| Contents Why
is Brisbane When a faded curtain is not a joke
|
A review of the QLD Government DST Research report 2007: Understanding Attitudes to Daylight Saving in Queensland
Don't think of an elephant Based on two 15-minute phone surveys of 1000 people (600 from south-east Queensland) and 600 businesses [1] , the results of the $120,000 research study were made public on 1 October 2007 in a 273-page report. However, the only revelations that qualified as political soundbite material were the answers to Question 19 (on the level of support for daylight saving) and Question 31 (on the level of support for a split time zone). Yet both these questions were confusing and, particularly in the case of Question 19, misleading. Q19 asks:
Firstly, from a daylight saving opposition viewpoint this is not exactly a fair question. As people who work in advertising and marketing well know, wording psychology can make a huge difference to customer response. A question that asks people 'to what extent' they 'support' something focuses the listener's thoughts on their degree of support - not on whether they support it or not. This concept-framing favours an 'acceptance' response rather than a 'rejection' response, especially among those who don't feel strongly about a subject. Had the question simply asked 'whether' they support daylight saving time (DST) or not, the concept-framing would have been more objective - and might well have produced a significantly higher rejection (or anti-daylight saving) response. Secondly, the report's interpretations of the response to Q19 are very confusing. Those who registered support for daylight saving as a principle in general, that is (a) above, amounted to 59 per cent of those surveyed statewide. In southeast Queensland, the figure was 69 per cent. However, in terms of stating their support for the introduction of daylight saving to the whole state, that is (b) above, the figures were 52 per cent statewide, and 60 per cent for SEQ. [3] Yet this latter result was ignored in the report's Executive Summary. In its place, the Summary made a strange claim:
This is clearly a reference to the 1992 referendum result, in which 45.5 per cent voted Yes to daylight saving. Yet, when you compare the wording of both questions (from 1992 and 2007), the claim of a 13 per cent 'increase in support' is spurious. Here is the question that appeared on the 1992 ballot paper:
No one voting in that referendum was in any doubt that the objective of a majority Yes vote was to introduce DST to the whole of Queensland on a permanent basis. So to compare the 1992 Yes vote with the 2007 response to Q19 (a) is an utterly misleading comparison. Not surprisingly, the media seized on the '59 per cent' that approved of daylight saving as a principal in general and widely reported it as representing those who want daylight saving introduced to the whole state:
Mysteriously, there appears to be no trace of any querying in the media or blogosphere as to why the percentage of Queenslanders 'wanting' DST got so high all of a sudden (unlike people who run anti-daylight saving websites). This is especially odd considering another statewide independent poll taken at the same time as the government research, and published in the Sunday Mail on 1 July, revealed that only 45 per cent statewide wanted DST introduced - i.e. no change at all from 1992. [6] Neither is it surprising then that the Department of Premier and Cabinet's announcement on 1 October that a daylight saving referendum would not be called was unfairly perceived as undemocratic. Split time zone fizzer In response to survey Q31, on dividing the state into two time zones, Queenslanders were somewhat underwhelmed. Like Q19, this was also a question that asked 'to what extent' they supported the concept. Even so, only 33 per cent statewide, and 41 per cent in SE Queensland, were in favour of dividing the state (other opinion polls have shown even lower figures [7]). However, instead of assuming the naysayers might have a good point, their views were dismissed largely as ignorance:
The irony of this statement seems to be completely lost on whoever wrote it. For thirty years rural-regional Queenslanders, as well as metropolitan DST opponents, have used the differing summer sunrise (and sunset) times to give weight to their own case against statewide daylight saving. Undoubtedly, the above statement is an argument in favour of a split time zone; however, it is an even more important argument against forcing the whole state onto DST simply because of the strident demands of a populous but tiny area at the bottom the state. Other important revelations went unremarked. For example, Mackay residents were described as being 'particularly opinionated and negative to split time zones' [9], but the report writers failed to connect this observation to Mackay's proximity to the separate daylight saving time zone of the Whitsunday Islands and Airlie Beach. There was also an overly casual tendency to gloss over important forewarnings of bitter future controversy and resentment:
As emails to the Light of Day have indicated to us, these issues represent the tip of the iceberg. Residents from the thoroughly anti-DLS towns of Toowoomba-Gatton-Nambour are justifiably angry at the prospect of being forcibly trapped in a separate daylight saving zone, and many angry pro-daylight saving Bundaberg-Gladstone business people are convinced their businesses will suffer if they are not included in any split time zone arrangements. Ultimately, the report falls into line with the 'all or nothing' approach rather than attempting to push for alternatives, implying that a consensus is just too hard to reach. This is probably why the only real action the report recommends is to:
In the language of daylight politics, this translates as 'keep lobbying'.
Same old
same old. It's not longitude or latitude that matter - only attitude.
Any serious analysis of whether DST or a split time zone might actually
do Queensland any good - or even whether there might be some viable alternatives
to a clock change - did not appear to be part of the government's brief.
In the end, what we got was a combination of glorified opinion poll and
subtle homage to the benefits of DST. This does make for some interesting reading, and even dispels a few long-held DST myths (albeit inadvertently):
Unsurprisingly, none of the above interpretations feature in any key findings or summaries within the report.
The research team seemed more interested in making interpretations that simply reinforced DST stereotypes. This was done with the help of analytical categories like 'Demographic Findings', 'Regional Insights and General Observations' and the bizarre 'Understanding Mindsets' (no prizes for guessing whose). All the old prejudices are there. Only the names have been changed -literally! DST supporters and opponents were repackaged with brand new titles: the 'Convinced' and 'Unconvinced'. (May as well have been 'Them' and 'Us'.) Even the neutrals did not escape a value-loaded judgement - they were called 'Sceptics'. According to a selection of comments that made it to the pages of the report, the Convinced say awfully decent, open-minded things like:
Conversely, the Unconvinced say dumb, insular things like:
If the selection of quotes are any guide, we are expected to believe that the 'Convinceds' were on their most enlightened behaviour during their phone interviews and never succumbed to any ranting or raving about curtains, cows and living in the Dark Ages. Likewise, any 'Unconvinceds' who might have provided clear-sighted arguments on the negative DST/split time zone implications facing all Queenslanders must have been out when AC Nielson called.
The Convinced appeared to have like-minded values to those of the report writers - enough for the key findings to clearly demonstrate a considerable degree of empathy with how they think:
Also, the wording used to describe the Convinceds was inclined to be objective rather than subjective. As a result, the Convinced's perception of DST's benefits tended to come across as irrefutable, universal facts:
On the other hand, DST/split time zone disadvantages were routinely described as 'perceptions' or 'concerns' on the part of the Unconvinced - thus diluting their validity. Unlike the Convinced, the views of the Unconvinced tended to be treated as reactionary responses and, at times, subjected to psychobabble:
When asked about their typical evening routine (Q9), respondents were read out a specific list of choices:
Phew! If we kept this up every night, we'd all collapse. Respondents were given little to no opportunity to consider whether they spend much time indoors - resting, reflecting or winding down from the day. (To be fair, the categories 'None of the above' and 'Others (specify)' were included on the interviewers' script but, curiously, but with instructions not to read them out.) Also notable by its absence was the 'watching TV' option - far and away the nation's most consistently popular evening pursuit ... in all seasons. Apparently, coming home from work exhausted and flopping in front of the box does not happen in DST research-land. And, while outdoor dining and going out to eat were included among the evening options, the tasks surrounding a typical household (indoor) evening meal - shopping for food, preparation, cooking, eating and washing up - were not.
Overall, the research does not indicate that, percentage-wise, there has been much of a change in attitudes since 1992, either in SEQ or in Queensland as a whole. What the research does indicate is that the population of SEQ has grown considerably in proportion to the rest of the state. No doubt, the DST/split time zone lobby is hoping this will get them over the line if they shout long enough and hard enough for another referendum. How this would disadvantage, divide and disrupt the state seems of no more interest to DST advocates now than it was in 1992 - especially in SEQ. The polarisation of the debate as being between SEQ on the one side, and the rest of the state on the other, is still very much alive:
However, one big advantage in having the report is that it gives us an invaluable insight into the methodology and wording of a typical daylight saving questionnaire. Unlike other poll surveys that remain locked away from the public gaze, depriving us of the opportunity to analyse how particular media soundbite outcomes are obtained, at least the public has the opportunity to view this report's questions and their interpretations - rather than having them filtered to us via all the usual political agendas.
Notes: 1.
This review concentrates mainly on the residential (not business) survey.
Although the views of South-east Queensland businesspeople overwhelmingly
drive the DST and split time zone campaigns, it is the results of the
residential survey that is more relevant to how Queenslanders would vote
in a referendum. 10.
ibid, p.14 14.
ibid, p.39 November, 2007 |
 |
