Sexual harassment: Serious business
Appendix A: Design and methodology of the national telephone survey
Contents
Methodology and analysis
Limitations of the methodology
Download
- Complete report PDF
(1.4 MB) - Complete report Word
(1 MB)
7.1 Methodology and analysis
The 2008 national telephone survey was conducted on behalf of the Australia Human Rights Commission by Market Focus International.
Between July and September 2008, two thousand and five randomly selected respondents representative of the Australian population aged 18 to 64, were interviewed by telephone about sexual harassment in the workplace. Respondents were representative in terms of age, gender and area of residence.
In July 2008, the first wave of this national telephone survey was conducted with a sample of 1005 people. The survey used for this first wave replicated almost exactly the survey used in the 2003 national telephone survey conducted by Commission, with some minor word changes.[69]
Since the 2003 survey, however, further research by the Commission on survey methodologies in relation to sexual harassment indicated that additional questions should be included in the survey in order to improve the assessment of the incidence of sexual harassment.
The literature on sexual harassment survey methodologies observes a difference in the estimated incidence depending on how respondents are asked about their experience. Asking respondents whether they have experienced sexual harassment based on providing a legal definition of sexual harassment[70] can be daunting, as it requires the respondent to make a judgement about the kinds of behaviours that a lawyer or court would regard as constituting sexual harassment. This also relies on the perceptions of the respondent as to what sexual harassment may or may not be, rather than simply whether they have experienced particular types of unwelcome behaviour. As such, questions based on a definition of sexual harassment may lead to under-reporting of the incidence of sexual harassment, as most people have quite narrow perceptions of what constitutes sexual harassment.[71] In contrast, questions that specify the behaviours are more concrete and are less reliant on a person’s own understanding of sexual harassment.[72]
For this reason, questions based on specific behaviours are likely to yield a more realistic incidence of sexual harassment.
In September 2008, a second wave of telephone interviews were conducted with 1000 nationally representative people aged 18 to 64. Based on the literature, in the second wave of the 2008 telephone survey, an additional set of questions was asked to measure the incidence of specific sexual harassment behaviours.[73] Respondents were asked whether they had experienced these behaviours in the workplace or at work-related events in the last five years in a way that they felt was unwelcome.
The questions were added to assess the level of understanding of sexual harassment and to gain a more robust estimation of the prevalence of workplace sexual harassment in the community.
The interviews for the 2008 survey were conducted over the phone using female interviewers. Those respondents who reported experiencing workplace sexual harassment in the last five years, or one or more behaviours that may constitute sexual harassment in the workplace in the last five years qualified for an in-depth interview.
The in-depth interviews examined the nature of sexual harassment and were conducted with 226 respondents.
Given the different types of questions and qualifying requirements for the long interview there were a range of sample sizes for the various questions. This means that the reliability of the results varies across different sections of the survey.
The main samples are set out in the table below.
Questions asked in the 2008 national telephone survey |
Sample size |
Margin of error |
|---|---|---|
Personal experiences of sexual harassment based on definition, witnessing
sexual harassment, preferred source of information on sexual harassment |
2005 |
+ 2.2% |
Where sexual harassment was experienced |
434 |
+ 4.7% |
Those who experienced sexual harassment in the workplace in the last five
years and one or more sexual harassment behaviours in the workplace in the last
five years. |
298 |
+ 5.7% |
Personal experience of specific sexual harassment behaviours (those who did
not experienced workplace sexual harassment, based on definition, in the last
five years) |
947 |
+ 3.2% |
Total sample for detailed interview |
226 |
+ 6.5% |
The sub-sample who made a formal report of sexual harassment in the 2008
survey was 36. Given the small size of this sample, no firm conclusions can be
drawn from the questions relating to formal complaints such as: who the
complaint was made to; how it was finalised; what the outcome was, and; how
satisfied the respondent was with the process.
7.2 Limitations of the methodology
In 2003, the national telephone survey methodology was chosen as it is one of the most efficient ways to interview a large population-based sample, particularly given the sensitive nature of the topic and the geographic distances in Australia.[74] However, this methodology does have some limitations.[75]
One limitation of the national telephone survey methodology is that it is does not adequately represent groups of individuals with limited English skills or who have no or reduced access to a household telephone. These groups may include:
- people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds
- people with disability
- people from lower socio economic backgrounds who may not have a household telephone.
It is important that additional research strategies are used to investigate sexual harassment amongst these groups.
Further, the national telephone survey did not interview people under the age of 18 because it would require consent from a parent or guardian. Given that a significant number of Australians enter the paid workforce under the age of 18 and the literature suggests that they may be particularly vulnerable to sexual harassment, this is an area that warrants further research.
Another limitation of the methodology is the smaller sample sizes, when sub-sampling for particular questions. This means that conclusions from small sub-samples should be drawn with caution. This report footnotes the various sample sizes and margins of errors when reporting on a sub-sample.
References
[69] Human Rights and
Equal Opportunity Commission, 20 Years On: The Challenges Continue Sexual
Harassment in the Australian Workplace (2004).
[70] Based on the Sex
Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth).
[71] R Illies et al,
'Reported incidence rates of work-related sexual harassment in the United
States: Using meta-analysis to explain reported rate disparities. , 56(3),
607-618.' (2003) 56(3) Personnel Psychology p.607.
[72] R Illies et al,
'Reported incidence rates of work-related sexual harassment in the United
States: Using meta-analysis to explain reported rate disparities. , 56(3),
607-618.' (2003) 56(3) Personnel Psychology p.607.
[73] Please see question 5
(b) of the survey at Appendix
B.
[74] Human Rights and Equal
Opportunity Commission, 20 Years On: The Challenges Continue Sexual
Harassment in the Australian Workplace (2004).
[75] Australian Centre
for the Study of Sexual Assault, What lies behind the hidden figure of sexual
assault? Issues of prevalence and disclosure - Briefing No. 1 September 2003 (2003); D Wilson et al, ‘The second computer assisted telephone
interview (CATI) forum: The state of play of CATI survey methods in
Australia’ (2001) 25(3) Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public
Health p.272; Australian Bureau of Statistics, Information paper:
measuring crime victimisation, Australia: the impact of different collection
methodologies, Cat. No.4522.0.55.001 (2004).
