The art of science of doing and interpreting surveys may be now already much developed and well-defined. That is why taking surveys about the appreciation or depreciation of people about this or that famous or infamous individual – not excluding the like or dislike of people about this soap, that soft drink and so on – have become not only common but also regular. At the same time however, there are certain factors that necessarily come to play in survey making and reading, keeping private or publishing the survey result openly – depending on its result plus the interest of its financier.
First and foremost then, who is asking and paying for the survey? With the bare fact that surveys are not freely done, much less freely interpreted and released for wide publication – but dearly paid for by the interested party – the question about money cannot but come to play. And when money, much money changes hands, there cannot but be also a transactional deal that goes therewith – in line with the standard practice that “You get this if you do that,” or “You do that and you get this.”
Then there are the concrete circumstantial facts that usually go with the survey and necessarily have their effect on the results thereof. Who are those who do the survey and who are the opted subjects of the survey? Where is the survey done and when is the survey made? And under what concrete circumstances is the survey done? In other words, the result of a survey cannot but depend on such particulars. In addition to all the above considerations, there is also the real possibility of deliberately manipulating the over-all result of a survey.
To claim that the amount of money paid and the intention of the payer, plus who are surveyed, where, when and how, who supervise and who interpret the survey plus other considerations – to claim that all these cannot be manipulated or remain beyond manipulation for the desired result is to live in cloud 9. Such would be subscribing to and proclaiming the angelic nature of all those playing their respective role in bringing the survey to its desired result.
Recently, tri-media repeatedly and loudly came out with some kind of a surprising revelation that the survey of someone went down from the former high “very good” to by merely “good” in terms of public satisfaction. What? It was said that the drop in satisfaction rating came from the ‘D’ and ‘E’ socio-economic groups – with the conclusion therefore that the rating remain high among the ‘A’ and ‘B’ and ‘C’ rakings. Really? It was furthermore noted that both the over-all ratings of “very good” and “good” were given by 1,200 adults among the more than 90 million Filipinos. Ha?
Conclusion: It definitely requires and categorically demands very much more than such a survey coming out with such a rating to know what is ground reality – here and now.