The creation of the Anglicanorum Coetibus, the framework proposed by the Vatican under which Anglicans could convert en masse to Catholicism, poses a number of interesting questions. Having been brought up an Anglican, I converted to Catholicism a number of years ago and I don't find it at all surprising to find there are many others thinking of doing the same. Particularly interesting for me is Rev. John Hind, the Bishop of Chichester's announcement that he is ready to give up his privileges as an Anglican bishop and convert - provided he remains a bishop under the new Anglican Ordinariate. I was confirmed into the Anglican Church in Chichester Cathedral by Hind's predecessor and, seeming to have some considerable support behind him, it makes me wonder what will happen to the Anglican churches in the Chichester diocese.

I know however, from speaking to former fellow parishioners, that Hind's announcement has not been welcomed by all. But I wonder how many Anglicans in the area realise that the Diocese of Chichester is one of the most staunchly Anglo-Catholic dioceses in the country. Most (if not all) of its parishes are identified by Forward in Faith, an international Anglican group now actively seeking unity with Rome, as parishes where those opposed to the ordination of women as priests can "...find a church where they can worship with confidence."

Even if the majority of the congregation of the Diocese of Chichester decided to join the Catholic Church, quite what would happen to their property (i.e. the actual Church buildings) is unknown. The idea of the Ordinariate is to create Anglo-Catholic dioceses, in full communion with Rome, within and overlapping existing Catholic dioceses - not subordinate to, but on an equal footing with existing Catholic dioceses. Clearly this implies that the Vatican expects Anglicans to bring with them at least some places of worship, something those Anglicans not wishing to convert will oppose tooth and nail. The legal nightmare this poses could see the biggest strain on relations between the Church of England and the Holy See in modern history. Rarely have prayers for Christian unity been needed more than they are right now.

This post is a miniature literature review conducted for an upcoming research project on E-Democracy. The project will involve sending out an email based questionnaire to various politicians and the purpose of this literature review is, prior to the undertaking of the primary research for this project, to research and highlight techniques for questionnaire design and attitude measurement. In doing so the author hopes ensure that the primary research conducted for this topic is both useful and carried out according to the most suitable and best possible methods.

Conducting research using questionnaires is nothing new and the fact that this particular questionnaire will be conducted by email does not mean that traditional techniques should not be consulted. The nature of the area into which research will be conducted, social media, is such that an understanding of the topic on the part of the respondent cannot be guaranteed. Writing well before the rise of the internet, Henerson, Lyons Morris, & Fitz-Gibbo (1978, p.71) correctly point out that simply by receiving a questionnaire covering a certain topic, the respondent may feel that they should know something about the topic concerned - otherwise why would you be asking them. Therefore it is useful to offer the respondent the ability to choose an answer, phrased in a non-demeaning way, which identifies their lack of knowledge in the area concerned. Henerson et al. (1978 p.71) also draw attention to the possibility that the researcher can actually influence responses by drawing respondents attention to a particular issue. If a respondent does not possess strong views on the subject concerned then they can be open to being influenced by the questioning process itself. To combat this, respondents should be given the opportunity to say that they have no substantial opinions on the matter.

 How to Measure Attitudes by Henerson et al. (1978) offers a number of useful insights into critiquing questions prior to sending out a questionnaire, choosing the sequence of questions and managing a questionnaire. It is interesting that Henerson et al. (1978) put much greater emphasis on the researcher reviewing their own questions than on conducting pilot surveys, or ‘try-outs’ as they refer to them (Henerson et al 1978, p. 81). Instead researchers are advised to look revise their own questions and search for potential problems within them, for example:

- Are there any phrases likely to influence a person’s response to the question?
- Is a question asked negatively? This sometimes confuses respondents.
- Does the question encourage one particular response over another?
- Does the question permit a response that indicates a lack of knowledge/opinion without demeaning the user?
(Henerson et al 1978, p. 78)

Analysing one’s own questionnaire is no doubt important, but conducting a round of pilot questionnaires should not be overlooked - especially as potential problems can lie not just in the questions themselves but also in the method of delivery. Henerson et al. (1978 p.81) go on to mention techniques for collecting mail-based questionnaires and do raise issues that could be relevant for this project (for example the inclusion of a deadline for returning the questionnaire); however for material relevant to an email questionnaire it will be necessary to look at more recent publications.

For a project like this that intends to conduct primary research using an email questionnaire, there are obvious benefits to using the Likert scale for data collection. A technique very popular with online surveys, a quick internet search will reveal many articles detailing the benefits of this method. The main motivation for the selection of this method is described by Oppenheim in his book Questionnaire design, interviewing and attitude measurement. Oppenheim called the Likert method “the most popular scaling procedure in use today” (Oppenheim, A. 1992, p. 195) and identifies it as comparatively less laborious than other questionnaire techniques. This is a quality that makes the technique well suited to a project such as this, being as it is carried out by a single researcher. But the Likert scale is not without criticism and Oppenheim (1992) goes on to say that the method of creating a total score of numerical answers ignores the fact that the same score could be obtained in many different ways. In addition, equal answer score intervals do not necessarily allow the researcher to make assumptions about the equality of underlying attitude differences (Oppenheim, A. 1992, p. 200). When proceeding with this method there are therefore a number of concerns that this project will have to take into account.

One answer to the problem described by Henerson et al. (1978) regarding the provision of a ‘don’t know/no opinion’ response is described by Sudman & Bradburn (1983) in their book Asking Questions. The authors strongly suggest that those designing questionnaires using numerical rating scales give an odd number of categories (‘on a scale of one to five…’, ‘on a scale of one to seven…’ etc.) in order to allow for a middle point (Sudman, & Bradburn, 1983, p. 157). Taking the example of a question along the lines of ‘on a scale from one to five…’, respondents who are undecided or indifferent would be able to choose ‘three’. However Oppenheim (1992, p. 200) reminds us that responses in the middle region could be due to lack of knowledge; furthermore, the neutral point on the scale does not necessarily represent the mid-point between the two extremes of the opposing potential answers to the question. All these issues are useful additions to the thought process that will be behind the creation of the research questionnaire for this project.

A book published by the Police Foundation offers a case-study style insight into different questionnaire techniques utilised by the police force. The Likert technique is described as attractive because it is relatively simple and the nature of results based on a numerical scale lends itself well to the measurement of attitudes (Hibberd & Bennett, 1990, p. 83). The example given by Hibberd & Bennett (1990, p. 87) to demonstrate potential uses of the Likert scale by the police shows a questionnaire consisting of five questions, each with five potential answers ranging from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’. This appears to be a reoccurring and widely used answer format that would also seem appropriate for use with this project. It is interesting to note that Hibberd & Bennett (1990, p. 86) consider the Liker scale to be “…clearly an involved and time consuming business…”; however this comment must be taken in the context of the book itself and what may be seen to be ‘involved and time consuming’ for a regular police officer is quite probably routine from the point of view of a sociologist.

Another strong point of the Likert scale is that closed questions are more suitable for large scale surveys. Questionnaires produced using this method have shorter response time and are easier to analyse, enabling cross-group comparisons to be made (Lewin, 2005 p. 219). In the chapter written by Lewin of the book Research Methods in Social Sciences (Lewin, 2005 p. 220) insights are offered into how to maximise the number of responses to a questionnaire. It is argued that the questions should be preceded by a brief note stating how long they will take, as well as a note at the end to ask respondents to check they’ve answered all the questions correctly and thank them for their time. Lewin (2005, p. 221) also suggests the use of online questionnaires to facilitate easier data collection and analysis. This is a possibility that could be explored for this project as it would certainly save time on data entry and the creation of graphs. However using an online survey tool could mean it would not be possible to manipulate the data to anything like the extent required in order to make a detailed analysis of the results. For this reason it seems likely that Lewin’s suggestion will not be taken on board.

When it comes to piloting the questionnaire, Iarossi (2006, p. 87) states three different methods in his book The Power of Survey Design. The two most relevant to this project are what he calls the ‘conventional’ and ‘cognitive’; his third method, the ‘behavioural’ pre-test, is simply not possible for this project as the researcher is required to monitor participants while they complete the questionnaire. The cognitive method is similar to the techniques described by Henerson et al. (1978) and involves putting oneself in the position of the respondent and undertaking the questionnaire. Iarossi (2006, pp. 91-92) suggests looking for problems such as: questions that are difficult to read, complicated instructions, technical terminology, inappropriate assumptions, sensitive content, items that respondents may consider comical, long or ambiguous questions and any issues which in the eyes of the respondent may have been overlooked. Where Iarossi (2006, p. 87) goes further than Henerson et al. (1978) is in his description of the ‘conventional’ method of what he calls ‘pre-testing’. This involves carrying out small number of pilot questionnaires and requesting feedback from the respondents regarding the questionnaire itself. A miniature discussion with a small cross-section of the respondent population could be useful in identifying problems with the questionnaire early on. For this project, both the cognitive and conventional methods will be employed.

Conclusion

Given its nature an understanding of the topic on the part of the respondent cannot be guaranteed. As such, respondents should be given the opportunity to choose an answer which identifies their lack of knowledge or opinion in the area concerned. To reflect this, the questionnaire will make use of a numerical scale with an odd number of response options; thereby allowing for a median option for those with no opinion or knowledge of the topic covered.
The Likert scale will be utilised as this will reduce response time, maximise the number of responses and simplify response data entry. However the criticisms of the method noted above should not be ignored and need to be brought into the analysis of any results obtained. When using the Likert scale, particular issues that could affect the results analysis for this project include the problem that the same the total score for each group could be obtained in many different ways. Additionally, equal answer score intervals do not necessarily allow the researcher to make assumptions about the equality of underlying attitude differences (Oppenheim, A. 1992, p. 200).

When it comes to piloting the questionnaire, both the conventional and the cognitive methods described above will be used. The researcher will ‘revise’ the questions as described by Henerson et al. (1978 p.78) and make any corrections necessary. Following this, a cross-section of the participant population should be identified and the questionnaire piloted. Using the ‘conventional method’ described by Iarossi (2006, p. 87), a dialogue with this cross-section of participants will be attempted - with the aim of identifying problems with the questionnaire before deploying it formally.

Bibliography

Henerson, E, Lyons Morris, L, & Fitz-Gibbon, C. (1978). How to Measure attitudes. Beverly Hills, USA: Sage Publications.

Hibberd, M, & Bennett, M. (1990). Questionnaire and interview surveys: a manual for police officers. London: Police Foundation.

Iarossi, G. (2006). The Power of survey design. Washignton D.C: World Bank Publications.

Lewin, C. (2005). Elementary quantitative methods. In Somekh, B & Lewin, C (Eds.), Research methods in the social sciences (pp. 215-225).London: Sage.

Oppenheim, A. (1992). Questionnaire design, interviewing and attitude measurement. Guildford, UK: Printer.

Sudman, S, & Bradburn, N. (1983). Asking questions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

You might consider it a trivial subject, but for most countries the national anthem is something that stirs feelings of pride in even the most pacifist of citizens. Our anthem on the other hand is a great big pile of monarchist claptrap.

I'm a republican, I'd like to see the end of the monarchy as soon possible, but I'd take the changing of the national anthem as a start. What's more, there are many people who dislike our current anthem for a whole variety of reasons:

1) It's totally uninspiring
2) Placing a demand upon God to 'save our queen' is seen as a questionable inclusion by atheists and Christians alike.
3) Wales and Scotland have their own anthems... where's England's?
4) It harks back to an era of colonialist oppression that we, as a nation, have never really shown any remorse about
5) Several countries use the same bloody tune!
6) Around 1 in 4 people don't support the monarchy - so 1 in 4 people are quite possibly not just being left out, but actually slightly offended by the current anthem.
7) It contains a reference to 'oppressing rebellious Scots' - hardly a useful line if we want to keep the union alive.

I could go on... but you get the idea. Incidentally, I'm not actually much of a patriot - in fact I think patriotism can be quite dangerous. But even if national borders are nothing more than man-made barriers dividing humanity, there's nothing wrong with feeling proud of your country or celebrating the common heritage you have with your fellow citizens. For me, the national anthem has always been a barrier to this. What do you think, and what would you change our anthem to?

This Thursday (15th Oct) will see the first of what I hope will be many debates held by the new University of Portsmouth Politics and Debating society. The question debated will be 'Are we Labour's lost generation?' and I had been intending to attend and put across a Labour perspective on the issue. Unfortunately it looks like I'm not going to be able to make it, so instead I'll blog here some of what I was intending to say at the debate.

I do not think that we are a lost generation at all, let alone 'Labour's lost generation' - whatever that actually means. It's interesting and somewhat paradoxical that Labour's opponents on the right often bemoan that the state meddles far too much in people's lives and should stop telling them how to raise their kids etc., before proceeding to come up with phrases like 'Labour's lost generation' - you can't have it both ways guys.

In truth, our generation has more opportunities before us than any other in the history of this country. Just ask one of your elderly relatives. For example, there are more students attending university than ever before and it is now possible for anyone from any background to get into a university of their choice, provided they have the right grades and necessary willpower. Clearly there are some pitfalls in this argument - but not nearly enough for us to be labelled as a 'lost generation'. I offer myself as a case in point - I never wanted to do A-levels or go to university. Labour's introduction of the Education Maintenance Allowance persuaded me to stay on - part bribery for sure, but that £30 a week paid for my petrol to go to sixth form each day.

Labour's abolition of up-front fees for university meant that coming from a low-income family would not be a barrier to my going to university, and the introduction of maintenance grants has meant that I have had some money to live on - money that I don't even have to pay back. I'm the first person from my family ever to attend university, all the statistics show that it will improve my life chances and I haven't had to pay a penny up front in order to do it. Contrast this with the situation little more than a couple of decades ago when university was still for the privileged few, it is clearly wrong to say that we, as students, are Labour's 'lost generation'.

But there are so many other reasons why it just isn't true to say that we are Labour's lost generation. Labour lifted half a million children in this country out of poverty and is committed, despite the recession, to continuing this trend. Child benefit is being paid at record levels and year on year we have seen record results in our schools. The first legislation of its kind in the world - the Climate Change Act - will help to ensure that not just our generation, but generations to come are not lost to the threat of environmental disaster.

Nevertheless, there is a real danger that the current economic climate could create a 'lost generation' and it is true to say that young people have been among the hardest hit by the recession. That is why the government set aside £5 billion in the budget for targeted support with jobs and training and has promised that, starting from January, every young person under 25 who has been unemployed for a year will receive a guaranteed job, work experience or training place. In addition, from last month all 16 & 17 year-olds have been guaranteed an offer of a school or college place - or a training place or apprenticeship. Contrast this to the total lack of  support from the Conservative government in the last recession.

Ultimately however, we control our own destinies. While there are still many problems to overcome in terms of equality of opportunity, we are nobody's generation to lose but our own. The role of the state is to ensure, as much as is possible, that the most disadvantaged in society have access to the same opportunities as the wealthiest in our society. We are still some way from achieving this, but you can be sure that these aims will not be achieved under a Conservative government.

Sometimes organising campaigns or events can feel pretty isolating, especially if you are working alone or with a small group. One way in which you can gain support in many different forms is by involving local or national political organisations. These can include political parties, trade unions, charities, youth groups, community organisations - in fact any organisation that shares common goals or views with your own is a potential source of support.

Most student political groups are relatively small, but even larger groups & societies should make the most out of working with like-minded organisations in the community around them. So what benefits can working with these groups bring? Firstly, whether you’re renting a venue, hiring a speaker, buying some banners or just organising a social it all costs money, and when you are running on a limited budget you need to make every penny count. Political organisations can help you with things like this, OK they probably aren’t going to donate £1000 to your campaign but they are able to provide financial support in other ways. Many local political parties will have their own printing facilities, particularly in marginal seats (where propaganda is churned out at a far higher rate), and they may be able to print leaflets, posters and flyers for you free of charge or at a below-market rate.

There’s nothing politicians like to do more than have a room full of people all listening attentively to them, save having another politician in the room to argue with as well. Political parties will often provide you with a speaker for free, especially if they know representatives of other parties are going to be there too. In the run up to either a local or national election parties are even keener to send representatives, making the debate open to the public will entice them even more. Charities, Trade Unions and other similar groups will often send speakers for free, mostly because they are keen to raise awareness about certain issues and see young people as a key target audience.

Political organisations can also be a source of administrative and logistical support, perhaps you’ve never run a group or a campaign like this before and you don’t know where to start. If the advice you get from your student union is not enough why not get in touch with some local organisations, many of the people working or volunteering for these groups will have years of campaigning experience and this could prove invaluable. Political parties will have offices in most constituencies and these can be used as a venue for meetings, often the party will not charge you if they see your organisation as complementary to their own.
At most universities the biggest single recruiting event for your organisation is the fresher’s fayre and it is important to make the most of it. If you are a small group or you are lacking material for your stall you can use partner groups within your local area to provide volunteers and printed material. Just like your own group, most politically oriented organisations are always looking to expand their membership and if they think there’s a chance of recruiting some people at your fayre they’ll be more than happy to help you.

When it comes to organising events publicity is everything and this is where working with local organisations can really pay off. Simply asking the organisation to publicise your event to its own members can help fill up your venue on the night, providing leaflets and posters to members of that organisation’s branch is a good idea too and emailing several local groups at once also saves a great deal of time.

The different types of support outlined above are just a snippet of what political groups can offer, but why would they want to help you in the first place? Believe it or not but the vast majority of people involved in politics in one way or another are there for the right reasons. That is to say, they have a belief system or ideology which inspires them and they want to use that to make some small impact on the world for the better. This means that people may well be willing to offer you advice and support and expect absolutely nothing back in return save the feeling that they’ve made a difference. When it comes to political parties most of them will be wanting to help you because they may see you and others in your organisation as potential new members, currently young people make up only a tiny percentage of the membership of the big three political parties so you can expect them to be bending over backwards to try to get you on board. Many organisations however will just want to build links with groups like your own, possibly with a view to holding joint events in the future; other organisations may be looking to help you because it is good publicity for them or because they want to publicise something to you. To build up long-term relationships with these organisations you should be prepared to meet at least some of their expectations of you, even if that just means attending a few meetings or delivering some leaflets.

The first step you need to take is to find some suitable local organisations to work with. Larger political parties have what are called ‘constituency parties’ and a quick internet search should retrieve some contact details for the local constituency party. Smaller political parties are likely to have regional branches rather than constituency parties and these will be based in the larger towns and cities in your region. Trade unions run on a similar set-up and the larger unions have branches all over the UK, to find a particular union go to the Trades Union Congress website (www.tuc.org.uk). It is unlikely that you will not find a political party, however small, sympathetic to the views of your student organisation, however political parties are not the only groups out there to work with and you should try to build links with other politically oriented entities. Larger charities will have regional branches and there are many small local charities out there too. Also look at think tanks and campaign groups like Compass, the Institute for Public Policy Research and the Fabian Society, many of which have active local branches - these types of organisations are able to provide really good speakers for your debates and events. Many organisations have a youth or student wing and making contact with these groups is a key source of support because they are often made up of experienced student campaigners.

Within these organisations the key people to make links with are the local branch secretaries (who will have many contacts within their own and neighbouring branches), the youth/student officer and the campaigns officer. Building up a good relationship with these people will help to ensure your own student campaign or organisation not just survives, but thrives in the next academic year because even if you are leaving university by simply passing on contact details the relationship can continue to exist with your successor.

Finally, when dealing with political organisations work on the philosophy of ‘you don’t ask, you don’t get.’ Don’t be afraid to ask for those thousand free leaflets or free use of a venue, you have nothing to lose and, potentially, a lot to gain.

There's an interesting article in today's Independent on Sunday about declining membership levels in the Conservative party, with research suggest a 21.5% drop since David Cameron's election as leader. But the phenomenon is not unique to the Tories, Labour too have seen drastic falls in membership levels since 1997. One could argue that the race to the 'centre ground' of British politics has led to the larger parties losing touch with their 'core vote' and becoming somewhat less inspirational. Whatever the cause, a dangerous by-product of this drop in membership is a real change in where parties obtain their funding.

Political parties are supposed to be popular movements, campaigning for the country to governed in one particular way or another, organised and funded by their members. But when membership levels start to fall, parties are obliged to turn to other sources for funding. The big three parties seem now to be more interested in soliciting donations from millionaires than from members. But while members expect little return from their contributions, millionaires quite naturally expect something more than a quarterly newsletter and a little plastic card from theirs. In other words, a level of corruption is now actually necessary in order to obtain adequate funding for a political party.

 While there are of course some wealthy supporters who genuinely back a particular political party and expect nothing in return for their donations, the increasing reliance on affluent donors is worrying. One solution to the problem could be state-funded political parties - removing the need to seek shady donations just to cover a party's day-to-day expenses. It could be argued that this would be the final nail in the coffin for the 'popular movement' - but the essence of a popular movement could be retained in such a system if the amount of funding a party received was proportional to its membership, with membership and funding of parties being overseen by an independent regulator.

Inevitably though, such a system would not address the key question - What is it about the main political parties today that has caused so many of their members to leave, and so few new members to join? It is this crisis of ideology, or perhaps lack of it, that must be addressed if we are to keep politics in the hands of the people.

Dubbed 'the last fighting Tommy', Harry Patch was buried last week after a public remembrance service at Wells Cathedral. Such occasions can't help but stir feelings of patriotism within even the most pacifistic of citizens, but rather than glorify it we should always keep in mind the true horror of what war actually is.

I can't help but feel that when we're sitting on our sofas watching a war film, or standing in a crowd watching a colourful military parade we are somehow doing an injustice to those who were sent out into foreign fields to die in the most gruesome circumstances. It is one thing to honour the memory of the fallen, but to go so far as to almost glorify slaughter and killing seems to me to be doing a great disservice to the memory of the millions of people, many conscripted, who have served in our armed forces over the years.

Nothing demonstrates the horror of war better than some of Harry's own words - so next time you see an MOD recruitment advert or a vainglorious military history documentary, bare in mind the words of a man who saw armed conflict first hand:

"It wasn't worth it. No war is worth it. No war is worth the loss of a couple of lives let alone thousands."

"When you look at it, why did they die?" - looking out over a nearly endless sea of white military gravestones

"Opposite my bedroom there is a window and there is a light over the top. Now when the staff go into that room they put the light on. If I was half asleep the light coming on was the flash of a bomb. That flash brought it all back. For eighty years I've never watched a war film, I never spoke of it, not to my wife. For six years, I've been here [in the nursing home]. Six years it's been nothing but World War One."

Talking, during an interview, about a comrade - "He died. I held his hand for the last thirty seconds of his life [wipes away a tear]."

"Irrespective of the uniforms we wore, we were all victims."