# data[].attributes.headline
You need to enable comments so i can post under each item. 

# data[].attributes.subject
You need to enable comments so i can post under each item. 

# data[].attributes.body
Under unethical yes, we still use animals for testing but did you know that we have animal ethics?

Questionnaires are a good choice and they are good reasons for choosing them. Just need some references now.

Sampling isn't the easiest but those points are correct. Try looking up "convenience sampling" or "random sampling" as i believe your project will use one of these.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Are animal experiments useful?

Are animal experiments useful?

Animal experiments only benefit human beings if their results are valid and can be applied to human beings.

Not all scientists are convinced that these tests are valid and useful.

The moral status of the experimenters

Animal rights extremists often portray those who experiment on animals as being so cruel as to have forfeited any own moral standing.

But the argument is about whether the experiments are morally right or wrong. The general moral character of the experimenter is irrelevant.

What is relevant is the ethical approach of the experimenter to each experiment. John P Gluck has suggested that this is often lacking:

Gluck offers this advice for people who may need to experiment on animals:

Animal experiments and animal rights

The issue of animal experiments is straightforward if we accept that animals have rights: if an experiment violates the rights of an animal, then it is morally wrong, because it is wrong to violate rights.

The possible benefits to humanity of performing the experiment are completely irrelevant to the morality of the case, because rights should never be violated (except in obvious cases like self-defence).

And as one philosopher has written, if this means that there are some things that humanity will never be able to learn, so be it.

This bleak result of deciding the morality of experimenting on animals on the basis of rights is probably why people always justify animal experiments on consequentialist grounds; by showing that the benefits to humanity justify the suffering of the animals involved.

Justifying animal experiments

Those in favour of animal experiments say that the good done to human beings outweighs the harm done to animals.

This is a consequentialist argument, because it looks at the consequences of the actions under consideration.

It can't be used to defend all forms of experimentation since there are some forms of suffering that are probably impossible to justify even if the benefits are exceptionally valuable to humanity.

Ethical arithmetic

Animal experiments and ethical arithmetic

The consequentialist justification of animal experimentation can be demonstrated by comparing the moral consequences of doing or not doing an experiment.

This process can't be used in a mathematical way to help people decide ethical questions in practice, but it does demonstrate the issues very clearly.

The basic arithmetic

If performing an experiment would cause more harm than not performing it, then it is ethically wrong to perform that experiment.

The harm that will result from not doing the experiment is the result of multiplying three things together:

the moral value of a human being

the number of human beings who would have benefited

the value of the benefit that each human being won't get

The harm that the experiment will cause is the result of multiplying together:

the moral value of an experimental animal

the number of animals suffering in the experiment

the negative value of the harm done to each animal

But it isn't that simple because:

it's virtually impossible to assign a moral value to a being

it's virtually impossible to assign a value to the harm done to each individual

the harm that will be done by the experiment is known beforehand, but the benefit is unknown

the harm done by the experiment is caused by an action, while the harm resulting from not doing it is caused by an omission

Certain versus potential harm

In the theoretical sum above, the harm the experiment will do to animals is weighed against the harm done to humans by not doing the experiment.

But these are two conceptually different things.

The harm that will be done to the animals is certain to happen if the experiment is carried out

The harm done to human beings by not doing the experiment is unknown because no-one knows how likely the experiment is to succeed or what benefits it might produce if it did succeed

So the equation is completely useless as a way of deciding whether it is ethically acceptable to perform an experiment, because until the experiment is carried out, no-one can know the value of the benefit that it produces.

And there's another factor missing from the equation, which is discussed in the next section.

Acts and omissions

The equation doesn't deal with the moral difference between acts and omissions.

Most ethicists think that we have a greater moral responsibility for the things we do than for the things we fail to do; i.e. that it is morally worse to do harm by doing something than to do harm by not doing something.

For example: we think that the person who deliberately drowns a child has done something much more wrong than the person who refuses to wade into a shallow pool to rescue a drowning child.

In the animal experiment context, if the experiment takes place, the experimenter will carry out actions that harm the animals involved.

If the experiment does not take place the experimenter will not do anything. This may cause harm to human beings because they won't benefit from a cure for their disease because the cure won't be developed.

So the acts and omissions argument could lead us to say that

it is morally worse for the experimenter to harm the animals by experimenting on them

than it is to (potentially) harm some human beings by not doing an experiment that might find a cure for their disease.

And so if we want to continue with the arithmetic that we started in the section above, we need to put an additional, and different, factor on each side of the equation to deal with the different moral values of acts and omissions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Animal experiments are widely used to develop new medicines and to test the safety of other products. Many of these experiments cause pain to the animals involved or reduce their quality of life in other ways.

# data[].attributes.body
I would use a questionnaire over an interview as some people may not want to give their honest opinion to you, as they might feel more comfortable doing is anonymously on a questionnaire. Doing a questionnaire is more time efficient as you can ask the certain questions you want without going off track and getting distracted.

# data[].attributes.body
1) They select a sample from the general population. They help eliminate bias comments.

There are different types of sampling such as random sampling, which is randomly choosing from the population, systematic sampling, which is ordering the population and choosing in intervals, stratified sampling which is splitting to population up into categories and then choosing. then there is matched and panel sampling.

# data[].attributes.body
airline industry

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Consumers increasingly seem to consider the airline industry more of a hospitality business than simply a means of getting from one place to the next. The history of the transportation industry marks the influence of innovation, technology, and mechanical knowhow. Consumers pay a lot of attention to airline travel, and their satisfaction with the airline industry falls below that of banks and mortgage lenders.

Needless to say, there is considerable room for improvement in the satisfaction ratings of airline passengers.

The global market research company J.D. Power conducts an annual study of the satisfaction ratings of passengers on North American airlines. The 2015 North America Airline Satisfaction Study is designed to measure consumer satisfaction for all major carriers, examining the responses of both leisure travel and business travel passengers. In the early days of airline market research, data was collected from a small number of passengers who were willing to fill-in-the-bubble by hand on paper copy satisfaction surveys distributed during flights. The current J.D. Power satisfaction survey gathered responses from nearly 11,400 passengers who have flown during the one-year period of the survey.

Power Up for an Advanced and Satisfying Customer Experience

The strength of the North America Airline Satisfaction Study is that it assesses the passenger consumer experience across the spectrum of travel based on a recent flight.

The satisfaction survey takes the survey respondent through their experiences with reservations, check-in, boarding, in-flight, deplaning, and baggage retrieval. The outcome of the satisfaction survey is a competitive benchmark for the two main airline market segments: Network carriers and low-cost carriers.

Key indicators are taken in customer advocacy, customer loyalty, effectiveness of identity improvement initiatives, all of which are rolled up to provide an overall airline performance.

The people at Travelers United, an air travel advocacy organization have their own view of passenger satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Charlie Leocha, president of Travelers United, says:

"As the airlines have been complaining that customers are treating their seats like commodities, the airlines themselves are treating their passengers - except frequent flier elites and first class - like self-loading cargo."

The market research findings on customer satisfaction point to some inexpensive and easy ways to improve passengers' perspectives of their airlines. Air travel can be made more pleasant for passengers by applying a few tricks of the hospitality trade: Training gate agents and flight attendants to smile at passengers. Not enforcing the standby fee for passengers to take an earlier flight that is showing available seats. Ensuring family members sit together and not charging them extra to do so. These are all simple enough to embed in the airline customer service, leaving the bigger challenge making effective changes in the telephone and web channels that passengers often utilize.

J.D. Power Branches Out to Measure and Certify Call Centers

In 2004, J.D. Power launched a new component of their business solutions that was aimed at direct contact with consumers via call centers. The Certified Contact Center Program is designed to assess the quality of live phone channels in the call centers of businesses, as well as any interactive voice response (IVR) automated telephony self-service systems that route calls, and web-based self-service channels the businesses may operate. By identifying and updating the preferences that consumers have for call handling service calls, J.D. Power is able to assist organizations in a variety of industries to improve customer satisfaction through effective and efficient handling of service channels.
Sources:
Elliott, C. (2015, May 15). If you want decent customer service, these are the airlines to fly.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Consumers increasingly seem to consider the airline industry more of a hospitality business than simply a means of getting from one place to the next. The history of the transportation industry marks the influence of innovation, technology, and mechanical knowhow.

# data[].attributes.body
~ It is a core part of a research, study or project and finds out the answers you need.