOG26
- I think the content that does not fit into Survey methodology can be merged to Survey (human research) instead, because it all still seems to concern human research. Survey research could then redirect to Survey in order to include non-human sense of the term as well. Mikael Häggström (talk) 00:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Done I performed this merge now, and all the information fitted well as described above, and it also amended the issue of under-linking to Survey research and the single-source issue. There was also a lot of duplicate information, and I kept the better sourced, and removed mere referrals to external work. Mikael Häggström (talk) 10:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
