It wasnt linked. Okay, lets see how the research was conducted “and together with a leading private research and polling company in China” so the questioning wasnt done by havard but this private company that isnt named. It is also only 3000 interviewees, which isnt statistically relevant in a country of over 1 billion people. Even the study found discrepancies between people in the major cities and the country side.
The goal of this research brief, and of the longitudinal
survey that informs it, is to address the question of gov-
ernment legitimacy in China using the most objective
and quantitative methods currently available. Our sur-
vey1 contains data from eight separate waves between
2003 and 2016, and records face-to-face interview
responses from more than 31,000 individuals in both
urban and rural settings. As such, it represents the lon-
gest-running independent effort to track citizen ap-
proval with all four levels of the Chinese government
across time (ranging from the township, to the county, to the provincial, and finally to the central government).
The sample size was over 10 times what you claimed, and it was absolutely statistically relevant. Here’s a neat link on sample sizes, 31,000 is more than plenty. There indeed were discrepancies between the urban and rural, that’s because historically rural areas have been slower to develop than urban areas, and now rural areas are made a priority to close the gap.
The link you first sent mentioned 3000. Actually even that research it was only 3000 per year lol, still statistically insignificant. 31000 is the total over the entire research, ridiculous.
The study itself says 31,000. Go to the study itself if you want firm understanding. You also lied about not having any information on how it was gathered, it was also linked. Here’s the full PDF.
It wasnt linked. Okay, lets see how the research was conducted “and together with a leading private research and polling company in China” so the questioning wasnt done by havard but this private company that isnt named. It is also only 3000 interviewees, which isnt statistically relevant in a country of over 1 billion people. Even the study found discrepancies between people in the major cities and the country side.
The sample size was over 10 times what you claimed, and it was absolutely statistically relevant. Here’s a neat link on sample sizes, 31,000 is more than plenty. There indeed were discrepancies between the urban and rural, that’s because historically rural areas have been slower to develop than urban areas, and now rural areas are made a priority to close the gap.
The link you first sent mentioned 3000. Actually even that research it was only 3000 per year lol, still statistically insignificant. 31000 is the total over the entire research, ridiculous.
The study itself says 31,000. Go to the study itself if you want firm understanding. You also lied about not having any information on how it was gathered, it was also linked. Here’s the full PDF.
That is only 18 pages
Oof, my bad, thought I saw 300 pages and didn’t check before I sent. I’m riled up a bit. Thank you!