Appendix A: Design and methodology of the national telephone - Sexual harassment: Serious business

• back to contents

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.

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).