Scott Crawford - Equity & Inclusion in Accessible Survey Design -Inclusive Research Matters Seminar Series - December 8, 2021

Scott Crawford

Scott Crawford is a Research Consultant and Founder of SoundRocket, a social science research firm located in Ann Arbor, Michigan.  Scott has a Masters in Applied Social Research from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and a BA in Sociology from the University of the Pacific, has focused his career on the use of innovative technologies in social science research (web, multi-mode, mobile, and Internet-of-Things). Scott is also currently a student at Johns Hopkins University in the MA Science Writing program.  Scott routinely blogs on topics related to his work on The Launch Pad blog (http://www.soundrocket.com/soundrocket-blog/). He has assisted in the implementation of survey research projects for hundreds of researchers and research institutions (http://www.soundrocket.com/customers), and has led innovative collaborative research projects including the National Campus Climate Survey, the Multi-Institutional Study of Leadership, and the pGen and PeopleSeq data collection efforts.  Among the survey methodological interests noted above, Scott is also pursuing his interests in improving how the field of social science communicates its research to the general population. Recently, Scott has overseen several higher education-based campus climate surveys of diversity, equity, and inclusion (including at the University of Michigan), where a focus of the study design has included maximizing the ability for individuals who use screen reader technologies to participate equitably

 Equity & Inclusion in Accessible Survey Design

As we work to adapt research designs to make use of new technologies (web and smart devices), it is also important to consider how study design and survey design may impact those who rely on assistive technology. Sections 508 (covering use of accessible information and communication technology) and 501(addressing reasonable accommodation) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 compliance standards have been around for a long time—but the survey research industry has often taken the path providing reasonable (non-technological) accommodations for study participants. These often involve alternate modes of data collection, but rarely provide a truly equitable solution for study participation. If a web-based survey is not compliant with assistive technologies, the participant may be offered the option of completing a survey with an interviewer. Survey methodologists know well that introducing a live human interaction may change how participants respond—especially if the study involves sensitive topics. Imagine a workplace survey on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion where a sight-impaired employee is asked to answer questions about how they are treated in their workplace, but they are required to answer these questions through an interviewer, and not privately via a website. Not only is this request not equitable for the employee (fully sighted employees get to respond more privately), it can also bias the results if the participant is not honest about the struggle for fear of receiving backlash from their employer if the interviewer passed along their frustrations. In the act of being denied equitable participation, future decisions will then be made on potentially faulty results about the experience of such people.

In this presentation, I will focus on developing an equitable research design, partially through considering the overall study—not just the technology itself. But we will also share experiences in the development of a highly accessible web-based survey that is compliant with screen reading technology (screen readers, mouse input grids, voice, keyboard navigation, etc.). I will present experimental, anecdotal, and descriptive experiences with accessible web-based surveys and research designs in higher education student, faculty, and staff surveys conducted on the topic of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. Our results will be directly relevant for inclusion and equity in these settings as well as some surprising unintended positive consequences of some of these design decisions. Lastly, I will also share some next steps for where the field may go in continuing to improve in these areas.