Simple question, complex answer.

The Caucasus Research Resources Center, with whom I met on my recent trip to Georgia, starts to get to the heart of the matter in this very good post on how to evaluate pre-election polls. To boil Hans’ argument down, the burden on is on the pollster to publicly disclose as much information about the data collection process as possible. Of course, the media has to also report the results responsibly, which is almost as big a hurdle in these countries as disclosing basic information about sample sizes, margin of error, interviewing techniques and, most importantly, funders.

This sort of disclosure is necessary anywhere, whether it’s Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Armenia (Onnik at the Armenia Election Monitor has been posting on this topic quite a bit lately) or even Iowa. That’s why Pollster.com has been a strong proponent of The Disclosure Project, which pressures U.S. pollsters to reveal more about their methodology. This is even more important in countries where pre-election opinion polls are relatively new and neither the media nor voters are very sophisticated poll consumers.

Conducting methodologically sound polling in a highly politicized environment like Georgia or Azerbajian is difficult, but not impossible (and I do put Georgia and Azerbaijan in the same category in that regard– I was shocked at how polarized the pre-election environment is in Tbilisi. The pre-election atmosphere in Georgia has much more in common with Azerbaijan’s prior to the 2005 election than it does with Ukraine’s 2006 or 2007 pre-election period, which is depressing). Just like in campaign finance, disclosure is the the first and most important step to increasing public confidence in the process.

People need to understand that polling is neither good nor bad. It’s simply a tool that can be put to both legitimate and nefarious purposes. Polls are fundamentally democratic because they give ordinary people a voice, but disclosure helps an informed citizenry assess whether their voices are truly being heard or are being manipulated.

In October, I traveled to Kabul on behalf of Charney Research in New York to oversee the pre-tests and interviewer training for a nationwide survey conducted on behalf of ABC news, BBC News and ARD of Germany.

The results, which were released today, are interesting for a number of reasons– particularly the wealth of tracking data from 2006 (a project for which I also traveled to Kabul for pre-tests and trainings) and 2005. As the ABC story (which is more insightful than the BBC’s) emphasizes, Afghans are increasingly critical of US efforts, with only 42% positive, down from 57% in 2006. More than half (53%) disapprove of the job the US is doing. It’s important to note, however, that the presence of US troops isn’t what is drawing Afghans’ ire (71% support their presence), it’s their performance. Civilian deaths, especially in the Southwest, understandably, turn Afghans away from US and NATO forces. This is an important finding with implications for US policy there.
(more…)

Talk about asking tough questions in tough places! Matt Warshaw, Senior Research Manager at D3 Systems, and friend and colleague, responded to interview questions about the challenges associated with conducting research in Afghanistan and Iraq at World Public Opinion. Read it. I think you’ll be surprised about a lot of the answers.

My favorite answer? When Matt was asked why this sort of work is worthwhile:

“It’s the third voice in the debate. It’s providing what people in those countries think about that situation. Having some knowledge of what the people in these places think themselves is a very valuable tool when enormous global decisions are going to be made about the future of a country, the direction it’s going to take, whether you’re going to have democracy, elections, invasions, sanctions, etc. These are decisions that could impact not just that country but your own society and other societies. There’s an enormous value in knowing what’s on people’s minds.”

Back in July, Ken Silverstein wrote an interesting article for Harpers about the how big PR firms in Washington acquire and serve foreign governmental clients. He posed as an agent for a shadowy company that wanted to hire a firm to improve Turkmenistan’s image in DC. Under the ruse, he collected proposals and price sheets from the biggest, most well-connected firms.

Although I don’t think the article provided a whole lot of new information about how DC firms work ($50,000 monthly retainers! Shocker!), it was interesting to see the whole package and sit in on the pitches. It is definitely worth the read.

Recently, Silverstein was invited to a press event in Washington featuring the Association for Civil Society Development in Azerbaijan (ACSDA) by a firm called Bob Lawrence and Associates. Since Silverstein pointed out in his article that “independent press events” are among the tools used by Washington firms to improve their clients’ images, he posted a follow-up on Harpers’ website (you have to wonder who thought it was a good idea to invite him in the first place).

Who is ACSDA? It’s an “NGO coalition” backed by the Government of Azerbaijan designed showcase Azerbaijan’s vibrant civil society to outsiders who don’t know any better. Bob Lawrence and Associates also coordinated President Aliyev’s 2006 trip to Washington to meet with Bush, Aliyev’s reward for not killing any election protesters after the 2005 election.
(more…)

The ever-informative Pollster.com has alerted us to a new online course offered by AAPOR (American Association for Public Opinion Research) and News University called Understanding and Interpreting Polls.

It’s an excellent primer for journalists, bloggers and other election watchers on how to avoid falling into common traps when analyzing poll data. The course is FREE and takes about two hours to complete.

Go crazy!