A Longitudinal Study of Political Attitudes and Voting in The UK

I'm a Political Psychology of International Relations MSc student, and I'm really into understanding why people vote the way they do. The research into the "why" behind voting behavior is pretty limited in International Relations, especially when it comes to why people in Britain vote the way they do. Only a few researchers, like Bartle, Campbell & Winters, and White et al., have looked into British electoral behavior. Most studies focus on big theories like realism, Liberalism, Marxism, Constructivism, and Feminism. But there are some things in International Relations that these big theories can't fully explain, especially voting behaviors. So, we need more variables that can explain why people vote the way they do. Most research in International Relations looks at political elites, while political psychology looks at things like 'operational code analysis' to understand belief systems (Holsti, 1970). This essay is divided into five parts. The first section will give an overview of the research article "The 2015 Qualitative Election Study of Britain". The second section will talk about the philosophical approach used in the study and why it's the best fit for this research. The third section will cover the qualitative methodology used in the study, discussing whether the methods used to gather data were appropriate for answering their research questions, along with the pros and cons of these methods. The fourth section will look into any ethical issues in the research, and the fifth section will wrap up the discussion and present the conclusion by analyzing the four main sections.

Section One: The Overview of the Research Article

The study by Winters, Carvalho, and Oliver (2017) titled "The 2015 Qualitative Election Study of Britain" has only been cited twice according to Google Scholar. Even though that's a pretty low number, it's the only qualitative longitudinal study that looks at political attitudes and voting behavior over multiple elections and referendums in the UK. The study examines data from previous studies in the Qualitative Election Study of Britain from 2005, 2010, and 2015. The goal is to investigate voter political attitudes and voting behavior over time in the UK. They hope to "identify, isolate, and measure causal processes in political behavior, 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 study follows up on the 2005 and 2010 UK general election research by Rosie Campbell and Kristi Winters, and the 2014 Scottish Referendum. It's the third wave of focus groups conducted before and after UK elections. This research is important because, for a long time, historical and social inquiry has ignored the personal and individual aspects, focusing more on the bigger picture (McCulloch, 2004). There's a need to understand the relationship between individuals and the larger structures. As Mills (1959) said, "the sociological imagination enables us to grasp history and biology and the relations between the two within society" (cited by McCulloch, 2004).

Section Two: The Philosophical Approach of this Research Article

A philosophical approach is a "system of beliefs and assumptions about the development of knowledge" (Saunders, Lewis, and Thornhill, 2009). The authors use a pragmatic (experientialism) approach, even though they don't explicitly state it. You can tell because the study relies on the reality that participants have experienced or observed. The fact that they create focus groups before and after an election shows that the answers depend on the election results and that reality is constantly changing. Pragmatism works well for this study because it's exploratory rather than explanatory and focuses on participants' thoughts rather than outcomes. In the study, participants' political opinions can be tracked across multiple elections. Pragmatism is effective here because each participant holds a different perspective view of reality (Bailey, 1997).

Although idealism could work for this research because it focuses on conscious reasoning, it doesn't fully support the approach taken here. The participants vote or think a certain way because they have an ideal reality they want to achieve through voting. Realism isn't suitable either, as it believes that reality exists independently of the mind (Pluto, as cited in Oregonstate.edu). Participants can't achieve true objectivity before or after an election. Existentialism doesn't fit either, as it requires participants to be subjective, and voting is a personal experience, so one can't remain objective or subjective.

Section Three: Qualitative Methodology

Winters, Carvalho, and Oliver used the same participants from the 2010 and 2014 datasets. This was done to preserve the series in the Qualitative Election Study of Britain. This seems ideal as there was no need to find new participants, and they already knew these participants fit their research aims. However, there could be potential bias in only selecting participants who had done the study before, as it excludes new perspectives and potential new datasets. Using the same participants and datasets doesn't consider systematic errors. The sampling data is biased since participants were selected based on their previous participation. This judgment (or purposive) sampling was cost and time effective as they already had their participants, but it excluded new ones. The research study doesn't justify how the participation size was selected, only how they collected participants through social media, local media in Dundee, and email recruitment using the University of Dundee's email lists, creating a unique panel of participants.

Data Collection

This research relies on a longitudinal case study method using the same participants. The study doesn't give an explicit sampling strategy but relies on previous participants from the 2005, 2010, and 2014 studies who are still willing to participate. It examines greater insights into unique experiences within a real-life context (Yin, 2004, as cited in 1732359, 2019).

The authors used in-depth interviews to provide optimal data on individuals' personal histories, experiences, and perspectives. Focus groups were used to "investigate what Britons thought about the 2015 campaign and the election results" (Winters, Carvalho, and Oliver, 2017). The questions used were the same as those from the 2010 study to preserve the series (Winters, 2010; Winters & Campbell, 2008) and connect the datasets from the 2015, 2010 Qualitative Election Study of Britain (QESB), and the 2014 Scottish Referendum. They used open-ended questions to allow participants to express their attitudes, feelings, and understanding of the subject matter, prompting a deeper understanding (Srivastava & Thomson, 2009, as cited in 1351912, 2019). There's already an established relationship between the participants and Winters, allowing for a quick rapport and more openness. This passing of information between participant and author is important in longitudinal studies as it ensures the study can be passed on to the next researcher. Although Winters was part of the previous studies, her co-authors are new, which adds a sense of responsibility to maintain the study, making interviews suitable for this case study.

Longitudinal studies like this one present limitations such as time consumption, potential exposure of participants to previous datasets, and the potential replication of inaccuracies when using statistical techniques that don't consider individualistic correlation of measures. There's also the possibility of increased financial demands. However, longitudinal research helps produce rich, in-depth data through participants' lived experiences before and after an election or referendum.

The questions asked were replicated from the 2010 study to preserve the series (Winters, 2010; Winters & Campbell, 2008) and some questions from the 2014 Scottish referendum to connect the 2015 data to previous datasets and assist in maintaining the longitudinal series. Potential biases include interviewer bias, as Winters had been involved in previous studies, creating a vested interest in the results. Recall (or response bias) may also occur as the same participants have been exposed to the datasets, collections, and questions, affecting the quality of the data. Interviews are beneficial for this study as they allow researchers to analyze different processes and factors, maintaining and analyzing the responsiveness of the data collected in relation to events unfolding before and after an election or referendum.

The study replicated qualitative research, with the interview schedule replicating the 2005 focus groups. The focus groups were recorded using digital and audio equipment and then transcribed by a professional transcriber who converted the audible words into text. This ensures maximum accuracy in what was asked and the responses, with only the sex of the participant recorded by the transcriber, not identifying the participants. There were no transcriptions of non-verbal communication. Special focus groups were held in Cardiff, Colchester, and Dundee, with a pre-debate session of the focus group lasting an hour, in line with Krueger & Casey's (2015) suggestion that focus groups take place over 1-2 hours. The participants viewed the debate live, and their verbal and non-verbal reactions were recorded in real-time during the pre-debate focus group.

Section Four: Ethical Considerations

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

It's important to note that good qualitative research goes beyond obtaining institutional ethics review committee permission (Creswell, 2007). Researchers need to apply rigorous ethics when evaluating the design method and protecting human subjects. This rigor is founded on a deep respect for human beings and their experiences (Munhall, 1988).

Informed consent for one study doesn't automatically give permission for another study. There has to be explicit consent for personal data to be used, even if previous permission was given. This was avoided as participants were made aware they would be part of a longitudinal research study from the 2010 UK General Election, 2014 Scottish Referendum, and the 2015 General Election. Although their participation was voluntary, it became almost mandatory for this study. There's an understanding in this research paper that informed consent is a dynamic process, not a static, past-tense concept (Munhall, 1988). It's ongoing and forever changing, with unforeseeable events and consequences. Relying on past consent is insufficient and inappropriate. This research paper facilitates the consent process not only verbally but through consent forms deposited alongside the data, reflecting the dynamic nature of qualitative research.

When it comes to ethics, the first question one must ask is, "Toward what goal and for what end?" (Munhall, 1988). People's behaviors change from experience, so datasets may shift, and authors must be aware of such changes without interfering with outcomes.

When collecting data, ethics play a crucial role in research projects, and authors should record "ethically and precisely with minimal bias and distortion" (Biernacki and Waldorf, 1981). The validity of replicating big data presents an ethical challenge. It would be difficult, albeit not impossible, to verify and validate previous data for replication purposes. Consent forms will have to be re-signed as participants may change their minds about participating from previous data. People can withdraw their participation, which changes the recorded data. The term "replication" is contested in social sciences as it raises ethical issues, not considering "context, reflexivity, and investigator bias" (inter Alia, Hernson, 1995, Lucas et al., 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 building on a longitudinal study that started with the 2010 UK General Election and continued with the 2014 Scottish Referendum. The previous sections of this essay evaluated the qualitative research design in Winters, Carvalho, and Oliver's (2017) research paper, which aims to investigate voter political attitudes and voting behavior over multiple elections and referendums in the UK. They framed their work from an experimentalist and semi-pragmatic perspective, using focus groups, interviews, and questionnaires to collect data, allowing participants to expand on their answers and establish a deeper understanding of their opinions on election leaders. Digital and audio recordings were used, which were then transcribed by a professional transcriber. The methodology is clearly analyzed in the research paper, making it easy for the reader to understand how data was collected, replicated, and conceptualized into the current research. The authors adhered to ethical guidelines, keeping participants anonymous, maintaining good data protection, management, and confidentiality, gathering new consent forms, and not relying on previous ones. Although there are some ethical concerns, they don't stem from the research study itself. There's transparency in the dataset, and previous studies are readily available to see how this research connects in the longitudinal study. This research doesn't aim to provide a definitive outcome for voter political attitudes and voting behavior over multiple elections and referendums in the UK. It's part of an ongoing longitudinal study, assuming it will continue to look into voter political attitudes and behavior, especially in light of the recent European Referendum 2016 and the UK General Elections 2017 and 2019.

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.