Clarifying the results of a survey targeting individuals born abroad.
The results from one of our previous studies have in some contexts been misinterpreted and given an incorrect meaning. Here, we want to clarify what the results showed and provide an accurate picture to prevent further misunderstandings.
A few years ago, we at Novus conducted a study commissioned by one of our clients, which contained a variety of questions such as views on Sweden and other countries, political issues such as NATO membership, which party they planned to vote for in the parliamentary elections, or whether stricter penalties should be introduced for crimes in Sweden. The survey targeted people born abroad and included, among other things, a question about whether they had visited their country of birth after moving to Sweden. The result showed that 86% of respondents had visited their home country at some point after moving to Sweden.
The study has recently received renewed media attention, where the target group has in some cases been described in a way that does not correspond to our data. Our panel is a representative sample of the Swedish population, and for the aforementioned study, the target group consisted of foreign-born individuals.
The study surveyed people who immigrated to Sweden for various reasons, often several decades ago. A common statement referring to the study is that the proportion who came to Sweden as refugees and later vacationed in their home country was 79%. What is not clear in the texts is the proportion of foreign-born individuals who moved here for reasons of refuge. Of the foreign-born target group, a total of 18% came to Sweden as refugees. 4% of these came to Sweden between 2010–2022, with the remainder having moved here before then (the study was conducted in 2022).
Novus can conduct studies targeted specifically at, for example, newly arrived refugees, but this was not the target group in this study. This study was aimed at everyone in Sweden who was born abroad.
We are writing this to try to create clarity regarding the misinterpretations that have been spread about the result. We have observed instances where the data has been used in analyses that do not align with the conclusions we at Novus contributed to.
Ensuring the correct use of statistics is crucial for a nuanced and fair discussion, and we hope that this clarification helps to avoid further misunderstandings.
Here you can also listen to an episode from the BBC podcast More or Less: Behind the Stats, where they get to the bottom of how the study has been misinterpreted:
Further reading
