In reference to the research cited by the Ministry of Development and Technology, I have prepared a small analysis.
Yesterday, the ministry published the results of a study on housing programs, citing them as a reliable source of information. However, a closer analysis of this study raises serious doubts about its quality and credibility. It is worth taking a closer look at several key aspects that undermine the credibility of this study.
First of all, the study was conducted by a company called "NATIONAL RESEARCH GROUP LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY". It turns out that 90% of the company’s shares belong to one person – Łukasz Pawłowski. What’s more, the company’s share capital is only PLN 5,000, which is the minimum amount required to establish a limited liability company. Additionally, the company is registered in a virtual office in Warsaw. These facts raise legitimate questions about the actual background and experience of this company in conducting reliable research on a national scale.
However, the most important problem is the choice of research methodology. The CATI (Computer-Assisted Telephone Interviewing) method was chosen, which is not an optimal choice for researching such a complex topic as housing programs. CATI has its limitations, such as a short time to respond, which can lead to superficial opinions, the lack of the possibility of deeper reflection on the questions, and the limited possibility of asking open-ended questions and analyzing more complex answers. Much better methods for this type of research would be in-depth individual interviews (IDI), which would allow for a more thorough examination of the opinions and experiences of respondents, or focused group interviews (FGI), which allow for discussion and exchange of views between participants.
Analysis of the survey questions reveals serious problems with their construction. For example, the question about the main barriers to buying one’s own apartment does not directly address the key issue – high property prices. Instead, we have an enigmatic answer "Inna"which was chosen by as many as 37.04% of respondents. Interestingly, "lack of availability of new apartments" was described in detail, even though only 15.53% of men chose it. It is only on page 15 of the report that the information appears that in the category "Other" the dominant answer was precisely high real estate prices. This key issue should be included as a separate option in the main question.
Another example of problematic question design is that regarding knowledge of the government’s housing loan program #nastart. This question is worded in a way that suggests an answer, including positive phrases such as "help for young Poles" Whether "first apartment". Such wording may encourage respondents to answer affirmatively, even if their knowledge of the program is negligible. It is not surprising that as many as 69.78% of respondents answered "not".
In summary, the analysis of this study reveals a number of methodological and ethical problems, including questionable credibility of the research company, inappropriate research methodology, biased question constructions, and omission of key issues in the main questions. These factors seriously undermine the credibility of the study results. The Ministry, relying on such a study, may make decisions based on incomplete or distorted data.
As a society, we should expect state institutions to use reliable, objective and professionally conducted research, especially in such important matters as housing policy. The research cited by the ministry unfortunately does not meet these standards. It is necessary to conduct a more reliable and comprehensive study that will truly reflect the situation on the housing market and allow for the development of effective solutions.
Badania zrobione z góry pod tezę – #nieruchomosci
byu/bordeux inPolska
Posted by bordeux
3 Comments
Myślisz, że jakby to zrobiła jakaś firma z tzw. wielkiej czwórki, to wyniki byłyby niezgodne z planami rządu? Na pewno to by więcej kosztowało, ale efekt funding bias zapewne by też był. Skoro za to płaci ministerstwo, które ma z góry określony cel, to oczekuje określonych wyników badania. Chyba każda firma chce, żeby to nie było jej ostatnie zlecenie z takiego ministerstwa.
To było badanie robione na zamówienie Ministerstwa? Jeśli tak, to zapoznałabym się najpierw z opisem warunków zamówienia. Bardzo możliwe, że albo budżet nie pozostawiał zbyt wielkiego pola manewru i/lub w zamówieniu zostały określone wymagania odnośnie metody badawczej – np. to, że badanie ma zostać przeprowadzone na próbie o określonej liczebności. Wymagania (często z d…) plus budżet warunkują jak będzie takie zlecone badanie wyglądać i kto się podejmie jego wykonania. Do tego przy składaniu ofert jest ograniczony czas na przedstawienie planu badania spełniającego wymagania OPZ (bez pewności czy się przetarg wygra), który to plan jest później wiążący. W efekcie powstawać mogą badawcze potworki, chociaż nikt po drodze nie chciał robić nic pod tezę.
Miało być badania to jest badania 😉