Yes - But what did they Really Say?

8/7/2019 Yes - But what did they Really Say?

1/9

Yes But What Did They Really Say? Mosquito Productions 2011

Yes, but what did they really say?A Social Research Study for the Groundswell ProjectRosemary Crane, March 2011

mosquito productions48 Bingley Way Wamboin NSW0488 200 636


2/9


Yes - But What Did They Really Say?A Social Research Study for the Groundswell Project

1. Scope

The purpose of this research is to explore the effectiveness of the information, toolsand motivators used in the Groundswell trial to get people to source separate theirwaste.

2.Background

The Groundswell project was trialed in four council areas during the period 2008 toearly 2011. Full implementation of the program including the City to Soil collectionService was achieved in the Lachlan Shire and in Goulburn/Mulwarree with thescheme being active for a period of 34 months in the Condobolin and Goulburn areaat the time of interview.

3. Method

3.1 A camera crew travelled to both Condobolin and Goulburn to speak to andrecord conversations with residents who were actively engaged in separating theirwaste. The intent was to cover the topics outlined in the scope of the research in away that allowed people to respond in their own words. These comments were thenedited into a video clip to be uploaded onto the web to allow easy assess byinterested parties.

By adopting this approach we are able provide credible and rich content in relationto the topic. This method presents material directly as the respondents havedelivered it. By nature this approach includes the information that becomes hiddenin methodologies where response choices are limited (e.g. closed questionquestionnaire) and language, verbal and nonverbal content is lost.

The value inhearing from people directly and seeing them when they speak is thatwe can assess their response using all of the following information;

Language we hear people speaking in their own words in response to thetopic. The choice of words that people use and the sequence in which theylink ideas can give us insight into the connections that they make and theirthought process regarding the topic.

Voice Cues - such as volume, intonation, emphasis, rate and pitch.


3/9


Vocalizations - such as grunts, laughs, uh has, etc

Facial cues that reflect the attitude of the respondent such as enthusiastic,ambivalent, bored, interested etc as well as facial cues that convey a

particular response e.g. surprise (I didnt know about that)

Gestures While the camera framing for the interviews is generally head andshoulders, upper body gestures will still be apparent

Context the age (approximate), gender and setting in which the conversationtakes place. Even clothing worn by the respondents can also give us contextfor our understanding of the response. (Businessperson, rebel, etc)

This represents all the information that we unconsciously take on board in theeveryday process of communication. By keeping this intact and packaging it for the

web we are able to bring together those with a direct experience of the Groundswellproject and those who are interested in the communitys experience of Groundswell.

3.2 Choosing the respondents

Two methods of selecting respondents were used.

In Condobolin the community was invited to participate and were therefore selfselecting. Some door knocking was also done for the interviews.

In Goulburn the team set up in the main street during lunch hour and respondentswere selected at random. As one interview finished the next passers by wereapproached and asked to participate.

3.3 The Questions

Questions were worded to encourage people to speak about the topic withminimum interruption or prompting from the interviewer. This allows us to seehow people have put this experience together in their own mind and also gives uscontent that works in video form. Answers to closed questions i.e. good, bad, yes,no do not work well as video content.


4/9


Questions were also framed in a way that encouraged people to talk broadly abouttheir experience of the project and perhaps offer insights that had not beenconsidered by the research team.

The wording of questions varied over the course of the research as we learned what

worked best to encourage people to talk freely on the topic. Questions sometimesvaried from person to person as individuals respond differently to differentwording.

Questions were asked with a tone of curiosity to convey that there was no right orwrong answer to encourage people to talk.

A sample list of the questions used is listed at attachment A.

4.The Results

Results in this report should be read in conjunction with video material available atwww.goundswellproject.blogspot.com.au

4.1 Information about Groundswell

Questions that relate directly to this component include;

How did you become aware of the city to Soil Program?What were your impressions at that time?

What made you decide to give it a go?Tell me about getting started with it at your house?

What would you say to other councils that might be considering this?

These questions were designed to test the efficacy of the information material inaction. Rather than ask for subjective comment on the quality of the informationitself we were looking for evidence of understanding of the overall program as wellas understanding about how to participate.

When asked how did you find out about it? respondents nominated either - a letterin the mail, the arrival of the bins and bags or newspaper articles and advertising.

Getting a notice in the mail and getting our bin and I thought it was a greatideaLetter then binsThrough the paper and then through the shire

It was basically delivered to the door


5/9


Respondents reflected an air of ease regarding the introduction. No respondentsexpressed any confusion about the program during its introduction despite havingto absorb information about a new concept and its aims, instructions for use andchanges to existing waste collection services. The theme easy and convenientemerges repeatedly.

Respondents volunteered information to explain how they used the system withintheir homes. This use was consistent with the program. On one occasion therespondent had used her knowledge learned from the instructions to put the bags toother uses i.e. sending them to her daughter in Sydney to use in her worm farm

In opening questions How did you find out about it and what did you think of it?many respondents reflected a strong link in their thinking about the program to anenvironmental outcome. Words such as recycling come up despite not being usedin the questions.

On one occasion where a respondent says that she asked her husband to explain theprogram (see video clip), the respondent is clinically blind. While this did notpresent any difficulties in this case, arrangements for introducing information tosight impaired people may require consideration.

4.2 The Tools

Questions that relate to this component include

What were your impressions at that time? (Introduction period)

How do you find it to use?What about the bags and the bins what are they like to use? Is thereanything you would change about them?What would you say to other councils who might want to give it a go?

As well as the questions the research team also recorded a community member asshe shows us how she uses the bin in her home. (See video clip)

The consistent response to questions regarding use of the tools/ system in the homewas that it was easy and convenient. This is clearly evident in the voice tone aswell as the language on many of the recordings and there is no hesitation between

the question and the response, also indicating confidence.

Its convenient theres no hassles whatsoever - you just put your greenwaste in the little basket they supply in the recyclable bags and there is nohassle whatsoever.

When asked more specifically about the bins and bags, good was the most frequentanswer, along with no to any suggestions for improvements. These responses were


6/9


consistently single word answers and so not considered worthwhile for inclusion inthe edited video clip.

On one occasion a respondent indicated that they needed a bigger bin. On furtherquestioning they said that they thought this was different for them because they had

a large family.

One respondent reported the lid hinge on the basket had broken.

The cornstarch bags proved very popular with two respondents passing them on tofriends outside the area to use in their home composting and a further two usingthem in their home composting rather than the collection system.

Additional benefits directly related to the tools related to reduced odor and pests.

It keeps the flies away and doesnt attract cockroaches to the bench top

cause its in nicely sealed bags

It works really good. Its better than what we had before the garbagedoesnt stink like it normally used too

4.3 The Motivators

Questions that relate to this component include

What made you decide to give it a go?What would you say to other councils that are considering it?

The six motivators identified by the Groundswell project were to;Win prizesImprove agricultural soilsHelp address climate changeSupport local farmersReduce waste costs

Reduce waste to landfill

In the course of the interviews four of the six motivators were identifiedunprompted.

Help the environmentPeople have just realized that we have to do something to help somethingto help the environment


7/9


Anything that gets rid of waste its helping global warming

Winning prizes was not identified as a motivator for participating even when weinterviewed known winners. Further investigation would be required to determinethe role that prizes might play in quality control and maintaining interest over time.

Additional motivators for participation were convenience, reduced odor and pestsat home and the novelty value of something new.

Novelty as a motivator showed up in both locations but particularly in Condobolin.The fact that this shows up as a positive motivator rather than negative (resistanceto change) may indicate the ease with which people are able to pick up theinformation and use the tools.

People who liked the idea of composting but were unable to compost at homenominated this as their primary motivator for adopting the program. This may have

implications for the design for materials targeted at sites in high-density living areaswhere this situation may come up more frequently.

Im too busy to compost at homeBecause I was not allowed to have a compost heap in the

garden

While community members did not nominate reduced waste cost as a motivator, itrated very highly in discussions with council staff and is an important motivator forparticipation at this level. Communicating this benefit at the community level maypresent problems as savings in one area of a council budget may be absorbedelsewhere and therefore not be apparent to the individual. Reduced waste to landfillhowever was understood and was a motivating factor.

5. Conclusion

The information, tools and motivators have been fit for purpose in achievingcommunity cooperation for source separation of waste as part of the Groundswellproject. Change to this way of handling waste at the household level has beenperceived as easy and convenient and has had the added benefit of giving people a

sense that they are contributing to environmental outcomes in a positive way.

The successes of these separate elements are interdependent, i.e. all have to be welldesigned for any of them to work. In the participants mind there is no separationbetween the information, the tools or their reasons for participating (motivators).We see this particularly well illustrated where ease and convenience has been theprimary motivator for using the system. It is because the tools and information arewell deigned that they are motivated to use it.


8/9


Additional motivators were identified during the course of the research. Motivatorssuch as a personal commitment to composting combined with a life situation thatprecludes the activity should be considered in the design of materials forcommunities where this is more likely to occur.

The design of information for sight impaired community members requiresconsideration.


9/9


Attachment A

Questions asked in interviews for Social Research Video

How did you hear about the city to soil trial?

What did you think about it? /What were your first impressions?

What did you do with your kitchen waste before the trial?

What made you decide to take part?

How did you find it to use?

What about the bags and bins? /Is there anything that you wouldchange?

People in the waste industry will say that you cant get people to sourceseparate their waste

Do you know what happens to the waste after its picked up?

What advice would you give to other councils thinking about using thecity to soil process?

Documents

Yes - But what did they Really Say?