Road to Peace, The

This 52-page publication describes the Knowledge
Attitudes and Practice (KAP) Survey conducted in 2003-2004 as part of the Sri Lanka Peace Support Project (SLPSP), and presents some the lessons learned
in the survey process. The survey was implemented by the Academy for Educational
Development (AED) and the local Center for Policy
Alternatives/Social Indicator (CPA/SI) in an effort both to "detect allies and potential spoilers in the
peace-making process" and to promote dialogue
between the various stakeholders.



According to this AED publication, the KAP Survey is important because knowledge
of public opinion "can promote peace in conflict settings, as donors,
political actors, and members of civil society seek to understand the public's
views on the conflict so that specific proposals and overall peace agreements
can elicit the highest levels of public support."


The survey was conducted in two parts:

• KAP-I (2003) was carried out in face-to-face interviews in 25 districts (mostly
  government controlled) and "surveyed support for specific proposals that
  might be included in a final agreement, as well as citizens’ willingness to
  protest a final agreement that they considered unfair."
• KAP-II (2004) was carried out in the same regions, both to measure
  changes in
  opinions since the first survey, and to explore in greater detail the public
  support for peace, drawing on lessons learned during the KAP-I phase.

The authors draw on their experience with these surveys to describe the types of subjects a KAP survey can
address. The survey, they argue, can go beyond simple
questions of whether participants agree or disagree with specific peace
proposals currently on the table. Rather, as in the Sri Lanka survey, the
questions can gauge public knowledge, sentiments, and the level of acceptance
they may give to a proposal with which they do not fully agree. The survey can
address proposals not currently up for discussion in order to explore possible avenues
for the future. And the survey can, as in Sri Lanka, be used to determine what
objectives people are willing to fight to achieve, and on which issues they are
willing to compromise.



The Sri Lankan survey results led to the creation of the KAPS
Peace Process Typology which the authors describe as made up of four broad
categories of citizens:

• Activist Supporters of the peace
  process who support a majority of the peace proposals and are willing to protest
  against an unfair or spoiled peace agreement;
• Activist Opponents of the peace process support only a minority of the
  peace proposals and feel strongly enough that they are willing to protest any
  agreement they consider unfair;
• Passive Supporters of the peace process
  support a majority of the peace proposals but are unwilling in most cases to
  protest an unfair agreement;
• Passive Opponents of the peace process oppose
  the majority of the peace proposals but are unwilling in most cases to protest
  against an agreement they do not like.

The authors use this typology to analyse the patterns of belief and sentiment by
demographic categories, including ethnicity, religion, age, gender and education. Among the
findings, the authors note that support for the peace process is strongest among those who
both support democracy in the abstract and who reject alternative, non-democratic forms of rule. This, they suggest, supports
the suggestion that "democracy building and
peace promotion are complementary tasks".



Public opinion surveys can, according to the authors, be used to help change opinion about peace by helping focus on areas
where there is already broad agreement. They can also asses the "effectiveness of different messages in altering public opinion in
ways more favorable towards peace". Several methods were tested in the survey to gauge
their effect on public opinion, including
peace "bundles" by which more popular issues were grouped with less popular
ones, peace "frames" which used rhetorical devices to
introduce a new perspective, and peace counterarguments which
were used in an attempt to talk the respondent out of a particular position.



The authors provide advice on taking into account political sensitivities and gaining the support of local stakeholders, through
meetings and reviews of preliminary surveys. They also discuss the
important role of academics in ensuring the quality of survey research,
by providing not just expertise in the more technical areas of survey design, but in local politics,
behaviours theory and research. Considerations of sampling, interviewer
training and dealing with missing data are also emphasised as important to the
success of survey research.