• Peter Lynn – Institute for Social and Economic Research, University of Essex
• Beccy Shipman – ESRC
• Steven McEachern – UK Data Service
• Bobby Duffy – Policy Institute
• King’s College London
• Kylie Lovell – Department for Business and Trade
• Ailie Clarkson – Scottish Government
• James Benford – ONS
• Olga Maslovskaya – University of Southampton
• Jennet Woolford – ONS
• Ed Dunn – SRA
• Ben Humberstone – Verian
• Michael Davis – NatCen
• Catrin Awoyemi – Welsh Government
• Samantha Clemens – IPSOS
• Gerry Nicolaas – NatCen

Apologies

• Nicola Fisher – NISRA
• Debrah Harding – MRS

1. Welcome and introductions

1. Welcome and introductions facilitated by the chair.
2. The importance of the forum, strategic problems facing the sector, and collective challenges were highlighted, including what success looks like.
3. An update was provided on ONS National Statistician recruitment along.
4. James Benford articulated ONS’ strategic support for the new forum and provided his perspective on the challenges and opportunities facing the social surveys sector.

2. Presentation by NatCen: What Happens When Surveys Fall Silent? The Democratic Risk We Can’t Ignore

1. Social surveys were positioned as a vital pillar of democratic society, with a long‑standing role in informing public understanding and decision‑
2. Declining participation and trust were highlighted as part of wider societal disengagement, rather than a challenge unique to surveys.
3. Risks were noted around the political use and misuse of survey data, where poor quality can erode trust, fuel misleading media narratives, and reinforce perceptions of fragility.
4. The potential for survey data to influence or disrupt political decision‑making underlined the importance of robust quality assurance.
5. Strategic threats to the sector include falling response rates, perceptions of surveys as low value, rising costs and operational pressures, and competition from faster, cheaper data sources seen as more “real.”
6. The need for collective action was emphasised to strengthen and sustain social survey infrastructure as essential societal “knowledge infrastructure.”
7. Priorities include continuing innovation (e.g. Survey Futures), improving understanding among journalists and MPs of survey quality and bias, and ensuring outputs remain methodologically robust.
8. Greater effort is needed to promote the value of social surveys, widen reach, present findings more accessibly, and challenge high profile but less rigorous surveys.

3. Discussion Points

1. There is broad agreement on the core problem statement: social surveys are under growing threat from declining trust, shifting data behaviours, technological disruption (including AI and synthetic data), and structural pressures such as falling response rates and rising costs.
2. Trust sits at the heart of the challenge, spanning data quality, methodology, transparency, and how survey outputs are amplified and interpreted by media and political institutions. Perception issues exist at both the “top” and “bottom” of the market, and poor-quality or opaque surveys pose a reputational risk to the whole ecosystem.
3. Technology presents both opportunity and risk. AI, online collection methods, access panels and synthetic data introduce challenges around respondent authenticity, data integrity, and societal impact, requiring clear frameworks for assessing quality and responsibility.
4. The sector cannot influence everything, particularly the “middle layer” of media, politics and amplification, so the Forum needs to be realistic about where it has control versus influence. Clarity is needed on the Forum’s remit and niche within an increasingly crowded data landscape.
5. A strong collective focus is required, rather than fragmented activity. Members agreed on the need for a single, clear threat statement to align efforts and avoid inaction driven by the scale of the problem.
6. Foundations must be strengthened first, including the social survey infrastructure, quality standards, and shared understanding of value decision makers for random sampling and high-quality evidence relative to lower cost alternatives).
7. Education and advocacy are essential but cannot be done alone. There is a need to better educate journalists, parliamentarians and other decisionmakers, potentially with support from external influencers, and to be clearer about who is responsible for calling out low-quality, polarising or synthetic surveys.
8. Improving accessibility and dissemination matters, with greater emphasis on digital delivery, new platforms (e.g. WhatsApp, social media), and helping users understand how to interpret and use survey data effectively.

4. Areas of Agreement and Next Steps

1. Agreement to establish two working groups to support delivery of the Forum’s objectives:
   1. Threat Statement Working Group
   2. System Map Working Group
2. Meetings will be held on a quarterly basis, with the host location rotating between member organisations.
3. Attendees committed to attending in-person meetings, which will be scheduled for a duration of two hours.

5. Actions

1. Create a single threat statement for focus – Working Group 1
2. Share information about this and the briefing document – GN / BD / Working Group 2
3. Create 2 artefacts to support Forum’s objectives: Threat statement and System map – Working Groups
4. Share a write out post meeting to create working groups and ask for a lead of each group – AL
5. Set up next meeting in 3 months – AL
6. who is focusing on the other elements of the system? – AL