Section 2 Questionnaire Development and Survey Methodology
1. Questionnaire Development and Restructuring
As described above, the purpose of the 2015 public legal awareness survey is to conduct an analysis of the previous surveys and to inquire into the levels of public legal awareness of the current legal system, as well as to explore strategies to reform the legal system at the national level through compiling integrated statistics on public legal awareness. For this purpose, the survey comprises of: chronological questions to understand changes in public legal awareness; questions to understand the level and development of public legal awareness of the current legal system; and questions pertaining to public legal awareness indicators for a comprehensive understanding of public legal awareness.
3)3) For details of the areas and questionnaires of the 1991, 1994 and 2008 public legal awareness surveys conducted by the KLRI, see Se-Jung Lee and Sang-Yoon Lee,
“2008 Public Legal Awareness Survey Research,” Korea Legislation Research Institute, 2008, pp. 27-29.
Chapter 1 Introduction
<Figure 1> Orientation of Questionnaire Design and Development
Status of legal awareness (comparative analysis of previous surveys)
Questions regarding legal issues (ascertainment of public opinion on issues)
Legal awareness indicators (calculation of the public legal awareness index) 2015
Public Legal Awareness Survey Questionnaire
(2) Restructuring and Development of Questionnaire for the 2015 Survey
In regard to the chronological analysis and the analysis of the current legal system, some of the questions relating to public legal awareness were added, deleted, revised, or rearranged in the 2015 public legal awareness survey, from previously conducted public legal awareness surveys by KLRI. The 2015 survey, compared to the 2008 survey, was modified as follows:
First, the questionnaire took its sample from people aged 19 and over, unlike the 2008 questionnaire, which consisted of people aged 18 and over
4). This reflects the amended provisions of Article 4 of the Civil Act, which stipulates that the age of majority is 19, and Article 15 (1) of the Public Official Election Act, stating that nationals of 19 years of
4) Lee Se-Jung and Lee Sang-Yoon, “2008 Public Legal Awareness Survey Research”
[Appendix], Korea Legislation Research Institute, 2008, p. 112.
Section 2 Questionnaire Development and Survey Methodology
age or above have voting rights for the elections of the President and the members of the National Assembly.
Second, of the questions regarding changes in the society and public values, Question 4, reflects the recent trend of increased number of female immigrants through marriage, foreign workers, saeteomin (North Korean refugees), and others who reside in Korea. “Are you in favor of or against accepting them into our society?”
5), was deleted for the 2015 survey, because the question did not represent public legal awareness.
Third, of the questions regarding legal awareness and sentiment, Question 5, “What first comes to your mind when you hear the word ‘law’?”
6), remained unchanged, because it sought an affirmative response and continued to be relevant from a chronological perspective, though it included a somewhat vague response (difficulty of distinguishing between
‘1. fair’ and ‘2. democratic’). However, Question 6, “How necessary do you think laws are?”; Question 6-1 (Only for the respondents who chose option 1 or 2 in Question 6, “If so, what do you think is the main reason why laws are necessary?”; Question 7, “Do you agree or disagree with the phrase ‘A law is a law, however undesirable it may be’?”; and Question 8 “Do you agree or disagree that there is ‘a law for the rich and another for the poor’ in our society?” were deleted.
7)It was because Questions 6 and 6-1 could be substituted by questions (regarding public legal awareness indicators) newly inserted in the 2015 public legal awareness survey, and Questions 7 and 8 by similar questions in
5) Lee Se-Jung and Lee Sang-Yoon, “2008 Public Legal Awareness Survey Research”
[Appendix], Korea Legislation Research Institute, 2008, p. 114.
6) Lee Se-Jung and Lee Sang-Yoon, “2008 Public Legal Awareness Survey Research”
[Appendix], Korea Legislation Research Institute, 2008, p. 114.
7) Lee Se-Jung and Lee Sang-Yoon, “2008 Public Legal Awareness Survey Research”
[Appendix], Korea Legislation Research Institute, 2008, pp. 114-115.
Chapter 1 Introduction
Questions 28 and 29 in the 2015 survey regarding public legal awareness indicators.
Fourth, of the questions regarding legal life, Question 10, “Are you interested in the reporting of court decisions in broadcast news or newspapers?”; Question 11, “Have you ever sought professional legal advice to receive legal aid or prepare legal documents when you had a legal problem?”; Question 11-1, (Only for the respondents who chose option 1 in Question 11), “If so, do you think it was easy or difficult for you to gain access to legal services?”; Question 11-2 (Only for respondents who chose option 3 or 4 in Question 11-1), “If so, what do you think was the main reason why you found it difficult to access legal services?”; Question 12, “Do you think it desirable that a legal dispute, if any, should be resolved through judicial proceedings?”; Question 14,
“Are you satisfied with the current legal education in elementary, middle,
and high schools?”; Question 15, “What do you think should be a top
priority in legal education?”; Question 16, “Do you agree that the legal
knowledge you have gained or are learning at school is useful in your
life?”; Question 17, “If you have the opportunity to learn laws, which
areas of law would you want to learn? Please choose two of the options
below in order of your preference.”; Question 18, “What do you think is
the best way to minimize damage you may suffer while living as a
member of society?”; Question 23, “What do you think is the most
crucial crime to be eradicated in society? Please choose two of the
options below in order of your preference.”; Question 24, “What do you
think is the most necessary for our society to develop into a crimeless
one?”; Question 25, “What will you do if you witness a hit-and-run
Section 2 Questionnaire Development and Survey Methodology
accident?”; Question 27, “What will you do if you get hit by a car while crossing the street on a crosswalk?”; and Question 28, “Recently, bullying is becoming frequent in schools. If your child is being bullied, what do you think is the most effective way to resolve this?” were deleted.
8)The reasons for deletion were as follows. Question 10 could be substituted by Question 9 (“What is your main source of access to legal information? Please choose two of the options below in order of the most familiar.”) [further detailed questions were unnecessary to analyze public legal awareness], because Questions 11 through 11-2 had close relevance to questions regarding the law school system adopted in 2008.
Question 12 could be substituted by a similar question Question 23 regarding the public legal awareness indicators, because Questions 14 through 17, regarding the importance of legal education in 2008, were questions of policy and thus not appropriate. Questions 18, 23 and 24 were substituted by questions Questions 30 and 23, which are representative of public legal awareness, and Questions 25, 27, and 28, by similar questions regarding the public legal awareness index. In addition, the 2008 survey questions, Question 19, “Do you feel that law is hard to understand?”; Question 19-1 (Only for respondents who chose option 1 or 2 in Question 19), “If so, what is the main reason you think law is difficult?”; and Question 20, “Do you believe that you have some knowledge of law?” were deleted. The reason for this was because those questions were substituted by similar questions, Questions 25 and 24, pertaining to the public legal awareness indicators.
8) Lee Se-Jung and Lee Sang-Yoon, “2008 Public Legal Awareness Survey Research”
[Appendix], Korea Legislation Research Institute, 2008 Research on, pp. 116-123.
Chapter 1 Introduction
Fifth, questions regarding judicial reform, Question 29, “Do you believe that power or money influence court decisions?”; Question 30, “Do you believe it desirable that public opinion influences court decisions?”;
Question 31, “The law school system will be implemented in March 2009. Have you heard about the ‘law school system’ before?”; Question 32, “What do you think will be the greatest advantage of implementing the law school system?”; and Question 33, “The ‘jury system’ has been operational since January 1, 2008. Have you heard about the jury system before?” were deleted.
9)The reasons for deletion were because Question 29 was substituted by a similar question in Question 48 regarding the public legal awareness indicators, Question 30 by Questions 18 and 25 regarding the performance of the jury system and Questions 31 through 34 by amended Questions 12 and 18 regarding the performance of the law school system and the jury system.
Sixth, regarding the current legal system, Question 35, “Do you agree that the Internet real name system is necessary?”; Question 38, “Views are set forth below regarding the Constitution of the Republic of Korea.
Do you agree with each of these views?”; Question 39; “What do you think is the first point to be emphasized in the Constitution of the Republic of Korea?”; Question 41, “Do you agree that the election law is duly complied with in our society?”; and Question 41-1, (Only for the respondents who chose option 3 or 4 in Question 41), “If not, what do you believe is the main reason for non-compliance?” were deleted. The reason for deletion were that Questions 35, 41 and 41-1 were not
9) Lee Se-Jung and Lee Sang-Yoon, “2008 Public Legal Awareness Survey Research”
[Appendix], Korea Legislation Research Institute, 2008, pp. 123-124.
Section 2 Questionnaire Development and Survey Methodology
appropriate for the 2015 survey, and Question 39 was substituted by similar questions, Questions 36 through 41 regarding the public legal awareness indicators.
10)Seventh, of DQs for survey analysis, DQ3 was simplified to identify marital status, and the 2015 survey included DQ3-1, (Only for the respondents who chose any option other than option 1 in DQ3), “If so, how many generations does your household consist of?”), as well as DQ3,
“How many members including yourself are there in your household?”, to identify the number of household members and structure to use the result for analysis. In addition, questions DQ5 and DQ6 were subdivided or simplified and DQ7 questions were limited to the extent necessary by excluding religion-related descriptions.
11)2) Development of the 2015 Survey Questionnaire and Analysis of Findings from the Preliminary Test
As demonstrated below, a preliminary test was conducted prior to the main 2015 public legal awareness survey. The findings of the preliminary test were used to reconstruct questions regarding the chronological analysis and the current legal system.
10) Lee Se-Jung and Lee Sang-Yoon, “2008 Public Legal Awareness Survey Research”
[Appendix], Korea Legislation Research Institute, 2008, pp. 125-127.
11) Lee Se-Jung and Lee Sang-Yoon, “2008 Public Legal Awareness Survey Research”
[Appendix], Korea Legislation Research Institute, 2008, pp. 129-130.
Chapter 1 Introduction
Classification Survey Item Note
View of law, legal awareness,
and legal life (Part 1.
Questions for chronological
comparison)
1. Perceptions about laws Question 5 in 2008 2. Sources of access to legal information Question 9 in 2008 3. Degree of familiarity with contractual
clauses Question 13 in 2008
4. Degree of law-abidingness on the social
level Question 21 in 2008
4-1. Reasons for not abiding by law Question 21-1 in 2008 5. Degree of law-abidingness on the
individual level Question 22 in 2008
5-1. Reasons for not abiding by law Question 22-1 in 2008 6. Way of dealing with purchased defective
products Question 26 in 2008
7. Degree of compliance with
labor-manage-ment relations statutes Question 42 in 2008 7-1. Liability for non-compliance with
labor-management relations statutes Question 42-1 in 2008 8. Regulations of enterprises causing
environ-mental pollution Question 43 in 2008
9. Degree of mistreatment against the under-privileged
Question 2 (modified) in 2008 9-1. Reasons why the underprivileged are
mistreated
Question 2-1 (modified) in 2008
10. Degree of discrimination against women Question 2 in 2008 10-1. Reasons why women are discriminated Question 2-1 in 2008 11. Key decision-maker at home Question 1 in 2008 12. Whether to approve of the law school
system Question 31 in 2008
12-1. Main advantages of the law school
system Question 32 in 2008
13. Whether to approve euthanasia Question 36 in 2008
<Figure 2> Final Draft Questions for Actual Condition Survey
Section 2 Questionnaire Development and Survey Methodology
Classification Survey Item Note
Current legal topics (Part 2.
Questions on current affairs)
14. Whether to approve of the incentive system for military service
Questions on legal topics in 2015
15. Whether to abolish death penalty
16. Whether to abolish law criminalizing adultery
17. Whether to punish voluntary prostitution 18. Opinion on whether the jury system is
successful
19. Opinion on whether the Kim Young Ran Act will be successful
20. Opinion on whether the temporary worker protection laws are successful
Chronological Items (Questions 1~13)
Analysis of how Korea's awareness regarding law has developed Attitudes on Bills at Issue (Questions 14~20)
Exploration of public opinion on legal issues recently emphasized
In addition, the findings of the preliminary test were used to revise included questions selected from the 2008 questionnaire to the 2015 survey (based on the 2015 survey, revisions are as follows).
First, Question 8, “How much government regulation is necessary
regarding enterprises that cause environmental pollution?” was revised to
ask whether regulation should be stricter than before because, the response
options (e.g., the obligation to prevent environmental pollution and repair
damage, the imposition of a penalty exceeding monetary penalty and the
strengthening of corporate competition rather than regulation) were technical
and difficult for a survey participant to understand.
Chapter 1 Introduction
<Figure 3> Example of Revision (1)
Question 8.
Regulation of Enterprises Causing Environmental Pollution
How much government regulation do you think is necessary regarding the enterprises that cause environmental pollution?
I Impose the obligation to prevent environmental pollution and repair damage.
I Impose a penalty exceeding monetary penalty.
Strengthen corporate competition rather than regulation.
Other.
Don’t know.
➡
To facilitate understanding for survey participants, the responses were revised in the following manner:
Stricter than current practice.
Equal to the current practice.
More lenient than current practice.
Other.
Don’t know (unspecified).
Second, Question 15 in the 2008 survey became more clearly understood by removing the phrase, “classified as a de facto abolitionist country”, which is likely to be misunderstood as suggesting the abolition of the death penalty.
<Figure 4> Example of Revision (2)
Question
15. Abolition of the Death Penalty Korea, which has death penalty provisions, is classified as a ‘de facto abolitionist country,’
because an execution has not been conducted over the past ten years. Do you approve or disapprove of the ‘abolition of the death penalty’?
➡
The phrase ‘de facto abolitionist country’ was deleted, because it is likely to prejudice survey participants in favor of the abolition of the death penalty.
Korea has not conducted an execution in the past ten years though it has death penalty provisions. Do you approve or disapprove of the ‘abolition of the death penalty’?
Section 2 Questionnaire Development and Survey Methodology
Classification Survey Item Note
Public legal
21. Interest in mass media reporting of court decisions
Factor 1.
Interest in law 22. Interest in laws newly enacted or amended
23. Resort to legal action for dispute resolution 24. Acquisition of legal knowledge necessary for daily
life
25. Plain legal terms and phrases
Factor 2.
Legal awareness and sentiment 26. Reflection of public will in lawmaking
27. Protection of the rights of the general public 28. Application of law without discrimination 29. Observance of law without fail
30. Reporting of crimes witnessed
31. Degree of the government’s law-abidingness
Factor 3.
Law-abidingness 32. Degree of local governments’ law-abidingness
33. Court ruling based on law
34. Degree of enterprises’ law-abidingness 35. Degree of law-abidingness on a social level
Public legal
36. Guarantee of personal liberty
Factor 4.
Guarantee of fundamental rights
by law 37. Guarantee of the right to object and petition
38. Guarantee of the freedom of religion and thought 39. Guarantee of suffrage
40. Guarantee of the freedom of speech, press, assembly, and association
41. Guarantee of the free exercise of property rights
Third, in considering the findings from the preliminary test, one of the questions regarding the public legal awareness indicators was reassigned to another position and four were revised. Thus, the indicators survey items finalized were as follows:
<Figure 5> Revisions of Questions regarding the Public Legal Awareness Indicators
Chapter 1 Introduction
Classification Survey Item Note
42. Reflection of the people’s daily life
Factor 5.
Guarantees of the effectiveness of law 43. Reduction of disputes between neighbors
44. Reduction of crimes
45. Prevention of public sector corruption 46. Control over government power 47. Legislative impartiality
Factor 6.
Law making and enforcement 48. Judicial impartiality
49. Executive impartiality
50. Impartiality of criminal investigation