A quantitative research report has become the basis of my research project, so I want to discuss this piece:

IRI (International Republican Institute) runs annual public opinion research in Georgia, quantifying several parameters like political views, social problems, values, ideology, etc. As a brand strategist, I got interested in the part on the image, which depicts the quantified data metrics of Georgia’s population’s opinions based on their first mentions of naming values they consider important. There are several important aspects this week’s readings helped me better understand:

1. Methodology

This is the part most readers miss out on because of the lack of expertise to evaluate the quality of research. The first sheet of the research says:

The sample consisted of 1,500 permanent residents of Georgia aged 18 and older and eligible to vote. It is representative of the general population by age, gender, region and settlement size.
A multistage probability sampling method was used with a “random route” protocol to select households and the “last birthday” method to select respondents
Stage one: All districts of Georgia are grouped into 10 regions. All regions of Georgia were surveyed (Tbilisi city – as a separate region) except for Abkhazeti and Samachablo (South Ossetia), which were excluded due to the political situation.
Stage two: selection of the settlements – cities and villages.
• Settlements were selected at random. The number of selected settlements in each region was
proportional to the share of population living in a particular type of settlement in each region.
• Stage three: primary sampling were randomly drawn within each stratum.

The total sample size of 1,500 is a standard based on statistical formulas for a population of 4 mln. The “multistage probability sampling method” also looks interesting, and the whole approach can be useful for the last stage of my research, if the aim becomes the understanding the opinions of voting population. However, for a particular political entity, several settlements might be more interesting than measuring the total average.

For further need, I know where to look for methods for quantification.

2. Content

The quantitative data demonstrates the lack of clarity in terms of national values. We see that:

  • At least 7 out of 17 named points are not “values” at all.
  • That makes almost half of the total voted percentage.
  • A high rate of “don’t know / no answer” (25%)

This was what inspired me to take on a project that might work to bring the importance of clarified identity pillars into the spotlight. Comparing the European Values, where the six main pillars are clear, simple, and widely understood and shared, the post-soviet Georgian society needs to get clarity with heir identity.

This is an example of how displayed data might need further clarifications, and besides its ultimate reason of being, it provokes the need for more qualitative research for a better understanding.

3. Polarization Issue

The research is funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development. We see that much data, once displayed totally, is followed with the same question, taken metrics to allocate voters’ political views in terms of political parties. Interesting to notice that the data is divided in two now as Government vs. Opposition in general, but as naming the ruling and the single, big opposition party, disregarding the existence of other oppositional entities.

The mentioned United National Movement used to be in the Georgian Government years 2003-2012 and changed through democratic elections. Current propaganda in the country, works for demonizing this political force, not without reasons given. But the strategy of the existing governance is to stick all smaller emerging parties to the “National Movement”, trying to make people believe, they are satellites, not independent, and that is one force that not many want to have back in rulership. On the other side, the National Movement is also interested in “swallowing” other parties in opposition than them, as possible opponents. Together both forces work to not leave a chance for a new political force to emerge.

Such a division by IRI casts doubt and questions about their interests in this debate. Are they collaborating with the National Movement? Is the polarization somehow in the interests of the US part as well as the pro-Russian rhetorics?

This is an example of how the method might indicate about subjective interests of the researcher. What are the underlying power dynamics?_ is the question it arises.