技术治理的悖论:民意调查的政治过程及其结果

IF 1.4 4区 社会学 Q2 SOCIOLOGY 社会 Pub Date : 2020-01-01 DOI:10.1177/2057150X19892895
Yaping Peng
{"title":"技术治理的悖论:民意调查的政治过程及其结果","authors":"Yaping Peng","doi":"10.1177/2057150X19892895","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The logic of technical governance goes as follows: the knowledge of society can be obtained by the state via technology, and thus social problems are identified and solutions are found. Questions have been raised about whether technical governance would ever work. For many the answer is negative and doubtful. However, one defense remains: technical governance fails not because the idea is inherently flawed but because the technology is not good. Would technical governance succeed with better methodology and more technical rigor? In order to challenge this defense, this paper examines the operation of opinion polls—a form of technical governance supported by rigorous quantitative social research methodology—run by a sub-district government in the city ‘S’. In particular, this paper asks whether it is possible for a government-run poll to reflect manipulated public opinion, despite the strictest compliance with quantitative polling methodology. The finding of this paper gives an affirmative answer. It argues that on the surface, polls are statistical surveys, but in actuality they are a political process controlled by the government despite their compliance with all statistical requirements. The power structure of the local government determines the questionnaire items, their multiple-choice answers (the screening, compressing, and quantifying of social scenarios), and the final make-up of the public opinion index. The rigorousness of methodology does not guarantee the authenticity of ‘public opinion’ in final poll figures. More likely, the outcome is controlled by those who organize polls. Hence, quantifiable technical governance presents a contradiction: the state manufactures biased public opinions precisely when it is looking for unbiased public opinions. In the end, the government constructs an image of society that is its own reflection.","PeriodicalId":37302,"journal":{"name":"社会","volume":"6 1","pages":"102 - 139"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2057150X19892895","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The paradox of technical governance: A public opinion survey’s political process and its results\",\"authors\":\"Yaping Peng\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/2057150X19892895\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The logic of technical governance goes as follows: the knowledge of society can be obtained by the state via technology, and thus social problems are identified and solutions are found. Questions have been raised about whether technical governance would ever work. For many the answer is negative and doubtful. However, one defense remains: technical governance fails not because the idea is inherently flawed but because the technology is not good. Would technical governance succeed with better methodology and more technical rigor? In order to challenge this defense, this paper examines the operation of opinion polls—a form of technical governance supported by rigorous quantitative social research methodology—run by a sub-district government in the city ‘S’. In particular, this paper asks whether it is possible for a government-run poll to reflect manipulated public opinion, despite the strictest compliance with quantitative polling methodology. The finding of this paper gives an affirmative answer. It argues that on the surface, polls are statistical surveys, but in actuality they are a political process controlled by the government despite their compliance with all statistical requirements. The power structure of the local government determines the questionnaire items, their multiple-choice answers (the screening, compressing, and quantifying of social scenarios), and the final make-up of the public opinion index. The rigorousness of methodology does not guarantee the authenticity of ‘public opinion’ in final poll figures. More likely, the outcome is controlled by those who organize polls. Hence, quantifiable technical governance presents a contradiction: the state manufactures biased public opinions precisely when it is looking for unbiased public opinions. In the end, the government constructs an image of society that is its own reflection.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37302,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"社会\",\"volume\":\"6 1\",\"pages\":\"102 - 139\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2057150X19892895\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"社会\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/2057150X19892895\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"社会","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2057150X19892895","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

技术治理的逻辑是:国家可以通过技术获取社会知识,从而识别社会问题并找到解决方案。人们对技术治理是否可行提出了疑问。对许多人来说,答案是否定和怀疑的。然而,有一种辩护仍然存在:技术治理失败并不是因为这个想法本身就有缺陷,而是因为技术不好。如果有更好的方法论和更严格的技术,技术治理会成功吗?为了挑战这一辩护,本文考察了S市一个街道政府进行的民意调查的运作情况。民意调查是一种由严格的定量社会研究方法支持的技术治理形式。特别是,本文询问,尽管最严格地遵守了定量民意调查方法,但政府运营的民意调查是否有可能反映被操纵的民意。本文的发现给出了肯定的答案。它认为,从表面上看,民意调查是统计调查,但实际上,尽管它们符合所有统计要求,但它们是由政府控制的政治过程。地方政府的权力结构决定了问卷项目、他们的多项选择答案(对社会场景的筛选、压缩和量化),以及民意指数的最终构成。方法的严格性并不能保证最终民调数据中“民意”的真实性。更有可能的是,投票结果由组织投票的人控制。因此,可量化的技术治理呈现出一种矛盾:国家恰恰在寻求公正的公众意见时制造了有偏见的公众意见。最终,政府构建了一个反映自身的社会形象。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The paradox of technical governance: A public opinion survey’s political process and its results
The logic of technical governance goes as follows: the knowledge of society can be obtained by the state via technology, and thus social problems are identified and solutions are found. Questions have been raised about whether technical governance would ever work. For many the answer is negative and doubtful. However, one defense remains: technical governance fails not because the idea is inherently flawed but because the technology is not good. Would technical governance succeed with better methodology and more technical rigor? In order to challenge this defense, this paper examines the operation of opinion polls—a form of technical governance supported by rigorous quantitative social research methodology—run by a sub-district government in the city ‘S’. In particular, this paper asks whether it is possible for a government-run poll to reflect manipulated public opinion, despite the strictest compliance with quantitative polling methodology. The finding of this paper gives an affirmative answer. It argues that on the surface, polls are statistical surveys, but in actuality they are a political process controlled by the government despite their compliance with all statistical requirements. The power structure of the local government determines the questionnaire items, their multiple-choice answers (the screening, compressing, and quantifying of social scenarios), and the final make-up of the public opinion index. The rigorousness of methodology does not guarantee the authenticity of ‘public opinion’ in final poll figures. More likely, the outcome is controlled by those who organize polls. Hence, quantifiable technical governance presents a contradiction: the state manufactures biased public opinions precisely when it is looking for unbiased public opinions. In the end, the government constructs an image of society that is its own reflection.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
社会
社会 Social Sciences-Social Sciences (all)
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
6799
期刊介绍: The Chinese Journal of Sociology is a peer reviewed, international journal with the following standards: 1. The purpose of the Journal is to publish (in the English language) articles, reviews and scholarly comment which have been judged worthy of publication by appropriate specialists and accepted by the University on studies relating to sociology. 2. The Journal will be international in the sense that it will seek, wherever possible, to publish material from authors with an international reputation and articles that are of interest to an international audience. 3. In pursuit of the above the journal shall: (i) draw on and include high quality work from the international community . The Journal shall include work representing the major areas of interest in sociology. (ii) avoid bias in favour of the interests of particular schools or directions of research or particular political or narrow disciplinary objectives to the exclusion of others; (iii) ensure that articles are written in a terminology and style which makes them intelligible, not merely within the context of a particular discipline or abstract mode, but across the domain of relevant disciplines.
期刊最新文献
Changing fertility patterns in China Who is the ideal parent of my children? A choice experiment study in China Fertility transition of Han and ethnic minorities in China: A tale of convergence and variation Attitudes toward gender roles in child-rearing and their socioeconomic differentials in contemporary China China's family planning policy and fertility transition
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1