Brown et al.: Methodological and conceptual issues for survey designers and data analysts
1266 http://www.demographic-research.org
outsider, the investigator) on the basis of money received from each‖ (Amery and
Anderson 1995:57). The total amount received was, however, willingly reported.
Second, norms within respondents‘ communities could influence their answers.
Migrants from low-income countries sometimes have a strong sense of duty to remit,
and may be ashamed of their inability to fulfil remittance expectations (Akuei 2005;
Hernandez 2002; Lindley 2009). The general point that socially desirable behaviour
may be over-reported in surveys also applies to remitting. In a widely cited example of
over-reported donations, Parry and Crossley (1950) found that only half of survey
respondents who reported giving money to a specific local charity had actually done so.
Third, policies or debates in the respondents‘ social environment could affect their
perceptions of remittances, and thus influence their responses. For instance, media
coverage linking remittances to tax evasion, benefits fraud, or the financing of militant
groups can make respondents reticent, even if their own transfers come from regular
income and are sent to family members (Carling, Erdal, and Horst 2012; Horst et al.
2014). If the environment is perceived as being hostile to remittances, respondents
could reply negatively to an initial question about remitting in order to avoid the
subject.
Fourth, if respondents perceive that the information they provide could be passed
on to the government or other agencies, they could have incentives to give specific
answers. For instance, senders could under-report the use of illegal transfer mechanisms
for fear of prosecution, and recipients could under-report remittance income for fear of
taxation or other government interference, regardless of whether such concerns are
based in reality. In developing countries where there are public or private needs-based
assistance programmes, respondents could fear that reporting remittance income would
undermine their eligibility for such benefits.
Survey specialists have developed a number of approaches to asking sensitive
questions in ways that maximise response rates and the reliability of answers
(Bradburn, Sudman, and Wansin 2004; Foddy 1993; Groves et al. 2004; Tourangeau
and Smith 1996; Tourangeau and Yan 2007). But before using these tactics, the analyst
should have a thorough understanding of whether specific questions are sensitive; and,
if so, how. For instance, in settings with strong social pressure to remit, questions could
be loaded to excuse non-remitting. If, however, hostile media attention is the main
concern, different forms of loading might be appropriate. The value of adapting
questions to the context in this way needs to be weighed against the reduced
comparability the findings with those of studies conducted elsewhere.
Sensitivity assessments should also inform other aspects of survey administration.
For example, how can respondents ‒ and, where applicable, their local communities ‒
best be prepared for the survey? How can interviewers best prevent misunderstandings