SAMPLE SURVEYS VERSUS EXPERIMENTS,CONTROLLED OBSERVATIONS,CENSUSES, REGISTERS,AND LOCAL STUDIES1 2

Can we find some common principle in the three comparisons? Lacking adequate time for a thorough exploration, let me suggest that representation is that common principle. I suggested (section 4) that judgment selection of spatial versus temporal extensions distinguish “longitudinal” local studies from “cross-section” population sampling. We had noted (section 3) that censuses are taken for detailed representation of the spatial dimension but they depend on judgmental selection of the temporal. Survey sampling lacks spatial detail but is spatially representative with randomization, and it can be made timely. Periodic samples can be designed that are representative of temporal extension. Furthermore, spatial and temporal detail can be obtained either through estimation or through cumulated samples Purcell and Kish 1979, 1980; Kish 1979b, 1981, 1986 6.6]. Registers and administrative records can have good spatial and temporal representation, but representation may be lacking in population content, and surely in representation of variables. Representation of variables and of the relations between variables and over the population are the issues in conflict between surveys, experiments, and observations. This is a deep subject, and too deep to be explored again, as it was in section 2. A final point about limits for randomization to achieve representation through sampling: randomization for selecting samples of variables is beyond me generally, because I cannot conceive of frames for defined populations of variables. Yet we can find attempts at randomized selection of variables: in the selection of items for the consumer price index, also of items for tests of IQ or of achievements. Generally I believe that randomization is the way to achieve representation without complete coverage, and that it can be applied and practised in many dimensions.