Monitoring the political, economic, and social landscape through only quantitative surveys does not necessarily mean having a deeper understanding of the dynamics of the social phenomena we need to track. In addition to observing certain trends, it is desirable to dive into the genesis of the elements that drive individuals and social groups to make certain decisions.
This scenario is particularly more evident when we consider electoral political contexts. It is common to see, when surveys are released showing significant movements in certain indicators, analysts and journalists struggling to explain the possible causes of such variations. Often, they seem to randomly reference decisions and statements made by politicians during the period, without necessarily establishing any correlation. In this sense, the complementarity between the evaluation of many quantitative surveys and the support of qualitative monitoring becomes essential.
Continuing with the example of studying electoral political scenarios, we know that there are a series of theories and models developed over many years, such as: the psychological theory explaining the political model (Michigan Model); the theoretical-contextual explanatory model (based on sociological and economic theories); the theory of rational choice, among others. However, the quality of operationalizing and interpreting the application of these models in the current context is a significant challenge.
We can observe some of this difficulty in the case of the agenda-setting theory, where two important aspects of the model are currently undergoing significant transformations: the timing of information dissemination and the number of agents involved in the process.
When this theory, developed in the 1970s, argued that a new element of “relevance” was needed to enhance the control of topics that would be publicly discussed, the timing perspective was completely different from today. Radios largely echoed the previous day’s print newspapers, and they were also guided by interviews and famous anchors who introduced topics that could be developed and discussed in the next day’s print media or evening newscasts. This timing no longer exists. There are now releases, videos, tweets, posts, etc., that are launched at any moment, with their repercussions being instant in the social media battle (not necessarily in real life). What does “agenda control” mean today? What coverage is possible, necessary, minimal, or ideal? What are the vectors that can drive agendas forward?
Still related to agenda setting, another important point is the number of agents (players) with a relevant role when we talk about quantitative impact at scale. Until a few years ago, there were lists of major media outlets and influential journalists that could fit into 2 or 3 pages. Reaching these groups would cover 60 to 80% of the spectrum of those who controlled large-scale news dissemination. Today, there is an enormous fragmentation, with practically thousands of agents capable of making a “news” item go viral very quickly.
Many analysts and commentators still use many of these concepts in a decontextualized way. Several assumptions of these models remain valid but need to be redefined in light of the new dynamics of certain phenomena that primarily affect the population. Today, a crucial issue is no longer the idea of change itself, but rather the speed at which these changes occur. The very concept of generation has changed, what was once considered a generation and generational shifts, typically spanning around 25 years, is now considered to be about 10 years.
Human science faces this intriguing challenge: the methods and techniques for studying behavior change, and so does the object (views and relationship configurations). In medicine, techniques change, but the body remains the same.
This is one of the challenges that Plaza Pública aims to tackle: thinking about and rethinking the operationalization and interpretation of models. Analyzing the differences that multiple quantitative surveys may not be capturing within the population. Identifying which segmentations may be more relevant for certain types of businesses and decisions.
Returning to our example of political scenarios, what we can observe today in Brazil is that there is no clear symbolic direction about what is happening or how the government, or other agents, should either embrace or distance themselves from certain lines. It is difficult to move away from failures, and when it comes to positive aspects, there is no ability to engage with or claim ownership of them (for example, employment).
The residual impact that the current context is leaving on people is still not fully understood. But it is there. There are likely a set of new cultural variables at play, shaping a new ethos with a constitution and triggers that are very varied and complex. In this sense, it is likely that the economic issue will continue to carry significant weight, influencing, for example, electoral decision-making processes. However, even if this importance persists, it will be combined with new factors, either diminishing or amplifying them.