The Anatomy (anatomy?) of the Pulse Asia Survey

A PR professional and former researcher's attempt to dissect the anatomy of Pulse Asia's Ulat ng Bayan (September 2020 Nationwide Survey on the Performance and Trust Ratings of the Top Philippine Government Officials and the +

Performance Ratings of Key Government Institutions)

char ra gud oi. hahaha

Before you reply to this thread, make sure you've read the survey and its technical details. LMFAO!

The Goal:
The survey did not really outline its goal. I may have missed it. But, I've read the entire findings and saw no mention of the goal. From the title itself, however, it's safe to assume that this survey aims to calibrate the performance and trust rating of +

government officials and key government institutions.

Keywords: Trust and Performance

The Socio-Demographic Profile

Below are some vital demographic variables that must be frontloaded. Keep in mind these two factors as you digest the numbers below:
1. Access to information.+

Do the respondents have access to the information?
2. Sound analysis of the information. Are the respondents capable of digesting the socio-political information?

The Questions:
To be fair, Pulse Asia has not disclosed its full survey questionnaire; as such, we cannot fully +

gauge the whole thing. But based on the released data, the images above are the highlighted questions.

Where is the Fault?

The sampling method and weighting procedure are routinely academic -- scientific if you will. +

Now, here's the problem. The research methodology might have not factored in the sample's awareness AND comprehension level of the "key developments that dominated the news headlines".

Why are these important? The research intends to calibrate the performance and trust ratings of the government officials and key government institutions. The methodology, therefore, should place greater value in measuring the awareness and comprehension level of the samples+

because these variables play an influential role in drawing the outcome of the survey.

In research, we call it "questionnaire flaws". In particular, the respondents may have been entered into the survey proper without being fed with the key information to objectively+

analyze the questions. The respondents were given general questions, which are not necessarily or specifically associated with the said issues or 'developments' that are key factors in determining the trust of the samples in the government officials and institutions+

in this survey.

I am in no position to fully discredit this survey. I'm sure the people behind this project worked their assess off.

But the question remains: were the respondents informed about the key issues prior to the survey? Good if Pulse Asia did, because that would+

render this entire thread invalid. hahaha

If they, indeed, did not inform the respondents about the key issues, why didn't they? Were they worried that doing so may compromise the integrity of the results?+

But this begs another question, isn't it a greater disservice to hold a survey with a sample that holds minimal, if not lacks, knowledge about the key variable?

What say?