Course talk : POLI380JAN2011Owen/Survey/Defence policy

Thank you for making this post Bala,

I was just about to say that we need to organize our thread better so we can actually see the questions. Before we begin breaking down our questions, I think we need to decide what our focus is, whether we want to hone in on just Afghanistan or defence in general. For this thread, I don't think that we should all keep replying in a giant conversation. It makes tracking ideas very difficult.

If we first try to come up with a consensus on what we want to focus on, and then narrow these 13 questions down it will be much easier.

I think that we should broadly discuss defence and Canada's take on it, encorporating both general questions about our defence policy in addition to Afghanistan and Arctic sovereignty.

2 5 7 11 plus one of Gordon's questions I think are really good.

I agree with Jon here, we need narrow down on what we want to focus on for our survey in order to effectively select the best 5 questions for the survey, if everyone will have their own questions to ask and it will become too confusing and disorganized. I also think that we need to broadly discuss some aspect of Canada's defense policy as a whole and then perhaps have several questions on both Arctic sovereignty and the mission in Afghanistan which would give the survey a good balance. Also, if people can vote on the questions they want based on the focus of our survey then we could narrow down based on the choices we all have made and come up with a list before the midnight tomorrow- which I believe is the deadline.

2 5 7 and then 2 out of 1, 10 and 11. I can't decide which ones out of those 3

I really like questions 3, 5, 7, 9, 11. I don't think however that the questions should be organized in that order. But those are the questions I would like to vote on.

I agree with Jon. Every time I sign onto this I don't know where to begin.

Are we starting the broad topic decision on this thread? Because I think Jon has a great way of incorporating a lot of the questions we've covered. If we ask broad and general questions we can include both issues of Afghanistan and the Arctic. We already have a huge list of questions we can ask, all we need to do is sub-categorize them into Afghanistan and the Arctic and make sure they flow within these categories as well. This will also allow us to gauge the differences in opinion about two significant situations regarding Canadian defense today.

My votes are for questions 3, 5,7, 8, 9.

I like the idea of broadening to include both the Arctic Sovereignty and Afghanistan, but this is more feasible in a longer survey. We have 5 questions and thats all. If we include general questions, then questions about Afghanistan and Arctic that leaves 1-2 questions on each subtopic, not enough to get any type of resourcefulness from the survey. I mean the 5 questions is pretty limited, so we have to make a choice here. In my opinion, we could broaden it but it takes away from any type of in depth analysis we could possibly do. Honestly, if we had more then 5 questions I would like the idea of subheadings and transitioning between topics, but I just think 5 questions is much too small a limit to do this here. Maybe it would better if we keep general questions like this one:

Below are figures on military spending as part of government expenditure: 19.3% US 18.7% Russia 7.1% Australia 6.3% Canada 6.3% UK 5.4% France Canada should increase or decrease its defense budget (next year, etc.) (Increase significantly 2. Increase 3. No Change 4. Decrease 5. Decrease significantly)

...and not have questions that specifically refer to Afghanistan or Arctic. What do you guys think? In a way then if we keep the questions general, we are still focused on defense but not focused on one issue like Afghanistan or Arctic, which were the concerns of some below. In my opinion, we keep it on defense in general like the question above, and not those that refer to our other two focuses directly.

Thoughts?

2,5,7,10,13

Btw, I think the assignment is due at 7pm tom, so should we say everyone get their votes on which questions they would prefer by around early afternoon? That way we can post it up on the final wall...

I agree with Jordan in that we should keep the topic primarily focused on general defense and Afghanistan

I like 3, 5, 7, and 11 right now...can't really decide on the last one yet.

Jordan, I understand your concern with making things too general and spread out. But I think if we can incorporate the questions of Arctic Sovereignty and Afghanistan to the larger picture of defence in general, it will be useful for our survey. When you guys vote, edit the top thread and put your name down next to the number of the question. I've already started with Jacquelin's. That way we can keep track of the number of votes per question.

I can see where Jordan is coming from, we have only 5 questions so i guess it's better to narrow it down to Canada's defense policy as a whole or if you guys wanted, we could narrow it down to either Afghanistan or Arctic sovereignty, because if we don't narrow down our questions for the topic, the questions might not have much of an impact would seem like as though as we are jumping from one topic to another without any focus on a particular matter at hand. Also, as Jordan mentioned, please try to vote before the class starts tomorrow or latest by 5pm so that we finalize the questions we want to use for the survey and put them up before 7pm...

I like 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 13

I'm going for 4, 5, 7, 10, 12.

I really like what Bala and Jonathan have done in keeping this forum organized. If you guys get a chance, it would be great if you could add your tallies via edit to Bala's original post above. We will be able to assess the results as a group tomorrow and we can get them at a glance via Bala's system.

I'm not sure if this was mentioned before in another one of the posts, but I think 2 and 3 are basically the same question so I think that we should stick to just having one of those questions regardless of whether or not they both have enough votes.

I think that is a fair assessment - guess we can whichever gets more votes between them and then select the next highest question with the most number of votes apart from these two questions...

Yea, We could just choose whichever gets the highest number of votes (oddly enough they both have 5 votes...so I guess whichever one is fine with the majority), but I think its about time to finalize our questions...the cutoff is at 7 and its already 5 so I think it would fair to cut it off real soon, and take the questions of people who took the time to vote, which look like the questions : 2,5,7,11. I have posted the questions 5, 7, and 11 on the final page under a final questions heading as it looks like those won't change in the next hour or so....but as for the other 2 it looks like a toss up between a bunch of questions.

It feels as if we choose either one of 2 or 3, like a Stephen had mentioned we will be left with a bunch of questions to choose from that have like 2 votes. I personally wouldn't mind keeping both questions cause it seems like that what the majority wants. Thoughts??

hurry times almost done!!, someone can put up the last 2 questions on the main page...i feel it should just be 2 and 3

Personally, I do not mind having both questions 2 and 3 because one addresses defense in general and the other one addresses military spending which are actually 2 seperate entities, hence, I think both questions look good to be on the main board and the rest of the questions have much fewer votes relative to questions 2 and 3.

Time was running low so I put 2 and 3 up hope this is okay with everyone, just didn't want us getting stuck with 3.

MichaelBarrett‎

I also edited the main page so that it only includes our selection of the 5 questions to avoid any confusion. Hope this is okay with everyone.

Hey everyone,

The questions are fine. The majority of those were the ones I wanted to vote for anyways.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/01/11/nato-commander-lauds-canada%E2%80%99s-role-in-afghanistan/

The Specific Function and Placement of Canadian Soldiers in Afghanistan

We could possibly come up with a question on the capacity of Canadian soldiers in the country - what and where they are operating. It is known that Kandahar province is one of the most dangerous ones for NATO troops. Should Canadian soldiers be placed in the capital? in direct combat? only in aid and reconstruction? Maybe Canadians have different perceptions on Canada's security. Our security can be ensured through an Afghan society without violence and poverty - what do you guys think?

Canadian forces in Afghanistan should be focused on the training of Afghan army and police forces rather than the active participation in combat? 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Neither Agree nor Disagree 4. Disagree 5. Strongly Disagree

I like this idea Ian. Training of police/ troops in Afghanistan is a long-term strategy that could lead to an earlier exit. It could reveal that certain individuals might be opposed to the war - but supportive of Canada's role in a state-building, more peacekeeping based context.

Nadeem, we are reaching almost towards the due time for this assignment as such, I would prefer and suggest that we stick to the choice of 5 questions from the 13 narrowed down as it will be easier to focus on as opposed to debating on new ideas and or questions which would make things more complicated and go back to the drawing board once again. Just my suggestion, any thoughts?

I have already put up my suggested questions on the board. I simply wished to see if Ian wanted to provide a last minute contribution that could compliment any other listed questions. But I understand where you are coming from - good point. I think we've done some great work here and I can't wait to see the final list.

FIRST QUESTION

I like Jon's formulation of the first four questions, but do you think we should put this question to begin the study:

"Our intent is not to judge, or seem condescending, but gauge how inclined the Canadian population is interested in the topic of defense, in particular Afghanistan. The responses are used for this purpose only. In turn:

How interested are you in the Canadian involvement in Afghanistan?

1. Very 2. Somewhat 3. Little 4. Don't Care

What do you guys think about this question to start off the discussion, just to gauge the level of interest of our respondents right off the bat...

Perhaps, the question could be reworded as: "Do you have any interest in Canada's peace-keeping mission in Afghanistan?

1. Very Interested 2. Somewhat Interested 3. Neutral 4. Somewhat not interested 5. Not Interested 6. No comments

Yea, i like that one more. Its just that I think we should start with something like that just to get a feel for what the population looks like in terms of our topic.

And, I think its crucial to see if there is an interest among our respondents at all, to give us a little insight as to if they have been keeping up with the issue or not

Yeah I think you are spot on Jordan, if the respondents show little or no interest - it would be irrational to waste our time asking them more detailed or specific questions related to the topic because we can likely guess what their response is going to be.

yea for sure, it would seem irrational to ask respondents if they showed very little interest. And if we know that they do show little interest this could translate into how much we value their responses to the rest of the questions.

hey

As i said somewhere else on this huge mess slash maze of a page is that im not a super huge fan of asking people about their interest/knowledge. Because if they put that they are uninterested are we then prepared to throw away those results? and we only have 5 questions so i guess i feel they could be better spent but if everyone else is on board with it then I'd be okay with it. It's a good idea and if we had more questions I would put it on but since we only have 5 i dunno.

I see your point Jacqueline about the number of question constraint, I would put it for sure if the survey was longer. If you guys don't want it i'm good with it, but it may have been a simple way to gauge how much we value each response. We don't necessarily throw the results away if they show no interest but if people respond and they have no interest, we can possible gauge how effective their answers may be. If they show lots of interest we can at least be a little sure that they have some knowledge about the topic. But if they don't have any interest at all, we can possibly weight their responses less heavily. If we don't ask this question then it would hard to tease apart this information, as we would nothing to base it on. For example, somebody could be answering a question just to answer it and have no clue about Afghanistan at all, but just trying to finish the survey. At least we can know that this person has no interest at all through this question. Maybe this is more appropriate for a larger survey however. I'm good putting it up or not.

thought?

I agree with Jordan on this point because I cannot emphasize how crucial this is - you want to make sure that your respondents have some knowledge or interest about Afghanistan - which would be clearly be shown after asking this basic question before moving on to more specific questions about Afghanistan and or defense, if a person does not show any interest, that's does not mean that his answers to the rest of the question will become invalid, rather, just that we as the surveyor will know the ways in which conclusions can be drawn after finishing the survey. However, if the rest feel that it is not crucial, then I am fine with it as well but I think this questions is crucial to get more honest / useful information / replies to the other questions in the survey.

I don't like the idea of simply saying "how interested are you?" It's much too vague. This could be misconstrued as people interested in the mission continuing. People on both sides of the debate will be interested.

Gordon,

I like the question of interest for the reasons stated above, but perhaps we can reword it so it is not so vauge. Maybe something like "how interested are you in the topic of" or a question relating to the amount of time spent reading/watching media related to Afghanistan. Such as:

"On average, how much time do you spend consuming media (television, newspaper, radio) about the war in Afghanistan?"

Jon, I like your re-formulation of the question, what do the others think?

Yeah, I think Jon is on the right track with his question. However, I think we might have a problem regarding the actual available media coverage. I doubt most average people invest extra time researching Afghanistan which makes this question reliant on the amount of information displayed by the mass media. I might be wrong, but usually news regarding Afghanistan is limited to casualties.

I think Jonathan's question is a very good one to determine the respondents interest in Afghanistan. It gets right to the point, also i think it could be easily measured in hours per week/month

I think I agree with Chris. The question is vague because its intent is to be vague. It is to ask respondents their interest in Afghanistan. Now whatever that may be from keeping up with news coverage as Jon said, or reading the paper, to more intense things like attending public rallies or meetings. The question I asked never intended to be narrow, because narrow would not be applicable to the entire population (or respondents in our survey for that matter). The question was worded vague, because in my opinion and you can disagree with me here, the question needs to be vague to reach out to all of the population. I like Jon's question, however what if people are interested in Afghanistan but don't watch or listen to any media about it. What if they are attending meetings or public events to show their interest. By narrowing the question, we defeat the purpose of the question. People can be interested but not even pay attention to what is said on radios or televisions. To show interest can mean anything...by limiting this you limit the question and defeat the purpose. Sure it may seem vague, but to me it may be the only way without really crippling the question. How can we possibly garner all ways people show their interest into the confines of one question...it would be much too long. Interest can mean anything and since this is vague its only fitting that the question be vague.

What do you guys think?

All along, I have been advocating the need to ask a question that allows us to measure the respondents interest in the matter at hand (Afghanistan) and I totally agree with your rationale and reasoning in this matter Jordan.

Oh my goodness. This is disorganized! I think there is good discussion going on about the first question, I'm just a bit confused as to why we need to gauge their interest in defense policy.. is it a question in and of itself, or are we trying to discover some underlying basis to which we gauge the rest of their answers.

If it's a question for the value of itself, then it might be too broad (maybe we can alter it a bit?). If it's to gauge the rest of the survey, I mean... I feel it's kind of irrelevant.

I do think it's a good idea to throw in a small introductory disclaimer though. agreed.

I think Jon's question 1 proposed initially is a decent opening question. It's not invasive, and it basically determines Canadians interest or priority level in defense by asking whether we should increase funding (put their money) towards defense.

What if Jon's question was rephrased to something like "On a scale of 1-5, how adequate is media coverage in Afghanistan?". Those who rate the adequacy of media coverage lower will be considered interested because they want more media coverage of Afghanistan and those who rate it high will be considered disinterested. What do others think?

I gotta put it out there I don't think I could be more against this gauging people's knowledge question. Here are my arguments against it, if everyone else wants it obviously thats fine then I don't want to be a survey question dictator but here is why I think it is not effective: 1. It is still not going to give us workable choices. Ok so we dont throw the results away we weigh them differently. How? what function on spss will allow us to put more emphasis on some questions and not others when trying to determine the mean answer? 2. No matter how hard we try I do not think we could ever get the question answered properly, standardized tests can barely test a students knowledge on a topic and they have been at it for years. 3. It is utterly and completely and totally absolutely irrelevant what there knowledge is on Afghanistan. If we want to know what educated people who have studied Afghanistan think about Afghanistan we can go to Jstor and search Canada's involvement in Afghanistan. We want to know what average BC residents that vote think about it. If they go to the polls with incomplete information then they are going to take our survey with incomplete information. The point is not to find out what smart people think, or avid Afghanistan researchers think, its to find out what everyday people think. 4. Your creating a selection bias within the survey!!!!! We don't want to just hear from people who know about Afghanistan we want to hear from a group of individuals who we could transcend their opinions to generate an estimate about what a greater population would feel about the issues. Thats what we have been learning in class and that should influence our survey.

I know I put it harshly, but thats why I feel it would be a huge huge huge mistake. But if everyone thinks its needed then I suppose I understand.

I have to say I'm with JacquelineBriard on this too. Can we rephrase it to gauge the "importance" the respondent could place on Afghanistan instead on their "knowledge" of the situation?

On Spss I wouldn't be surprised if their weighted tabs as to give more emphasis on one or the other, but I could be wrong because this is the first time I have used it. I could see Jacqueline's concern, but I do believe that interest and and keeping up on the topic will translate into a greater knowledge on the topic, which is important to the survey. Again, this may be more appropriate in a longer survey, and we may not wan't to use up a question for this and I'm fine with it, I just believed it would be interesting to see what the interest level is in the Canadian population. Putting it in or not is fine with me. With Bala's post at the top for the voting on which question you like, we will see if this question is wanted by the majority. If not there's plenty of good questions to choose from.

If the point of the question is just asking how interested people are in Afghanistan thats fine I am just against using that information to weigh some peoples responses more then others because I feel that wouldn't be surveying the average person it would be selecting for those who have researched more on Afghanistan.

I agree with Jaqueline, and Jordan I do believe it would be interesting... it would be difficult to actually determine whether their interest actually related to the amount of true knowledge they had. I think we should maybe just rule it out?

I agree with Jacqueline, and Jordan I do think it would be interesting... although it may be difficult to determine whether or not their interest actually affected the amounts of true knowledge they have? I think maybe we should just rule it out.

ps. sorry for the double reply, internet cut out!

Focus our study

Hi all,

I know we're trying to create 10 survey questions in terms of defense policy, such as Afghanistan, fighter jets etc. But the topic of defense can span in many directions and can become troublesome when we try to formulate our final questions. Is there a broad consensus on some issues that we should focus on? Whether it be peacekeeping or fighter jets etc. I just think the topic of defense is too vast a topic to formulate ten concise questions to ask so we must focus our study on one aspect of defense to make it easier to create questions. Any ideas on what we'd like to focus on? I would personally like to focus on the issue of Afghanistan. What do you guys think?

For example, we could ask something like this

What is your feeling on Stephen Harper's plan to remove the troops from Afghanistan in 2011

1. Strongly Agree 2. Somewhat Agree 3. Neutral 4. Somewhat Disagree 5. Strongly Disagree

Harper did not pull the troops out as he originally planned in 2011, instead, the mission has been extended till 2014. This agreement was made on November 12, 2010 along with other NATO members.

Perhaps, a more suitable question would be like:

Do you agree with Stephen Harper decision to extend Canada's mission in Afghanistan to 2014?

1. Strongly Agree 2. Somewhat Agree 3. Neutral 4. Somewhat Disagree 5. Strongly Disagree

I may be going out on a limb here, so don't take this the wrong way but asking a question like that is probably above the understanding of the many. It is not to say the many are incapable of understanding/computing such an question, but that most aren't exactly experts in foriegn policy.

For example, one would need a greater understanding of the conditions in Afganistan and the political/economic reprecusions of leaving.

The question you pose is somewhat vague and might question validity/reliablity. It may just lead to answers triggered on emotional response.

Yea thats fine, I just wanted to focus the study into one main topic, others our survey won't be concise enough to ask people, if they are on various topics JordanFernandez 12:39, 28 January 2011 (PST)

Hi guys,

I agree we should narrow the topic of defense policy to a few smaller areas, however, in concern with issues such as Afghanistan, I don't really know if we should specifically focus in this.. The war in Afghanistan is a topic that is being analyzed in hindsight has had a chance to accumulate a lot of media and popular attention that has created certain biases and opinions that could influence the results. For example, some people may answer questions about Canada's role in this war based on what has been said in the media, or by peers etc...

Essentially we need to look at our goals for the survey. We want to find results that are more likely to be repeated in other cases, and results that will help us analyze and develop Canada's defense policy in general. We can throw in a question about Afghanistan, but I feel this area is too emotionally charged to yield results about overall defense attitudes.

I like some of the broader suggestions for questions - they are more general and applicable to a range of cases. John's earlier question of comparing whether people are more willing to spend money on border defense or peacekeeping operations was interesting.

I like that. We should poll people to see if they think the war was "a tactical mistake," "fundamentally wrong and immoral," "a swell thing to do." Etc.

Canada did not have a choice when it came to Afghanistan. My reasons are as follows:

1. Canada did not want to upset the United States - given the fact that the US is our biggest ally, trading partner and furthermore, it was framed as North American Defense.

2. Follows the logic of functional principle - that is if you want to have a say in world affairs, you need to contribute, if you don't contribute, you don't get a seat at the table. It's like playing poker, if you don't have the chips, you cannot gamble.

3. Canada's reputation as a credible ally in NATO was also at stake.

4. Canada did not want to get involved in Iraq, hence, they re-committed to Afghanistan after initially pulling out, If they had pulled out, they would have been most likely be involved in the Iraq war and hence, Afghanistan was a way out for Canada to avoid being involved in the Iraq war.

Please feel free to comment and or critique.

Other questions we could ask about Afghanistan and defense in general are

According to you, how successful (militarily) was the war in Afghanistan? (from 1-5 or 1-7)

Based on your answer from above (or simply another according to you), in future wars and in the defense of the country, what specific areas of the Canadian military need be improved? (could be ranked again) ex. Funding, technology, number of soldiers, leadership, training etc...

Hey guys,

I understand that it is important to have an understanding of our topic, but this isn't the place to discuss current political events. Let's get back on topic and decide on a focus area for our survey.

I agree with Jordan on Afghanistan.

Hello,

I also agree with Jordan about the Afghanistan questions but I also think it would be interesting to also ask more vague questions about defense and then more precise ones. This is because often with surveys respondents answers are conflicting. For example we could ask a general question like "How much annual spending on defense do you feel is appropriate?" and then have different amounts of money and then ask a question like "Do you Agree with the Canada's current commitment in Afghanistan?" and then we could compare answers and have an idea of how much people are comfortable with spending when they agree with the current commitment then compare this to actual money spent on the commitment and then you could have an idea of weather the money spent on Afghanistan corresponds to what people would want to allocate based on weather or not they agree with the commitment. Or maybe this is dumb and to complicated for our ten research questions. Maybe its a bad example but I think asking vague and narrow questions can be effective! I also agree that we shouldn't discuss current events because we can not assume the people taking the survey know current events and instead we should just ask questions!

Yea, I find that in the future we are going to be using these questions to ask survey respondents, thus they need to have little knowledge on the subject at least. I like the Artic sovereignty topic, but it might be inaccessible to most in the general public, while I would think a lot of people know about Afghanistan.

I'd hope that our respondents would at least be able to under stand the terms "arctic" and "sovereignty" separately and be able to put the two together. I'm a bit biased as it was my suggestion to ask about the issue in the first place. ;-)

Yeah, good call Jordan, Afghanistan has been in the news quite frequently and thus, it is reasonable to expect that the general public in BC are aware of Canada's mission in Afghanistan.

So Afghanistan is okay with everyone?! We should start formulating questions ASAP.

I like Balamurugan's reformulation of the question I posted earlier:

Do you agree with Stephen Harper decision to extend Canada's mission in Afghanistan to 2014? 1. Strongly Agree 2. Somewhat Agree 3. Neutral 4. Somewhat Disagree 5. Strongly Disagree

This could be our first question, to ease our respondents into the topic and let them know our study will be focused on Afghanistan?

What do you guys think...

Yeah I agree with Jordan, we should try and come up the questions ASAP because some of us will have mid-terms and other assignments as well that are coming up over the next 2 weeks or so and I believe Prof. Owen mentioned that the due date for this survey is about the same time that the first assignment is due - Feb 8.

I was thinking something like:

Canada's mission in Afghanistan plays an important role in improving Canada-US relations. Should Harper's decision to withdraw by 2014 be influenced by our neighbor, considering the important role they play in our economy, defense and foreign policy in general.

1. Strongly Agree 2. Somewhat Agree 3. Neutral 4. Somewhat Disagree 5. Strongly Disagree

I'm not sure if this takes it away from the direction you guys were thinking but I thought it was an interesting viewpoint.

MichaelBarrett‎

We could ask the first question of whether people agree or not with Harper's decision in 2014, then ask your question Mike right after it...and we can see if people's answers deviate from their first response, now that the question is more specific and showing the effects of the decision... ..but I do like Mike's question a lot.

^^ In response to Balamurugan, yea its part of our first assignment, so lets get em done ASAP.

Is everyone okay with these two questions so far:

Do you agree with Stephen Harper decision to extend Canada's mission in Afghanistan to 2014?

1. Strongly Agree 2. Somewhat Agree 3. Neutral 4. Somewhat Disagree 5. Strongly Disagree

Canada's mission in Afghanistan plays an important role in improving Canada-US relations. Should Harper's decision to withdraw by 2014 be influenced by our neighbor, considering the important role they play in our economy, defense and foreign policy in general.

1. Strongly Agree 2. Somewhat Agree 3. Neutral 4. Somewhat Disagree 5. Strongly Disagree

What do you guys think?

and we need to make 5 questions right? or is it 10?

Yeah those questions are good especially for first questions. At first I thought Mike's might be like pushing people towards saying agree by adding that they play an important role in the economy but then when I thought about how else to phrase it I kinda realized it is probably most effective the way it is worded because if we take that part out then they may not understand the point of the question. So in summation I think both these questions are just superb.

So now are we gunna ask questions about the amount of money spent on the war in Afghanistan? Like how much money do you feel is acceptable to spend on our commitment in Afghanistan and then have like interval amounts? or is that dumb. Or should we put like:

In terms of the amount of money the Canadian government is spending on the mission in Afghanistan do you feel the government is spending: 1. Not enough 2. About the right amount 3. Too Much 4. Don't know

and then we could compare from those who felt we should be there or not what they thought about the money being spent? or should we ask it in a different way and be like: What percentage of your tax dollars do you feel should be allocated to the mission in Afghanistan?

or are we not gunna ask questions about money at all??

Also I was thinking are we gunna ask questions like: To what extent do you feel the Canadian commitment in Afghanistan is important for humanitarian purposes or national defense: 1. Important only for defense 2. Important for both defense and humanitarian purposes 3. Important for humanitarian purposes only.

Or something like that I guess thats an awkward way to put it and maybe humanitarian isn't the best word but do you see where im going with this? and do we want to go this way with this?

Also are we supposed to have some point to this or just asking questions about defense? like what exactly are we trying to find out, just peoples general perception of Afghanistan??

I would include the amount of money the Canadian government spends on defense as a % of all other expenses. It is too tough to expect Canadians to all know the amount spent - an overwhelming amount of #4. State, this is the % spent on military expenditures, defense, etc. and then say is this proportionally an acceptable % for the defense of our country?

What do you think?

Epical‎

According to this: http://www.visualeconomics.com/how-countries-spend-their-money/

Canada spends 6.3% of its budget on Military, 12.7% on Education, and 17.8% on Health. Can you reframe the question with this in mind perhaps?

Maybe we could pose a question comparatively....something comparing the numbers of other countries like the UK, US, France, Australia..comparing budgets for defense and then asking if people would choose to increase, decrease or stay the same. This kind of going out on a limb but a lot of Canadians might be opposed to defense spending when there are other issues on the table, but comparing the same issue among different countries with international reputations it might be interesting to see what people actually say.

Thats a great idea Julia. It could go:

Below are figures on military spending as part of government expenditure:

19.3% US 18.7% Russia 7.1% Australia 6.3% Canada 6.3% UK 5.4% France

Canada should increase or decrease its defence budget (next year, etc.) ?

1. Increase significantly 2. Increase 3. No Change 4. Decrease 5. Decrease significantly

What do you think?

By those stats it looks like Canada spends roughly the same amount as other western nations with similarly sized armed forces and populations. The exceptions being Russia and the US which were/are superpowers. The other problem is that each country has different and specific needs for defence. ex) Canada has the longest coast line to protect versus the UK or France which have very little. ex) Canada is the second largest country in the world. etc. . . I think there are too many variables that affect how much we spend in relation to other countries. Rather than have the question based on the expenditures of other nations perhaps have it based on perceived threat? like Russian and Danish 'expansion' in the arctic or supporting our NATO allies. I think the question works but not merely through examining other nations expenditures.

I think in looking at that question by Nadeem on from a relative point of view in terms of other countries, it may skew the responses of our surveyors. For example, people may look at those stats and say well US spends significantly more than we do...so we must increase our spending on defense. In my opinion, looking at this question from a relativist perspective may skew the answers that people may give.

The question could potentially be worded:

Canada currently spends this much ____ as a percentage of GDP on defense. Do you think Canada should increase or decrease its defense spending next year.

1. Increase significantly 2. Increase 3. No Change 4. Decrease 5. Decrease significantly

maybe asking it in those terms would be better...

thoughts?

Yeah I get where Jordan is coming from but Im worried if we don't put other percentages up there then how will people have an idea of our spending compared to others you know? but at the same I understand what you mean about skewing results but its not as if we are making a normative statement we are showing facts if facts skew someone's opinion that okay right? Or maybe not I dunno??

People won't know about the other countries, and can't assess their own knowledge comparatively. I think that Ian's comment about us having unique defence concerns is valid - yet - other countries have dynamic security environments as well. The UK is responsible for its overseas territories, Iraq, and UN commitments - as is France and other European countries. Australia's size and location require much funding. Canada's situation is offset by the US military budget, one of the largest in the world. We do have a more difficult country that is geographically complicated to defend. We do however, have the world's sole military hegemon covering a lot of our load.

Personally, I see the other GDP's (and the fact certain countries there are fighting alongside Canadians in Afghanistan) make it a valid addition to the question.

I agree. So are there any objections to the two questions Nadeem put up on the board cause Im good with them.

Personally, I do not mind if the question is phrased with other countries and how much they spend on their defense as a percentage of GDP, if you and Jacqueline like it I'm good with it. Do you think it might be more effective, however, instead of asking our defense spending and having the stats of other countries, we should instead put up Canada's budget for defense relative to what else we spend our money on in our budget. For example, instead of saying this country spends 5.4% and this country 18.4% for example, we could say that Canada spends 6.3% of its budget on the military and 5.0% on education, 15% on the economic stimulus package etc....

I think this might be more effective because although Canada spends 6.3 on defense in our budget, it should be relative to what else we spend in our budget despite what other countries might spend on theirs. Asking Canadians if we should spend more on defense by giving the numbers of other countries should not be based on how much other countries spend, it should be relative to what Canada is currently spending in our budget.

Looking at the question Nadeem posed (which I actually quite like), asks if Canada should spend more by looking at other countries figures, and asking respondents if on this information should Canada increase its military budget. But it would be more effective to give the figures of what Canada currently spends on its budget to see if respondents actually value increasing the military budget. Sure, Canadians may feel it is good or not good to increase military spending, but the way the question is phrased does not get at the heart of what the question is trying to ask. It may not be politically feasible to increase our budget on military because the population values more money being put into the economic stimulus package or education or even health care

To truly see if Canadians want to increase the budget for the military we need to ask it in a way that is relative to the other things we spend money on, not how much other counties spend on theirs. If we ask how much we should spend on the military relative to education, health care etc... we can see if the population truly wants to increase the money spent on the budget, and if they truly value doing so.

But if there is a majority on the original question, I have little problems with it.

According to Prof Owen, this survey will be asked to respondents of BC. Please also note that Canada is not a super-power or great-power like the other countries that you have mentioned, Canada is a middle-power, thus, it is only logical that Canada's military spending is a lot lesser than other countries like US, France, UK (Super-powers and Great-Powers, plus they are all permanent members of the UN with veto power). It would be unfair to compare Canada's military spending with the rest of the above-mentioned countries. Perhaps like what Jordan mentioned, it would be better to ask respondents if Canada's should increase its defense budget relative to the other priorities of Canadians like education, health care, welfare, etc or as a percentage of its overall GDP.

Now that I see the way that this question has played out I do understand the concerns with regards to all the variables that go into the percentages of government expenditure percountry, and agree that it would be dangerous to compare just those numbers without taking any other variables into consideration. Using the GDP and percentage of GDP for defense among other countries could potentially be more credible than the previous question, but could still face similar challenges.I like the question and am curious as to how people's answers would perhaps differ from their overall survey if we, say, asked them that question last, but there are a lot of problems with it.

Also, with regards to Bala and Jordan suggesting we use our GDP percentages of health care, education, welfare e.t.c. I can tell you right now that most of the Canadian population, if they see comparatively how much of the GDP is sucked up by "defense" they will advocate for LESS defense spending. This is just a theory but people in Canada are much more welfare/education/healthcare minded over defense and any extra dollars they can put towards something they will see directly and positively effect their country will most likely get the brunt of their support, so I would say that asking a quesiton like this would not replace the question above in a sense that you would most likely get differing responses, but it is a valid question in itself and could very well be used to solidify where Canadian's stand with Defense spending.

Comparing education and/or health is a difficult task. America spends a lot on healthcare - more than we do in terms of %'s but have a large portion of their population that remains uncovered.

Bala, I don't think that you can normatively assert that Canada is a middle power. Today Canada (not France, UK, etc.) operate in some of the most strategically important regions of Afghanistan like Helmand and Kandahar. Canada is a middle power in some sense - but it is within the NATO framework which is becoming more regionally polarized. It is expected, by NATO analyists that the EU will homogenize its defence policy through the union. America will act accordingly, and Canada could as well.

I believe that the GDP's provide a spectrum of %'s. Some resemble Canada's. Some don't. It paints a basic picture for the survey respondent - to which they can assert whether they see more black or white - whether Canada needs more or less, according to them.

I feel like the question asked in both the way Jordan was thinking and the was Nadeem was thinking could both be effective they are just looking at different things and will give us different information so we should decide what kind of information we are looking to generate.

Another interesting thing, which may be better if we could have more questions, would be to ask both questions and then see what kind of contradictions arose from that data because I think there would be a lot. I think people might say more when they see other percentages and then when they think of it in terms of other expeditures they might think less and it would be interesting. But with only room for five questions I dont know if thats something we want to do.

I also agree that when showing the percents we should not worry about what non-empirical classification we can put Canada in, like "middle" or "super" or "great" power. Just show some facts about GDP percents, people have a rough idea of the physical size of countries and they can decide for themselves weather they feel Canada should spend more or less it doesn't really matter weather or not Canada is different then the countries mentioned.

Either way I think at least one of these questions should be one of the final 5 and I am leening towards percents because I feel the other question will say more about the other things people value and less about defense. But I could probably be persuaded either way.

"I also agree that when showing the percents we should not worry about what non-empirical classification we can put Canada in, like "middle" or "super" or "great" power. Just show some facts about GDP percents, people have a rough idea of the physical size of countries and they can decide for themselves weather they feel Canada should spend more or less it doesn't really matter weather or not Canada is different then the countries mentioned."

You make a really good point here. Jordan's method is a very valid one. I simply believed that we should inform and then question. Rather than question and not assume knowledge. People might very well know rough GDP figures themselves, especially if you did this at a large Canadian university. But I like Jackie's point that we can't classify Canada as a lowly - middle power. That is a stereotype. It's surely going to change in 50-100 years, no?

It's not a stereotype, it's factual information. I am not saying we are a lowly middle-power or anything that undermines Canada's contribution to peace-keeping, in fact it was as a result of Lester Pearson that the term peace-keeping came into prominence during the Suez crisis and Pearson even received a Nobel Peace Price for his efforts. But we have to face reality, do we have the resources to compete with the rest of the countries you have mentioned? Even though we are involved in the strategic areas of Afghanistan, more than 80% of the costs for the peace-keeping mission in Afghanistan is paid for by the US. This begs the question, even if we have the resources, are we willing to contribute? For example, Harper's plan to assert Canada's sovereignty in the Arctic resulted in the Canada First Defense Plan - extremely impressive plans but there is not enough investment that is being made till now to strongly assert our sovereignty in the Arctic due to a lack of resources and funds. Just think about this for a second, if Canada is truly a up and coming country like you have mentioned over the next 50-100 years, we would not have embarrassingly lost out to Portugal in the UN vote for a seat on the UN Security Council last November. I think ideally we need to focus on what we can expect in the near future and not in the next 50-100 years when we don't even know what is going to happen tomorrow.

I guess im just saying its irrelevant Canada's position in relation to those other countries, all we want is people's opinion after giving them a little information about other countries spending, then they can form their opinion we don't need to worry about their opinion being swayed by the percents if their factual they will decide weather more or less is appropriate thats all we need to know,

I am okay with the formulation of the question either way. My concern is not about whether the opinions will be swayed by showing what the other percentages of countries are, it is about people saying they should increase or decrease defense spending, when it may not be politically feasible. Sure, showing them %, could inform their opinion about how much they should spend and get some interest as to whether they want to spend more or less on defense, and if thats all we want to accomplish with the question i am fine with it. I just thought we should take the question a bit further, seeing whether or not they want to increase defense relative to what else we spend on. Then we get at the heart of whether they are truly interested in increasing spending or not because they value other things in the budget. I just think with a reformulation of the question, we could ask both if they interested in defense spending, and if they value it relative to what else we spend money on, but they first question just looks at whether people are want to in increase or decrease defense spending, not whether or not they value it based on what else we spend on. But if i'm outweighed by the majority, I don't have any other concerns than this.

I understand what Jordan is saying. I think we can fix this by either asking the question with the percentages but prefacing it with "if it were possible, would you prefer it if..." sort of thing. We could also compare it to other factors that people value in the budget, as Jordan suggested. I'm fine with either or, but do see Jordan's point.

Hi all:

I think the first two questions are a great way to get people into the topic and get into more detailed questions like later on. Jacqueline, I like your approach but it's important to note that this survey ties in with Canada's defense policy in general and I think most people will agree that Canada is playing a peacekeeping role in Afghanistan - to try and create stability there after the war - so far it has been a failure. An example, “Rampant corruption, absence of the rule of law, and failure of the government to provide equitable social services are rapidly undermining Afghan popular support for democratic governance model and possibly foreign military presence,” (comments from a Canadian official overseeing the Afghanistan mission - source: wiki leaks). Also, it is important to note that Canada's mission in Afghanistan was funded separately, not taken from the Defense budget. One question that came to my mind - Is Harper's decision to purchase the F35 jets down to the fact that the current fleet of aircraft has been overworked and overused as a result of the mission in Afghanistan notwithstanding the fact that they are extremely old - last purchased in 1970. Please comment and provide some feedback guys, thanks.

I like the idea of a economically orientated question, even if Afghanistan is not included in the budget, I think its more important to think about the impact of the conflict there and people's attitudes towards the budget reflects the role they want Canada to play in future peacekeeping. Maybe one that asks specific dollar values instead of agree/disagree questions:

Canada currently allocates around 1.5% of its GDP towards military expenditure, what proportion should the federal government aim for in the future.

1. <1% 2. 1-1.5% 3. Maintain the current budget level 4. 1.5-2% 5. 2%<

Or if those answers are too specific we could stick with Jacqueline's question.

Even though the F35's wont be actually purchased until after Afghanistan I think a question on them might still capture the general attitude towards defense.

Maybe word it like:

The Conservatives have been criticized for excessive spending, notably the proposed $9 billion on F-35 fighter jets. Is such spending justified to protect Canadian troops abroad even in the wake of financial crisis?

Also I think Jacqueline is right we should have some general aim, maybe a research question to answer. A future looking questions could be something like: what role should Canada play in future conflicts considering the controversy over the war in Afghanistan. Just a thought to have a direction to head in, any thoughts?

MichaelBarrett‎

I'm agreeing with Michael on this one..a question pertaining to the F35s would certainly give us a look into the general Canadian attitude towards defense, and it is specific, but gives us a broader picture at the same time.

With regards to the question "What role should canada play in future conflicts considering the controversy over the war in Afghanistan" we could go further into this question..maybe getting some sort of definition of what justifies and war and what doesn't? We could list some things that have justified wars in the past and see if people believe these to be valid reasons...

This could also be a pretty cumbersome question though, something we might not want to explore/something that isnt specific enough or is too general.

What about something like "Do you believe Defense should be a priority in Canada's National budget?" simple...then agree, disagree, strongly disagree etc.

I think Julia has a valid point though it is quite obvious that defense is not a priority among Canadians when it comes to the National Budget - health care, education, and other issues have always gained more prominence among Canadians, thus, this question could be asked to see if the priorities have changed among Canadians or if they still remain the same.

That's a good point Balamurugan, National Defence is low on the priority list for most Canadians. Perhaps a question could be raised out of this.

Some might argue that is it due to Canada's geographical location (seas on either side and the USA in the south). Perhaps this is why Canada is so involved in foreign peacekeeping?

I'm just putting this out there, but perhaps an interesting reasearch question could be...

- Canada's national defence policies should be improved by an increase in funding to strenghten Canada's international Reputation (Economic, political etc...)

1. Strongly Agree 2. Somewhat Agree 3. Neutral 4. Somewhat Disagree 5. Strongly Disagree

Too vague?

I like Bentley's question alot, as well as Julia's. I don't think Bentley's question is too vague at all if used towards the start of the survey....then we can move to more specific questions.

I think Julia's question could be asked as the starting question to just get a feel of how inclined Canadians are towards the topic, then we can move to move in depth question's, like Afghanistan and the F35s if you guys like.

Im feeling that Julia's question is good to start, then maybe we could ask something like this:

How strong would you say your knowledge is about the involvement of Canadians in Afghanistan

1. Very Strong 2. Strong 3. Neutral 4. Weak 5. Very Weak

(we may also choose to put a subheading to the question that says "Our objective is not to place harm or judge you on your knowledge base of the topic of Afghanistan, but rather just to get a general feel of how much Canadians are interested in the topic" ..... that way this question may not seem invasive or make the respondent feel as if he/she has a moral obligation to say that they know lots about Afghanistan, because it wouldn't really make a difference.

Then possibly we can move to Bentley's question that the other two questions above and Mike's question..

What do you guys think??

Bentley- your question is exactly what I was thinking with regards to a perhaps vague but good indicator of where canadians head's are at when it comes to defense policy...if they even know anything about it at all. I was thinking this question could be posed first just to get a sense of the data we would be receiving and correlations to other answers e.t.c..to kind of set the stage. Thoughts???

I also agree with Jordan in that we dont want to seem condescending or arrogant while posing these questions. We dont want it to be "us" vs. "them"

"I also agree with Jordan in that we dont want to seem condescending or arrogant while posing these questions. We dont want it to be "us" vs. "them" "

That's a good point Julia, but at the same time are we surveying personal taste, knowledge, or general attitude?

Arguably a combination of all of those things. I don't think each of those (personal taste, knowledge, attitude) are independent of one another. At the end of the day I believe we are trying to see the general trends regarding voting Canadians on this issue. If Harper is acting on our wishes and our survey reflects a 'general' push to remain and fight in Afghanistan(to varying degrees) then we have a successful democracy. If not, we have a leader not acting in the interests of the majority - a clear problem.

Please refer to my question proposed as a reply to Julia's 'compartive' suggestion.

I like Bentley's question but also another route could be like a ranking question! like: Rank the following in terms of the priority they should take in the national budget: a. defence b. health care c. environmentaly friendly technologies d. something else e. somethign else

Then we could know how much they think defence is important compared to other things??

"Canada's national defence policies should be improved by an increase in funding to strenghten Canada's international Reputation (Economic, political etc...)"

I think the first part about national defense policies is misleading. Policy is different than programs, because of this an increase in funding does not necessarily relate to a change positively or negatively to policy. However a change in funding to programs could improve a country's reputation/role in the international community

I think the wording should be changed in Bentley's question to say:

Canada should increase funding to national defense programs in order to improve Canada's (overall?) international reputation

Strongly disagree........Strongly agree

or

Canada should increase funding to national defense and peacekeeping programs in order to improve/raise Canada's role in the international community

Strongly disagree........Strongly agree

StephenKroger "Canada should increase funding to national defense and peacekeeping programs in order to improve/raise Canada's role in the international community" is good. can we all promote this question to #1 on our survey. It can be re-worked, moved up down the order later, but it would give us something to start from?

Craig,

I agree with Stephen/Craigs re-structuring.

"Canada should increase funding to national defense and peacekeeping programs in order to improve/raise Canada's role in the international community

Strongly disagree........Strongly agree"

This one is more specific, I would take it over the 1st. Nice!

-B.

Ben Rust‎

I'm also liking the restructuring of this question! It is more specific and gets to the information that we want to extract quite effectively

Seconding that restructuring

Hey everyone.

Wow I had no idea that everyone had started on this already, I've been so swamped.

I was wondering, after reading the first two question (which I think are great), would it be useful to start it off with something that gages the change of opinion in allocating money/spending troops to Afghanistan? Maybe something like: "Did you initially agree with Harper to join the US in Afghanistan..." and have the 1) Strongly Disagree 2) Somewhat Disagree, etc.

I mean I know as of right now we're just focusing on Afghanistan, and asking people about the now/future. Do you think people would tell the truth/remember what they thought if we asked them the above question? And that way we get some general idea of what the opinions were of people in teh beginning, and how they changed.

I just thought this would be a general question to ask before the Harper extending the mission thing. Or may be ask something else in teh beginning that's even more general about Afghanistan and then go into the extending mission one.

I guess I just don't know if people will remember that far back, or if their opinions now will cloud what they previously thought about this and therefore render the question useless.

Richa, it is important to note that the Afghanistan mission was agreed upon by Jean Chretien, not Stephen Harper. In other words, it was an agreement made by the Liberals while they were in power, first Chretien and then Paul Martin. Harper was not even keen on being in Afghanistan - it was made very clear when he came into power in 2006 and one of his promises was to remove the troops in Afghanistan by 2011. However, due to pressure from NATO and the US, he reluctantly agreed to extend Canada's mission in Afghanistan till 2014 even though 60% of Canadians were against it.

Hey everyone,

Great discussion going on, but there are many ideas being thrown around in one single thread. I made a new post with a compiled list from this thread, if there are any missing feel free to edit them into the top. If we could just create new threads for each separate question to discuss them that would be great. Just follow the directions on the top and if you have any questions/suggestions, leave a reply. Thanks!

Afghanistan

Since I see a lot of talk regarding Afghanistan, I guess that's where we've decided to focus study? Here are the questions I'd like to ask Canadians:

“If Canadian forces remain in Afghanistan, they can help build a vibrant democracy.”

Strongly Agree. 2. Agree 3. Neutral 4. Disagree. 5. Strongly Disagree. 6. I don’t know.

“I think we should immediately begin to remove all Canadian forces from Afghanistan”

Strongly Agree. 2. Agree 3. Neutral 4. Disagree. 5. Strongly Disagree. 6. I don’t know.

“It was necessary to invade Afghanistan.”

Strongly Agree. 2. Agree 3. Neutral 4. Disagree. 5. Strongly Disagree. 6. I don’t know.

“The Afghan mission has made life better for the people of Afghanistan.”

Strongly Agree. 2. Agree 3. Neutral 4. Disagree. 5. Strongly Disagree. 6. I don’t know.

How do you think the average Afghan citizen feels about our presence in Afghanistan?

1. Strongly approves. 2. Approves. 3. Neutral. 4. Disapproves. 5. Strongly Disapproves. 6. I don’t know.

What effect do you think the invasion of Afghanistan has had on protecting Canadians from terrorism?

1. It has greatly reduced the threat of terrorism. 2. It slightly reduced the threat of terrorism. 3. It has had no effect. 4. It has slightly increased the risk of terrorism. 5. It has greatly increased the risk of terrorism. 6. I don’t know

How important do you feel the Afghanistan mission is to keeping Canadians safe?

1. Very important. 2. Important. 3. Not important at all. 4. It’s making it more dangerous. 5. Don’t know.

Gordon,

I like the questions you have provided, but I think we should split 2 questions for general defence and then another 3 aimed towards Afghanistan. I think it would be useful to tie in opinions about defence spending in Afghanistan with a more ideas/feelings towards defence. What do you guys think?

Sure, whatever balance we choose is fine by me. We can focus on broader defense spending and just have a couple about Afghanistan. Since we're talking about defense, I highly recommend we use one of the latter questions as it pertains to how the invasion of Afghanistan is actually defending Canadians.

I like the first question the best and agree with the splitting and I like protecting from terrorism question but I like Nadeems version of asking weather it has made you feel safer, like your last question.

No offense intended, but I think if you asked these questions to the citizens in Afghanistan, it would make more sense because if you think logically, Canadians are not really going to care about what happens in Afghanistan or is happening to Afghanistan - though I could be wrong. For example, to ask a question like, “If Canadian forces remain in Afghanistan, they can help build a vibrant democracy" is simply not going to work - Afghanistan has been in political turmoil throughout their entire history from the times of Alexander the Great, during the Soviet invasion, etc. Thus, to suggest that they will become a democracy or become more stable as a result of the Canadian forces being stationed there is something that is not going to happen overnight or even in 5 years, it will take a long time before it is materialized. Thus, I think asking questions that will have an impact on Canadians because it concerns them directly will be better.

There are two principle reasons we're told that our forces need to be in Afghanistan, both of which are in my questions. First, it will help build democracy in Afghanistan. Second, it will make the world a safer place. As for the validity of these claims, I too doubt them. That's the point of asking the questions. If the rest of Canadians give the same answers as you did, I think that tells us something very important.

I think I agree with Balamurugan...however, I also think Gordon is correct in gauging the effect of Canadians on Afghani lives. I think we should have at least 1 question pertaining to the effect of the Canadian effort and its impact on the lives of those in Afghanistan. It would help indicate how strongly Canadians support the overall effort. The question would probably have to be quite broad. What about something along the lines of

"The Canadian effort in Afghanistan has had a positive effect on Afghani lives"

1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Somewhat Agree 4. Disagree 5. Strongly Disagree

I know this question has a lot of flaws, but what do you think of this approach?

I like the approach, I get where Bala is coming from, but Bala your a political science student at the University of British Columbia, yes democracy is a long ways away, and may not even be the appropriate option, but I think when we ask people it will like Gordon said give a good gauge at weather they feel these extremely optimistic ideals are even possible or not. I think it would be interesting to see the results. The funny thing is it really is absolutely irrelevant weather or not it is possible to have democracy there or not, what were wondering is if the average person thinks it could, and thus what they think about the point of us being in Afghanistan.

I like the questions. I don't think everyone feels as if Afghanistan is completely hopeless and not worth it, and if they do well then we'll have data to show that. If we reject questions based on what we think (democracy will never work there and everyone knows that) then it's a sign of bias, we need to be more open and transparent in our questions so we don't include our own feelings into the formation of the survey. Jacqueline is right, we're poli students from UBC who have spent the past 3 years discussing these topics, however we're not going to be asking people like us these questions.

Your question regarding average Afghan citizen assumes that many of these individuals (the majority of whom have spent recent years seeking refuge in nearby Pakistan,etc) and the different cultural and tribal separations in Afghanistan make this difficult to pose.

I do like the separation of the necessity of invasion and Canadian forces staying there, but what do other people think?

The last two questions are slightly redundant. Perhaps you could publish the one you personally like the best. The first one is far too normative - Afghanistan's vibrant democracy could not translate into more security at home. Egyptians currently are supporting the Muslim Brotherhood - spelling misery for Israel. Therefore, this needs to be a more general question - I have asked a question on Afghanistan as a safer place on the main page, something which you address also in your suggestions.

Maybe:

An unsafe Afghanistan is a threat to Canada

1. Strongly agree 2. Agree 3. Neutral 4. Disagree 5. Strongly Disagree 6. I don't know

Economic prosperity and social equality are fundamental to a safe, healthy society

1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Neutral 4. Disagree 5. Strongly Disagree 6. I don't know

Canada's role in Afghanistan is integral to that country's economic development after 30 years of war

1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Neutral 4. Disagree 5. Strongly Disagree

One can separate necessity/presence and reconstruction and can observe interesting correlations potentially with regards to Afghanistan's developmental and security dimensions in terms of international security. Do we need to be there to keep us safe now and in the future? Do they need us to stay there to reconstruct their economy and make them safe in the long term? We can hit both scopes with these questions, added and/or in place of one or two of yours.

I like your question on how Afghans feel about us. Just Afghans through - Afghan citizen implies a bureaucracy exists there that tallies citizens which may be slightly optimistic given the nomadic nature of Afghans over the past 30 years.

SURVEY QUESTIONS

Hey Guys, let's try to keep the survey questions organized. We had some excellent discussion in 'Focus our study,' but we need to keep our threads organized. I put the top three questions that we may have general consensus on at the top, and the others on the bottom. To keep them organized, please make new threads to discuss them with the heading including the number of the question and an abbreviated title on the top.

1. "Canada should increase funding to national defense and peacekeeping programs in order to improve/raise Canada's role in the international community"

2. Do you agree with Stephen Harper decision to extend Canada's mission in Afghanistan to 2014?

    1. Strongly Agree 2. Somewhat Agree 3. Neutral 4. Somewhat Disagree 5. Strongly Disagree

3.Canada's mission in Afghanistan plays an important role in improving Canada-US relations. Should Harper's decision to withdraw by 2014 be influenced by our neighbor, considering the important role they play in our economy, defense and foreign policy in general.

   1. Strongly Agree 2. Somewhat Agree 3. Neutral 4. Somewhat Disagree 5. Strongly Disagree

4.How strong would you say your knowledge is about the involvement of Canadians in Afghanistan

   1. Very Strong 2. Strong 3. Neutral 4. Weak 5. Very Weak

Jonathan, I think the first 3 questions look great for our survey. What do everyone else think? If there is a consensus among our group members, then we could post the first 3 questions in the main page and then proceed to discuss the remaining 2 questions. Any ideas or suggestions?

I think the first three are perfectly fine, but I posted a question on another thread as what I believe to be a good starting question.

I like the first and third questions, but I think the second is too case specific if we are looking at defense policy.

I also think that, at this point, Canada's role in Afghanistan is more peacekeeping rather than national defense.. even though there is the potential for terrorist threats. Can we curtail a question to fit more into defense? I think someone mentioned earlier a question asking about Canadian's attitudes about the war in Afghanistan had the terrorist attacks happened in Canada rather than the United States.

We could ask a more general question like, "Initially, did you support Canada joining in the war on Afghanistan? 1. Very supportive... 5. Very unsupportive "

"Had the 2001 terrorist attacks happened in Canada, how supportive would you have been to declaring war on Afghanistan? 1. Very supportive... 5. Very unsupportive "

I agree with Amy in that maybe we are asking a question that is too specific, assuming that everyone knows about Harper's plans to extend the mission...we could still ask this question but add a sentence of information/background, but that might throw off the results or cause the question to lose credibility.

A more general question like the one Amy posed would be good, but "initially" can be tricky sometimes because people cannot always remember how they felt in 2001, they are more apt to just state their feelings now, after being influenced by media, other people's opinions e.t.c. so I think we should stay away from "initial thoughts and feelings" and focus either more on their opinion now, or their set of priorities

There seemed to be pretty strong consensus among members as to the first and third questions being part of our survey. I put those two up on the main page as two questions that seem like they are going to be in our survey.

I think I agree with Amy on reformulating the second question to be more general, maybe Canadians won't know that Harper extended the mission, so I agree that looking at it more generally is better

The 3rd and 4th questions could be altered. First, the first statement is way too normative. Second, knowledge isn't the easiest thing to quantify.

Question 3:

a) How important is Canada's relationship with the U.S.?

1.Very Important 2. Important 3. Somewhat Important 4. Not important 5. No comment

b) Prime Minister Stephen Harper extended Canada's mission in Afghanistan to 2014. Do you agree or disagree with this decision?

1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Neutral 4. Disagree 5. Strongly disagree

Maybe then you sterilize the normativeness and can then observe some interesting correlation afterwards.

For Question #4:

Approx how many Canadians are in Afghanistan? Who are we fighting in Afghanistan? Who are we primarily fighting alongside? How many Canadians have been killed in Afghanistan?

Based on these questions, from 1-5, how knowledgeable are you of the Canadian mission in Afghanistan?

1 2 3 4 5

I agree with Nadeem about the third question I think we should alter it but I think instead of just asking "How important is Canada's relationship with the US" We should ask "To what extent should the Canadian government take into consideration its relationship with the united states when making descions about Afghanistan"

Because i think the question should tie into defence to some extent and not be just how important is the relationship in general.

But i think B is a good question and we should definetly put it in there and then compare it to other answers they gave.

As far as the 4th question i dont think we should try to quantify at all people's knowledge on Afghanistan because we will never get an answer that is percise enough to use.

I feel that if you do not try to gauge peoples' interest in Afghanistan, one might not get a true indication of what they really know or feel, if person A says that he / she is interested in Afghanistan, the answers to the rest of question is likely to more indicative of what the person actually feels as opposed to someone who does not show any interest at all in Afghanistan and he / she tries to guess or just brushing off the survey as a waste of time - like what Jordan mentioned, if at least we know the level of interest the person shows in the poll, we can try and gauge what kind of responses they are likely to provide, though it could be random as well.

Balamurugan- I understand where your coming from and if we were writing a longer survey I would add it but since we only have 5 questions we need to use them as efficiently as possible and what are we gunna do if they say not interested throw there survey in the trash? I dunno though that could just be my opinion if other people are down for it then I am okay with it because I do think it is a good question I just dont know if it would be top 5 thats all.

Also I guess I got vetoed cause someone put question 3 on the board or whatever but I still think it starts with a normative statement and should be worded different. But if everyone else likes it Im ok with it.

"Canada should increase funding to national defense and peacekeeping programs in order to improve/raise Canada's role in the international community

Strongly disagree........Strongly agree"

A few of us had agreed on the restructuring of this question by Stephen. Perhaps you could add it to the list?

Ben Rust‎

Ill try and add it!

Oh right thanks, I didn't realize we were posting them on the front.

Ben Rust‎

I strongly suggest we begin posting questions on the main page - we have been getting some great ideas out there and we should post ASAP. Gordon has put up some very good ones in his thread. Kindly check those out and lets get some discussion on them.

Ben, I have separated peacekeeping and defense in that threat and you may find the format interesting. We need to see if people think we can develop Afghanistan as a self sufficient country - and then ask - does that make us safer?

Also, the defense issue comes from NATO's Article 5 which stated - after 9/11 - that we were obligated to join the coalition forces. Many would agree with this I believe, but their mixed views on long term will separate which Canadians view this as a favourable or unfavourable endeavour in a war-torn country.

Jacqueline - on the main board questions 1 and 3 are similar except for the fact that question 1 emphasizes reputation while question 3 emphasizes role. Perhaps we could take one of the questions out since they are worded exactly expect for the above-mentioned 2 words. Perhaps we could decide on which is a more effective question?

Does it matter which order we post the questions on the main page? If it does, we should probably also consider the fact that answers to our questions will also be influenced by the order in which they are posed. For example, a question inquiring about the survey taker's knowledge of Afghanistan might make him/her hesitant to answer other questions if it is posed at the beginning of the survey and conversely, if it is posed at the end of the survey it might make the survey taker seem overconfident of their knowledge pertaining to Afghanistan and cause more participants to rate themselves as highly knowledgeable.

Also, I think the first question might need to be rephrased in a way to make it seem more neutral; it might put pressure on answerers because it implies an answer (that increasing Canada's participation in the international community is a good thing and therefore funding should be increased). Maybe we could isolate the two concepts of "increasing funding to national defense and peacekeeping programs" and "increase Canada's role in the international community" into two different questions?. Or perhaps even remove "increasing Canada's role in the international community" altogether.

Yea, we can edit the order at the end, just wanted to throw up some questions on there seemed to be some general consensus among some members.

If the first question seems a bit invasive we could put a clause before the question that reads something like this "our intent is not to seem invasive or judge on whether or not you believe Canada should participate more in the international community, it is simply used for research purposes only"

Clauses like this can help make our questions seem not as invasive, and can ease the respondent into the question and make them feel more comfortable. It is a common technique used in many research studies. We could try something like that? or if you guys feel its still invasive we can perhaps remove it like Chris suggested.

Thoughts?

Balamurugan - Yeah I'm pretty sure 3 was somehow born out of 1 so we could go with either one but me and some others liked the restructuring slash wording of 3 better so i put it up for people to contest but if you are better with 1 or other people are Im okay with either.

so are we in favor of either 1 or 3 and for sure 2 on main board? does anyone want both 1 and 3? I agree with Balamurugan that putting both is a waste of the question and my vote is for 3 what do others think??

I am okay with either option. I will go with the decision of the majority...

I think having a clause would certainly help to ease the respondents and let them know this is purely for research and in turn might allow them to answer the survey questions in a more relaxed and non-biased way? Any thoughts or comments? Or if everyone thinks that its invasive, we could restructure the question as: Canada should increase its defense budget to invest in new military technologies which would increase the capabilities of the Canadian Armed Forces. (Just a thought - feel free to comment and or critique.

 1. Strongly Agree 2. Somewhat Agree 3. Neutral 4. Somewhat Disagree 5. Strongly Disagree

I dont find that question invasive at all I dont understand why that cant be a question.

It's a political poll, it should ask people tough questions. A "don't worry I'm not judging you" disclaimer sounds silly,

Personally, I like this question.

Gordon, it does not means that one has to ask tough questions because it is a political poll and there is nothing silly when it comes to polls, you want to get a honest / truthful opinion of what he / she thinks of something basic before moving on to the potentially more difficult questions. I am sure if you observe many polls or surveys, they all start off easy and most of the times, it starts off with a question that gauges their interest in the topic matter at hand.

Yeah, I agree with Balamurugan. The goal is to obtain as many honest opinions as possible and therefore it would make sense to ease off on the initial questions in order to make the survey seem less intimidating. A lot of surveys incorporate disclaimers.

I agree with Bala. Those clauses are used in just about every survey I have ever taken. It also said to use these clauses in one of our readings to ease people into the question. Its not so much about tough...because I have no problem with asking tough questions...its that you got to think of it in respect to the person taking the poll. We can't ask such hard or 'tough' questions to the point where they don't want to participate at all. We may push the surveyor away which is the last thing we want to do. Its not about easing off from being tough, because the tough question is still there, its just about making the respondent feel both respected and comfortable with the survey, otherwise he may resist going on with the questions at all.

I like Balamurugan's question as well. I also agree with Chris in making sure we order the questions appropriately. I still think question 1 is appropriate to begin. If his question is added, that will put us at...3 questions?

I don't understand where the thread came about that we should choose either 1 or 3. The first question is asking about Canada's priorities concerning defense, and the 3rd (Jacqueline's version) is asking about US-Canadian relations concerning defense.. I like both of them.

Also, like I said a bit ago, I still like Jon's idea of comparing priorities in protecting borders (Canadian Arctic) versus... peace-keeping missions to prevent threats (like Afghanistan). It would be interesting to see where Canadians' values are?

What about starting with question one... and finishing with a question 3 and then a question on Afghanistan. The 2 in the middle can be more broad such as:

should canada increase its peacekeeping role in the world? (which could lead into..) should canada spend more on offensive military capabilities or defensive?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/arctic-security-means-more-than-arctic-sovereignty/article1882672/

I think the questions on Afghanistan are great. I believe 2 or 3 of them should be devoted to more general concerns and arctic issues. Below is an article on the fact that unlike Afghanistan - the Arctic holds Canadians who are in dire situations and impoverished - along with being under a threat of annexation by Russia,etc. as reported by the media recently.

"To many Canadians, cultural, linguistic and environmental security are as important as national security"

Can someone try and post something on this on the main page? Or propose one here? I really like the one listed above.

I also agree with Bala, we need to make sure we don't make anyone uncomfortable, and in any case these people are doing us a favour by answering questions so it's only right to respect them and not try to upset/annoy them in any way, even if that means being extra cautious.

Also, should we be considering what we're trying to answer? I mean of course we're talking about defense, and if we focus on Afghanistan and the Arctic, is our goal to see what people support most? I don't know if I'm getting ahead of myself, I like these 3 questions, but I guess I'm just thinking in my head what our aim is now, what exactly we want to compare and what kind of questions we want people to answer that will allow us to gauge public opinion about a particular question.

Loll or maybe you've all done that and I'm lost in these threads, in that case I apologize!

Is Canada's Defence Policy over reliant on the United States in terms of funding initiaves and agreements for North American Defense?

1. Yes 2. No 3. Maybe 4. Don't know 5. No comments

My hypothesis would be that Canada knows that no matter what happens, the United States will fund 90% or more of costs when it comes to defense matters as such most of the times Canada gets away by 'free-riding' on the funding provided by the United States for initiatives and agreements for North American Defense. One example would be NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense Command) in the Cheyenne Mountains, Colorado where 90% of the costs are borne by the United States.

As such, do you think Canada should pursue an independent foreign policy for defense matters or continue to co-operate with the United States and provide equal funding for the greater good of North America? If Canada continues to free-ride on the funding for initiatives provided by the United States, it could prove disastrous in the end. Imagine a terrorist attack in both Canada and United States - the United States will be concerned with defending their own citizens and Canada will be left to regret the costs of their actions due to the limited capability of our military and defense technologies.

Hello

I think this is a good idea but the question might be better phrased in a way that would generate a more general perception like maybe a question that asked "When committing Canada to overseas peace keeping missions, to what extent should the Canadian government rely on the the US for funding?" and then have 1. a lot 2. somewhat 3. not very. 4. Not at all. Or something like that then instead of just having their yes/no opinion on reliance you have their opinion on how much reliance is acceptable and a range which is helpful because you can do a lot more with these variables then just yes/no variables. Personally i think we should stay away from yes no questions because they so not encode a lot of information. Also I think we should not put things like "imagine a terrorist attack in Canada in the United States" because it might ignite fear or intense feelings that will effect the answer to the question, which re-phrased might have a different response. But I think overall the idea for this question is interesting.

Hey guys, sorry it took me a while to figure out how to reply to these posts...but i agree with both Jon- in his suggestion to keep the topic of defense more specific, and jacqueline in suggesting we refrain from fear mongering. Defense is SUCH a broad and varying topic, we need to decide if what we want is to stick to basic questions of domestic security, international issues, or "hot topics" such as the article and Afghanistan. It might also be interesting to explore the ambiguity of people's knowledge when it comes to Afghanistan and it's purpose, if we are a part of the war on terror, if it is a human right's fight...etc. I know this is a very broad topic with lots of different things to consider so I don't know if we want to go that route. Just a thought!

Julia, I don't think this question is framed as a fear mongering or meant to be framed as such. Terrorism is something that is so prevalent in today's world and is a threat that everyone should be concerned about. Canada's mission in Afghanistan was as a result of the war on terror but eventually it evolved into a peace-keeping mission to create stability in Afghanistan.

I totally agree, Bala. Terrorism/the war on terror is unfortunately something that has been framed in a negative light in terms of scandal with the United States e.t.c. and a lot of people would probably be opposed to it at first site of the words on a page. Framing the mission as a peace keeping one and then seeing the response comparatively with a response to a terror-framed question could also be interesting to explore..

Hey everyone,

Great discussion going on, but there are many ideas being thrown around in one single thread. I made a new post with a compiled list from this thread, if there are any missing feel free to edit them into the top. If we could just create new threads for each separate question to discuss them that would be great. Just follow the directions on the top and if you have any questions/suggestions, leave a reply. Thanks!

Someone should put this question up on the board. It compliments the question on GDP and speaks directly to our relationship with the US

You could preface it with:

Canada's relationship with the US is important with regards to our economic and national defense issues

1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Neutral 4. Disagree 5. Strongly Disagree

Then pose your question. I think that would be great. What do you guys think?

I personally like this idea. We have to acknowledge that as much as we are our own entity there are a lot of outside influences, alliances e.t.c. that play into issues of defense. I like Nadeems idea of getting to the point and seeing whether or not people see a direct correlation between the US and Canada in defense policies.

Hey

Yeah I would be in support of this question on the board, you can put it up yourself if you want.

I have put up the first question. Perhaps Bala can put this question up after mine on US/CDN relations? That would be a good order, and someone should also take care to make sure these questions fit logically in the order of all the other ones asked.

Do you feel Afghanistan is a safer place today after the Canadian Mission?

(in order to differentiate from the Iraq mission i.e. many would argue U.S. made Iraq a less safe place)

1. Yes, it is much safer. 2. Yes, a little more safe. 3. The same as pre-2002 invasion 4. Slightly less safe than before 5. More Dangerous than before

I actually think this is a really good question and should be up on the board!

I agree. I know there's discussion about the Afghanistan topic already having such a negative view from the public/media/etc, which in turn could impact our survey results. But I think this question would help put it in perspective a bit.

Will others comment on this so we can decide weather we are gunna put it up cause I really like it and want to put it up.

This is an excellent question. A similar suggestion "Do you feel the invasion of Afghanistan has made the world safer?" 1. Yes, it is much safer. 2. Yes, a little safer. 3. The same. 4. No, slightly less safer than before. 5. No, significantly more dangerous.

I like that question Gordon. Lets get that up on the board - is Afghanistan safer, and has it created a safer world in general? One could argue Iraq is more dangerous today and has created a more dangerous world. It would be interesting to observe the trends with regards to world security as well as domestic security. We are fighting this battle with NATO, in the tradition of collective security. It's time to see how collective the results and benefits are perceived to be, if any.

Proposed question:

Below are figures on military spending as part of government expenditure:

19.3% US 18.7% Russia 7.1% Australia 6.3% Canada 6.3% UK 5.4% France

Should Canada increase or decrease its defence budget?

1. Increase significantly 2. Increase 3. No Change 4. Decrease 5. Decrease significantly

What do you think? Any suggestions?

I like it but then we should quote where those facts are from. But I think this question is really good.

www.visualeconomics.com

Does anyone have a good source for stats on this matter? Jacqueline - if you think this site is sufficient and no one else objects I say we post it up on the main page.

Hey Yeah i think so except go to the bottom of the page a click authors. Does that seem okay?

That's actually a really good question Nadeem. I would put it on the list, but perhaps another question should come before it to give it some background? A question which provides some reason for it, i.e. geography, foriegn policy... etc.

Bentley- Go to the web page Nadeem put on the post under his question and tell me if you think it is a good source, Im terrible at judging weather internet sources are good.

Also were running out of questions but personally i think that second question on the board should be taken down but Im not gunna make a hige fuss over it if everyone else is loving it.

I have posted the question, but with percentage of military spending at part of GDP, taken from the CIA Factbook on the main page.

Please let me know what you think of it.

is there a way to get dollar figures on the data?

Dollar figures? What about figures in EUR, Australian dollars, real/nominal dollars, citing weapons/arms sources. I think % of GDP reflects the priority of defense to the country. They might all be empirically different. It doesn't mean that they are proportionally spending more or less on defence when looking at sheer numbers.

Use it or lose it - Defending Arctic soverignty

How should Canada best shore up it's claim to arctic territory in ;light of claims by Russia and others on what Canada claims as it's own territory.

This is a growing issue as arctic waterways/shipping routes become available as well as the possibility of large natural resource deposits in the area that will be fought over in the coming years.

Here is a primer article on the topic.

"In 2007, the stakes were raised considerably when Russia launched a naval manoeuvre designed to plant an actual Russian flag, in a titanium capsule, at the base of the North Pole, 4,200 metres below sea level.

Russia's game plan was to extend its territory almost up to the Pole itself, to claim the vast mineral and energy resources many feel lie underneath the Arctic ice."

Craig, CraigBurton 11:02, 24 January 2011 (PST)

Canada has simply not done enough to truly claim its sovereignty in the Arctic. Harper's Canada First Defense Strategy looks impressive, however, there is not much that has been invested to truly stake a claim to its sovereignty, unless there is significant investment in the near future, for example, instead of spending so much money on the F35 fighter jets, more ice-breakers could have purchased to shore up our defense in the Arctic.

I like the idea of narrowing our topic of 'Defence' into something that is more manageable and specific. Arctic sovereignty seems like an interesting topic that many Canadians are not well informed about, that we could further explore through our survey. We could ask questions and opinions about military spending in relation to different contexts, such as comparing whether people are more willing to spend money on border defense (Arctic) or peacekeeping operations (Afghanistan).

HEY!

Good one J Chiang I agree that we should ask a question comparing people's willingness to spend on border defense versus peacekeeping operations.:)

I really like your idea Jon!

Do you think that the lack of knowledge on arctic sovereignty would result in unreliable answers? Or that maybe the strong negative views of Afghanistan would steer people into wanting to spend more on border defense?

Or maybe that's something we don't need to worry about, but that could possibly be a reason for some people's responses.

I think this is a great question. I think most people have some sort of grasp on the topic of arctic sovereignty, it has been a talked about issue recently. As for whether Afghanistan would affect their views, is that not an underlining part of the question. Do people think that peacekeeping is more important than protecting our sovereignty? They see our role in peacekeeping in afghanistan and they can see a threat to our borders, which is more important if at all?

Another approach. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/arctic-security-means-more-than-arctic-sovereignty/article1882672/ Another suggestion to promoting Canadian sovereignty in the arctic is to invest in social programs (education, health, social assistance) in arctic communities of the territories rather than just increasing military presence. The idea is that we need to populate the north with Canadians because that will reinforce that region as ours. I am thinking something along these lines, maybe someone can help rework this.

"The Canadian government should increase regional funding in arctic communities to help increase the population and establish our sovereignty rather than to the military for border defence to protect existing claims." 1. strongly agree , 2. agree, etc. . . .

RE: Ian Wood/social programs (education, health, social assistance) in arctic communities of the territories rather than just increasing military presence.

I think that is a good counter to the defense portion of the questionnaire. Something like that would allow respondents to say yes to sovereignty but no to the militarization of the issue.

http://m.ctv.ca/tech/20110125/arctic-poll-soverignty-110125.html#menu

A new poll released today suggests that Canadians are most protective of the arctic

As compafed to the other boardering countries

CraigBurton 07:00, 25 January 2011 (PST)

It is important relative to other northern countries however it might be a good question to see how it ranks compared to other defense issues in Canada (technology, afghanistan, peace keeping in foreign countries (ex. Sudan), expenses etc...)

True, I agree with Stephen. While the Artic and it's soreignty might be an interesting inquery. It is too narrow of a scope to set our entire research/survey upon. It truly only bring into the interests of Russia, Norway, the USA (Alaska?) and a few others?

We could ask about the new fighter jets purchased by Harper's government and the need for those to show our strength as a nation with an army willing to protect itself. Obviously Russia is well-known for their military, and Canada, well not so much.

I also feel it would be interesting to note the correlation between those who feel strongly about protecting the arctic and their opinions on the fighter jets/military spending in general.

With regard to the Fighter Jet issue, its not an issue because we are buying fighter jets (the f35s were meant to replace the old f18s), its an issue because Harper decided to buy those specific jets without tendering out the contract to any other companies that could have built our jets. Perhaps we should ask how important sovereignty is to canadians versus issues such as health, education or social assistance.

This issue of expenditure is difficult to analyse over several different types of purchases (fighter jets, helicopters, trucks) and change depending on the nature of the conflict we are dealing with overseas (i.e. green camouflage for jungle operations/beige for desert) - I think military expenditure as part of GDP addresses a lot of the issues presented there. You guys can comment directly on the threat on that question - as per Ian, it addressed sovereignty with relation to all the other countries on the list. What better what to assert your sovereignty than spending more than other nations on your military?