Topic Scope

Keeping in mind that the topic is Afghanistan, how broad of a view do we want to capture? Do we want to gauge public opinion simply on Canada's involvement in Afghanistan, or are we more inclined to broaden the scope to try and capture opinion on our national foreign policy in general?

I think that, given our respondents may not have much knowledge on the specifics of Canadian involvement in Afghanistan or the specifics of Canadian foreign policy in general, our question will have to be fairly broad and straight forward - a general opinion type question. Maybe we could ask a question like: "To what extent do you agree with the following statement: 'In hindsight, Canada's choice to deploy troops to Afghanistan was the right decision.' Strongly Agree; Somewhat Agree; Neutral; Somewhat Disagree; Strongly Disagree."

This way, we don't assume much detailed knowledge about Canada's foreign policy or much detailed knowledge about the happenings in Afghanistan; however, we will be able to measure the sample's support for Canada's stance on foreign relations in general.

Just an idea of a possible direction :)

I think that's a great question, however, asking someone their opinion on Canada's involvement in Afghanistan does require some prior knowledge of the event (except for a neutral answer). I think it's difficult to have a broad question in terms of foreign relations due to the specific circumstances that occur. Some situations require more forceful action then others and gauging opinion on one specific event may have a limited capacity in explaining Canada's stance on foreign policy. So although I agree we should stay away from specific questions, we also can't lose the respondent by making them think of varying circumstances.

That is a good point and something to consider; however, I don't think we should completely avoid asking interesting, more specific questions just because some people might not be politically aware enough to be able to give clear answers. I suggest that in addition to strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, and strongly disagree, we add another possible response to the more specific/"complex" questions (or all questions presented in this format) that will be along the lines of "Not sure/Don't know enough about the topic to form an opinion". This way, I feel like we can encourage more honest/accurate responses, and also add another component to possible future analysis (for example, we can look at how much Canadians know ABOUT our foreign policy, and not just at what they think about it, IF they know enough). I don't think we should only stick to very general questions. I also agree with Stephan that pretty much any question to do with Afghanistan, foreign policy - or politics in general - requires some prior knowledge, so it would be hard to start with the assumption that Canadians know nothing about politics while trying to conduct a political survey.

Also, in terms of the scope, going back to Ari's question, I think we should definitely consider/ask Dr Cutler's permission to broaden the scope to include other foreign policy issues, such as Canada's global ambitions (or what they should be/ if there should be), involvement in NATO, Canada-US relations, etc etc. I am surprised this is the only topic in the whole survey that has to do with IR... What does everyone think?

My only concern with broadening the scope would be that we might overwhelm our participants. Remember, we pay a lot more attention to issues of foreign policy than most people. While a lot of people know what Canada does in broad terms, I don't think they'd really understand, nor would they really care about Canada's involvement in NATO. I think keeping to things that are openly visible to the public would be best. That would involve the war in Afghanistan, Canada's relationship with the Syrian conflict (to a lesser degree) and even it's involvement (or lack thereof) in the War on Terror. These things are seen on the news and not just heard.

In regards to Ari's question about the scope of our poll, I believe that broadening our question to gauge Canada's entire foreign policy strategy requires even more background to be supplied to the participant as Jamie and Stephan stated before. I do like the path that Jamie started with a simple question like: "To what extent do you agree with the following statement: 'In hindsight, Canada's choice to deploy troops to Afghanistan was the right decision.' etc etc That provides a simple straightforward (at least in my opinion) question. If we were to do something like that we could add a filler sentence directly before that question is stated, maybe along the lines of stating a few specific facts about outcomes, or current involvement to help the reader feel more comfortable, but we would have to be careful as not to contaminate our sample by supplying biased information.

In response to Lee's concerns about having people not being politically aware enough to answer the survey question. I think that if we make the question too specific than we will really narrow down our field for people who are able to participate in our survey, just a thought though. I do like the idea about adding an additional response to gauge how much Canadians know about our foreign policy. It will allow for future research possibilities to open up, which is always a plus.

I think our best bet would be to come up with a filler sentence or two before the question to provide some brief background knowledge on the topic of Canada's involvement in Afghanistan before we ask our research question. We will just have to be careful on how the sentence is framed as not to contaminate our sample or induce bias responses.

The main topic scope and premise could be: Military Force in Afghanistan

Also, the factors that could consist are:

• Military Effort Success
• Troop withdrawal Afghanistan stable government
• Supporting soldiers
• Problems for returning soldiers
• Veteran Medical Care

Thoughts?

Karli: Though these are important issues in there own right, it seems to me that some of them may be too specific thus moving us away from gauging opinion on Canada's foreign policy. The perceived success of our military effort in Afghanistan is indeed a highly relevant issue and can act as a good platform for relevant questions.

Regarding the scope in general, it appears to me as if we've reached the conclusion that a balance between specific and broad has to be achieved (easy to say, hard to do). Though perhaps somewhat challenging to accomplish, I think it's quite possible to gauge public opinion on general Canadian foreign policy via questions specific to the Afghanistan conflict if we look at our involvement in that nation as a case study representative of a broader national policy. Public sentiment in regards to Canada's policies and involvement in Afghanistan can be seen as a sample of opinion which, when scaled up, may represent opinion toward our foreign policy in general.

We seem to already be on our way in drafting questions within the 'Afghanistan Conflict' frame which should achieve the above-mentioned goals...

At second thought, I do agree with River and others who have suggested we concentrate on broader questions that the majority of the people would be able to answer. Of course, it'd be fascinating for us to hear what people think about some specific policies/actions, but it probably will not matter much if we only get very few who are able to answer those questions.

Karli, I also think those are interesting topics, but like Ari mentioned - maybe we should focus more on things that have to do with what Canada as a country does/achieves outside its boarders (with its troops, etc) and not the treatment they get here at home (as important as that is). So, for example, from the topics you suggested, I think military success and troop withdrawal would be a good place to start.

I agree with Lee, especially considering how Canada has already withdrawn from the Afghanistan mission and what is left is a minimal task force with a concentration on providing advising and training capabilities. What we might be/should be interested in is knowing whether the public will want Canada to participate in similar missions and how Canada wants to be viewed on the world stage in terms of military/peacekeeping contributions, given the Afghanistan experience.

Karlson, I couldn't agree more. I think it's important that our questions get at the point of finding out not only what the Canadian government thinks now but also if I has affected how they would feel about things in the future. We're getting close to our deadline already so coming up with these questions is becoming very important. I'm going to create a separate thread where just our questions can be put. That way we can just cut and paste them for our final questions, while having a forum, if need be, to discuss and manipulate our questions.

Karli: I like your idea of broadening out our ideas. Basically, having one central theme upon which other themes hang off would be sweet but we only have 5 questions. I just don't think it's possible to get all those themes in just 5 questions. While I'm not saying it's impossible, it might just be tough. It is for that really that I really think anything that strays away from Afghanistan directly would be tough.

Karlson: You make a very valid point. Since Canada has since withdrawn from their military obligations in Afghanistan, we can now question the current public opinion of Canada's role in Afghanistan etc. Foreign policy may be too broad and there is unreliable evidence or fluctuation in public opinion about this particular issue. A more focus and refined way of gathering statistical evidence and public opinion could be elements of:

-How best can Canada continue to play a useful role in Afghanistan and the region?

-What are Canada's national interests in Afghanistan eight years after the 9/11 attacks? (This is broad but it also ignites where we can make statistical analysis)

-How can Canada improve the distribution and effectiveness of their military aid after their long-running presence in the Afghan war?

Finer tuning needs to result, however we can most likely make a more eloquent and narrowed approach as there has since been significant change of the war and Public Opinion/Canada's role

Yes Lee, in addition to providing survey response options of strongly agree, agree, neutral,,disagree and strongly disagree we should offer another possible response option of ‘unsure’ or ‘not enough information to answer.’ As River mentioned, it will allow us to gage how confident Canadians are about their foreign policy knowledge. There is a difference after all between ignorance/lack of knowledge and indifference/neutral on subject matter.

Furthermore, regarding the scope, I agree with Ari that we should focus on military success and troop withdrawal to highlight Canada’s international actions and influence abroad. However, Karli maybe on to something for another future survey. Questions addressing Veteran’s Medical Care for example (a topic for Canadians at home) may receive greater feedback or stronger answers because of canadian's closer proximity to the issue and this may influence their emotional connection to the military and responses in turn.