Հարցում թե՞ քարոզչություն

[ahousekeeper]

CRRC-ն ժամանակ առ ժամանակ ուրախացնում է մեզ Անդրկովկասի երկրներում անցկացվող հասարակական կարծիքի հարցումների արդյունքներով։ Եւ կարծես բարի ավանդույթ է դառնում այդ հարցումների վերաբերյալ լիքը անպատասխան հարցերի առաջացումը։

Օրինակ՝ այս հարցումը. ընտրել են մարդկանց, ում ընտանիքի անդամներից որևէ մեկը 1993 թվականից սկսած երեք ամսից ավել ապրել/ապրում է

Comments

your comments on the survey

[crrc]

Thank you for your interest in our blog post.

It may indeed be interesting to test attitudes for age. We have done that fairly often, but not on these particular questions, so it may be worth looking into this again. In general, I think we can say that we found age and gender to be less of an influence than we would typically have expected.

First and foremost, however, these types of blog entries are meant to encourage you to look at the data, and come to your own conclusions. It takes about half an hour to teach yourself how to extract such data, the 2009 data set is available for download, the 2010 data set will be available by April 2011, and other data sets are available on request.

Note that the questionnaires are always limited, so there invariably are other questions we would like to ask (like the reference to North America) that we did not have time for.

The data is available for people like you to use, and you would certainly find a lot of material in there. And in response to your other remark: I don't think that the data actually shows that donor programs are having a huge transformative impact. Quite the opposite. A lot of funding goes to NGOs, but they often enjoy less trust than the police. (What conclusions you draw from that is another question.)

You find the data sets and links to videos to teach yourself how to extract data on our website. Again, thanks for your interest.

...

[ahousekeeper]

- Anybody else have clever ways to avoid questions?
- What questions?

Re: ...

[crrc]

I take it your "avoiding the question" comment is directed at me. Look, I relied on a rough translation of your blog post, so this made it difficult to engage in a nuanced debate.

If you want to restate the questions to me in English, I am happy to try and answer that. However, that debate only makes sense if we start from the assumption that we want to listen to each other.

My substantive suggestion stands: the dataset is there for you to analyze, and come to your own conclusions.

Hans

Re: ...

[ahousekeeper]

Yes, the comment was directed to you, otherwise you wouldn't get the notification :)

The questions raised in the post were about the sample selection methodology, not about the resulting dataset. Below are the questions again...

A. Focusing only on EU may give a distorted view of the reality. For example, being more relaxed about «taboo» subjects may be typical for household members of those who lived abroad in general: in the US, Canada, Russia or Turkey.

B. Are you sure that the distribution of people who have been abroad (especially in Western countries) is even between different social groups in Georgia? Because the resulting dataset may as well reflect the group attitudes which were in place regardless of their experience abroad.

To make the B point clear: lets say there is an urban upper middle class household from Tbilisi, with all the adult members holding university degrees and there is a patriarchal rural family of highlanders from Svanetia with regular high-school education at best. I think that the chances to live abroad are much higher for the first family, thus the families of the first type (and their attitudes) may be present in the sample in greater numbers.

And adding one more questions to the original post...

C. Also, I suggest that it should be taken into consideration whether those who lived abroad had stayed in urban centers or rural areas. If we stick to the «attitudes may be contagious» theory, then the attitudes «brought home» may differ depending on the values prevalent in the particular communities. I don't think that someone who had happily lived among Mormons would get more relaxed attitude to pass it onto his or her household members. So it may be not the «lived in Europe» thing, but «lived in a megalopolis» thing that affects the results.

Thanks in advance for the replies.

Re: ...

[crrc]

ok, thanks.

In answer to your questions:
A. Why only EU? As we said in the beginning of the post this was a survey focusing on attitudes, knowledge and experience with the EU -- not on other countries. Would be interesting to replicate that for other countries, I agree. We actually have some data on that.
B. Sure, it is possible that different attitudes go along with a different propensity to migrate. I thought that we had left that possibility open in the phrasing. Conversely, I think the explanation offered is worth considering. I think we were showing that this works both ways, i.e. that there is generally more permissiviness even in ways that one would generally consider to be bad (with regards to lying, for example).

C. Where did migrants reside? Our data would not have the detail of that. It was not a migration study. We have also done migration studies, as you will see from our blog.

Again, can we encourage you to do your own analysis? This is what the data is there for. We are happy to publicize any thoughtful and considered findings.

[ahousekeeper]

Suggesting "to do my own research" on the dataset that is already obtained with important questions omitted sounds illogical to me.

> A. ... this was a survey focusing on attitudes,
> knowledge and experience with the EU

I know. However if something may be typical for any foreign country, not just EU, then what's the use of that data?

> B. ... there is generally more permissiviness even
> in ways that one would generally consider to be bad...

Yet that still may reflect group attitudes, not European or any other foreign influence.

> C. ... It was not a migration study.

So what? If the options mentioned above may influence the results of your "non-migrational" study then they should be included, otherwise the data obtained is useless.

Do you know the joke about the studies on cockroach hearing apparatus?

[crrc]

Look, I said up front that a debate only is useful if we assume on both sides that we are approaching research questions in good faith. That does entail a certain approach to discourse, and an effort to listen to each other. In that vein, let's maybe keep jokes out of it for a bit.

When looking at the Attitudes to EU data, my colleague found that cross tabs yielded a difference we didn't anticipate, and thought this was worth sharing. That was genuinely the spirit in which the blog post was written, and in which about 300 entries on our blog are written. We often find that doing one piece of research generates unanticipated findings.

As always in research, these findings generate tentative explanations, offered in the blog entry. We generally hope that people think that findings and tentative explanations are of interest. I understand you don't think so, and maybe we will have to leave it at that.

Apparently I also can't convince you to look at this or any other data set yourself. I regret that, not least because the data would allow you to test some of your ideas on attitudes with regards to gender, education, social background, settlement type, computer access and so on. In our Caucasus Barometer there is data on foreign residence in general, so that you could indeed test out your assumptions.

If this is something you would consider doing, let us know. If not, we can just leave it at that as well.

Hans

[ahousekeeper]

Hans, I intentionally let some time to pass, to cool the heat. Despite of what you may think about me listening to what you say, I do listen and analyze, probably more carefully than you may imagine.

The thing is: I teach critical thinking to my students. One of the areas I'm interested in is the questioning of the validity of scientific research. The poll in question is a good example of a research which methodology could be legitimately questioned.

Another area of interest is rhetoric. And our discussion is a great example of using some rhetorical devices, too.

Thank you.

[crrc]

Fair enough, and good luck teaching your students. They, too, are welcome to look at our data. We we don't pretend to have final answers, but we would like good conversations on what people find on a broad range of issues.

Hans