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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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
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!