Topic Scope

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

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

Just an idea of a possible direction :)

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

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

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

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