LETTER: Social Research Foundation survey results should perhaps not be published
Readers should be able to determine the potential biases of organisations behind surveys
14 February 2023 - 16:15
Support our award-winning journalism. The Premium package (digital only) is R30 for the first month and thereafter you pay R129 p/m now ad-free for all subscribers.
Discussion and critiques of results from various surveys by Statistics SA or the National Income Dynamics Study – Coronavirus Rapid Mobile (Nids-Cram) survey, of which I was a part, have appeared regularly in this newspaper, partly because the survey methods and documentation are publicly available. In the case of the Stats SA household surveys and Nids-Cram, researchers can download, use and critique the microdata themselves.
In the last few months results from surveys conducted by the Social Research Foundation (SRF) have been discussed regularly in Business Day (“Children’s futures lie abroad, say most SA parents”, February 2). Yet the SRF has no website and there is no public documentation of any of the survey methods. Some Business Day columnists do report a little survey information, but it seems this information is obtained privately from SRF. Readers are thus expected to trust the surveys and results, but there is little basis to determine if this is reasonable.
Frans Cronje is reported on the Institute for Race Relations (IRR) website as being a director of SRF, which also says the SRF is a “small privately funded policy think-tank”. Based on its director and who reports the results in Business Day, the SRF does appear to be linked to the IRR. That is important information because some of the SRF surveys ask people about who they might vote for or their views on political coalitions, and the IRR might not be impartial about these matters.
That does not mean such surveys should not be conducted, but readers should be able to determine for themselves the potential biases of the organisations conducting and funding such surveys, and that is not currently possible.
Until the SRF publicly publishes at least some information on its methodology, including sample frames, sample sizes and response rates (and ideally its funding sources), I suggest Business Day does not publish any further results from the surveys conducted by the SRF.
Prof Andrew Kerr UCT School of Economics
JOIN THE DISCUSSION: Send us an email with your comments to letters@businesslive.co.za. Letters of more than 300 words will be edited for length. Anonymous correspondence will not be published. Writers should include a daytime telephone number.
Support our award-winning journalism. The Premium package (digital only) is R30 for the first month and thereafter you pay R129 p/m now ad-free for all subscribers.
LETTER: Social Research Foundation survey results should perhaps not be published
Readers should be able to determine the potential biases of organisations behind surveys
Discussion and critiques of results from various surveys by Statistics SA or the National Income Dynamics Study – Coronavirus Rapid Mobile (Nids-Cram) survey, of which I was a part, have appeared regularly in this newspaper, partly because the survey methods and documentation are publicly available. In the case of the Stats SA household surveys and Nids-Cram, researchers can download, use and critique the microdata themselves.
In the last few months results from surveys conducted by the Social Research Foundation (SRF) have been discussed regularly in Business Day (“Children’s futures lie abroad, say most SA parents”, February 2). Yet the SRF has no website and there is no public documentation of any of the survey methods. Some Business Day columnists do report a little survey information, but it seems this information is obtained privately from SRF. Readers are thus expected to trust the surveys and results, but there is little basis to determine if this is reasonable.
Frans Cronje is reported on the Institute for Race Relations (IRR) website as being a director of SRF, which also says the SRF is a “small privately funded policy think-tank”. Based on its director and who reports the results in Business Day, the SRF does appear to be linked to the IRR. That is important information because some of the SRF surveys ask people about who they might vote for or their views on political coalitions, and the IRR might not be impartial about these matters.
That does not mean such surveys should not be conducted, but readers should be able to determine for themselves the potential biases of the organisations conducting and funding such surveys, and that is not currently possible.
Until the SRF publicly publishes at least some information on its methodology, including sample frames, sample sizes and response rates (and ideally its funding sources), I suggest Business Day does not publish any further results from the surveys conducted by the SRF.
Prof Andrew Kerr
UCT School of Economics
JOIN THE DISCUSSION: Send us an email with your comments to letters@businesslive.co.za. Letters of more than 300 words will be edited for length. Anonymous correspondence will not be published. Writers should include a daytime telephone number.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Most Read
Published by Arena Holdings and distributed with the Financial Mail on the last Thursday of every month except December and January.