User:RP87/for preprints/Popular expectations and relation to sciences

Here is the english side of an ongoing research project.

Abstract
Working on environmental assessment and decision systems, I was curious about how people interact with research, more precisely how it affects their representation of the future and the way they relate to information sources to build both "their future", hopes and concerns about it. If we expect to provide tools for decision making in such a wide application, I believe understanding how people relate to "anticipation" is important. (applied research on holistic assessment, EHO / LCA) In this goal, I'm developing a semi-directive interview frame. Current stage is 'first trials'. I intend to do groups and individual interviews (according to my available time and resources) and set them as a free - open research so it is replicated to build a wider sample. By the time the interviews won't reveal any major issue, we may produce a web forms to gather answers from a wider group.

Introduction
Here is a first shot at the interview frame about expectations hopes and fears. In responses to the Huffington Post survey’s result about “collapse” position being largely shared among the french population (6/10). (https://www.huffingtonpost.fr/entry/6-francais-sur-10-redoutent-un-effondrement-de-notre-civilisation-sondage-exclusif_fr_5ddd09bee4b00149f723b6e7 ; https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/7scud9wmm0/Results%20for%20YouGovFR%20(Effondrement_%20Huff%20Post)%20202%2022.11.2019.pdf ) (ref), a survey mentioned by Bourg at UNIL (ref). The goal is to develop a semi-directive interview frame exposing with reduced bias the future in the minds of the interviewee. Opening the question aims at 'not framing the expected time frame, focal point, theme of concerns and hopes' of the interviewee. On a second time we try to specify the practical ground of the 'future' representation. We'll try to get an idea of energy and material basis of these "projected futures". Due to a highly close circuit of sciences (science production for science producer), it seems while we try to produce new research and assessment artifacts, we should have in mind the way people produce their anticipations.

Methods
The proposed questions were :

1 How do you see the future

2 When is this future

3 How do you see 2050

3-Bis How do you see 2080

4 What are your concerns and hope

5 What are the origins of these

6 What are your relations to research

Interview context: The interview is done in a camping, at the outdoor tables, at about 21:00 with a group of four young adults coming from The Nederlands. G1, G2, B1, B2. There is a forest fire going on a few kilometers away (10ha), air support was seen and heard from the camping and smoke can be seen and smelled though it has reduced in intensity a few minutes before the interview. I’m wearing a mask as I’m holding close to the group. The newly enforced rule about mask is well known. The fine is 135€, but it is unclear if it applies to this place.

Results
- record -

Live notes
1°) G1: "different", "lot of change" ; CC ; personal relations ; more aggression, wars

G2: a growth of opinion divergences, opinion and idea ranges widening

B1: increase of speed and divergence of opinions ; uncertainty about positive or negative orientation

B2: the question is interrogated : ? individually or group > chose to answer with personal perspective : concerns wealth distribution, economic links and power concentration

2°) G1 : 2030 - 2035 ; Political integration, Technological change

B1 : Already happening (short terms, no projection) ; stage vision ; "end of growth by ~ 2025"

B2 : "a couple of years" (speed and uncertainty) ; personal perspective ; "global already"

G2 : (same) 21 y-old ; 15 years (2035)

G1 : Longer (rq : note discussion time to get influence of discussion length on time horizon)

3°) G1 : Never thought

G2 : (same)

G1 : It will look different, but with the same problems (pers. perspective)

G2 : a "60ies" taste (past projection) ; "union" perspective (unification)

B1 : good / bad : "union perspective" / "machine/techno"

B2 : "on fire" ; studying "ecology" (https://www.vhluniversity.com/)

_ encours - je retappe la suite dès que possible _ RP87 (discuss • contribs) 13:29, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Post-record
After shutting down the microphone (due to the rain and wind), the discussion continued. Several ideas were shared and I’ll retrain the following. To answer the issue of focusing on “the practical vision of the future” without introducing bias (such as closed question in the form “Do you expect _ term _?” (term : a collapse or else introducing the answer to the question). The interviewee ‘G1’ proposed to use the following pre-question : “How was your grand father kitchen?” I’m afraid that the ‘kitchen approach’ will focus attention and we may loose what is really the concerns, hopes and time perspectives of the interviewees, so I should reorganize as follow :

1 How do you see the future

2 When is this future (year)

4 What are your concerns and hopes

G1 How was your grand parents kitchen (from the food it contains to the way it is cooked and the furniture, ‘the hole thing’)

3-G1 How do you see yours (your kitchen) by 2050

(from the food it contains to the way it is cooked and the furniture, ‘the hole thing’)

[3-Bis How do you see 2080]

5 What are the origins of these expectations, fears/concerns - hopes

6 What are your relations to research

All these students in there respective syllabus were not introduced to ‘energy’ theme in general. G1 is the daughter of a “sustainable supply teacher” and has heard about ‘energy used in different life stages of a product’, but she didn’t produce these knowledge to build her “future representation”. Discussing ‘pic oil’, ‘pic all’ showed no previous knowledge about it. Mentioning “Meadows” ringed a bell to G1 without it being clear. Their ‘technological hopes’ have basically no ground apart from general faith in “progress”. While discussing epistemology, how to grant value to a piece of information, Linus’s Law made sens, but was their ‘first exposition’ to the idea.