Before the answers, the questions: what citizens need to understand in order to trust

Every institution has answers

They’re on websites, in guidance materials and in campaigns. They’re correct, complete and carefully written. The trouble is, an answer can be technically correct and still miss the question the citizen is actually asking.

A public institution responsible for a nationwide process involving millions of citizens wanted to understand that gap. It invested in campaigns to inform the public and explain how the process works. It needed to know which messages were getting through, what people remembered and, above all, what questions they still had afterward.

A topic where the first answer says little

Trust in a public process mixes personal experience, beliefs and very different levels of knowledge. Ask people directly and they’ll usually say they trust it or they don’t. The reason stays hidden behind that answer. So the study started by listening before measuring.

First, listen to the questions

The focus groups brought together citizens of different ages, socioeconomic backgrounds and regions. The goal was to hear their questions in their own words, not in the institution’s jargon.

That approach revealed two things a questionnaire would hardly have picked up: at what points in the process questions came up, and how people translated, in their own terms, concepts the institution treats as distinct. For anyone in communications, that translation changes everything. It’s no use explaining a concept well if the public takes it to mean something else.

Then, measure

A nationwide online survey then sized up the perceptions raised in the groups and compared different segments of the population.

Were the campaigns answering the right questions?

The campaigns were evaluated on unaided and aided recall, interest generated, clarity, credibility and ratings of the films. Different creative approaches were also compared head to head.

The numbers showed how each piece performed. The groups showed what people had understood and which devices made a complex subject feel relevant to their daily lives. Together, the two stages showed whether each campaign answered the questions people actually had, not just whether it was remembered.

Room for what wasn’t asked

The study also left room for citizens to share criticism and suggestions. As a result, topics that weren’t central to the research made it into the analysis. In a study about unanswered questions, hearing what no one had thought to ask was part of the method.