Last shout to see if anyone has a spare few minutes to help me out with this research project.
I've answered your research and there were some interesting questions.
I do feel some parts of questions were pushing their own narrative or lead though {intentionally or not}. Like 4b and 6b {I think} for ''If No/Yes'' responses, where they should have really mirrored the ''a'' part in the wording, rather than asking us to respond with with phrasing like 'If no, why do you think fans are powerless...' etc. Because the question infers that the person responding already thinks this - or leads the potential respondee to think that as they consider their answer.
Whereas in the ''a'' part, you didn't ask {for example} 'If yes, do you think fans have power...' etc. so at times it was conflicting to the other part, where these ''a'' and ''b'' parts should have been very similar questions without leading the respondee.
The other one that was a little unrelated was using the former mayor/party member in his response to his leaders actions/inaction. You didn't give the respondee the option to expand and made it a very binary answer of yes or no - I felt this was a question that warranted more than a simple yes or no; both answers could have been correct. The follow up in part ''a'', used the same/similar scenario but including a footballer. Yet the metrics for this weren't the same/similar. Asking how we would react, but the player would be doing this independently and not stepping down from a party membership. If you had included his manager into the question then this would have been more relative to the leading question.
There were some great questions though, and none of the above is to criticise, just some helpful pointers on keeping bias {even if not intended} out of open questioning because the public can be easily led - in simple terms, if I pose a question like:
''Jeff Bezos is one of the World's richest men, with great power and influence. Could he become President? - a] If yes, why do you think he is powerful and will become President?''
You see, the first part has led with a statement but we don't need to necessarily know that to answer if he could become President - instead we should allow the respondee to discover that information for themself, if they so desire. In ''a'', we purely put words into the mouth of the respondee. The respondee might not think they are powerful but may think the person will become President. Simply omitting the ''why'' and/or moving it would be better, to something like ''a] ...do you think he is powerful and
why do you think he could become President?''
Hope some if this helps any future research and my past experience comes from working alongside a Professor at Durham Uni and my own errors in formulating past survey/research questions. It was genuinely a pleasure to get involved. Will there be an opportunity for people to view the responses? Obviously, it's all anonymous so it would be great to see a collation of opinion and response. And also, once you publish your findings in a paper, it would be great to see this also.
Cheers
