Capítulo 3. Etapa: Medir
3.7 Tipos de Distribuciones
The data was collected using a BBC Any Questions and Question Time style public debate format as described above (Chapter 6.2.1). The format comprised a selected panel of experts with differing backgrounds and a chairperson. The desired panel comprised a diversity of opinions on carbon capture technologies to avoid too great a tendency for bias. On arrival the audience were requested to complete the first simple questionnaire (Fig. 6.1) as explained by an accompanying information leaflet and by instructions on the event title slide projected at the rear of the theatre.
Audience members were asked to place the completed questionnaire in a sealed envelope for the remainder of the event.
162 The event began by the chair introducing and explaining the rationale and context behind the debate. The chair also introduced the members of the panel, who spoke briefly to give their background and opinions of CCS. The debate started with the chair inviting questions from the audience and directing them to specific members of the panel. The chair was responsible for ensuring each panel member received a relatively equal share of speaking time for balance and to keep the event moving.
To promote debate, three known attendees were asked prior to the event to come prepared with questions should no other audience members raise their hands, although in the event this was not required. After one hour of debate, the chairman drew the proceedings to a close by inviting the audience to open the second sealed envelope and complete a second questionnaire before placing it in another sealed envelope. Both envelopes from the debate were kept together and handed in at the exit.
Following the event, envelopes containing the 1st and 2nd questionnaires were opened and answers inputted into a spread sheet to facilitate direct comparisons between answers. The results were grouped in ranges for both gender and age to compare whether differing sociological groups responded differently. Statistical analysis of the results was used to identify whether open dialogue causes the respondents to change their perceptions, and if so in what manner. Further analysis was undertaken with direct comparison with published comparable studies to examine whether there is any correlation between changes of opinion from informed decision making.
163 The whole event was professionally filmed with sound recorded directly from microphones to ensure a high quality recording. These were used to review the event in subsequent analysis to evaluate both the covered topics and answers and other details that might have been missed on the day.
The use of a public debate and targeted questionnaire for this study over random mailshot questionnaires presented control and neutrality challenges. However, the set of questionnaires collected before and after the debate offered the opportunity to examine the differences in answers between the survey population, rather than just examining data collected from random unrelated sources. The audience were directed to complete each questionnaire at a specific time before the debate started and at the close of the event. This ensures that the responses were either un-‐informed based upon the respondents baseline knowledge prior to the event, or informed based upon the respondents knowledge at the end of the debate and including the information they had received as a result.
Expanding upon the comments of de Best-‐Waldhober and Daamen (2006) on the reliability of random surveys, this study offers an interesting comparison as to whether the informed decision making process via open social dialogue produces different results from both the uninformed* and informed random questionnaires that she states are changeable based upon the mood of the respondent in the absence of un-‐scientific and relevant information.
* An uninformed questionnaire comprises a survey where questions are posed with no accompanying information to guide the respondent. Informed choice questionnaires offer extra information specific to the topic or question being investigated to aid the respondent in making an ‘informed’ decision (de Best-Waldhober and Daamen, 2006).
164 The questionnaire was designed around the basic principle that it is a measure of opinion around four key areas of:
• Mitigating Climate Change
• Security of energy supply
• Risk
• Economic and social benefits to the North East of England.
The questionnaire (
Fig. 6.1) was designed to be simple and straightforward and be possible to complete in less than two minutes. In order to do this a numerical scale was utilised for answers rather than time consuming written responses. The wording of the questionnaire was designed to be neutral and therefore not lead or suggest any particular answers.
Questions 1 and 2 of both questionnaires were to establish the gender and age range. These were included to allow social grouping of respondents in subsequent analysis. Question 3 asked the respondents to rank their degree of knowledge of CCS on a linear numerical scale between 1 and 5 where 1 stood for no knowledge, and 5 stood for extremely knowledgeable.
Question 4 of the first questionnaire was split into 3 parts focusing on the respondents’ perceived role of CCS in the mitigation of the effects of climate change, securing the future energy supply and making a positive contribution to the local economy. The responses were measured on a numerical scale of 1 to 5 where 1 represented not at all important, and 5 represented extremely important.
165 Question 5 took this a step further by examining the respondents’ perception on the suitability of CCS for local implementation. This again was measured on a numerical scale of 1 to 5 where 1 stood for not at all suitable and 5 stood for extremely suitable.
Question 6 of questionnaire 1 represented the only written answer on the questionnaire and examined the perception of both risk and benefits of the technology. It was deemed that due to the variety in potential answers, a multiple choice question with numerical answers was unsuitable in that it would lead the respondent to a particular answer rather than allowing free thought.
Fig. 6.1: Example of questionnaires 1 and 2, as distributed to the audience for the debate
166 Questionnaire 2 mostly mirrored the questions posed in questionnaire 1. However, the purpose of the questions was to examine the respondents’ perceptions DUE to the information they had gained. Thus the questions were worded extra carefully, e.g. ‘Following this event, how suitable...’ and ‘Please state below what you NOW think...’ An additional question was added to questionnaire 2 (question 6) directly examining whether or not the respondents’ perception of CCS had changed as a result of the information they had received, and whether this change was more negative or positive. It was subsequently considered that this question could have been improved by requesting a measure of the magnitude of any perceived change.
However at the time it was considered that this would overly increase the length and complexity of the questionnaire.