Monitoring and Reporting Public Opinion

Public opinion needs to be scientifically monitored and responsibly communicated if it is to be

an important input to the critical process of governance. The first concern touches on the methodology
or the technical manner in which public opinion surveys (more generally speaking, survey research on
the views of the citizenry) must be conducted and analyzed for public consumption. The second concern
focuses more on critical information that must be included in publicly reporting the results of any
opinion survey. If lapses occur either in the methodology or the public reporting of the survey results,
the study could grossly mislead or outrightly disinform the target audiences. In such a case, it would
have been better if no opinion polling had been undertaken at all.

Methodology

A working definition for survey research is that it is a field research methodology "gathering
information about a large number of people by interviewing a few of them." This definition immediately
highlights the sampling methodology used in scientifically conducted opinion surveys. Whether the
target population-the public being surveyed-is relatively numerous or impressively large (from a hundred
thousand to as much as several hundred million or well over a billion people), the survey's sampling
design must observe certain canons of randomized choice to ensure that the people actually selected for
interview are representative of the much larger population. Probability samples (those where the
statistical chance of each member of the target population being selected to form the sample is known
or could be calculated, whether that probability be equal or otherwise) take precedence over
nonprobability samples. Error margins and confidence levels-prudential parameters that well-done
surveys assiduously acknowledge as part of their scientific limitations-are legitimately calculated only for
probability samples." The range of possible values given any particular survey finding or statistic is
determined by the sampling design's error margins. (For a sample of 1200 respondents, this is
approximately plus/minus 3 percentage points for mid- range proportions.) The confidence level or
reliability of opinion surveys is normally set at 95 percent, implying that basically the same findings
would be encountered nineteen times out of twenty if attempts were made to replicate the survey for
whatever reason. The level of precision sought by those surveying public opinion on any given issue as
well as their considerations of operational costs, time constraints and the hazards of increasing
nonsampling errors help define the size of the optimal sample.

Questionnaire design is just as important as proper sampling in competent surveys of public

opinion. The appropriate cultural, social, economic, or political contexts must be clear to those designing
questionnaires so that survey respondents are not disoriented by alien-sounding probes. Ambiguity in
question formulation, improper terminologies, careless or illogical question order, leading or two-edged
questions, and overly lengthy probes make for inefficient if not outrightly faulty or possibly manipulative
survey questionnaires. Pretesting of questions to facilitate their sensibleness and clarity among survey
respondents is clearly mandatory." Multilingual versions have to be carefully checked in order that the
integrity of questions formulated in the original or controlling language might be assured. Translations
from this original language and back translations from other languages into it should be undertaken only
by qualified experts.

Fieldwork has to be carefully supervised in addition to ensuring that both sampling and
questionnaire design are competently undertaken. In the case of face-to-face interviews (the dominant
survey format in the Philippines as a combination of low telephone densities and some cultural values
affecting telephone use makes random digit dialing and telephone interviews problematic), interviewers
have to be carefully trained to facilitate responsiveness among those surveyed. In Pulse Asia surveys
fielded by Trends-NFO, a highly regarded market research group, as much as 20 percent of all survey
interviews are backchecked by field supervisors to ensure that they actually took place and that the
responses given and recorded are basically consistent.

After collating, encoding, and data processing, the survey data are delivered to a team of
analysts who are uncompromisingly academic in the work they do.

Nonpartisan expert statisticians, economists, political and other social scientists go over the
survey data and prepare analytical reports for survey clients as well as media releases for the general
public.

Reporting public opinion

Findings of public opinion surveys are reported to several target audiences. Survey subscribers-
those who severally provide funds that enable national probes into public opinion to take place-may get
both summary and detailed reports as well as oral briefings on current findings. Dedicated survey
commissioners-those who exclusively fund opinion surveys on some specific concern-are entitled to all
analytical reports and oral briefings and additionally may activate a limited embargo (as much as a year)
on the survey they exclusively commissioned. Academically inspired survey groups in the Philippines
such as Pulse Asia and the Social Weather Stations do not allow clients to proprietarily own survey data,
and all survey information becomes public domain beyond the period of embargo that might be enjoyed
by a dedicated survey commissioner. Within the embargo period itself, any leakage of survey findings by
those who commissioned the survey automatically nullifies the embargo and turns all dedicated survey
data and analytical reports into public-domain material. There is much wisdom in the policy to make
surveys of public opinion known to the general public as soon as possible. Particularly on the most
crucial issues of governance, it does not behoove the politically powerful or the economically influential
to enjoy a monopoly of knowledge even if they themselves exclusively funded these public opinion
probes.

In any truly democratizing society, the general citizenry should be able to access the most
current information regarding their own perceptions, opinions, sentiments, and attitudes concerning
anything. As knowledge is truly power, withholding it from the public is tantamount to denying them
their legitimate empowerment and keeping them in a perpetually marginalized state. No democratic
development may be realistically anticipated in such a situation.
 Democratically minded survey groups and their sympathizers work not only to monitor public
opinion but also to share their findings with the citizenry. The role of the media in this democratic
crusade is crucial. Broadcast and print media now give prominent space to survey findings showing how
the nation assesses the performance and trustworthiness of government institutions and the authorities.
Historically feckless and often corrupt, these institutions and their leaders may yet change as critical
public opinion focuses on them via the media. The spectre of a much impoverished, increasingly restless,
and possibly violent constituency could turn the trick for authorities who have not completely relegated
public accountability to the realm of irrelevant myths and self-serving rhetoric.

A final note may be sounded in relation to media-aided dissemination of surveys of public

opinion. As the media itself may not be a completely uncompromised sector, its members too could be
used by those who would distort public opinion and effectively disinform the nation. To facilitate the
ability of ordinary citizens to distinguish between credible, competently done surveys of public opinion
and those that are incredible, incompetently done and, worse yet, deliberately manipulative ones, all
parties releasing public opinion findings must be required to include the following information in their
media reports: a) the company or group that did the survey; b) the party or parties sponsoring or
funding the survey; c) the survey's sampling and questionnaire designs; d) the dates when the survey
actually was fielded; and e) other technical details like survey sample size, error margins, and confidence
level.

Provided such information, it would be easier to establish whether a survey was done by a
group with identifiable warm bodies and a track record of competently done public opinion probes or by
another group that is no more than a fly-by-night outfit, with cold-blooded mercenaries behind a
compromised survey product sold to its highest bidder. As surveys proliferate and media facilitate their
nationwide dissemination, people will need to quickly discriminate between surveys deserving serious
attention and those that should be summarily trashed. The first contribute to a deeper understanding of
public opinion however it might go and a proper appreciation of its role in democratic governance; the
second seek to manipulate and spin public opinion toward more devious ends. In the Philippines, one
can never have enough of the first; there already is far too many of the second.