Since surveys alone cannot provide a complete or nuanced view of public opinion, they are best preceded or complemented by qualitative research. Samples are small and not necessarily random. So, opinions may not be representative of the broader public. But, since questions are open-ended and flexible, a range of opinions can be expressed and unexpected ideas can emerge. The complex factors and emotions that form opinions can be explored in depth.
Aware of the limits of surveys, the Commission in its paper Communicating Europe in Partnership promises more widespread use of qualitative research tools, both traditional focus groups and new deliberative methods.
Focus Groups
The Commission has conducted focus group studies for many years. Focus groups are a relatively simple, inexpensive, and quick qualitative research tool. A small group of people meet to discuss, in a loosely structured way, a topic for a couple hours. A broad range of opinions can be discovered and both rational and emotional factors that influence opinion explored in detail. However, as with surveys, opinions may be based on a poor understanding of the issues.
It is not clear how many focus group studies are conducted or how they are used by the Commission. Unlike Eurobarometer surveys, few qualitative study reports are made public.
Deliberative Methods
Deliberative methods, such as deliberative polls, citizen juries, and 21st Century Town Meetings, have been used for years by local and national governments to obtain citizen input into policies. They give participants information about issues, several days to weeks to consider them, and the opportunity to discuss issues with others to arrive at carefully considered opinions and preferences. They can be used to engage citizens in policy making, help citizens understand issues, and/or shape policy development.
They are just beginning to be used at EU level and there is still much discussion as to their proper role. The Commission has yet to incorporate them into its regular public opinion research practices.
Two Plan D pilot projects used deliberative methods, for the first time, at EU level. The Tomorrow’s Europe deliberative poll combined a survey with deliberations among randomly selected citizens from all 27 EU member states. Its goal was to determine how opinions about EU policies evolve with adequate information and trans-national deliberation.
European Citizens Consultations used structured discussions at national level among randomly selected citizens, followed by discussions among country representatives at EU level. Its goal was to find common ground, frame issues, and reach a consensus on EU policy priorities for the future.
Critics question the utility of deliberative processes that provide participants with more and/or better information than they’d normally receive. Supporters contend that these methods mirror how public opinion evolves in real life: people learn about an issue, discuss it, and then arrive at their own opinion. That opinions will change with information seems obvious and measuring this change unnecessary to some. However, to others, learning how opinions evolve is valuable.
There seems to be consensus that deliberative techniques are valuable at EU level for complex or technical policy areas. It is virtually impossible to obtain useful citizen input on some subjects without first providing background information and time for reflection. The Meeting of Minds citizen consultations proved that ordinary people could contribute thoughtful, reasoned policy suggestions on topics as complex as neuroscience.
Deliberative methods can also be used to engage citizens in and educate them about EU policy issues. Critics point out that only a small number of people actually participate in these projects, making this approach too costly. However, extensive media coverage can have an important multiplier effect, exposing millions of others to the topics and ideas expressed.
Both of these pan-European deliberative projects were much more expensive than traditional Eurobarometer surveys or focus groups. For that reason, perhaps more than any other, there is some reluctance to currently consider these tools as anything other than “experimental”.
This article originally appeared in Random Europeans on March 4, 2008 with the subtitle “Thoughts from The Centre’s Polls Apart Roundtable (20 February 2008) – Part II”
Photo: James Cridland