Dans un article pour Policy Options, le professeur Erick Lachapelle (CPDS) et ses collègues Stephen Bird et Monica Gattinger rendent compte d’un récent sondage conçu par le programme de recherche Positive Energy (Université d’Ottawa). Avec pour objectif de mesurer l’évolution de la polarisation de l’opinion publique canadienne sur le long terme, les chercheurs notent que les premiers résultats révèlent davantage de fragmentation que de polarisation réelle.

EXTRAITS : These first results reveal fragmented opinions across regional, generational and partisan lines, but not all of them count as “polarized.”

What’s the difference? When the public is polarized on an issue, it means that opinions are concentrated at extreme ends of the spectrum. People don’t just agree or disagree, they do so strongly. When opinion is fragmented on an issue, it means that views differ, but they are not necessarily hardened at either end of the spectrum.

Why does it matter? Polarized opinions are tough for political systems to deal with. People are hardened in incommensurable views. On the other hand, fragmented opinions are more amenable to political decision-making. People’s views aren’t crystallized. They may be more malleable and open to compromise.

À lire ici : https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/january-2020/on-energy-and-climate-were-actually-not-so-polarized/