DPUIC AND UNCT FOR THAILAND PRESENTS:
My World 2015: Similarities, Differences,
and Hidden Priorities An exploration of the data for Thailand
Dominic Bone
8/25/2014
The following report presents an analysis of the My World 2015 data set for the country of Thailand.
My World 2015: Similarities, Differences, and Hidden Priorities
2014
1
Project Team
Lead Researcher
Mr Dominic Bone – Dhurakij Pundit University International College –
Advisory Team
Prof. Dr Charles Newton – Dhurakij Pundit University International College
Dr Kiatanantha Lounkaew – Dhurakij Pundit University International College
Proof Readers
Steve Cannel – Dhurakij Pundit University International College
Supavadee Chotikajan – United Nations
(Please direct any questions or queries to Mr Dominic Bone)
My World 2015: Similarities, Differences, and Hidden Priorities
2014
2
Contents
List of figures .............................................................................................................. 4
List of charts ............................................................................................................... 5
Introduction ................................................................................................................. 6
Structure of the report ................................................................................................ 7
Outreach strategy ................................................................................................... 7
Objectives .............................................................................................................. 8
Summary of findings .................................................................................................. 9
Results ...................................................................................................................... 11
Demographic overview of the Thailand dataset ....................................................... 11
Number of respondents ........................................................................................... 11
Source of data ..................................................................................................... 11
Source of data by sector ....................................................................................... 12
Gender of respondents ......................................................................................... 12
Education level of respondents ............................................................................. 13
Age of respondents .............................................................................................. 13
The My World 2015 priorities for Thailand ............................................................... 14
The top 6 priorities for Thailand ............................................................................ 14
The overall ranking of all 16 priorities for Thailand ................................................ 15
A description of each priority for Thailand ................................................................ 16
Priority #1 ‘A good education’ ............................................................................... 16
Priority #2 ‘A responsive government we can trust’ .............................................. 16
Priority #3 ‘Better Healthcare’ ............................................................................... 17
Priority #4 ‘Affordable and nutritious food’ ............................................................ 17
Priority #5 ‘Better job opportunities’ ...................................................................... 18
Priority #6 ‘Protection against crime and violence’ ................................................ 18
Priority #7 ‘Access to clean water and sanitation’ ................................................. 19
My World 2015: Similarities, Differences, and Hidden Priorities
2014
3
Priority #8 ‘Phone and internet access’’ ................................................................ 19
Priority #9 ‘Protecting forests, rivers and oceans’ ................................................. 20
Priority #10 ‘Better transport and roads’ ................................................................ 20
Priority #11 ‘Equality between men and women’ ................................................... 21
Priority #12 ‘Support for people who cannot work ................................................. 21
Priority #13 ‘Reliable energy at home’ .................................................................. 22
Priority #14 ‘Freedom from discrimination and persecution’ .................................. 22
Priority #15 ‘Action taken on climate change ........................................................ 23
Priority #16 ‘Political freedoms .............................................................................. 23
The top 6 priorities by gender .................................................................................. 24
Females ............................................................................................................... 24
Males .................................................................................................................... 24
Homogenous yet heterogeneous ............................................................................. 25
Combinations of priorities ..................................................................................... 25
Groups sizes ........................................................................................................ 26
Similarities, differences, and hidden priorities ....................................................... 27
An exploration of gender preferences with educational groups ................................ 28
A comparison of young working age persons based on educational attainment ....... 30
Gender comparison within the ‘outside education system’ group ............................. 33
Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 34
General Limitations .................................................................................................. 36
General recommendations ....................................................................................... 37
References ................................................................................................................ 38
Appendix 1: Methodology ........................................................................................ 39
Appendix 2: A table of priorities .............................................................................. 45
My World 2015: Similarities, Differences, and Hidden Priorities
2014
4
List of figures
Figure 1) My World 2015 ballot for Thailand
Figure 2) Overall ranking of all sixteen priorities
Figure 3) ‘A good education’
Figure 4) ‘A responsive government we can trust’
Figure 5) ‘Better healthcare’
Figure 6) ‘Affordable and nutritious food’
Figure 7) ‘Better job opportunities’
Figure 8) ‘Protection against crime and violence’
Figure 9) ‘Access to clean water and sanitation’
Figure 10) ‘Phone and internet access’
Figure 11) ‘Protecting forests, rivers and oceans’
Figure 12) ‘Better transport and roads’
Figure 13) ‘Equality between men and women’
Figure 14) ‘Support for people who cannot work’
Figure 15) ‘Reliable energy at home’
Figure 16) ‘Freedom from discrimination and persecution’
Figure 17) ‘Action taken on climate change’
My World 2015: Similarities, Differences, and Hidden Priorities
2014
5
List of charts
Chart 1) Sources of data
Chart 2) Source of data by sector
Chart 3) Gender of respondents
Chart 4) Education level of respondents
Chart 5) Age distribution of respondents
Chart 7) Top six priorities chosen by the people of Thailand (%)
Chart 7) Top six priorities chosen by females (%)
Chart 8) Top six priorities chosen by males (%)
Chart 9) Occurring combinations of priorities
Chart 10) Occurring combination group sizes
Chart 11) Gender differences, similarities, and hidden priorities (gender and education)
Chart 12) Gender differences, similarities, and hidden priorities (outside vs inside education)
Chart 13) Gender differences, similarities, and hidden priorities (outside education: male vs. female)
My World 2015: Similarities, Differences, and Hidden Priorities
2014
6
Introduction
MY World 2015 is a global survey led by the United Nations seeking respondents
to nominate six of the most important social development priorities for a better
world. The survey results will be shared with world leaders in setting the next
global development agenda.
Under the objective of engaging the Thai public in shaping the post-2015
development agenda, the UN Country Team (UNCT) in Thailand launched a
national campaign to promote the
‘MY World 2015’ survey during the
period January – December 2013.
The campaign aimed at boosting
the number of votes on
www.myworld2015.org as well as
engaging the wider Thai public on
the post-2015 development agenda
debate by adopting a social
mobilization and crowdsourcing
strategy, bringing together social
activists and bloggers to engage on
web platforms and social media on
the post 2015 choices. The MY World Thai language version was live as of 10
February 2013.
The United Nations, in partnership with over 60 other organizations, collected
over 69,000 online and offline responses in Thailand. The UNCT engaged
directly with the private sector, universities/schools, and civil society
organizations to organize several events and activities to reach out to individuals
and to encourage them to vote in MY World. The UNCT also contracted
MySocialMotion, a non-profit private company, to help support the MY World
National Campaign.
Figure 1) My World 2015 ballot for Thailand
My World 2015: Similarities, Differences, and Hidden Priorities
2014
7
The UNCT then partnered with Dhurakij Pundit University International College
(DPUIC), one of the active partners in the national campaign, to undertake an in-
depth analysis of the over 69,000 MY World votes in Thailand. DPUIC set out
to conduct a statistical analysis of the responses which aims to identify a clearer
demographic profile of each priority chosen and explore how these could guide
targeted policy responses.
Structure of the report
The report delivers a range of results and key findings relating to the analysis of
the Thailand data set. First, the report provides a demographic overview of the
data set followed by introduction of the top six priorities for Thailand. Next, the
sixteen priorities were arranged in a hierarchy (most chosen to least chosen) and
then the general patterns and characteristics of each priority based on gender,
education level, and age were described. The following section explores the
existence of groups who chose the same priority combination and the size of
these groups. The exploration of groups and combinations of priorities highlights
both the homogenous and heterogeneous characteristics of the data sample.
The next section provides a short outline of the gender differences in the choice
of the top six priorities.
The final part of the results and key findings section starts with a short discussion
of the limitations of only ranking as an approach to understanding the data. This
is followed by two analyses and discussions which are based on the application
of a novel approach to analyze the data from the perspectives of ‘gender and
education level’ and ‘working age youth’. The report concludes with a summary
of the key findings, an outline of the limitations, and some suggestions for further
research.
Outreach strategy
MY World national campaign targeted three main categories of partners to act as
multipliers for vote collection, namely private sector, education and civil society
organizations. The breakdown of the number of votes collected by category of
partners is as follows: education sector (44%); private sector (19%); civil society
My World 2015: Similarities, Differences, and Hidden Priorities
2014
8
organizations (7%); MySocialMotion (12%); and UN in Thailand (8%). (See Chart
1).
The partners linked to the education sector gathered the highest number of votes
with a vibrant and creative network of student volunteers who reached out to their
peers, their local communities and prospective students (i.e. high school
students). DPUIC and Mahidol University gathered the largest number of votes
both through on- and off- campus activities, including road-shows and photo,
speech and video competitions.
Proctor & Gamble Ltd. (Thailand) was the biggest private sector partner, fully
incorporating the MY World campaign as part of their Corporate Social
Responsibility (CSR) program. Their outreach activities included staff voting,
engagement of their business partners, and community beneficiaries of the CSR
activities (including primary and secondary schools). MySocialMotion worked
with a core group of young professionals to serve as consultants in generating
interest and wider engagement in the post-2015 debate, including coordinating
volunteer committees to engage high schools, universities, and civil society
organizations also outreaching to the provinces through volunteers and local
communities. The UN in Thailand participated in a number of events organized
by the government and other UN agencies to set up MY World booths to
encourage the general public to vote on MY World.
Objectives
The purpose of the following report is to:
1. Introduce the My World 2015 global survey;
2. Identify and describe the My World 2015 respondents for the country of
Thailand;
3. Identify the top My World 2015 priorities for the country of Thailand;
4. Describe the response characteristics of each My World 2015 priority for
the country of Thailand;
5. Provide additional insights into the data sample for the country of Thailand;
6. Present an alternative analysis framework which goes beyond just ranking
the data.
My World 2015: Similarities, Differences, and Hidden Priorities
2014
9
Summary of findings
The My World 2015 survey for Thailand collected 66,901 complete ballots.
The vast majority of data were collect via paper (57.5%) and online ballots
(34.5%).
The data were collected by: the education sector (n=29,377: 44%); the
private sector (n=19,439: 29%); a social enterprise called MySocialMotion,
(n=8,212: 12%); civil society (n=4,653: 7%); and the UN in Thailand
(n=5,220: 8%).
There are more female (59.4%) than male (40.6%) respondents.
Over half the sample have completed secondary education (51.8%) and
the other half (48.2%) are still with the education system or have exited
prematurely.
The sample population is young with the average age of 24-years old.
The top six priorities in descending order are “a good education”, “a
responsive government we can trust”, “better healthcare”, “affordable and
nutritious food”, “better job opportunities”, and “protection against crime
and violence”.
Each of the sixteen priorities displays unique characteristics relating to
gender, age group, and education levels.
The top six priorities as selected by males and females are identical albeit
in a slightly different order.
Further examination of the data identified both homogenous and
heterogeneous characteristics.
There is a set of top six ranked priorities which are important when
examining the data overall. However, the absolute ranking of priorities
provides limited insights.
There are 7537 identified different combinations of six priorities and of
those there are 984 unique ballots. This means that the sample is
heterogeneous and consists of a lot of small and different groups and is
not as homogenous as the ranking of priorities suggests.
The 10 largest groups only represent 1% of the total sample.
My World 2015: Similarities, Differences, and Hidden Priorities
2014
10
There are gender specific differences, similarities, and hidden priorities
which cannot be identified through the ranking of priorities alone, for
example:
a. The priority of ‘equality between men and women’ was chosen in
greater proportions by all female groups at all levels of education
when compared to males and represents an important issue for
females.
b. Overall males are more concerned with ‘green’ issues when
compared to females.
c. There are differences between the expressed priorities of young
persons who are of working age and are either within the secondary
education system or outside of the education system although
these (specific) findings should be interpreted with caution as it
possible that erroneous data were collected.
My World 2015: Similarities, Differences, and Hidden Priorities
2014
11
Results
The following section of the report describes the results and key findings. To
assist in the interpretation of the findings, the commentary is supported by graphs
and figures.
Demographic overview of the Thailand dataset
The My World 2015 survey employed a simple survey tool which, in addition to
labelling the respondents’ top six priorities also included their age, gender, and
education level. In addition to this, data were collected which identified how the
respondents completed the survey. The following section outlines each of these
four basic demographic properties and starts with an overview of the source of
data.
Number of respondents
A total of 66,901 (of 69,000) complete My World ballots were collected in Thailand
and this is about 0.1% of the 66.79 million Thai population (World Bank, 2012).
Source of data collection
The ‘My World 2015’ survey
employed four different
approaches to data collection.
The Thailand sample employed
all four approaches and
collected data offline via a paper
ballot (n=38,470: 57.5%), online
though the UN My World 2015
and partner websites (n=23,080:
34.5%), mobile application
(n=5,296: 7.9%), and via mobile
SMS service (n=55: 0.1%)
respectively.
Chart 1) Source of data
My World 2015: Similarities, Differences, and Hidden Priorities
2014
12
Source of data collection by sector
To collect diverse data from
Thai society, the UN in Thailand
engaged with a variety of
stakeholders from different
sectors. The largest
contribution was made by the
education sector (n=29,377:
44%), followed by the private
sector (n=19,439: 29%).
MySocialMotion, a social
enterprise, contributed
(n=8,212: 12%).Civil society
contributed (n=4,653: 7%) and
the UN in Thailand added
(n=5,220: 8%).
Gender of respondents
The respondents from Thailand
are approximately 60% female
(n=39,756: 59.4%) and 40%
male (n=27,145: 40.6%).
Chart 3) Gender of respondents
Chart 2) Source of data by sector
My World 2015: Similarities, Differences, and Hidden Priorities
2014
13
Education level of respondents
The Thailand sample ranged in
the level of educational
attainment with 8.1% (n=5,447)
starting but not completing
primary education, 22.5%
(n=15,064) completing primary
education, 17.5% (n=11,707)
starting but not completing
secondary education, and
51.8% (n=34,683) finishing
secondary education
Chart 4) Education level of respondents
Age of respondents
The age range of respondents is 94 years spanning from 5 years old to 99
years old with the average age of 24 years old. The median age is 20 years old
which means that 50% of the respondents are under 20 years old and 50% of
respondents are over 20 years old. The mode, or the most frequently occurring
age is 18 years old.
Chart 5) Age distribution of respondents
My World 2015: Similarities, Differences, and Hidden Priorities
2014
14
The My World 2015 priorities for Thailand
The following section of the report identifies, describes, and discusses the
individual and collective profiles of the priorities chosen by the people of Thailand.
The top 6 priorities for Thailand
The top six priorities chosen by the people of Thailand are:
Chart 6) The top six priorities chosen by the people of Thailand (%)
The highest ranking priority “a good education” (n=46,782) was chosen by about
seven out of ten persons in the Thailand sample. The following second and third
place priorities of “a responsive government we can trust” (n=36,255) and “better
healthcare” (n=34,157) were chosen by about five out of ten, or half of the,
persons within the Thailand sample. The fourth, fifth, and sixth place priorities of
“affordable and nutritious food” (n=27,418), “better job opportunities” (n=27,052),
and “protection from crime and violence” (n=26,643) were chosen by about four
out of 10 persons
My World 2015: Similarities, Differences, and Hidden Priorities
2014
15
The overall ranking of all 16 priorities for Thailand
The following section begins to explore the basic characteristics of the data in
relation to each of the sixteen My World 2015 priorities. First, we introduce the
overall ranking for the complete set of sixteen priorities, and this is followed by a
demographic description of each priority (rank/count/percentage) and a summary
of relationships between the gender, age, and education categories.
Figure 2) Overall ranking of all sixteen priorities
#1 "A good education"
#2 "A responsive government we
can trust"
#3 "Better healthcare"
#4 "Affordable and nutritious food"
#5 "Better job opportunities"
#6 "Protection against crime and
violence"
#7 "Access to clean water and sanitation"
#8 "Phone and internet access"
#9 "Protecting forests, rivers and
oceans"
#10 "Better transport and
roads"
#11 "Equality between men and
women"
#12 "Support for people who can't
work"
#13 "Reliable energy at home"
#14 "Freedom from
discrimination and persecution"
#15 "Action taken on climate
change"
#16 "Political freedoms"
My World 2015: Similarities, Differences, and Hidden Priorities
2014
16
A description of each priority for Thailand
The following section summarises each of the 16 priorities and is constructed
from the identifiable trends and patterns found within the data sample.
Priority #1 ‘A good education’
Overall ‘a good education’ is the most frequently selected priority and is chosen
by 69.9% (46,782) of the respondents. However, it is ranked number #3 within
the >=61 age category.
Figure 3) ‘A good education’
Priority #2 ‘A responsive government we can trust’
‘A responsive government we can trust’ is the second place priority and is chosen
by 54.2%(36,255) of the respondents.
Figure 4) ‘A responsive government we can trust’
My World 2015: Similarities, Differences, and Hidden Priorities
2014
17
Priority #3 ‘Better Healthcare’
Overall ‘better healthcare’ is the third place priority chosen by 54.2% (36,255) of
the respondents. However, it is ranked number #2 within the >=61 age category.
There is a two-step age related pattern with a noticeable jump occurring between
the 16-30 and 31-45 age categories.
Figure 5) ‘Better healthcare’
Priority #4 ‘Affordable and nutritious food’
‘Affordable and nutritious food’ is in the fourth place chosen by 54.2% (36,255) of
the respondents.
Figure 6) ‘Affordable and nutritious food’
My World 2015: Similarities, Differences, and Hidden Priorities
2014
18
Priority #5 ‘Better job opportunities’
‘Better job opportunities’ is the fifth place priority chosen by 36,255 (54.2%)
respondents.
Figure 7) ‘Better job opportunities’
Priority #6 ‘Protection against crime and violence’
‘Protection from crime and violence’ is the sixth place priority chosen by 36,255
(54.2%)respondents.
Figure 8) ‘Protection against crime and violence’
My World 2015: Similarities, Differences, and Hidden Priorities
2014
19
Priority #7 ‘Access to clean water and sanitation’
‘Access to clean water and sanitation’ is the seventh place priority chosen by
25,577 (38.2%) of the respondents. Females in the >=61 age and the ‘started
primary’ categories are much higher than both male and all other female age
categories.
Figure 9) ‘Access to clean water and sanitation’
Priority #8 ‘Phone and internet access’’
‘Phone and internet access’ is the eighth place priority chosen by 24,564 (36.7%
of the respondents. An interesting characteristic of this priority is the <=15 age
group who chose this priority twice as much as the >=61 age group.
Figure 10) ‘Phone and internet access’
My World 2015: Similarities, Differences, and Hidden Priorities
2014
20
Priority #9 ‘Protecting forests, rivers and oceans’
‘Protecting forests, rivers and oceans’ is the ninth place priority chosen by 24,098
(36%) of the respondents. This is a very interesting priority and it was chosen by
males more than females. There is also a gender relationship with education
level. Males choose this priority more as they achieve higher levels of education.
The opposite occurs for females; as females become more educated, they
choose this priority less frequently.
Figure 11) ‘Protecting forests, rivers and oceans’
Priority #10 ‘Better transport and roads’
‘Better transport and roads’ is the tenth place priority chosen by 23,970 (35.8%)
of the respondents. Interestingly, this priority is particularly important to females
>=60 years old.
Figure 12) ‘Better transport and roads’
My World 2015: Similarities, Differences, and Hidden Priorities
2014
21
Priority #11 ‘Equality between men and women’
‘Equality between men and women’ is the eleventh place priority chosen by
20,288 (30.3%) of the respondents. This priority is chosen more by females
within all age groups and at all levels of education. Furthermore, it is most
important to the ‘finished primary’ group and gradually declines as education
levels rise.
Figure 13) ‘Equality between men and women’
Priority #12 ‘Support for people who cannot work
‘Support for people who cannot work’ is the twelfth place priority chosen by
19,931 (29.8%) of the respondents. Overall, this priority is more important to
males than females but becomes more important to females as they get older.
Figure 14) ‘Support for people who cannot work’
My World 2015: Similarities, Differences, and Hidden Priorities
2014
22
Priority #13 ‘Reliable energy at home’
‘Reliable energy at home’ is the thirteenth place priority chosen by 17.403
(26.0%) of the respondents. Overall, this priority is more important to males but
becomes more important to females as they get older.
Figure 15) ‘Reliable energy at home’
Priority #14 ‘Freedom from discrimination and persecution’
‘Freedom from discrimination and persecution’ is the fourteenth place priority
chosen by 17.352 (25.9%) of the respondents.
Figure 16) ‘Freedom from discrimination and persecution’
My World 2015: Similarities, Differences, and Hidden Priorities
2014
23
Priority #15 ‘Action taken on climate change
‘Action taken on climate change’ is the fifteenth place priority chosen by 15,789
(23.6%) of the respondents.
Figure 17) ‘Action taken on climate change’
Priority #16 ‘Political freedoms
‘Political freedoms’ is the last out of the sixteen priorities chosen by 14,127
(21.1%) of the respondents.
Chart 12) ‘Political freedoms’
My World 2015: Similarities, Differences, and Hidden Priorities
2014
24
The top 6 priorities by gender
The following section summarises the top six priorities as chosen by each gender.
Females
The top six priorities and order chosen by females are identical to the ranking of
those for the whole of the Thailand sample.
Chart 7) The top six priorities chosen by females (%)
Males
The top six priorities chosen by males are identical to those for the whole of the
Thailand sample except that “better job opportunities” and “affordable and
nutritious food” have swapped positions.
Chart 8) The top six priorities chosen by males (%)
My World 2015: Similarities, Differences, and Hidden Priorities
2014
25
Homogenous yet heterogeneous
An initial observation of the top six ranked priorities indicates that the selection of
top priorities is made in a very homogenous fashion. It is true that a minimum of
40% and a maximum of 70% of the sample chose each of the top six priorities
and that both genders selected the same top six; albeit in a slightly different order.
However, the following discussion and charts describe how the data have a range
of heterogeneous characteristics.
Combinations of priorities
There are a possible 8008 unique combinations of six out of sixteen priorities.
The Thailand data set exhibits 7537 different chosen combinations of priorities,
and there are an additional 471 combinations of priorities that are not chosen. Of
the 7537 identified combinations, there are 984 uniquely chosen combinations,
i.e. chosen by only one respondent (equal to about 0.7% of the sample).
Chart 9) Occurring combinations of priorities
My World 2015: Similarities, Differences, and Hidden Priorities
2014
26
Groups sizes
An examination of the number of each of the 6553 identified combinations which
have more than one identical response yields very interesting findings. Out of the
66,901 responses for Thailand, it is found that the largest group has only 207
identically chosen ballots and this group represents a mere 0.003% of the whole
sample. In fact, the 10 largest groups ranging from 131 to 207 identical responses
represent less than 1% of the entire sample. Over 80% of the groups of identically
chosen ballots contain 10 or less responses.
Chart 10) Occurring combination group sizes
If the sample were truly homogenous, one would expect to find larger numbers
of identical ballots.
But what does this mean?
Combining these facts delivers one of the most important findings of the study.
On the one hand, the Thai sample is very homogenous in that there is a core set
of highly ranked priorities (the top six), and on the other hand, there is also a great
deal of variation in the ranking (the lack of large groups and the diversity of small
groups). In fact, numerous more detailed analyses of the sample data were
My World 2015: Similarities, Differences, and Hidden Priorities
2014
27
conducted following this discovery (these are beyond the scope of this report)
and these have also identified a great deal of variation hidden behind the ranking.
The following conclusion may be drawn. It is true that, overall, the top six are
important, but the ranking suggests that the top six ‘ranked’ priorities are really
the most important for all. However, evidence indicates that this is not the case,
and that there is no single set of priorities which is important to all. In reality,
there is a different set of concerns for different people.
Similarities, differences, and hidden priorities
Simply counting the number of times a priority is chosen produces a count so that
a ranked position can be identified for each priority relative to the other priorities.
Examining the ranking of priorities by segmenting the sample by gender or
education level does provide some initial insights into the data. However, in an
attempt to extract more detailed insights, a novel data transformation and
statistical analysis was conducted using the Chi-square (X2) goodness-of-fit-test
statistic. Chi-square analysis of the data was conducted to show how
demographic factors influenced the choice of the different development priorities.
The analysis shows that specific issues (beyond the three top ones), are much
more (or less) likely to be chosen based on gender, regardless of education
status and age. Likewise, differences are registered among young people
whether they have entered the workforce or are still attending school. “
In addition, the variances (measured differences) can also be plotted on a graph
to provide a visual representation of both the differences and similarities within
the data. Each priority can then be labelled as either being selected in the same
proportion (a similarity) or in differing proportions (a difference). Furthermore, it
is possible to identify whether there are hidden priorities within each group. A
hidden priority is defined as a priority which is underrepresented by examining its
ranked position alone. For example, a low ranked priority may be chosen in
greater proportions by a specific gender in all age or education categories. This
indicates an important ‘unseen’ relationship when considering the ranked position
alone.
My World 2015: Similarities, Differences, and Hidden Priorities
2014
28
The following section presents the findings of two of these analyses. The first is
a comparison of gender responses throughout the general education life cycle.
The second explores the differences between young working age persons and is
split by whether they are attending school or have exited early and are potentially
within the national workforce.
An exploration of gender preferences with educational groups
The proportions of the male group were compared to those of the female group
using the Chi-square (X2) goodness-of-fit-test statistic. The Chi-square (X
2)
goodness-of-fit-test statistic identified that overall the two groups have statistically
different proportions in the selection of priorities. In other words, there are
identifiable gender differences in the selection of priorities. The simplest way to
present the significant differences and similarities is by using a variance chart.
hart 11) Gender differences, similarities, and hidden priorities (gender and education)
Chart 11 above displays the variance between the ‘male’ group and the ‘female’
group. The further from the central line the coloured bar extends, the greater is
the degree of variance when compared to the other group. In other words, the
longer the coloured bar is, the greater is the proportion of respondents who chose
a given priority when compared to the proportions of the other group who chose
it. The closer the coloured bar is to the central line, the greater is the degree of
similarity between the groups.
My World 2015: Similarities, Differences, and Hidden Priorities
2014
29
A number of interesting observations can be made from the above chart:
1. Four of the top six priorities were chosen in equal proportions by both
males and females. This means there are similarities. The similarities are
‘a responsive government we can trust’, better healthcare’, ‘affordable and
nutritious food’, and better job opportunities’.
2. Two of Thailand’s top six priorities ‘a good education’ & ‘protection from
crime and violence’ are important to both genders but, overall, they are
more important to females.
3. None of the top six priorities were chosen in greater proportions by males.
4. There are a number of priorities which have a statistically significant
gender importance which is unidentifiable within the absolute ranking of
the priorities.
a. The priority which was chosen in the most statistically significant
proportions by females at all education levels when compared to
males, is ‘equality between men and women’. Gender equality
ranked in 11th place overall and this female priority was hidden
within the absolute ranking. ‘Access to clean water and sanitation’
is ranked in 7th place in the absolute ranking.
b. The priority which was chosen in the most statistically significant
proportions by males at all education levels when compared to
females, is ‘political freedoms’ which was ranked in last place (16th)
overall in the absolute ranking. Males also chose ‘freedom from
discrimination and persecution’, ‘reliable energy at home’, ‘action
taken on climate change’, and ‘better transport and roads’ in greater
proportions.
5. An additional observation is that men seem to be much more concerned
about green issues as the males displayed in statistically significant
proportions that ‘action taken on climate change’ and an overall, but non-
significant greater proportion for ‘protecting forests, rivers and trees’.
My World 2015: Similarities, Differences, and Hidden Priorities
2014
30
A comparison of young working age persons based on educational
attainment
The Thailand sample contains data collected from 17,899 young persons who
are aged between 15 and 18 years old. It is possible that there are differing
priority needs for young persons who are currently within, or recently exited after
completing secondary education and those who only partially completed or
completed only primary education. The group of young persons who are outside
the education system are of legal working age in Thailand. The legal minimum
age for employment in Thailand is 15 years old. These two subsamples consist
of 8,259 young persons who are of working age and outside the education system
and 9,640 young persons who are of working age and inside the education
system, or have very recently finished. The following section compares and
contrasts the responses of young persons who are of working age and are either
within the secondary education system or outside the education system (and
possibly working). The criteria for inclusion in the analysis are as follows:
Age is >=15 years old and <=18 years old,
And,
Outside education system - Either completed primary level (finished
primary) or exited the primary education system prematurely (some
primary). There are 8259 respondents who fall into this category.
Or,
Inside education system or very recently finished - Either within the
secondary education system (some secondary) or recently completed
(finished secondary). There are 9640 respondents who fall into this
category.
Analysis limitations:
Due to limitations in the data and the data collection process the following two
factors need to be considered when interpreting the following results and
commentary:
My World 2015: Similarities, Differences, and Hidden Priorities
2014
31
1. The number of respondents who reported their educational attainment as
‘finished primary’ and are aged between 15 and 18 years is very high. It is
highly probable that this includes erroneously collected data. However, it
is not possible to prove the contrary. The following result analysis should
be interpreted with caution.
2. It is not possible to identify those who exited the secondary education
system prematurely and an assumption is made that those who have
reported ‘some secondary education’ are currently still within the
education system.
Chi-square analysis
The proportions of the ‘outside education system’ group were compared to those
of the ‘inside education system or very recently finished’ group using the chi-
square (X2) goodness-of-fit-test statistic. The chi-square (X
2) goodness-of-fit-test
statistic identified that, overall, the two groups have statistically different
proportions in the selection of priorities. The simplest way to present the
significant differences and similarities is by using a variance chart.
The following variance chart displays the variance between the ‘outside
education system’ group and the ‘inside education system or very recently
finished’ group. The further from the central line the coloured bar extends, the
greater is the degree of variance when compared to the other group. In other
words, the longer the coloured bar is, the greater is the proportion of respondents
who chose a given priority when compared to the proportion of the other group
who chose it. The closer the coloured bar is to the central line, the greater is the
degree of similarity between the groups.
My World 2015: Similarities, Differences, and Hidden Priorities
2014
32
Chart 12) Gender differences, similarities, and hidden priorities (outside vs inside education)
A number of observations can be made from the above chart:
1. The proportions of six priorities are chosen in statistically similar
proportions and represent the greatest degree of similarity between the
two groups. These are ‘a good education’, ‘reliable energy at home’,
protection against crime and violence’, ‘affordable and nutritious food’,
‘access to clean water and sanitation’, and ‘ phone and internet access’.
2. The greatest concerns of the ‘outside education group’ are “equality
between men and women”, “action taken on climate change”, “better job
opportunities”, and “support for people who cannot work”. On face value
alone, young persons lacking both education and working experience
would select both “better job opportunities” and “support for people who
cannot work” as important personal concerns when considering the
probable hardships they would encounter in such a situation.
3. The greatest concerns of the ‘inside education system or very recently
finished’ group are “a responsive government we can trust”, “political
freedoms”, “better health care”, and “protecting forests, rivers, and trees”
My World 2015: Similarities, Differences, and Hidden Priorities
2014
33
Gender comparison within the ‘outside education system’ group
An intra-group gender comparison of the proportions of the ‘outside education
system’ group was compared to those of the ‘inside education system or very
recently finished’ group using the chi-square (X2) goodness-of-fit-test statistic.
The chi-square (X2) goodness-of-fit-test statistic identified there to be statistically
different proportions in the selection of priorities by each gender in the ‘outside
education system’ group.
The following variance chart displays the priority selection variances between the
male and female respondents of the ‘outside education system’ group.
Chart 13) Gender differences, similarities, and hidden priorities (outside education: male vs female)
A number of observations can be made from the above chart:
1. There are six priorities which have been chosen in statistically similar
proportions. These are ‘phone and internet access’, ‘clean water and
sanitation’, ‘affordable and nutritious food’, ‘support for people who cannot
work’, ‘better healthcare’, and ‘better job opportunities’. These priorities
represent similarities between the two groups.
2. It may be important to consider that both genders have a similar need for
“better job opportunities” and “support for those who cannot work
My World 2015: Similarities, Differences, and Hidden Priorities
2014
34
3. The female respondents in this group placed emphasis on “equality
between men and women”, “a good education”, and the two politically
focussed priorities of “a responsible government we can trust” and
“political freedoms”.
4. The males, conversely, chose ”protection from crime and violence” and,
amongst other priorities placed emphasis on the green issues of
“protecting forests, rivers, and oceans” and “action taken on climate
change,”
Conclusions
Data collected for the My World 2015 survey has shown that about 0.01% of the
Thai population took the opportunity to vote. The data were primarily collected
on paper ballots (57.5%) rather than online ballots (34.5%) by a range of
stakeholders from the education sector (n=29,377: 44%); the private sector
(n=19,439: 29%); a social enterprise called MySocialMotion, (n=8,212: 12%); civil
society (n=4,653: 7%); and the UN in Thailand (n=5,220: 8%).
The respondents are mostly female (59.4%) rather than male (40.6%) with an
average age of 24-years old. Over half the respondents have completed
secondary education (51.8%) and the other half (48.2%) are either still in the
education system or have exited prematurely.
The top six My World 2015 priorities for Thailand (in descending order) are “a
good education”, “a responsive government we can trust”, “better healthcare”,
“affordable and nutritious food”, “better job opportunities”, and “protection against
crime and violence”. The same top-six combination is chosen by males and
females. However, each of the sixteen priorities displays unique characteristics
relating to gender, age group, and education levels. For example, as persons
become older ‘a good education’ becomes less important and conversely ‘better
healthcare’ becomes more important. However, this supports what one would
expect to see based on the face values attached to the priority. It is interesting
that males place more importance on the green priorities of ‘protecting forests,
My World 2015: Similarities, Differences, and Hidden Priorities
2014
35
rivers and oceans” and ‘action taken on climate change. Furthermore, although
‘a responsive government we can trust’ is the number 2 priority ‘political
freedoms’ comes in last position as priority number sixteen.
Ranking the My World 2015 data does provide valuable information about what
is of overall importance to the Thai people based on the collective preference for
specific priorities. However, whilst ranking segments the Thailand sample into
large homogenous groups for individual priorities, it does not provide any insights
into the relationships and connections between the combinations chosen by the
Thai people. In an attempt to yield insights beyond the limitations of ranking,
further analyses of the data were conducted and these have identified both
homogenous and heterogeneous characteristics. There are 7537 identified
different combinations of six priorities and of those there are 984 uniquely chosen.
Somewhat surprisingly, the sample does not contain any large groups and the
largest group contains only 207 identical ballots. In fact, the top 10 largest groups
represent less than 1% of the whole sample. This is a very important finding as
it indicates that there is no single set of priorities which is important to all the
people of Thailand. The analysis also identified a range of priorities which are
selected in greater proportions based on gender. For example, females in all age
groups and at all education levels choose ‘equality between men and women’ in
greater proportions than males. The 11th place ranking of ‘equality between men
and women’ does not reflect the overall importance of this priority for the females
of Thailand. Conversely, ‘political freedoms’ which was ranked in last place (16th)
overall in the absolute ranking was chosen by males in greater proportions when
compared to females. Neither of these observations can be made through ranking
alone.
The final conclusion is there is a top six set of priorities which is more important
overall to the people of Thailand. However, there is also a great deal of variation
within the chosen combinations and in reality, this reflects a very different set of
often unique concerns for different people.
My World 2015: Similarities, Differences, and Hidden Priorities
2014
36
General Limitations
The sample is biased toward a young age group and does not represent
the full age diversity of Thailand’s population.
Ranking the data does provide insights into which priorities are the most
important overall. However, ranking alone fails to identify priorities for
individual groups.
Response error and misunderstanding of the survey may have contributed
to the loss of valuable data and may have also contaminated the findings.
The responses are probably influenced by current affairs and may be more
reflective of the opinions at the time the data was collected.
The ‘My World 2015’ data set consists of mostly nominal data which
generally restricts the use of the more powerful parametric statistical
procedures. Thus many of the insights are limited to measures of central
tendency (mean, mode etc) and ranking. This is an opportunity lost.
However, on the flip side, one must consider the challenges of collecting
data on a global scale and whether it is feasible to attempt to diversify the
data collection tools.
Individual responses and clusters of responses cannot be classified as:
urban vs. rural; ethic grouping; disabilities; or as specific geographic
regions of Thailand. Therefore, the available data do not allow for more
than national generalisations.
Data transformations and the application of novel analysis techniques can
provide additional insights. However, these may be open to differing
interpretations. The author has attempted to be as objective as possible.
Ultimately, the collection of superior geo-demographic data would have
been a better option.
There are a number of other statistically significant relationships which
were revealed during the process of data analysis. However, due to
limitations with the data set, it is very difficult to provide a useful or practical
application of these findings.
The data set is huge and has much more potential for analysis and this
report has really only scratched the surface. However, one must ask what
My World 2015: Similarities, Differences, and Hidden Priorities
2014
37
is the ‘return on investment’ when it comes to extending the analysis
further.
The responses are probably influenced by current affairs.
General recommendations
To share the findings of this report with the Thai people.
To apply the concepts learnt throughout this data analysis project to other
sub-samples of the My World 2015 data set.
To analyse the ASEAN data set in more detail.
To collect more comprehensive geo-demographic data in subsequent
studies of this type.
My World 2015: Similarities, Differences, and Hidden Priorities
2014
38
References
World Bank (2014) Data: Population total.
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL
United Nations (2014). Have your say. http://vote.myworld2015.org/
My World 2015: Similarities, Differences, and Hidden Priorities
2014
39
Appendix 1: Methodology
An array of statistical techniques was used to analyze the My World 2015 data
set for Thailand. Some of the analyses applied were very simple (such as the
calculation of average values, ranking, and percentages) and others required the
application of novel techniques that were used in an attempt to yield additional
insights (binary clustering and the data restructuring technique). The data set
has a number of limitations, primarily relating to the narrow range of geo-
demographic data collected, and as a consequence, some novel data
transformations and techniques were applied in an attempt to yield additional
insights.
This report was written with the intention of being in a ‘simple to read’ format.
However, this methodological section has been included for those readers who
may be interested in the techniques applied during the analysis.
Sample size and sampling window
The ‘My World 2015’ global data set contains over 1.5 million votes and can be
downloaded from the ‘My World 2015’ Data Repository
(http://54.227.246.164/dataset/). The data for Thailand used in the following
analysis were collected between 11th January, 2013 and 15th December, 2013.
The data set for Thailand consists of n=66,901usable cases and this sample
equates to about 0.1% of the 66.79 million population of Thailand (World Bank,
2012). The following data analysis methodology will be separated in several
sections based on the types of analysis to be conducted.
Data cleaning
Data coding
Basic descriptive analysis
Thailand priority ranking
Binary clustering analysis
Combination matrix
Largest cluster analysis
My World 2015: Similarities, Differences, and Hidden Priorities
2014
40
Priority profiles
Priority cluster profiles
Data restructuring, frequency distribution, and chi-square methodology
Gender and priorities (a second look)
Data Cleaning
The data set is cleaned in Microsoft Excel and Microsoft Access by removing
cases with missing, dummy, and/or other variable discrepancies. The data set is
analysed using Microsoft Excel, Statistical Package for Social Scientists (SPSS),
and other statistical analysis software as required.
Data Coding
The data set is coded and a complete codebook is available upon request (it
would accompany the data set). However, the 16 priorities are coded as follows:
Priority Code
"Action taken on climate change" 100
"Better transport and roads" 101
"Support for people who can't work" 102
"Access to clean water and sanitation" 103
“Better healthcare” 104
“A good education” 105
“A responsive government we can trust” 106
"Phone and internet access" 107
"Reliable energy at home" 108
“Affordable and nutritious food” 109
"Protecting forests, rivers and oceans" 110
“Protection from crime and violence” 111
"Political freedoms" 112
"Freedom from discrimination and persecution" 113
"Equality between men and women" 114
“Better job opportunities” 115
Basic Descriptive Analysis
An initial explorative summary of the demographic variables and the response
profiles for each of the My World 2015 priorities will be performed. The analysis
included measures of central tendency (mean, median, and mode) and measures
of dispersion (frequency distribution (counts and percentages), standard
deviation, range, minimum, maximum, kurtosis and skewness). Age data are
My World 2015: Similarities, Differences, and Hidden Priorities
2014
41
analysed as both a continuous (ratio) variable and as a binned (categorical)
variable (using the bin ranges presented on the ‘My World 2015’ website analysis
page). Relevant and appropriate results are presented in both graphical and
tabular formats with additional cross-tabulations as appropriate.
Binary Clustering Methodology
The data are not appropriate for traditional clustering techniques. Therefore, the
approach used to identify response patterns and potential clusters will be based
on concepts taken from evolutionary computational techniques. This approach
will further overcome some of the inherent limitations of the initial data set and
open further avenues to more accurate and advanced statistical procedures. The
clustering methodology will be outlined in the following paragraph.
The My World 2015 survey asks respondents to select 6 out of 16 predetermined
priorities. These are not ranked selections but merely choices. Therefore, the
priority selection data are binary as each priority has one of two mutually
exclusive states. It is chosen (1) or not chosen (0). The raw data from each ballot
are converted into a 16-bit binary string (for example 1111000100000001) with
each chosen priority being represented by a ‘1’ and the other not-chosen priorities
being represented by a ‘0’. Each binary string is converted into an identifiable
‘combination code’ using positive exponents which multiply the individual ‘bits’ of
each binary string, which produces a unique identifiable coded value for each bit,
for example:
100: 1 *2^15 = 32,768
101: 1 *2^14 = 16,384
102: 1 *2^13 = 8,192
103: 1 *2^12 = 4,096
107: 1 *2^8 = 256
115: 1 *2^0 = 1
Combination Code = 61,697
My World 2015: Similarities, Differences, and Hidden Priorities
2014
42
All cases can be sorted according to their unique combination code and the
calculated frequency statistics. This effectively clusters each combination of
priorities into homogenous groups of choices. Frequency and descriptive
statistics of the combinations of the respondents can be produced as per the
profile presented in the basic descriptive statistics section of the methodology.
Combination Matrix
Using a binomial coefficient (see below), it is possible to calculate that there are
8008 possible combinations for 6 of 16 choices.
A combination matrix can be created in Microsoft Excel using a (modified 3 rd
party) VBA macro. Combinations of cases can be matched to the matrix to identify
occurring and non-occurring combinations. Descriptive statistics are calculated
in SPSS to initially describe the patterns of frequency and distribution occurring
in the data sample. It is also possible to identify combinations which are not
occurring in the sample.
Largest Cluster Analysis
The 10 largest groups are identified, analysed, and discussed. Tables and graphs
will be presented as appropriate.
Priority profiles
A review of each of the 16 priorities is presented, analysed, and discussed. The
description of each priority has the following format:
1. A demographic summary (see basic descriptive analysis above for details)
2. A cross-tabulation analysis (‘selected’ versus ‘not selected’ by binned age
category and then by education category) and a concurrent stacked
(100%) bar graph analysis to indicate basic trends and patterns in the data
3. A description of the key defining characteristics
My World 2015: Similarities, Differences, and Hidden Priorities
2014
43
4. A subjective narrative attempting to provide insights into the priority
5. Tables and graphs will be presented as appropriate.
Data restructuring, frequency distribution, and Chi-square (X2)
methodology
The data set is partitioned into segments by priority, clusters of priorities, or size
and then further partitioned by education level, gender, and source. To create a
histogram and frequency distribution for each of the segments’ six priorities, the
priority set for each segment is restructured from six separate variables and
merged into one single variable. This does not create a real continuous variable
and the histogram is not a distribution in the common sense. However, by
ordering the variables in this way, it is possible to compare and contrast the
separate segments in a number of different ways. Firstly this is achieved by
compiling visual collections of each segment and their histograms to see if there
are any visually observable differences in priority selection, education level,
gender, and source for each grouped collection and when compared to the other
segmented groups. Secondly, by harvesting the frequency distribution data and
creating data tables in Microsoft Excel, it is possible to perform chi-square
‘goodness of fit’ statistical tests. The chi-square statistic (X2) calculates whether
there is a significant relationship between two categorical variables (the segment
histograms are actually ordered frequency distributions for the collective totals of
each segments categorical six binary priority choices). The chi-square test
statistic uses the following formula:
The data from each segment pass the two assumptions of the chi-square test in
that it is both categorical and will examine two or more independent groups. The
specific application of the chi-square statistics is the goodness of fit test which
will assesses whether data come from a known distribution, or in other words are
the observed proportions comparable to a known set of proportions. The known
My World 2015: Similarities, Differences, and Hidden Priorities
2014
44
distribution (proportions) will either be the data set for the whole of Thailand
(priority, education level, gender, or source), or a specified segment, minus the
set of data to be observed. In the case of inter-priority comparisons by gender,
the female distribution will be classified as the known distribution (set of
proportions). The alpha significance level for all tests is set at p =<.05. Results
are presented in a visual format for easy reading.
My World 2015: Similarities, Differences, and Hidden Priorities
2014
45
Appendix 2: A table of priorities
Symbol key: = greater/increasing; = lesser/decreasing; = equal
Priority Age Education Gender
#1 "A good education"
(n=46,782/69.9%)
importance to young
importance with age
importance to those with lower levels of education
importance to young females when compared to young males
importance in older males and females
#2
"A responsive government we can
trust"
(n=36,255/54.2%)
importance with age
importance as education levels increase
importance to males when compared females
importance to older males (>=61 years) when compared to all other groups
#3 "Better healthcare"
(n=34,157/51.1%)
importance to young <=30 years
importance at 30 years
importance in all age categories >=30 years
importance in the ‘started primary’ and ‘finished secondary’ groups
importance to males and females
#4
"Affordable and nutritious food"
(n=27,419/41.0%)
importance in all age categories
importance in all education categories, except;
importance in the ‘started primary’ group
importance to young males (<=15)
importance to females (>=31 to <=60)
#5
"Better job opportunities"
(n=27,052/40.4%)
importance to young within the 16-31 years age category
importance with age, particularly the >=61 years age group
importance in all education categories, except;
importance in the ‘finished secondary’ group.
importance to females in all age categories >=31 years old.
importance to females in the ‘finished secondary’ categories
My World 2015: Similarities, Differences, and Hidden Priorities
2014
46
Priority Age Education Gender
#6
"Protection against crime and violence"
(n=26,643/39.8%)
importance to young age <16 years
importance in all age categories from age >=16 years
importance through ‘started primary’ to ‘finished primary’ group
importance in all other education categories
importance in both genders, except;
importance in the female ‘finished primary’ group when compared to the males
#7
"Access to clean water and sanitation"
(n=25,577/38.2%)
Although the <=15 age group was noticeable high this priority becomes progressively more important in the older age groups.
importance to the ‘started primary’ and ‘finished primary’ groups
Overall, as females’ age they are more concerned with this priority than males. Females in the >=61 age and the ‘started primary’ categories are much higher than both males and all other female age categories.
#8
"Phone and internet access"
(n=24,564/36.7%)
This priority is much more important to young persons and reduces with age with a notable reduction from 31-45 age group onwards. The <=15 group is double that of the >=61 group.
importance to the ‘finished primary’ group
importance in both genders
#9
"Protecting forests, rivers and oceans"
(n=24,098/36.0%)
There is a general trend for young adults and middle aged persons to be more concerned with this priority.
importance in all education categories
importance to males
importance as males progress though the education levels
importance as females progress though the education levels
#10
"Better transport and roads"
(n=23,970/35.8%)
importance to the 16-30 age group and gradually declines as age progresses
importance as education levels increase
importance to males<60 years old
importance to females =>60 years old
My World 2015: Similarities, Differences, and Hidden Priorities
2014
47
Priority Age Education Gender
#11
"Equality between men and women"
(n=20,288/30.3%)
importance to both younger and age groups
importance to ‘finished primary’ group followed by a gradual decline as education levels rise
importance to females in all age groups and at all education levels.
This priority is, however, notably highest in the <=15 age group for both genders.
#12
"Support for people who can't work"
(n=19,931/29.8%)
importance with age; notably in the>=60 years group
importance in the ‘started primary’ group
importance in all other education categories
importance to males overall; notably at >=60 years
importance to females as they become older
#13
"Reliable energy at home"
(n=17,403/26.0%)
importance in all age categories
importance to lower education levels
importance to males overall
importance to females as they become older
#14
"Freedom from discrimination and
persecution"
(n=17,352/25.9%)
importance to young<=30 years
importance with age>=31 years
importance in all education categories
importance to males overall; particularly in the 15-30 age group
#15
"Action taken on climate change"
(n=15,789/23.6%)
importance in all age categories
importance in all education categories
importance to males overall; particularly in the ‘finished primary’ group
#16 "Political freedoms"
(n=14,127/21.1%)
importance in all age categories>=15 years
importance as primary education progresses, then
importance in secondary education
importance to females in the higher education levels