Every day a vast number of organisations, both private and governmental, seek to establish just what constitutes public opinion. Under the guise of “market research" and opinion polls, many bodies are anxious to discover what the public thinks, whether it be about government policies, a new brand of soap powder or a TV series. From the mundane and even the banal, to the serious and far-reaching, they utilise the services of companies established for this very purpose.



Many might argue that the findings of such research and analysis may be fundamentally flawed. This argument is based on the preposition that such research is predisposed to provide the answers that best suit the organisation undertaking the investigation. In itself this argument has a superficial attraction - how many times have we seen analysis of public reaction to an event, and instantly reacted with disbelief or derision.

And yet - what would be the benefit of such flawed research? Supposing a soap-powder manufacturer conducts (or has conducted on their behalf) market research which “shows" that the public want - nay crave - a soap powder with blue particles in it - because that is what they have just launched? The findings of the research are trumpeted as a triumph of the R&D process - but the public, acting in ignorance of a fundamentally flawed piece of research - obstinately continues to buy “blue particle free" soap powder. One might argue that Governments may be more prone to such flawed practices, using bogus data to show that public opinion supports their policies and actions; presumably (in democracies at least) the next election will expose the perils of erroneously claiming that “the public" is behind them.

Given this, it is safe to assume that those bodies which seek to establish “Public Opinion"- particularly those companies whose future business depends of accurate enumeration and analysis of future trends to ensure their continuing viability - must go to great lengths to ensure that the data which they collect is accurate, relevant to their purposes, and meaningful. For their work to have use and value, they go to great pains to establish that their “sample" public is indeed representative of the public at large, and that the data collected from them is a true reflection of how the public is thinking.

Of course, there remains the possibility of misinterpretation of data - and perhaps the more common and pervasive problem keeping research information up-to-date. What was a large majority in favour of - say - an armed conflict being started, may easily be transformed into a body of opinion tending to a less bellicose attitude once the butchers bill becomes apparent.

In short, public opinion is a reality, and a significant factor in how our economies and governments must operate. Market economies must, by their nature, serve to satisfy the demands of the consuming public. Elected governments, if they are to gain re-election, must remain responsive to the wants and needs of the electorate - although, of course, it is perfectly possible that what the “public" actually require from their politicians is that they be leaders, rather than the followers of public opinion.