Surveying the Upper Echelons: An Update to Cycyota and Harrison (2006) on Top Manager Response Rates and Recommendations for the Future
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nearly 2 decades ago, Cycyota and Harrison (2006) documented a concerning trend of declining executive survey response rates and projected a continued decrease in the future. Their seminal work has significantly influenced the methodologies of upper echelons survey research. Our study examines the manner in which Cycyota and Harrison’s paper has impacted the existing upper echelons literature and replicates their study by analyzing peer-reviewed studies published post-2006. We reveal that executive response rates have largely stabilized since Cycyota and Harrison’s initial findings. Furthermore, we expand upon their research by identifying specific geographical contexts and contact methodologies associated with higher (and lower) response rates. Finally, we lend insight into the evolving landscape of executive survey research and offer practical implications for future methodological endeavors in the upper echelons.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it