Connecting
with Canadians: Quantitative Research on International Development
Executive Summary
Prepared
for the Global Affairs Canada
Supplier
name: Narrative Research (fieldwork only)
Contract
number: 08873-190590/001/CY
Contract
Award Date: January 27, 2020
Delivery
date: March 31, 2020
For more
information on this report, please contact Global Affairs Canada at: POR-ROP@international.gc.ca
Ce rapport
est aussi disponible en français
Connecting
with Canadians: Quantitative Research on International Development
Executive Summary
Prepared by Global Affairs Canada
Supplier name: Narrative Research
(fieldwork only)
March 2020
This report summarizes results from
a survey of 1,200 Canadians.
Cette
publication est aussi disponible en français sous le titre : Tisser des liens avec les Canadiens :
recherche quantitative sur le développement international
This publication may be reproduced
for non-commercial purposes only. Prior written permission must be obtained
from Global Affairs Canada. For more information on this report, please contact
Global Affairs Canada at: POR-ROP@international.gc.ca
Catalogue
number: FR5-175/2020E-PDF
International
Standard Book Number (ISBN): 978-0-660-36065-2
Related
publications (registration number: POR 075-19): Connecting with Canadians:
Qualitative Research on International Development (registration number: POR 031-19)
Catalogue
Number: FR5-175/2020F-PDF (Final Report,
French)
ISBN: 978-0-660-36066-9
© Her
Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada
Canadians have low awareness of international development.
Although survey respondents perform better when asked to name countries where
Canada is actively pursuing development activities, the low level of
understanding could be attributable to the lack of confidence Canadians have in
Government of Canada information on development—confidence stands at around one
third.
Survey respondents, asked to rate themselves on their
knowledge of international development, exaggerate somewhat, but the responses
are mostly accurate. The test to validate self-rated awareness was to ask
survey respondents to name three countries where Canada is actively involved
with development activities. Given the large number of countries in which Canada
has development projects, it would be easy to name one country, slightly harder
to name two, but three or more was deemed sufficient to establish a reasonable
awareness of Canada’s development activities. Close to one-in-five can name
three or more countries accurately, which suggests that Government of Canada
communications efforts have started to move the needle in the right direction
in raising awareness. In 2018, only 1.7% had awareness of development and this
increased to two per cent in 2019[1].
The process of naming the countries triggers an awakening
among some Canadians, because the question requires a deliberative answer. As
such, awareness, using the country-naming measurement tool, now stands at 16%. Additionally,
those who rated their self-awareness of development highly were also more
likely to name three or more countries.
A majority of Canadians support Canada’s international
development activities, close to one quarter are neutral and less than
one-in-five oppose them. Support is significantly lower among Prairie residents
and somewhat lower among older Canadians.
Canadians were asked if they are “proud” of Canada’s
development activities[2], and over eight-in-10 say
that they are “proud.” However, when cross-referenced with the previous question
on support, we found that some survey respondents who say they are opposed to
development on the previous question, also say they are “proud.” Such cognitive
dissonance can only be explained by social desirability bias. Also, Canadians
who think that the Government of Canada’s communications efforts are effective
are significantly more apt to express pride than those who think communication
efforts are poor.
When asked to consider the importance of various aspects of
Canada’s international development efforts, all aspects are considered
important by Canadians. Speaking out in support of human rights is ranked as
the most important, followed by education for children and girls, vaccinations
in developing countries to protect people from disease and responding to
natural disasters, each of which comes in over the 80th percentile. Even the
least important aspect, helping developing countries deal with climate change,
garners two-thirds saying it is important.
However, the attitudinal complexion soon changes when
survey respondents are asked to rate Canada’s performance across the same set
of indices. Performance indicators drop by statistically significant margins,
except in the case of “providing assistance to migrants who have fled their
homes because of war violence and famine.” Over two thirds of Canadians believe
that Canada performs well on this file. Canada’s “response to natural
disasters” and “vaccinating people in developing countries to protect them from
disease” receive a positive response from at least one half of survey
respondents.
Remarkably, the lower positive scores on performance does
not result in significantly higher negative scores. Instead, Canadians are more
inclined to provide a neutral score or say they don’t know about Canada’s
performance on most of these indicators. This suggests that Canadians are
reticent to render judgment about a subject they know little-to-nothing about.
There is also a notable East-West divide down the
Ontario-Manitoba border, which reveals much higher positive scores in Eastern
Canada than in the West of the country.
When it comes to evaluating the Government’s communications
on development, less than one quarter of Canadians provide a positive score,
close to three-in-10 are neutral on the matter and a strong minority (over
one-in-four) state that communications are poor.
The dichotomy here is that, while raising awareness has
improved and this is a demonstrable communications success, a greater
proportion of Canadians are of the mind that Canada communicates poorly on
development to its people.
One of the challenges for the department moving forward is
the lack of confidence Canadians have in Government of Canada information on
development. Confidence in travel information ranks highest and that represents
just over one half of Canadians stating they have confidence in it. Fewer than
four-in-10 have confidence in Government information on charitable
organizations, on education, gender equality and maternal and newborn health. Also,
fewer than three-in-10 have confidence in assisting entrepreneurs in developing
countries.
When asked about preferred media channels for news on
international development, the results back up what the department found from
the focus groups conducted on development in the summer of 2019, inasmuch as
the preference for the Internet is statistically tied with traditional media in
the form of television.
The Internet is preferred by Canadians who are younger and
have higher levels of education, whereas older Canadians with lower levels of
education prefer television.
Canadians who have travelled outside of Europe and the
United States tend to go to tourist spots in countries like Mexico and the
Dominican Republic for leisure purposes. India and China are also destinations
for a small number of Canadians. As such, hardly any Canadians travel to
countries where Canada has a strong developmental connection.
The survey was
conducted among 1,203 members of the adult Canadian general public aged 18 or
older, using CSS software, which is the equivalent of Random-Digit-Dialing
technology between February 20 and March 13, 2020. The sample was weighted
against the latest census data and has a margin of error of ±2.2% with a 95%
confidence level. Please note that Covid-19 may have had an impact on results,
especially towards the end of the fieldwork.
The response rate was
quite low, at two per cent. As such, non-response bias could have had an impact
on the representativeness of the study. However, the firm contracted to conduct
the fieldwork mitigated the risk of this: the questionnaire was thoroughly
pre-tested; many of the numbers called were not-in-service, and; the survey was
in the field for three weeks.[3]