13.08.2007
糟糕的調查，糟糕的報道
各位如果是經常留意新聞的話，大抵都會發現，星期日的電視新聞其中一項「必備」的新聞，都是不同團體進行的調查的結果發佈，順利成章地，這些調查以及其結論－－姑勿論調查方法是否科學、結論是否站得住腳’等等－－都會在翌日的報章中佔了不少的篇幅。這樣的情況，在昨日（周日）和今天分別在電視及報章中出現。

我所說的是由「香港青年會」所進行，以「保育與發展」為主題的所謂民意調查。昨晚粗略地看無線六時半新聞的報道，最初沒有甚麼留意，只是聽到「有六成四人反對保留皇后碼頭」之類的說法，到今天看不同報章，發現除了《蘋果日報》，其餘報紙都有報道這個調查結果，如「逾半受訪者反對保留皇后」（《經濟日報》Ａ２３版）、「５９％青年支持拆遷皇碼　逾半不認同因集體回憶而保留」（《新報》Ａ７版）及「集體回憶反對拆皇后　逾半受訪者不支持」（《東方日報》Ａ２７版）等。驟眼看來，見到報章中的「逾半青年」、「逾半市民」等，還以為一片「反『反拆遷』」的聲勢原來已經變得這麼浩大。

但是好奇地再研究有關問卷及其研究方法，卻發現當中情況只有用「糟糕」來形容。昨晚再在網上重看無線有關此調查的報道，發現一個十分重要的事實，就是調查根本不是以「隨機抽樣」來挑選受訪者，而是「透過會員分發問卷」（《經濟》）。問卷調查並非不是民意調查的其中一種方法，但是與電話調查相比，卻面對受訪者可能不識字的問題（雖則相信這問題在本港發生的機會較少），此外香港青年會的網站說問卷是在全港十八區派發，但是各區派了多少份的資料完全欠奉，加上問卷由該會會員自行派發，究竟當中有多少是會員找親友來「圍威喂」填表「交數」？當中有多少是真的以較科學的方式去派發？總有懷疑的成份存在。

至於問題方面，我自己覺得當中不少是有問題的，例如第二題「政府為了改善中區一帶的交通情況以及未來發展需要，而遷拆皇后碼頭。您對這政策是：同意／不同意／不知道」，以及第三條「政府經過七年諮詢，然後立法整個中區發展規劃，您認爲程序：恰當／不恰當／不知道」，都隱含極大的導向成份，結果就是得出五成九人同意遷拆（第二題）及五成五人認為恰當（第三題）的答案。還有第十題要受訪者在保育與發展二者擇一，但是在前述導向性極高，將受訪者引導至支持發展的一方的情況下，到了這條題目時，難怪最終調查機構聲稱，有六成四人「不同意為了保留皇后碼頭而影響中區的發展計畫」了－－也順理成章地成為各報紙報道的焦點。況且，這個答案亦正正反映前當今政府／反政府兩派，一味只是要你非黑即白，要麼站在甲方，否則就要站在乙方的情形．．．

香港青年會在報告中形容，調查結果是「明顯的主流意見」，但是在報告中對各條問題的回答結果並不是全盤刊出（即每個選項的作答人數），甚至連所突出的答案也只是給予較為「虛」的百分比，而非確實得多的作答人數，加上題目本身以至取樣方法都有瑕疵時，我實在十分質疑這個調查有多「主流」。我不太願猜測，香港青年會這個組織的取向，在政治光譜中是屬於左或中或右，或者在皇后碼頭事件中，是拆派還是保派，但是我實在太多疑，總覺得這個調查是有預設立場在先，目的只是為政府遷拆皇后碼頭再度鳴鑼開道，增混民意籌碼及聲勢而已。

青年會的調查在我眼中是不專業，但是傳媒的報道亦絕大部分是搬字過紙，將帶虛浮味道的百分比及在「結果調查撮要」的所謂「分析」，化身成為報道的內容，未有對民意調查的方法學進行審視。更甚者，是民意調查的對象是「年青人」，但是見諸報章的頭條，卻由「青年」化身為「市民」（如《頭條》、《太陽》、《成報》、《文匯》）或「人」（《商報》）等，由一個本已基礎不穩的青年調查，擴而張之說成是全港六成四市民不同意為保皇后碼頭而影響中區發展計畫，雖然事實可能如此，但是在民意調查的背景下，這樣的推論實在是非常糟糕。

正同先前所言，我在《蘋果》找不到相關的報道，我倒想知道不選用這宗新聞的原因：是因為調查方法太「雞」，還是內容「不中聽」？另一方面，綜觀各報章的報道，發現只有《成報》的報道，有找來本土行動成員周思中的回應，看來其他傳媒都忘了找事件另一方作回應的新聞採訪學ＡＢＣ了，然而周思中的訪問中批評，青年會「只把問卷發予會員填寫」，這個指控也的確夠嚴重的，若是如此，這份問卷調查那丁點剩下的可信力也會付之流水了，但這是不是真的呢？無論如何，我還是認為這個所謂調查，以至傳媒的報道都只可以用「糟糕」兩字來形容。
========================
來自聞見思錄：http://blog.hoiking.org/
========================
雖然近年糟糕的報導，糟糕的問卷，屢見不鮮，但也應該注意一下。
陰謀論一下，急於向政府獻媚或是希望政府能給予多些資助，也須注意一下技巧吧。

The following information was released to the press this past weekend.  Excerpts were reported in various newspapers.  You may have seen some of this, but here is the whole thing.

Hong Kong Youth Association Survey Questionnaire.

Gender
1. Male
2. Female

Age
1. 18-24
2. 25-30
3. 31-35

Highest Educational Level
1. Third-year middle-school or less
2. Fifth-year middle-school or university preparatory
3. University or higher

Occupation
1. Student
2. Professional/Manager
3. Clerical, technical, service
4. Administrator
5. Housewife
6. Unemployed
7. Self-employed/other

Q1. Have you been paying attention to the news reports and information about the demolition/relocation of Queen's Pier?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Not aware of this matter [skip to Q7]

Q2. In order to better traffic conditions around Central as well as carry out future development plans, the government wants to demolish/displace Queen's Pier.  With respect to this policy, do you ...
1. Agree
2. Disagree
3. Don't know/Not Sure

Q3. The government spent seven years of consultation before legislating the plan for developing Central.  Do you think that the process was ...
1. Appropriate
2. Inappropriate
3. Don't know/Not Sure

Q4. With respect to Secretary of Development Carrie Lam Yuet-Ngor's dialogue with the opponents of the demolition/relocation on July 29, you ...
1. Strongly approve
2. Approve
3. Neither approve nor disapprove
4. Disapprove
5. Strongly disapprove

Q5. Certain preservationists oppose the demolition/relocation of Queen's Pier in the name of collective memory.  Do you ...
1. Agree
2. Disagree
3. Don't Know/Not Sure

Q6. With respect to the opponents of demolition/relocation staying at Queen's Pier and conducting a hunger strike, you ...
1. Disapprove a lot
2. Disapprove
3. Neither approve nor disapprove
4. Approve
5. Approve a lot

Q7. Personally speaking, do you consider the Queen's Pier to be a cultural heritage site?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Don't Know/Not Sure

Q8. The government wants to follow the Murray House case to disassemble Queen's Pier and re-assemble it at another location.  Do you agree?
1. Agree a lot
2. Agree
3. Disagree
4. Disagree a lot

Q9. Personally speaking, do you think whether the preservation of Queen's Pier would affect the development plan for Central?
1. Agree
2. Disagree
3. Don't Know/Not Sure

Q10. Personally speaking, when cultural heritage is incompatible with development, which would you choose?
1. Development first
2. Preservation first
3. Don't Know/Not Sure

Q11. Generally speaking, do you think that the government has done enough in its publicity about the balance between preservation and urban development?
1. Enough
2. So so
3. No enough
4. Don't Know/Not Sure

Sampling Methodology

Date: August 1 to August 9, 2007

Locations: Eighteen districts in Hong Kong, Kowloon and New Territories

Methodology: The questionnaires were distributed and the respondents filled out the questionnaires themselves.  The researchers were responsible only for distributing and collecting the questionnaires.

Survey Universe: Chinese citizens between the ages of 18 to 45 living in Hong Kong [note: yes, the description is 18 to 45 when the questionnaire only allows for 18 to 35 on the age question].

Sample Size: 570 questionnaires were distributed [note: there is no explanation as to whom] and 521 were collected (at 91.4% return rate).  21 of the questionnaires were excluded either because there was no response to one or more question, or more than one answer was checked for some question.  The number of valid intab questionnaires is 500.

Survey Results

92% of young people paid attention to the news reports or information about the demolition/relocation of Queen's Pier.
59% of young people agreed with the SAR government's decision to demolish/displace Queen's Pier in order to improve traffic conditions around Central and carry out future development plans.
55% of young people think that it was appropriate for the government to hold seven years of consultation and then put the Central development plan into legislation.  29% of young people were not aware of the consultation process.
29% of young people approve/strongly approve the dialogue of Carrie Lam with the opponents of demolition/relocation at the July 29 forum; 34% neither approve nor disapprove her performance; 11% disapprove/strongly disapprove her performance.
52% of the young people disagree with opposing the demolition/relocation of Queen's Pier on the grounds of collective memory; 32% agree.
52% of the interviewees disagree with the actions of the opponents of the demolition/relocation of Queen's Pier in staying at the location and holding a hunger strike; 10% agreed/agreed a lot with their actions.
48% of the interviewees thought that Queen's Pier was a cultural heritage site, and 39% of them did not think so.  13% don't know.
53% of young people agreed/agreed a lot to dissemble Queen's Pier and re-assemble it elsewhere.  36% disagreed/disagreed a lot.
64% of the interviewees disagreed with the preservation of Queen's Pier such that the Central development plan is affected.  Only 17% agreed.
50% of young people chose development ahead of preservation of cultural heritage sites, while 24% chose preservation first.  26% had no opinion.
48% of interviewees thought that the SAR government was inadequate in their publicity about the balance between preservation and urban development.  Only 6% thought that they were adequate.
Analytical Summary

The analysis of the dataset showed that in the battle between the SAR government and the preservationists, the government acted properly during the consultation and legislation and therefore received the support of the majority of the interviewees.
Although 48% of the interviewees believed that the Queen's Pier was a cultural heritage site, there were three different outcomes:
(1) When asked whether they oppose the demolition/relocation of Queen's Pier on the grounds of collective memory, 52% disagreed
(2) Only 10% approve the actions of the opponents of the demolition/relocation of Queen's Pier in staying at the pier and holding a hunger strike.
(3) 64% disagreed with the disrupting the Central development plan in order to preserve Queen's Pier.  Only 17% agreed.
The above data show that when forced to choose between development and preservation, 50% think that development goes first and only 24% think that preservation goes first.  The data showed the present values with respect to tradeoff between preservation and development.  This is vastly different from the preservationists' view that the government was going its own way against public opinion.
The disassembly of a cultural heritage site in order to re-assemble it elsewhere is a good way that is accepted by 54% of the interviewees.  The case of Murray House is a successful example.
=======================================
來自東南西北：http://www.zonaeuropa.com/20070814_1.htm
文章過長，這是訪問的原文。