A Longitudinal Study of Political Attitudes and Voting in The UK

I am a Political psychology of International Relations MSc Student who is interested in voting behaviour and the psychology behind why people vote the way they do. Research into the “Why” is very Sparse in International Relations especially in the view of voting behaviour with only a very select handful of academic researchers delving into the research such as (Bartle, 2003; Campbell & Winters, 2008; White et al., 1999; Winters & Campbell, 2007) who have research in qualitative publications on the British Electoral Behaviours. Focus has been in the theoretical sphere such as research in realism, Liberalism, Marxism, Constructivism, Feminism to mention a few. There are a few anomalies in the field of International Relations that cannot be predicted nor fully explained by structured theories and as such has created a need for more explanatory variables that give an explanation to the voting phenomenon, the research data in International Relations tends to focus on the political elites whilst political psychology as a disciplinary focuses on the ‘operational code analysis (Holsti, 1970) to support their belief systems. this essay is structured in 5 parts. Section one will give an overview of the research article “The 2015 Qualitative Election Study of Britain” section two will discuss the philosophical approach used in the study and why it is the most suited for the purposes of this research study, section three will address the qualitative methodology used in the research article and if the methods used to gather their data and where the methods use were appropriate in answering the questions they are asking as well as the advantages and disadvantages of the methodology used. Section four will discuss any ethical issues that are in the conducted research and finally section five ends the discussion and presents the conclusion analysing the four main sections.

Section One: The Overview of the Research Article.

The Research Study by Winters, Carvalho and Oliver, (2017) “the 2015 Qualitative Election Study of Britain” has been cited twice according to Google Scholar, and whilst a very conservative number it is the only qualitative longitudinal study with a dataset that analyses the political attitudes and voting behaviour over multiple elections and referendums in the United Kingdom. The study examines the information and datasets gained from previous studies in the Qualitative Election Study of Britain 2005, 2010 and 2015 respectively. The research study seeks to investigate voter political attitudes and voting behaviour over multiple elections and referendums in the United Kingdom. In the hopes to “identify, isolate, and measure causal processes in political behaviour, making it ideal for investigating people's understanding or perceptions of meaning, relationships, states of mind, and social processes” (Winters, Carvalho and Oliver, 2017) The authors have been able to monitor the succession thought processes of the participants over time as this research paper followed on from 2005 and the 2010 UK general election research study carried out by Rosie Campbell and Kristi Winters as well as the 2014 Scottish Referendum, it is the third wave of focus groups conducted before and after UK elections. the research paper is not an ordinary seminal paper it does serve its purposes of this essay as it is the first and only qualitative longitudinal dataset of its kind. It id an important research study because for so long “Historical and social inquiry have been prone to ignore the personal and the individual in their emphasis on the bigger picture” (McCulloch, 2004 p.7) there is a need for an understanding of the relationship between an individual and he structural as “the sociological imagination enables us to grasp history and biology and the relations between the two within society” (mills, 1959 p 5 as cited by Mcculloch, 2004 p.7)

Section Two: The Philosophical Approach of this Research article.

a Philosophical approach is the “system of beliefs and assumptions about the development of knowledge” (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2009). The authors use a pragmatic (experientialism) approach, it is not explicitly stated in the article that this is the philosophical approach that they use it can be deducted that this is the case because the very nature of the research study relies on the reality that the participants have experienced and or observed are real, the very fact that the authors take create focus groups before and after an election will show that the answers will be dependent on what the election results where and that the reality is constantly changing, as can be seen if we look at the longitudinal study from the 2010 UK general Election and the 2015 Scottish Referendum. an educational philosophy, Pragmatism originated from the teachings of mathematician Charles Sanders Pierce “who believed that thought must produce action, rather than linger in the mind and lead to indeciveness” (oregonstate.edu). this philosophy works very well in terms of this sturdy as it is exploratory versus explanatory and focuses on the participant thoughts than outcome. In the study the participants political opinions can be tracked across multiple elections, pragmatism also works very well as a philosophical approach in this study because each participant holds a different perspective view of reality (Bailey, 1997)

Although idealism could work for this research study as it focuses on the conscious reasoning in the mind, the participants vote or think a certain way because they have an ideal reality that they would like to see achieved through voting and is then in pursuit of that ideal when elections come around, the philosophical approach doesn’t support itself fully, leaning further into pragmatism and further away from idealism. Through the authors’ work realism is not a philosophical approach that can be applied here as it is the believe that reality exists independently of the mind (Pluto, as cited in oregonstate.edu) the participants cannot achieve true objectivity before or after an election. Existentialism as a philosophical approach does not apply neither as it requires the participants to be subjective and because voting is an individual and personal experience one cannot remain objective nor subjective.

Section Three: Qualitative Methodology

Winters Carvalho and Oliver used the same participants that were used in the 2010 and 2014 dataset, this was purposely done as it allowed this study to preserve the series in the Qualitative Election Study of Britain. This seems to be ideal as there was no need to try and find new participants, and they already knew that they fit with their aims and objectives as they had been used previously. It is important to note that there could be a potential bias in only selecting participants that have already done the study before, it excludes new perspectives into why people vote the way they do eliminate any new potential datasets. Using the same participants and Data sets does not take into consideration systematic error. It is important to note that there is a bias in the sampling data, as the participants had been selected based on their previous participation in in the 2010 and 2014 research studies this research authors had a judgement (or purposive) sampling. the benefits of this type of sampling was that it was cost and time effective as they already had their participants in hand to go back to and due to the replication of the data could almost predict the outcome of the data. However, it does dis-include any new participants as they were not involved in the previous studies and any potentially new datasets. The Research study fails to give any justification as to how the participation size was selected, only how they collected a pool of participants for the sampling. which was through social media particularly but not exclusively to twitter, the local media in Dundee both radio and newspaper and through e-mail recruitment using the University of Dundee’s email lists, this created a unique panel of participants as previously stated due to having 100 percent of the participants from the previous studies.

Data Collection.

This research relies on longitudinal case study method of the same participants, the research study does not give an explicit sampling strategy as it requires that the previous participants from the 2005, 2010 and 2014 respectively are still willing to participate in the study, and relies on its ability to examine greater insights of unique experience within a real life context (Yin, 2004 as cited in 1732359, 2019)

The authors’ used in depth Interviews in the research paper which helps in providing optimal data on the individuals personal histories, experiences, and perspectives. focus groups where used to “investigate what Britons thought about the (2015) campaign and the election results” (Winters, Carvalho and Oliver, 2017) the Questions used where the same ones that were used in the 2010 study questions in order to preserve the series (Winters, 2010; winters & Campbell, 2008) as well as questions connecting the datasets from 2015, 2010 Qualitative Election Study of Britain (QESB) and the 2014 Scottish Referendum for the maintenance of the longitudinal series utilising open ended questions to allow the participants to include their attitudes, feelings and understanding of the subject matter into account and prompts a more depth understanding (Srivastava & Thomson, 2009 as cited in 1351912, 2019). There is an already established relationship between the participants and Winters creating a quick rapport that allows the participants to be more open than if they didn’t know the interviewers. The passing of information, data between participant and author is an important factor in Longitudinal studies as it enforces the ability to pass on the study to the next researcher, even with Winters being part of the previous studies, her co-authors are new therefore there’s still a sense of heavy responsibility to the successors, which makes the use of interviews more suitable for this case study and the maintenance of the longitudinal study.

Longitudinal Studies such as this one, do present its own sets of limitations such as time consumption, potential exposure to participants from previous published datasets as well as the potential replication of inaccuracies when adopting statistical techniques that fail to take into consideration the individualistic correlation of measures as well as the possibility of increased temporal financial demands associated with Longitudinal Research studies. Longitudinal research also helps in the production of rich in depth data thought the participation of the participants lived experiences before and after an election and or referendum.

The questions asked where replicated from the Qualitative Election Study of Britain 2010 in order to preserve the series (Winters,2010; Winters & Campbell, 2008) as well as taking some question from the 2014 Scottish referendum in order to connect the 2015 data to the previous datasets and to assist in the maintenance of the longitudinal series. With any interview questions it is important to know that there are potential biases, such as interviewer bias, as Winters had been involved in the previous studies there is a vested interest in the results. Another bias that may occur is recall (or response bias) as these are the same participants as the research studies there has been an exposure to the datasets, collections and exposure, throwing questions into the quality of the data. The use of interviews is a benefit to this study as it allows the researchers to analyse the different processes and factors as interviews are story telling techniques (Seidman, 2015). Although the replication of these questions allows the researchers the opportunity to conduct analyses on multiple levels which helps to maintain and analyse the responsiveness of the data collected in correlation to events unfolding before and after an election and or referendums.

The research study replicated qualitative research, the interview schedule replicated the 2005 focus groups, the focus groups were recorded using digital and audio equipment and then transcribed by an outside source who was a professional transcriber who converted that audible words into text. This allows for maximum accuracy in what was asked and the responses only the sex of the participant was recorded by the transcriber not identifying the participants there are no transcriptions of non-verbal communication. There were special focus groups that were held in Cardiff, Colchester and Dundee. There was also a pre-debate session of the focus group that was held for an hour, - this is in line with Krueger & Casey, 2015 who suggested that focus groups take place over 1-2 hours- The participants viewed the debate live. For the pre-debate focus group the participants where recorded in real time in order to capture their verbal and non-verbal reactions

Section Four: Ethical Considerations.

Winters Carvalho and Oliver obtained ethical approval from their host university, University of Dundee, UK and the appropriate departments. They included plans for their participant anonymity, data management, data protection and confidentiality. They provided participant information brochures and participant consent forms.

In is important to note that a good qualitative research study travels beyond obtaining institutional ethics review committees’ permission (Creswell, 2007) Researchers need to apply rigorous ethics when evaluating the design method, and protection of human subjects…the rigor is founded on a profound reverence for human beings and their experiences. (Munhall, 1988)

Informed consent for one study does not implicitly give permission for `another study there has to be explicit consent for the ones personal data to be used even if they had given previous permission for its use. This was avoided as the participants had been made aware that they would be part of a longitudinal research study from 2010 UK General Election, 2014 Scottish Referendum and the 2015 General Election. Other their participation was voluntary it became (almost) mandatory for the purposes of this study. There is an understanding in this research paper that informed consent is a static, past tense concept (Munhall, 1988). It is an ongoing, forever changing and dynamic process, and unforeseeable events and consequences, relying on past consent is insufficient and inappropriate. In this particular research paper, it facilitates the process of consent, not only verbally but through consent forms that where deposited alongside the data as it reflects the on going dynamic nature of the qualitative research.

Overall when it comes to ethics the first and foremost question one must ask is “Toward what goal and for what end?” (Munhall, 1988), because people’s behaviours change from experience, the datasets may shift and the authors have to be aware of such possibilities of change and not interfere with the outcomes.

When collecting data ethics play an essential role in research projects and authors should record “ethical and precisely with minimal bias and distortion” (Biernacki and Waldoorf, 1981. The validity of replication of big data present a challenge in ethics, it would be difficult albeit not impossible to verify and validate previous data, for the purpose of replicating data consent forms will have to be resigned as someone could have changed their mind about participating from the previous data, people can withdraw their participation from the research and as such changes the data recorded. The use of the terminology of the word “replication” is contested in the field of social sciences as he replication in the research study conducted raises ethical issues as it does not take into account the “context, reflexivity and investigator bias (inter Alia, Hernson, 1995, Lucas et all., 2013 as cited in E. Carvalho, T. Oliver and K. Winters, (2017)

Section Five: Conclusion.

The authors of the 2015 Qualitative Election Study of Britain are approaching their study based on the longitudinal continuation of the study that was started in 2010 UK General Election, carried on in the 2014 Scottish Referendum. The former sections of this essay evaluated the qualitative research design of Winters, Carvalho and Oliver, (2017)’s research paper which aimed to develop the longitudinal study that investigates Voter political attitudes and voting behaviour over multiple elections and referendums in the United Kingdom. Winters, Carvalho and Oliver framed their work from an experimentalist and semi pragmatic perspective, using focus groups, interviews and questionnaires to collect their data allowing them participants to expand on their answers and to establish a deeper understanding of their opinions when it came to election leaders. They used digital and audio recordings, which were then transcribed by a professional subscriber. The analysis of the methodology used is clear in the research paper allowing the reader to easily understand and follow how they collated their data how it was replicated and conceptualised into the current research. Winters, Carvalho and Oliver, adhere to ethical guidelines, keeping participants anonymity, whilst maintaining good data protection, data management and confidentiality, gathering new consent forms and not falling back to the ones that where given for precious studies, and although there are some ethics concerns to be taken into consideration, they do not derive from the research study itself. There is transparency of the dataset and the previous studies are easily attainable to view the outcomes of those studies and how this research study connects together in the longitudinal study. This research study does not wish to provide a definitive outcome to voter political attitudes and voting behaviour over multiple elections and referendums in the United Kingdom as it is part of a longitudinal research study, it is with the assumption that the research study will continue and look into the voter political attitudes and voting behaviour if reference to the recent European Referendum 2016 and the UK General Elections 2017 and 2019 respectively.  

References:

1. Bartle, J. (2003). 'Towards a Strategy for Systematic Behavioural Analysis.' Electoral Studies, 22(1), 3-16.
2. Campbell, R., & Winters, K. (2008). 'The Political Dynamics of Issue Framing: The Case of Turkey's Headscarf Affair.' Comparative Politics, 40(1), 41-58.
3. White, S., Van Basshuysen, P., & Sedgwick, M. (1999). 'Interpreting and Applying Research in Political Science.' Sage Publications.
4. Winters, K., & Campbell, R. (2007). 'The Political Is Personal: Exploring the Psychological Link between the Personal and Political.' Political Psychology, 28(6), 741-753.
5. Winters, K., Carvalho, E., & Oliver, T. (2017). 'The 2015 Qualitative Election Study of Britain.' British Journal of Political Science, 47(4), 767-781.
6. McCulloch, A. (2004). 'The Sociology of the Individual: Relating Self and Society.' Cambridge University Press.
7. Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). 'Research Methods for Business Students.' Pearson.
8. Oregon State University. (n.d.). 'Philosophical Perspectives.' https://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl201/modules/Philosophers/Pierce/pierce_phil.html
9. Bailey, R. W. (1997). 'Idealism: The History of a Philosophy.' McGill-Queen's Press.
10. Seidman, I. (2015). 'Interviewing as Qualitative Research: A Guide for Researchers in Education and the Social Sciences.' Teachers College Press.
11. Creswell, J. W. (2007). 'Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches.' Sage Publications.
12. Munhall, P. (1988). 'The Ethics of Qualitative Nursing Research.' Western Journal of Nursing Research, 10(3), 341-352.
13. Biernacki, P., & Waldorf, D. (1981). 'Snowball Sampling: Problems and Techniques of Chain Referral Sampling.' Sociological Methods & Research, 10(2), 141-163.
14. Yin, R. K. (2004). 'Case Study Research: Design and Methods.' Sage Publications.
15. Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2015). 'Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research.' Sage Publications.
16. E. Carvalho, T. Oliver, and K. Winters. (2017). 'Replication and the Integration of Data within a Qualitative Longitudinal Research Study.' In Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 18(3), Art. 15.