|
By Gonzalo M. Jurado, PhD, Economist
In an earlier article
(“Objective Analysis vs Subjective Rumor-Mongering,” The Manila
Times, Sept. 26, 2007) I pointed out that perception surveys of the
type regularly carried out by the Social Weather Stations should
deal only with matters resolvable through perception, not with
questions of fact answerable only by appropriate and authoritative
persons and agencies. If people are asked questions the answers to
which they alone are the authority, i.e., questions about what they
think, feel, observe, or prefer, their responses must be taken
seriously for who can know better what people think, feel, observe,
or prefer than those people themselves? But when they respond to
questions of fact requiring knowledge about a subject outside of
their personal knowledge or experience, their replies must be
checked against academic or scientific authority. If found correct,
not only must the responses be given the importance that objective
truth deserves but the respondents must be accorded the respect that
is due people with high levels of awareness. If found wrong, the
answers must be considered as suggesting that the respondents are in
need of appropriate enlightenment.
(When questions of fact beyond
the respondent’s personal knowledge or experience are raised in
perception surveys, the surveyor can be suspected of ignorance,
asking questions of fact as though these can be resolved through
perception.)
Recent surveys
In recent days the national
community has been inundated by a deluge of perception survey
results on various aspects of our social, economic, and political
life. The way events are unfolding, we can expect to be overwhelmed
by many more such surveys in the next few months and still more ad
infinitum in the months after.
The most recent of these surveys
was that on the extent of satisfaction of the public with the
performance of government as a whole. Earlier, we were informed of
the results of yet other surveys: one, on the extent of approval by
the public of the performance of high government officials; another
on the degree of happiness with which the Filipino people
anticipated Christmas; yet another, on aspects of the
socio-political situation in the locality of respondents, i.e, on
whether employment has improved, the quality of education has
deteriorated, graft and corruption in the government has worsened,
etc.
Fact or perception?
In the most recent of these
surveys, as reported in media, respondents were asked whether they
were satisfied or dissatisfied with the performance of the
government in 10 areas of public concern. These concerns and the
ratings given by the respondents were: (1) in the conduct of foreign
relations +20; (2) in fighting inflation -29; (3) in eradicating
graft and corruption -29; (4) in reconciling with Muslim rebels +13;
(5) in fighting terrorism +12; (6) in helping the poor +4; (7) in
promoting human rights +2; (8) in fighting crime -5; (9) in ensuring
that no family goes hungry -22; and (10) in telling the truth to the
people -11.
How should we react?
How should we, the people, react
to these survey findings? Should we take them seriously? Be
indifferent to them? Dismiss them outright?
Answer: It depends on the nature
of the questions posed.
To reiterate, if the questions
pertain to perception, that is, the thoughts, feelings, and
preferences, of the respondent, we should take the responses
seriously—for the answers can be assumed to be valid and reliable,
correspondent to the respondents’ thoughts, feelings,
observations, or preferences unless the respondents choose to
deceive themselves. Since respondents are not likely to cheat
themselves, we must give due respect to their replies.
If the questions ask about facts,
such as the extent of unemployment, the quality of education, the
state of health of the community, the quality of governance, we
should regard the responses as mere guesses or surmises and give
them no more importance than conjecture deserves. If the replies
clearly are at variance with the facts, they should be dismissed
outright and the respondents informed and enlightened so that they
are liberated from their ignorance and lack of information.
To be continued
Dr. Jurado is currently
Professor of Economics and Vice-President for Finance and
Development at Kalayaan College, Marikina, and Consultant to the
Asian Development Bank, Manila, and to the United Nations Economic
and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok. He
earned his PhD (Economics) at the University of Wisconsin, USA
|
