Understanding the plurality of public interests for open strategy in science and innovationGo YoshizawaMakiko SugaMitsuru KudoEri MizumachiKei Kano

OECD BlueSky III, Ghent21 September 2016

Introduction• Why public engagement?

It may guarantee the diversity of evidence in the sense that public opinions are qualitatively different from expert knowledge

• What type of publics we need to engage?• Who are the publics?

STI policymakers do not have a clear idea while most citizens have never thought about participating in public policy

Segmentation Methods1. Demographics-based• E.g. Science Indicators, Eurobarometers,

PIAAC• Segments the targeted population a priori

2. Statistics-based• E.g. Public Attitudes to Science (PAS), UK• Segments the population a posteriori• Impossible to predict with which segment a

respondent will be clustered3. Question-based• E.g. State of Victoria in Australia

Victorian Segment Model• Six population segments using a

combination of the three questions1. Can you please tell me how interested you

are in science?2. Do you actively search for information

about science and/or technology?3. When you have looked for information

about science and technology in the past, have you generally been able to find what you were looking for?

• See Kano et al. at poster sessions

PESTI Segment Model• ‘Framework for Broad Public Engagement in

Science, Technology and Innovation Policy’ (PESTI) project (2012-15)

• We assume that a person’s interest in STI does not necessarily and clearly correspond to his/her willingness to engage in STI policy

• Two strategies1. Making an achievement in public

segmentation for policymaking2. Facilitating citizens to make them consider

engagement in STI governance

Method and Analysis• Nationwide face-to-face interview

survey in 2013 collected 887 samples (44.4%) from Japanese citizens aged 16+ using a two-stage stratified random sampling method

• The factor analysis identified the STI-facilitating factors, the scientific-literacy factors, and the policy-influence factors

• Two stepwise multiple linear regression analyses identified four explanatory variables

Factors in Public EngagementIndependent variable Coefficie

ntSignificance

Q10(1): Deregulation .099 .000 Q10(3): Access to comprehensible science information

.163 .000

Q10(4): Public comments to the government

.223 .000

Q10(6): Public support and engagement in STI policy

.427 .000

Q6: Current level of your own influence on policy related to S&T

.059 .014

Q7: Ideal level of your own influence on policy related to S&T

.095 .032

R2 .661R2 adjusted .658F value 284.338 0.000

Decision Tree for SegmentationQ. Which do you think would advance STI?

Population Segments1 Discourage

dLess confident about their ability to access the information and policy process on STI

25.0%

2 Independent Engagers

Independent but keen about interaction between the government and the public

5.8%

3 Uninterested

Ignorant of and unconcerned about any issues

6.3%

4 Empowered Sceptics

Aware of their own policy influence but negative about public engagement

3.9%

5 Trustful Engagers

Positive about STI policy and reliant on all the stakeholders

38.0%

6 Interested Followers

Attracted to the development of government policies and respectful to professional experts

21.0%

Summary and Discussion• Only four questions are sufficient to

characterise the six population segments for public engagement in STI policy

• This research suggests that the government should take different approaches to different population segments for the public engagement

• Hope for numbers and narratives

Acknowledgements• Noriko Suzuki (Tezukayama University)• Nobuya Fujiwara (Onomichi City

University)