AAPOR Statement on the Removal of BLS Commissioner McEntarfer

On behalf of the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR), we write to express deep concern regarding the removal of the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Erika McEntarfer, in response to the recent downward revisions in job numbers for May and June. In a robust and transparent statistical system, corrections are an inherent and expected part of the measurement process. As a professional association dedicated to the integrity and quality of research and data collection, AAPOR emphasizes that sound statistical systems must be able to revise and improve upon earlier estimates without political interference. Revisions to employment data occur routinely and are the result of additional reports received from businesses and government agencies, as well as ongoing refinements in seasonal adjustments. These processes are not signs of failure; they are essential features of a scientific approach to national measurement.

It is appropriate to ask whether current methodologies remain robust, and whether they need refinement in light of observed anomalies. Continuous evaluation and modernization of our statistical systems are vital to maintaining public trust. If flaws in the process are identified, new or improved methods should be considered. However, when the established and transparent procedures are followed, as is believed to be the case here, revisions alone are not valid grounds for personnel changes.

Undermining statistical leadership in response to expected and disclosed revisions risks politicizing federal statistics and damaging the credibility of institutions whose independence is foundational to democracy and good governance. We echo the sentiments expressed by the Data Foundation in their recent statement: trust in federal statistics is preserved not through perfection, but through transparency, methodological rigor, and a willingness to update and revise in full public view.

We urge that any concerns with the employment data revisions be addressed through a nonpartisan, professional review of the measurement process and its continued suitability—not through punitive actions against those who have followed established protocols. A careful and evidence-based investigation into the methodology and operations of the BLS is the proper step to safeguard both accuracy and public confidence.

AAPOR stands ready to assist in promoting data integrity and supporting efforts to ensure our federal statistical agencies continue to operate with independence, transparency, and professionalism.

American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR)

 

In response to the AAPOR President’s call to action, we invite you to engage, influence, and publish with us – whether by collaborating on ideas, amplifying events and meetups, or simply sharing your feedback. Together, we contribute to a shared mission to improve methods, measurement, and research and publication opportunities. Our vision is to elevate cross-cultural and multilingual research in public opinion and survey research.

We led several initiatives in 2025 and look forward to continuing to connect researchers, practitioners, and research leaders.

Supporting Open Science
In 2017 and 2018, we facilitated open access special issues in two international journals. The 2025 special issue we facilitated focused on evolving methodologies and how they are relevant to research design and the people we seek to understand and benefit through a cross-cultural focus. See 16 open access articles by 40+ experts across 18 organizations in AAPOR e-journal Survey Practice.

Honoring a History of Collaborations among Early-Career & Leading Researchers

We were the first affinity group formally recognized by AAPOR (see p.332 in AAPOR history e-book released in 2020). Over the years, our affiliates have contributed in various collaborations, such as the 2021 AAPOR/WAPOR Task Force Report on Quality in Comparative Surveys, educational and professional development Webinars, and many memorable moments that involved creative group problem solving. We support collaborations because we believe that we can do it, we can do more, and we can do it together!

The Cross-Cultural & Multilingual Research affinity group is co-chaired by Mandy Sha, Patricia Goerman, and Alisú Schoua-Glusberg. Contact us at our website hosted by the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR).

Zhenjing Gloria Zhou

Theories such as Social Identity Theory (SIT) and Realistic Group Conflict Theory (RGCT) have been foundational in the study of intergroup relations. These frameworks help explain group-based prejudice, resource-driven conflict, and identity-based polarization. Yet, despite their theoretical elegance and empirical utility, these models often adopt a single-axis approach to identity—treating race, gender, or class as isolated variables. This simplification poses serious limitations for understanding how prejudice operates in the lives of individuals who occupy multiple marginalized identities, such as Black women, queer immigrants, or low-income transgender individuals. Intersectionality, originally developed in legal scholarship by Kimberle Crenshaw (1989), offers a critical methodological lens for addressing these shortcomings.

Rather than viewing identities as additive or mutually exclusive categories, intersectionality emphasizes how systems of oppression interact to produce unique forms of marginalization. From a research design standpoint, this perspective challenges the assumption that population subgroups can be analytically disaggregated without loss of meaning. It calls for methodological innovation that recognizes the compounded, non-linear ways in which discrimination manifests.

A closer inspection of SIT and RGCT reveals that both theories tend to privilege relatively homogenous identity categories—e.g., “women” or “Black people”—that overlook intra-group heterogeneity. SIT posits that group-based identification drives intergroup bias, but does not specify how group membership becomes salient when multiple identities intersect. RGCT, while grounded in material competition and threat perception, similarly falls short in accounting for how structural inequalities condition perceptions of threat differently across intersecting identities. In practice, this often leads to the exclusion of multiply marginalized individuals from both experimental samples and analytical models. Integrating intersectionality into intergroup theory necessitates a methodological shift.

One path forward is the intentional design of studies that conceptualize social groups not as static categories, but as relational and structurally embedded. For instance, survey experiments or vignette designs could manipulate intersectional cues—such as varying both racial and gendered attributes of a hypothetical target—to examine how respondents’ prejudice shifts in response. Multilevel modeling and interaction terms can help capture these dynamics statistically, but even more fundamentally, intersectionality invites researchers to reexamine the categories themselves: who gets to define “ingroup” and “outgroup,” and on what basis? This perspective also urges researchers to move beyond cognitive bias and incorporate power and social structure into explanations of prejudice. While social psychological theories have traditionally emphasized mental shortcuts and identity threats, an intersectional approach asks: Who benefits from group hierarchies? How do institutions reinforce selective group boundaries? What role does invisibility play in maintaining status quo biases in data collection and interpretation? The implications for public opinion and survey research are significant. Standard demographic questions—typically restricted to mutually exclusive boxes for race, gender, and sexuality—risk obscuring the very populations most vulnerable to discrimination. Moreover, when survey weights or subgroup analyses are conducted without attention to intersectional configurations, the resulting findings may reinforce dominant-group norms rather than illuminate marginal perspectives.

As the field moves toward more inclusive and equitable methodologies, intersectionality offers not just a critical framework, but a practical imperative. It challenges researchers to rethink how intergroup categories are constructed, operationalized, and interpreted. By doing so, it opens space for more nuanced understandings of prejudice and, crucially, for more targeted interventions. Theories that ignore intersecting identities risk mischaracterizing both the mechanisms and the targets of discrimination. By engaging with intersectionality as a methodological stance, public opinion researchers can better account for the complexity of lived experience—and, in turn, generate insights that are more empirically valid and socially meaningful.

Crenshaw, K. (2018). Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black feminist critique of
antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory, and antiracist politics [ 1989]. In Feminist Legal Theory (pp. 57–80). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429500480-5

Harry Xiao, Brandeis University, University of California, Berkley

In a second-grade Jewish day school classroom, a simple question—“Why does it say that?”—can open profound pathways to cultural understanding and self-expression. My current project explores how interpretative questioning functions as a culturally responsive pedagogy in heritage language education, helping young learners construct their cultural and religious identities through engagement with pasukim, or verses from the Hebrew Bible.

These students are not merely learning biblical Hebrew as a classical language; they are actively interpreting pasukim—concise, often poetic scriptural units—within the context of Jewish tradition. The learning of pasuk involves grappling with ancient grammar, layered meanings, and phrases that defy direct translation into English. This pedagogical space offers rich opportunities to explore how children relate to sacred texts and how interpretative acts foster identity development.

This study draws on classroom discourse data collected from the Student-Centered Religious Learning and Literacy Lab (SCRoLL Lab) led by Dr. Ziva R. Hassenfeld at Brandeis University. Situated within a heritage language learning framework, the research examines over 4000 utterances recorded over a three-month period in a second-grade classroom. The analysis was guided by grounded theory, focusing on interpretative questions and expressions of cultural identity, and was informed by theories of translanguaging (García & Wei, 2014), rabbinic textual traditions (Neusner, 1992), and heritage language learning (Valdés, 2001; Leeman, 2015).

Research Goals and Methodology

The project explores three central questions:

1. How does interpretative questioning support culturally responsive teaching in a heritage language classroom?
2. In what ways do students express or negotiate cultural or religious identities through engagement with biblical Hebrew?
3. How does interpretation of ambiguous or untranslatable pasukim prompt identity construction among heritage learners?

To address these, we coded classroom transcripts for interpretative questions and moments of identity expression using three categories:

• Identity Assertion: explicit claims of cultural belonging (e.g., “We’re Jewish”);
• Boundary Making: distinctions between insider and outsider perspectives (e.g., “They wouldn’t get it if they weren’t Jewish”);
• Cultural Positioning: reflective statements linking interpretation to tradition or personal connection (e.g., “I’m glad I can understand it like a Jew would”).

Findings and Cultural Voice

Preliminary findings suggest that interpretative questioning enabled culturally responsive teaching in three significant ways. First, it invited students to author their own understandings of pasukim, granting them interpretive authority. Second, it framed interpretation as a culturally embedded activity, highlighting the unique lens Jewish students bring to sacred texts. Third, it opened a space for students to voice what it means to belong to the Jewish tradition and engage with its texts meaningfully.

While explicit identity talk was less common than interpretative engagement, moments of cultural reflection emerged organically—especially during discussions of particularly difficult or emotionally resonant verses. These moments reveal that students were not only decoding texts but also locating themselves within them, using biblical Hebrew as a bridge to cultural self-understanding.

Implications for Culturally Responsive Education

My research aims to show that interpretative questioning is more than a pedagogical tool—it is a form of cultural dialogue. In heritage language classrooms, particularly those rooted in religious traditions, allowing students to ask and answer interpretative questions encourages them to see themselves as active participants in their cultural and textual inheritance.

For educators seeking to foster identity development in multilingual or religious contexts, this project underscores the importance of student-centered interpretation. When students are empowered to question sacred texts, they do more than learn—they become co-authors of their heritage and identity.

Dear Fellow AAPOR Members,

I am excited and energized to begin my tenure as AAPOR President. This year, our focus is on strengthening AAPOR’s foundation to ensure we’re well-positioned to support both our members and the broader profession for years to come. This work isn’t solely the responsibility of the Executive Council—it depends on the insights, experiences, and engagement of our entire membership.

As I shared in my opening letter with membership, here are several immediate priorities for this year’s Council—and a brief update on where we stand:

Executive Director Search – Our search is underway for AAPOR’s next Executive Director, led by a stellar Search Committee chaired by Jennifer Agiesta (AAPOR President 2023-2024). You may have seen the job posting—if not, I encourage you to review and share it widely. We are accepting applications through July 7 and look forward to identifying a leader who can build on the strong foundation laid by Tristanne Staudt. The job posting is here.

Financial Planning – Please join Secretary-Treasurer Tamara Terry and Development Subcommittee Chair Anna Wiencrot for a Virtual Town Hall on AAPOR’s finances. This is a valuable opportunity to learn more about the financial challenges we’re navigating and to gain a deeper understanding of AAPOR’s operations.
Wednesday, June 25, 12:00–1:00 PM ET. Free for members. Register here

Bylaw and Code Review – This summer, the Standards Committee and Councilor-at-Large will kick-off the scheduled review of our Bylaws and Code of Professional Ethics and Practices. We’ll share more about the timeline and opportunities for input in upcoming communications.

Governance Review – In partnership with Vista Cova, AAPOR has completed a series of interviews and focus groups examining our governance structure. The Governance Review Taskforce received preliminary recommendations in late May and will spend the summer considering changes to strengthen our processes. This will be a thoughtful, phased effort, with member input helping guide the way.
If you have questions about any of this foundational work, please don’t hesitate to reach out. There is a lot to do—but we’ve elected a Council that cares deeply about this organization and is ready to lead with purpose. I’m grateful to be working alongside Vice President Mary Losch, Past President Frauke Kreuter, and a Council full of dedicated, capable leaders who are committed to AAPOR’s long-term success.

Looking Ahead
AAPOR has always thrived because of the passion, curiosity, and commitment of its members. That spirit is as strong as ever—and it gives me tremendous confidence in our ability to navigate change and seize new opportunities.

Whether you’re volunteering, joining events, or just keeping up with what’s happening, your involvement makes a real difference. I hope you’ll stay connected and share your ideas along the way. AAPOR has given me so much over the years—community, mentorship, professional development, inspiration—and I’m excited to give back during this moment of growth and change. Together, we can continue advancing our mission: setting and advocating for high standards, supporting innovation through collaboration, and helping the world understand the value of the work we do.

Sincerely,
Jordon Peugh
AAPOR President, 2025-2026

Sometimes, it’s surprisingly easy to find the perfect words to describe a great experience. Other days, when you’re confronted with so many inspiring ideas and engaging conversions with talented people, you need a little time to let it all sink in before you can fully appreciate it and really put pen to paper. And then there’s the secret third option, where being unable to say No to a good BBQ dinner turns into being unable to say No to a beer and a country cover band… and then you have to start your writing a little later than planned.

My last day at AAPOR started early again. Though I didn’t attend the first session this time around (sorry y’all), the time was spent with so many new and familiar faces, simply mingling in the exhibitors hall. And then, when the time came for the next session, I was fully caffeinated and ready for Everyone Counts: Innovations For Leaving No Populations Behind, moderated by University of Michigan’s Brady West. First, Larry Danforth of Jefferson Community College took us back to a time of good ol’ pen and paper, demonstrating some eye-opening best practice take-aways when sampling and interviewing various hard to reach populations: sometimes you need to think about incentivizing your interviewers rather than your respondents. Nielsen’s Ryan Baer addressed the ever salient issue of dwindling response rates and made a compelling case for targeted reselects, using evidence from his research into audience media consumption. Vince Welch from NORC addresses the response rate issues in his vital research on veteran suicide prevention with a quasi experiment with variable monetary incentives, asking the question: what is the bigger motivator – the amount of incentive or the change itself? Beyond that, his work underscored the importance of qualitative work ahead of survey research to fully understand the salient issues of a population. Then, with the very clever use of a reoccurring graph in her presentation, Sunghee Lee from the University of Michigan thoroughly convinced me of the merits of adaptive response driven sampling for reaching elusive or stigmatized populations. The last presentation was a joint effort by Carsten Baumann from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and Thomas Brassell from ICF, which not only examined the impact of survey awareness initiatives on response rates from their ongoing research, but doubled as a convincing advertisement for the beautiful mountain state, with many slides decorated with scenic views in Colorado.

Time really flew by in this session. Speaking of incentivizing hard to reach populations, Brady coaxed even the most hesitant of student audience members (read: me) into asking their question during the Q&A with a cute ISR Population Studies Center themed pouch.

After a short dip to the aquarium where I marvelled at the arrowfish, got a T-shirt, and completely missed an entire tornado, I reconvened with colleagues to attend the business meeting and closing session for the first time, where we welcomed Jordon Peugh not only as the new AAPOR President but the third female president in a row!

And, just like that, AAPOR was over again.

They say you never forget your first AAPOR, and I agree to some extent, but there’s something uniquely meaningful about returning with a little more perspective and experience, even if it’s just one year’s worth. I’ve rarely had the privilege of being surrounded by so many inspiring and genuinely kind people, and I think I was able to appreciate that even more this time around.

At the risk of sounding kitschy, it feels like every presentation, every hallway conversation, every picture I took of a poster left me with something—a small stone, a shard of glass. Last year, I was content to simply marvel at the different colors and shapes in the palms of my hands.

This year, I begin to carefully pick up those pieces and to arrange them into a pattern that feels natural to me, and that’s something incredibly special and perhaps unique to the context of research. I hope this feeling resonates with others.

Thank you all so much for this experience. My gratitude goes out especially to Jackie Weisman and Ryan Green for once again giving me the privilege of sharing my impressions as a student AAPORite.

Greetings, fellow AAPOR members.

Last year, our conference chair, Gina Walejko, showed remarkable foresight when she chose the theme for this year’s conference: “Reshaping Democracy’s Oracle: Transforming Polls, Surveys, and the Measurement of Public Opinion in the Age of AI.” At the time, I was so deeply immersed in AI developments that I focused mostly on the last part of the title, “in the age of AI.” But with the developments over recent months, that has definitely changed.

As you can imagine, preparing my remarks has been challenging.

It has been challenging because I cannot help but think of the people who are not here because they lost their travel privileges. No matter how generous the AAPOR community was able to be with travel support, they had to stay put.

It has been challenging to think of those in our community who lost their jobs and, despite the newly created matchmaking and networking features, haven’t found their next employment yet.

It has been challenging because I anticipated—correctly—that this conference, thanks to all of you, would showcase a phenomenal wave of innovation. Today we are transforming polls, using surveys, leveraging data collection methods, and harnessing AI in ways we couldn’t have imagined a year ago.

So before I dive in, let me take a moment for a heartfelt shoutout — to all the AAPOR first-timers (384 of you), and to the AI start-ups who joined us this year: Thank you for daring to be here, for bringing fresh ideas, and for enriching our community.

And to the AAPOR regulars: Thank you for embracing this new wind — for welcoming new perspectives, new challenges, and new opportunities.

Now, I want to use this moment to share three thoughts with you — wrapped in what I like to call three five-minute tales. You’ll understand why in just a moment.

Tale 1: A personal reflection on change

Three years ago, just before AAPOR, my mother passed away. Two years ago, shortly before AAPOR again, my father passed away. On the day of his memorial service, I learned I had been elected Vice President of AAPOR. It was an emotional moment layered on top of another — and I remember thinking, “Well, maybe this new role will help me refocus — and hopefully, it will be filled with opportunity and joy.” Boy, was I wrong… and boy, was I right.

What followed are stories I’ll share today — in those five-minute tales. Why five minutes? At my father’s service, I gave my first-ever speech without slides. And, in a strange way, I found joy in the challenge of packing meaning into a short, spoken story. It even sparked the idea of journaling my work and life in five-minute reading packages — perhaps to publish someday.

Some of you might remember Laura Young, the student who wrote the beautiful AAPOR newsletter piece about last year’s AAPOR conference. She gave me some great writing tips — which helped a bit with this year’s newsletter entries — but I’m still chasing that habit of regular five-minute reflections. So here we are — off to a new start (and yes, already two minutes in).

Why begin with such a personal story — about loss, and about the challenge of making time to develop new habits? Because I believe many of us have faced something similar over these past years. And sharing these moments — relating to each other — is the first step in navigating stormy times together.

As Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson write in their new book Abundance: “It is hard to build trust without nearness.”

I like that sentence. That need for nearness — for connection — is exactly why we’re here, in person. The world around us is changing — technologically, societally — and whether we choose to embrace these changes or not, we are confronted by them. We must find ways to adapt. And I believe we can only do that together — by trusting each other, and by trusting that we all share a common goal: to ensure that valid, transparent data about behaviors, attitudes, and characteristics continue to empower informed decision-making in our society.

I am encouraged to see on the Census Bureau’s website the strong headline: “Measuring America’s People and Economy: We Believe in the Power of Quality Data to Impact Public Life.” We do! Thank you.

Tale 2: The rise of AI as partner or disruptor

When Gina and I brainstormed this year’s conference theme, AI quickly took center stage. How central it will become is still unfolding. But this week has made one thing clear: AI is no longer just a topic of discussion. It’s becoming a partner in many respects.

AI has become a partner in data collection. We have seen talks (e.g., the idea group led by Darby Steiger) showcasing how AI bots help conduct open-ended interviews.

AI has become a partner in coding, whether it’s open-ended responses or entire scripts. Not only is sentiment captured, but answers get classified into occupational coding schemes or types of diseases. It might even help us move beyond the straightjacket of closed-ended questions altogether.

And we are not the first to realize this. Interestingly, researchers in natural language processing (NLP) have discovered the survey arena as an application area — with very little to none of the survey methodology literature cited. Some of these efforts can help slash costs — if we focus on solving certain puzzles or developing leaner models. This is certainly something the idea groups on Tuesday, led by James Wagner, focused on.

AI could also eliminate nonresponse — after all, we can generate as many synthetic personas as we like.

But here is one of the most critical questions: Would AI solve nonresponse bias? So far, the answer is a clear no.

Just last month, at the International Conference on Learning Representation (ICLR) in Singapore –one of the top three Machine Learning Conferences with 10.000 attendees— a workshop on Bidirectional Human-AI Alignment asked: How do we ensure AI systems act in line with human intentions, ethics, and societal values? Or, in AAPOR terms: How do we make sure that AI-generated synthetic or imputed data genuinely reflect the world we live in — so that the statistics we produce remain valid and reliable?

This is the cutting edge of what’s now called data-centric AI. And as Danqi Chen, one of the keynote speakers at ICLR, put it: “Data quality isn’t a technical afterthought. It’s a critical pillar of AI development — too often overlooked.”

Here’s where I think we come in. The AAPOR community brings decades of expertise in evaluating data quality, in knowing that data collection is not just engineering — it’s a scientific craft.

Two opportunities stand out.

First, we could guide AI to understand how human values and opinions shift over time — not as static facts, but as evolving narratives across diverse populations. Think of the roughly 7 million variables from over 21,000 studies at ICPSR alone. Now imagine transforming that wealth of information into structured pre-training data.

Second — our studies could become benchmarks for AI. Why should LLMs be tested only on bar exams or math problems? Why not evaluate how well they grasp societal realities? The American Community Survey already does this through Folktables — now a go-to benchmark in AI research, cited in countless papers.

So let’s think bigger. Why shouldn’t AAPOR’s legacy—decades of expertise in measuring public opinion and understanding social behavior—help shape the next generation of AI models? This would involve not just using AI tools for surveys or data analysis, but also actively setting the standards for how AI should represent human attitudes and societal complexity. And think about the possibilities for a business pivot.

To think bigger, we need to do a few things.

Most immediately, we need to make the larger research community aware of the richness of our data treasures and the richness of our knowledge. After all, our deep knowledge allows us to evaluate the quality of such data (as we all know, not all of it is flawless). We are able to identify sampling and non-sampling errors in data collection – not only in surveys but also in data use for AI training and benchmarking.

Maybe we can even get the AI powerhouses to help us finance the so badly needed high-quality surveys that can also help with adjustments for nonprobability surveys and other data collection efforts in the citizen science space?

Tale 3: Adapting AAPOR to the next chapter

This involves moving back from AI to democracy’s oracle — and democracy itself.

In a democracy, we cherish that everyone has a voice. At AAPOR, we take that a step further — we ensure those voices are heard, by building the foundation that makes the invisible visible through rigorous data collection and interpretation. As Patricia Moy noted in her presidential address: For AAPOR, voice is both a privilege and an obligation.

But democracy also comes with a reality: Most votes win. AAPOR’s tradition is grounded in polls and surveys, helping news consumers, journalists, and youth understand the role public opinion plays in a democracy – not just with respect to elections, but also the significant issues we face daily. When we look around at today’s research landscape, dominated by computer science and AI, it’s clear that this AAPOR tradition is now the minority.

There are a lot of conferences where attendees present work related to what we do, which could mean we lose the next generation. Or, we can be proactive and decide to partner and offer joint workshops, like the aforementioned conference in Singapore, bridging ICLR and CHI (the human-computer interaction conference).

Why not AAPOR as the third partner?

Much potential exists on this front. Take, for example, the Conference on Language Modeling (COLM, not related to O’Muircheartaigh). COLM will meet this October in Montreal and just last week, they accepted a joint proposal submitted by Stephanie Eckman and other members of the AAPOR community as well as researchers from the NLP community. We will have two groups – one representing AAPOR and the other, the world of NLP – and they will run a workshop called … wait for it… “NLPOR” – “Natural Language in Public Opinion Research.”

What about continuing to bolster partnerships with WAPOR, with whom we held this year’s joint conference? As the US pulls back, there is a void in guidance to individual countries on how to get the best possible information out of a multitude of data collection modes and data streams. WAPOR and AAPOR will be needed partners for this.

And what about institutional partnerships? Could AAPOR become a strategic partner to Meta, Anthropic, Amazon, OpenAI — no pressure to anyone in the room, of course — not just as a data provider, but as a guardian of data quality and societal relevance?

Could these collaborations sustain the infrastructure we need — not just for today’s market needs, but for tomorrow’s AI systems that must be aligned with human values, ethics, and realities?

As AI changes the nature of what the AAPOR community intellectually engages in against this landscape, we need to ask ourselves key operational questions. For example, can we still afford journal articles that take two years to publish? Can we afford not to offer archival publications at our conferences, while other fields accelerate ahead? Can we afford conferences that price out the very people — students, startups, innovators — who will shape the next chapter?

In her upcoming term, Jordon Peugh be asking the question: Are our current structures within AAPOR – the roles we elect, the processes we follow — still fit for the future we face? We will be revisiting our executive committees, with the roles assigned to them, their subcommittees, and task forces to ensure that they best serve AAPOR.

Let’s be clear: Change is hard. Changing a culture is even harder. But we’ve already begun. Thanks to Tristanne Staudt’s leadership, and with Jordon ready to carry the torch forward, AAPOR is moving — not just reacting, but proactively reshaping itself. I want to sincerely thank everyone who is part of this effort to keep AAPOR nimble, open, and future-ready.

The losses I mentioned at the beginning of the talk have left me uprooted, and in great uncertainty. It takes time to find new footing. I suspect we as an association will experience that too. Figuring out new rules and new tools, and realizing that what worked yesterday might not work tomorrow is disorienting. But honestly, it’s also exciting.

Because we’re not standing on shifting ground alone. We’re standing together — with the chance to shape, to adapt, and to actively design the future of our field. So when we gather in 2035 for AAPOR’s 90th conference, I don’t think we’ll just look back and say, “We survived the changes.” I believe we’ll look around and say, “We led them.” Together.

Frauke Krauter
2024-2025 AAPOR President

Thank you to Laura Young for her reflections on the second day of the Annual Conference.

The second day of the AAPOR 80th Annual Conference started bright and early with a session far too exciting for an 8:30am time slot. Expertly organized and moderated by Rajesh Srinivasan from Gallup, five fascinating presentations treated all those who were able to get themselves out of bed and into Regency C to a look at trust, drugs, and conspiracies. An excellent and natural continuation of the topics discussed in yesterday’s joint plenary session, this panel bore the name Decreasing Trust and Increasing Partisanship: Attitudes towards Media, Brands, and Drugs.

Backed by an impressively international team racking their brains over the American public’s perceptions of online fact-checking and the conditions under which conspiracies arise, Timothy Gravelle from Vox Pop Labs started the session out with a bang. It was truly a tough act to follow, but University of Nebraska’s Patrick Habecker did not at all disappoint with compelling research on opposition in the Great Plains State toward overdose prevention sites and drug decriminalization. From Megan Brenan, we were treated to a smorgasbord of results from Gallup on American partisan confidence in traditional media.

This contribution was complemented beautifully by Pew Research Center’s Katerina Matsa, who illuminated news consumption and trust in the digital age, with an eye on social media in particular. Things got interactive with Samuel Jens and Jay Bachas-Lichtenstein from CNTI: they picked our brains (and of course their respondents’) to identify how news and journalism are understood by practitioners and the general public. One thing that I loved to see in this session was the synergy and appreciation for data providers and users among the panelists.

For the next session, I dipped into my hotel room. With an ironing board to prop my laptop up high and proud, I practiced for my own little AAPOR debut. 2pm rolled around way too fast, and I soon found myself sitting next to NEAAPOR Chapter Student Awardee Kyle Krell, who shared the dynamics and impacts of Don’t Know/No Opinion responses to non-policy survey questions. Teresa Garavente from ANR gave us some much-needed qualitative research representation, showcasing the use of Discovery Groups to examine attitudes towards AI. Following that qualitative trend in the presentations of the session, Mousami Sarkar from USAID shared insightful research on respondent recall using cognitive interviews. The session ended strong with ICF’s Kristin Dwan (of Welcoming Subcommittee fame!), who presented on the questionnaire development process in the context of studying the benefits and harms of cannabis use among adult cancer patients.

As for my own work, in all honesty I cannot fully recall how I felt in those fleeting moments when I was standing in front of the audience for the first time. But I do think I can at least attempt to articulate the gratitude and relief I felt when peering up again from the laptop and letting my eyes refocus to see a few familiar faces in the crowd. There is an incredible, supportive community in public opinion research, but that probably shouldn’t come as a surprise for a group that self-selects into a career centered around caring what people think.

This same genuine empathy and appreciation was palpable throughout the Awards Banquet at the end of the day. Each year, we are reminded of the sheer number of dedicated individuals who work tirelessly to not only put together an amazing annual conference but foster a committed community all year around. I couldn’t agree more with AAPOR Vice President Jordon Peugh, who highlighted our Conference Chair Gina Walejko’s contributions to making AAPOR a place to not only collaborate and innovate, but “cultivate a place where scholars, practitioners, and policymakers can come together to chart a path forward”.

Even among all the acknowledgements of fantastic achievements that are honored during the Awards Banquet, it is hard not to get especially emotional during the announcement for the AAPOR Award for Exceptionally Distinguished Achievement – the Association’s highest honor. Tonight, some of us newer AAPORites were introduced to Nora Cate Schaeffer for the very first time, but it was an incredibly powerful first impression. In the words of those who have the pleasure of being more acquainted with Nora Cate, she is described as an excellent example of what AAPOR stands for, being both an enormously curious, dedicated intellectual and also someone who is a generous, empathetic mentor.

In her video, Nora Cate explained what it was like to go to AAPOR and see the articles and textbooks she had read come to life with the real physical presence of their great authors. One of the most astounding things that I learned about Nora Cate tonight was her ability to perfectly encapsulate the wonder of experiencing AAPOR as a young scholar, even long after she firmly established herself as one of the giants upon whose shoulders we wish to stand.

Thank you to Laura Young for her reflection on the first day of the Annual Conference.

“Before we start, I have one little organizational matter: this session is for questionnaire design lovers only.”

The tone for my first day back at this year’s AAPOR was set by the charismatic Danny Goldstein, moderator of the session on Question Order and Placement and Formatting. Needless to say, after an energizing fun run (or breathless jog, in my case), I was already pumped for my first 9am session within the first minute. Adam Kaderabek was up first, presenting the promises and pitfalls of complex grid structures in mail surveys with regards to skip patterns. He was followed by PhD candidate Çağla Yildiz, who dazzled with a natural experiment on plausible and implausible straightlining using GESIS panel data. Then, utilizing data from sixteen countries, Rona Hu impressed with a novel seemingly unrelated regression analysis on the effects of using “Select All That Apply” versus Yes/No question formats. The presentations ended strongly with Allyson Holbrook’s research on how response format and mode are associated with response order effects, which also made use of an experiment in Gallup survey. Down to the last second of the session, the audience engaged our speakers in the Q&A: How do we properly compare surveys with different formats? What do we consolidate the tradeoff between a reducing respondent’s cognitive burden and the many, many other requirements that a survey must fulfill? Right out of the gate, the AAPORites were thirsty for knowledge.

This engaged energy was only matched by the joint WAPOR/AAPOR opening plenary session. Moderated by Washington Post’s Scott Clement, this session examined how polls performed and informed during the 2024 election. Each of the distinguished speakers brought a distinct perspective and insight to the panel that made for a whirlwind experience that ended much too soon. Right away, University of Michigan’s Josh Pasek was quick to point out the elephant (donkey?) in the room: the 2024 election polls revealed a continued bias toward democrats. Our polls simply aren’t able to reach certain republicans, particularly if they indicate uncertainty in their voting preferences prior to elections. Brent Buchanan of Cygnal highlighted more important take-aways from this last election cycle: there are interesting differences in bipartisan voting behavior according to campaign spending and information flow. University De Montreal’s Claire Durand pointed out the highly fluctuating, inflated polling landscape in the US compared to Europe and Canada, and how this might contribute to both a greater variance in overall predictions, as well as a decrease in public trust in polling. As Becca Siegel, former senior adviser for Harris for President aptly put: polling easily identified where we have problems this past year; the difficulty is figuring out how to solve them.

Just after the plenary session, I dove into the main hall for the posters – one of my personal favorite parts of any conference! It was such a delight to catch a glimpse of so many different, fascinating projects. Among my favorites were two University of Michigan students: Chelsea Waddell’s research on public perceptions of traffic stops across race and gender, and Deji Suolang’s poster on how to handle missing contextual data in large-scale assessments. Meanwhile, Alexander Tripp from Vanderbilt University gave us surprising insights into the way local public opinion changes with exposure to immigration. Last but certainly not least, MARTA’s Alec Biehl and Chris Wyczalkowski got hands-on with five different survey forms that they used to assess transit rider experience. The poster session was packed, and while I only managed to speak with a few presenters, the entire hall was full of impressive, thoughtful work. I wish I had time to explore more, but it was so inspiring to see every single contribution acknowledged and valued with so many curious visitors.

My brain is buzzing from the first day – from all the casual hallway conversations and the motivation-method-results of formal talks. This is only my second time attending AAPOR, but it’s clear to me that this conference is so much more than an enthusiastic exchange of public opinion experts. It’s also a place where you reconnect with the friends you only see once a year (Hi Sunny!). And it’s a place where you realize too late in the Longitudinal Leisure Study Session that your PI is actually really, really good at poker.

Welcome back, AAPOR. I missed you.

Dear AAPOR Colleagues,

First and foremost, I want to express my gratitude. Thank you for the dedication you bring to our field, for the care you extend to one another, and for continuing to uphold the high standards of research, methodology, and ethics that define AAPOR.

I also want to acknowledge the very real challenges that many of our members are facing. Contracts have been frozen or ended, programs have been discontinued, and some are experiencing furloughs or layoffs. These are difficult times, and I want to extend my deepest sympathies to those affected.

As statisticians, we embrace variance—it is at the heart of what we do. This month, in particular, we recognize the variation within our membership: in career paths, disciplines, methods, and perspectives. Preserving this diversity has always been a core value of AAPOR, and it is never the wrong time to remember our mission.

As a diverse community of scholars and practitioners, AAPOR sets and advocates for high standards and best practices to pursue our vision. We encourage inclusive, interdisciplinary collaboration to fuel innovation. We champion and clearly articulate the significance of sound work in our field to ensure its value is understood widely.

While we will find ways for those unable to attend our conference to share their work, I hope that employers who cannot fund their usual number of attendees will allow their employees to take advantage of the generous funds AAPOR and its members are providing by giving them the professional development time needed to attend the conference.   Collectively, let’s ensure that as many of us as possible can attend AAPOR 2025.

In the coming weeks, we will spotlight the remarkable innovation emerging within our field and showcased at the conference. The pressures we face are financial and technological, driving rapid changes in how we collect, analyze, and interpret data. As we navigate this evolving landscape, coming together as a community is more important than ever.

Change is inevitable, and the uncertainty of what lies ahead is real. Yet, amid this ambiguity, there is also opportunity. The absence of clear plans for ensuring that valid and transparent data about behaviors, attitudes, and characteristics continue to inform societal decision-making means that our community has the chance to lead. We can step up to shape these plans, define best practices, and provide guidance on the new paths forward.

This is what AAPOR has always done—advocating for rigorous, ethical, and transparent methods while adapting to the shifting landscape of public opinion research. Now, more than ever, we must harness our collective expertise to ensure that our field remains a trusted cornerstone of informed decision-making.

Thank you for being part of this community. Your work, your insights, and your resilience are what make AAPOR strong.

Sincerely,