Reading the public mind: a novel approach to improving the adoption of new science and technology
N. I. Fisher A D , J. H. J. Cribb B and A. J. Peacock CA School of Mathematics & Statistics, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.
B University of Technology, Sydney, NSW 2000, Australia.
C Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre, University of Canberra, ACT 2617, Australia.
D Corresponding author. Email: nickf@maths.usyd.edu.au
Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 47(11) 1262-1271 https://doi.org/10.1071/EA07004
Submitted: 5 January 2007 Accepted: 17 July 2007 Published: 18 October 2007
Abstract
This paper describes a new approach to measuring and monitoring the quality of dialogue between research groups and the wider community about specific scientific matters. It is an adaptation of a proven marketing process for monitoring customer satisfaction: key drivers of community perception are elicited and measured, so that managers can respond to the issues that are most important to the community, rather than relying on their own perceptions. One important benefit of the approach is that the method provides a means of linking an overall score for the community’s perceived value of a research project to an important business driver such as ‘percentage of people very willing to support deployment of the research results’. The method is illustrated by a case study exploring the views of the Australian public about research into genetic manipulation for pest mouse control. For the population surveyed (the community in New South Wales, Australia), some 40% were very willing to support the use of genetic manipulation to manage pest mice. If an increase of 1.5 in the score for the perceived value of a research project (measured on a scale from 1 to 10) were achieved, the prediction is that overall community support for eventual deployment would rise to about 80%. The approach would appear to have a useful role to play in assisting eventual technology adoption.
Additional keywords: community value survey, science communication.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to Martin O’Shannessy (Illawarra Regional Information Service) for his generous cooperation in acquiring survey data and Professor David Steel (University of Wollongong) for helpful discussions about technical aspects of telephone surveys.
Crawford M, Goss K
(2005) Preface: salinity Solutions – working with science and society. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 45(11), i.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[Verified 7 August 2007]
Wynne B
(2006) Public Engagement as a means of restoring public trust: hitting the notes but missing the music? Community Genetics 9, 211–220.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |
Appendix 1. Focus groups and conduct of survey
A1. Selection and conduct of focus groups
Detailed discussion of the purpose of the focus groups in developing value surveys can be found in Kordupleski and Simpson (2003). Here, we provide some specifics for the pest mice project.
The initial discussion with experts was used to generate an initial list of attributes for each driver, that is, a list of the most important factors that the experts believed contributed to the community’s overall satisfaction about a particular driver. The material obtained provides input to the conduct of the focus groups held in the community. Budgetary considerations meant that two focus groups could be conducted in each of two locations in NSW, Australia, with a follow-up focus group to test the wording of the survey instrument. It was the advice of the experts that the locations should be in a city and in a regional centre near to a wheat farming community. Sydney and Albury were selected for the purpose. A professional agency was contracted to organise the focus groups. The criteria provided included 10–12 people per focus group, allowance for the demographic factors, age, gender, occupation and educational level.
Participants were given an initial briefing about the general issue of pest mice and the line of research being pursued, after which there was a short general discussion. Following this, a facilitated process was followed to elicit what they thought the community would see as benefits of the research and possible areas of concern. Material obtained from the earlier discussion with experts was tested during this phase. Multi-voting was used to summarise the resulting data.
A2. Development of preliminary survey instrument
The provisional lists of attributes of benefits and concerns were then turned into provisional statements in a draft survey (cf. Step 1.2 in the main text). These statements were then tested for clarity of interpretation in a final focus group in Sydney together with some introductory text explaining the purpose of the survey. Overall, some 51 people participated in the five focus groups.
A3. Fine tuning of survey instrument
There is no guarantee that someone listening to information on a telephone will comprehend material as well as someone sitting in a focus group. We embarked on a series of three small pilot telephone surveys totalling about 420 respondents to validate (using statistical analysis) the adequacy of the provisional sets of attributes and drivers as predictors and to improve the wording in the survey instrument. Statistical analysis of the first few pilot surveys indicated that the model fits were not satisfactory, which appeared to be due at least in part, to respondents not understanding what was being asked or why. The company contracted to conduct the telephone research also monitored the performance of its CATI operators to decide who were best at conducting the interviews.
The final versions of the introduction and the survey statements are reproduced below. IRIS used standard random dialling sampling practices to obtain samples or respondents balanced for the key demographic variables selected by the expert group.
Details of survey
The introduction (for respondents living in cities; slightly modified for regional and rural communities in NSW) of the survey is as follows:
You may be aware that plagues of non-native mice occur in Australia about once every three years. Each plague costs the Australian community about $125 million in damage to crops. Groups working to solve this problem are the Research Centre for Pest Animal Control, the CSIRO and several Australian universities. These groups have found that it is possible to produce a genetically modified version of a harmless mouse virus that controls mouse plagues by preventing female mice from having babies. This is a world-first scientific breakthrough and research is now under way to make sure the virus is safe for all other animals and that it will work under real world conditions. The reason for this survey is to get people’s views about the benefits of using a virus like this to control plagues of mice and to find if you have any concerns about the approach. There are two main parts to the survey. First I will read out several possible benefits and ask you to rate how you think the proposed method will perform in providing that benefit and we will ask about any concerns you may have later in the survey.
We will use a scale of 1–10 where 1 means ‘poor’ and 10 means ‘excellent’. [‘Don’t know’ was provided as an option.]
(1.1) Benefits to farming families such as better incomes and improved health and welfare.
(1.2) Economic benefits to the whole Australian community such as cheaper food prices and better export income.
(1.3) Environmental benefits such as less competition for native animals and plants.
(1.4) Enhancing Australia’s international image through cleaner grain exports and recognition of our scientific expertise.
(1.5) Health and welfare benefits to average Australians through cleaner homes and food and fewer diseases carried by mice.
(1.6) A more humane approach than poison as the mouse is not killed or hurt.
Given your responses on these potential benefits, how do you rate the benefits of the proposed viral control method overall?
What was the main reason you gave it?
Now we move into the second main part of the survey. In this part, I will read out several possible areas of concern and ask you to tell me whether or not you are concerned about the issue I read out using a 10-point scale. In this scale, a score of 1 means that you are very concerned about the issue and a score of 10 means that you are personally unconcerned. Remember we are just after your opinion. Here is the first possible concern.
(2.1) The possibility that the virus might affect other animals or humans by mutating or jumping species or through misuse.
(2.2) The possibility that the virus could get into the food supply.
(2.3) Whether scientists, Government and business involved will keep the Australian community informed.
(2.4) Whether the costs of developing and using the approach will outweigh the benefits.
(2.5) Possible negative impacts on the environment especially native plants and animals.
(2.6) The impact of using a genetically modified organism on Australia’s international image.
(2.7) The possibility of trade bans from other countries because we are using a genetically modified organism.
Given your responses on these concerns, how would you rate your level of concern overall in relation to this proposal? A score of 1 is not concerned at all and a score of 10 is very concerned.
What was the main reason you gave it that rating?
(3.1) Taking account of the benefits and the concerns, on a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is not worthwhile and 10 is very worthwhile, please rate this as being a worthwhile research project.
(4.1) On a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is not at all willing, and 10 is very willing, please rate your willingness to support the use of this method for control of mice.
(4.2) On a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is not at all willing, and 10 is very willing, please rate your willingness to support research into viral methods for control of other pests such as rabbits and foxes.
(4.3) On a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is not important, and 10 is very important, please rate how important it is for the community to be consulted on research like this.
