Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Yes - But What Did They Really Say?
Yes - But What Did They Really Say?
Yes - But What Did They Really Say?
mosquito productions
48 Bingley Way Wamboin NSW
0488 200 636
Yes
–
But
What
Did
They
Really
Say?
Mosquito
Productions
2011
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,
tools
and
motivators
used
in
the
Groundswell
trial
to
get
people
to
source
separate
their
waste.
2.Background
The
Groundswell
project
was
trialed
in
four
council
areas
during
the
period
2008
to
early
2011.
Full
implementation
of
the
program
including
the
City
to
Soil
collection
Service
was
achieved
in
the
Lachlan
Shire
and
in
Goulburn/Mulwarree
with
the
scheme
being
active
for
a
period
of
34
months
in
the
Condobolin
and
Goulburn
area
at
the
time
of
interview.
3.
Method
3.1
A
camera
crew
travelled
to
both
Condobolin
and
Goulburn
to
speak
to
and
record
conversations
with
residents
who
were
actively
engaged
in
separating
their
waste.
The
intent
was
to
cover
the
topics
outlined
in
the
scope
of
the
research
in
a
way
that
allowed
people
to
respond
in
their
own
words.
These
comments
were
then
edited
into
a
video
clip
to
be
uploaded
onto
the
web
to
allow
easy
assess
by
interested
parties.
By
adopting
this
approach
we
are
able
provide
credible
and
rich
content
in
relation
to
the
topic.
This
method
presents
material
directly
as
the
respondents
have
delivered
it.
By
nature
this
approach
includes
the
information
that
becomes
hidden
in
methodologies
where
response
choices
are
limited
(e.g.
closed
question
questionnaire)
and
language,
verbal
and
nonverbal
content
is
lost.
The
value
in
hearing
from
people
directly
and
seeing
them
when
they
speak
is
that
we
can
assess
their
response
using
all
of
the
following
information;
Language
–
we
hear
people
speaking
in
their
own
words
in
response
to
the
topic.
The
choice
of
words
that
people
use
and
the
sequence
in
which
they
link
ideas
can
give
us
insight
into
the
connections
that
they
make
and
their
thought
process
regarding
the
topic.
Voice
Cues
-‐
such
as
volume,
intonation,
emphasis,
rate
and
pitch.
Yes
–
But
What
Did
They
Really
Say?
Mosquito
Productions
2011
Vocalizations
-‐
such
as
grunts,
laughs,
uh
ha’s,
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
didn’t
know
about
that)
Gestures
–
While
the
camera
framing
for
the
interviews
is
generally
head
and
shoulders,
upper
body
gestures
will
still
be
apparent
Context
–
the
age
(approximate),
gender
and
setting
in
which
the
conversation
takes
place.
Even
clothing
worn
by
the
respondents
can
also
give
us
context
for
our
understanding
of
the
response.
(Businessperson,
rebel,
etc)
This
represents
all
the
information
that
we
unconsciously
take
on
board
in
the
everyday
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
Groundswell
project
and
those
who
are
interested
in
the
community’s
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
self
selecting.
Some
door
knocking
was
also
done
for
the
interviews.
In
Goulburn
the
team
set
up
in
the
main
street
during
lunch
hour
and
respondents
were
selected
at
random.
As
one
interview
finished
the
next
passers
by
were
approached
and
asked
to
participate.
3.3
The
Questions
Questions
were
worded
to
encourage
people
to
speak
about
the
topic
with
minimum
interruption
or
prompting
from
the
interviewer.
This
allows
us
to
see
how
people
have
put
this
experience
together
in
their
own
mind
and
also
gives
us
content
that
works
in
video
form.
Answers
to
closed
questions
i.e.
‘good’,
‘bad’,
‘yes’,
‘no’
do
not
work
well
as
video
content.
Yes
–
But
What
Did
They
Really
Say?
Mosquito
Productions
2011
Questions
were
also
framed
in
a
way
that
encouraged
people
to
talk
broadly
about
their
experience
of
the
project
and
perhaps
offer
insights
that
had
not
been
considered
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
sometimes
varied
from
person
to
person
as
individuals
respond
differently
to
different
wording.
Questions
were
asked
with
a
tone
of
curiosity
to
convey
that
there
was
no
right
or
wrong
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
at
www.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
in
action.
Rather
than
ask
for
subjective
comment
on
the
quality
of
the
information
itself
we
were
looking
for
evidence
of
understanding
of
the
overall
program
as
well
as
understanding
about
how
to
participate.
When
asked
‘how
did
you
find
out
about
it?’
respondents
nominated
either
-‐
a
letter
in
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
great
idea”
“Letter
then
bins”
“Through
the
paper
and
then
through
the
shire”
“It
was
basically
delivered
to
the
door”
Yes
–
But
What
Did
They
Really
Say?
Mosquito
Productions
2011
Respondents
reflected
an
air
of
ease
regarding
the
introduction.
No
respondents
expressed
any
confusion
about
the
program
during
its
introduction
despite
having
to
absorb
information
about
a
new
concept
and
its
aims,
instructions
for
use
and
changes
to
existing
waste
collection
services.
The
theme
‘easy’
and
‘convenient’
emerges
repeatedly.
Respondents
volunteered
information
to
explain
how
they
used
the
system
within
their
homes.
This
use
was
consistent
with
the
program.
On
one
occasion
the
respondent
had
used
her
knowledge
learned
from
the
instructions
to
put
the
bags
to
other
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
an
environmental
outcome.
Words
such
as
‘recycling’
come
up
despite
not
being
used
in
the
questions.
On
one
occasion
where
a
respondent
says
that
she
asked
her
husband
to
explain
the
program
(see
video
clip),
the
respondent
is
clinically
blind.
While
this
did
not
present
any
difficulties
in
this
case,
arrangements
for
introducing
information
to
sight
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
there
anything
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
as
she
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
home
was
that
it
was
‘easy’
and
‘convenient’.
This
is
clearly
evident
in
the
voice
tone
as
well
as
the
language
on
many
of
the
recordings
and
there
is
no
hesitation
between
the
question
and
the
response,
also
indicating
confidence.
“It’s
convenient
–
there’s
no
hassles
whatsoever
-‐
you
just
put
your
green
waste
in
the
little
basket
they
supply
in
the
recyclable
bags
and
there
is
no
hassle
whatsoever.”
When
asked
more
specifically
about
the
bins
and
bags,
‘good’
was
the
most
frequent
answer,
along
with
‘no’
to
any
suggestions
for
improvements.
These
responses
were
Yes
–
But
What
Did
They
Really
Say?
Mosquito
Productions
2011
consistently
single
word
answers
and
so
not
considered
worthwhile
for
inclusion
in
the
edited
video
clip.
On
one
occasion
a
respondent
indicated
that
they
needed
a
bigger
bin.
On
further
questioning
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
to
friends
outside
the
area
to
use
in
their
home
composting
and
a
further
two
using
them
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
doesn’t
attract
cockroaches
to
the
bench
top
‘cause
it’s
in
nicely
sealed
bags”
“It
works
really
good.
Its
better
than
what
we
had
before
–
the
garbage
doesn’t
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
prizes
Improve
agricultural
soils
Help
address
climate
change
Support
local
farmers
Reduce
waste
costs
Reduce
waste
to
landfill
In
the
course
of
the
interviews
four
of
the
six
motivators
were
identified
unprompted.
“Help
the
environment”
“People
have
just
realized
that
we
have
to
do
something
to
help
–
something
to
help
the
environment”
Yes
–
But
What
Did
They
Really
Say?
Mosquito
Productions
2011
“Anything
that
gets
rid
of
waste
its
helping
global
warming”
Winning
prizes
was
not
identified
as
a
motivator
for
participating
even
when
we
interviewed
known
winners.
Further
investigation
would
be
required
to
determine
the
role
that
prizes
might
play
in
quality
control
and
maintaining
interest
over
time.
Additional
motivators
for
participation
were
convenience,
reduced
odor
and
pests
at
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
(resistance
to
change)
may
indicate
the
ease
with
which
people
are
able
to
pick
up
the
information
and
use
the
tools.
People
who
liked
the
idea
of
composting
but
were
unable
to
compost
at
home
nominated
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
areas
where
this
situation
may
come
up
more
frequently.
“I’m
too
busy
to
compost
at
home”
“Because
I
was
not
allowed
to
have
a
compost
heap
in
the
garden…”
While
community
members
did
not
nominate
‘reduced
waste
cost’
as
a
motivator,
it
rated
very
highly
in
discussions
with
council
staff
and
is
an
important
motivator
for
participation
at
this
level.
Communicating
this
benefit
at
the
community
level
may
present
problems
as
savings
in
one
area
of
a
council
budget
may
be
absorbed
elsewhere
and
therefore
not
be
apparent
to
the
individual.
Reduced
waste
to
landfill
however
was
understood
and
was
a
motivating
factor.
5.
Conclusion
The
information,
tools
and
motivators
have
been
fit
for
purpose
in
achieving
community
cooperation
for
source
separation
of
waste
as
part
of
the
Groundswell
project.
Change
to
this
way
of
handling
waste
at
the
household
level
has
been
perceived
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
well
designed
for
any
of
them
to
work.
In
the
participants
mind
there
is
no
separation
between
the
information,
the
tools
or
their
reasons
for
participating
(motivators).
We
see
this
particularly
well
illustrated
where
‘ease
and
convenience’
has
been
the
primary
motivator
for
using
the
system.
It
is
because
the
tools
and
information
are
well
deigned
that
they
are
motivated
to
use
it.
Yes
–
But
What
Did
They
Really
Say?
Mosquito
Productions
2011
Additional
motivators
were
identified
during
the
course
of
the
research.
Motivators
such
as
a
personal
commitment
to
composting
combined
with
a
life
situation
that
precludes
the
activity
should
be
considered
in
the
design
of
materials
for
communities
where
this
is
more
likely
to
occur.
The
design
of
information
for
sight
impaired
community
members
requires
consideration.
Yes
–
But
What
Did
They
Really
Say?
Mosquito
Productions
2011
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
would
change?
People
in
the
waste
industry
will
say
that
you
can’t
get
people
to
source
separate
their
waste…
Do
you
know
what
happens
to
the
waste
after
it’s
picked
up?
What
advice
would
you
give
to
other
councils
thinking
about
using
the
city
to
soil
process?
Yes – But What Did They Really Say? Mosquito Productions 2011