Research Methods Analysis Assignment.
Introduction and justification of theme.
A person does not have to go far these days to hear of the raging debate that surrounds
the concept of resource depletion and global warming. There is a war of words
surrounding these issues and in an analysis of the master transcript of the interviews
around resource depletion the author will attempt to gauge who is winning this largely
public relations exercise among the citizens of Waitakere.
The author argues that this is largely a public relations war because people generally
do not mine their own minerals or measure ozone holes and as such must rely on
scientist interpretation of data by experts who then try to convince the populace they
are correct.
Carbon (2006) argues that carbon emissions are the key factor in causing global
warming. Sim (2008) asserts that evidence can be found by linking higher
temperatures and increased storm activity. Others like Horner (2007) believe the
whole global warming scene to be an excuse for governments to increase control over
their populace. With such a variety of conflicting views it becomes important for both
sides to consider who is winning their war and who needs to adjust their tactics in
Waitakere.
In an article in the New Zealand Herald Eloise Gibson (2010) cites evidence that
shows global belief around global warming is declining even though the scientific
evidence is apparently stronger. In the same article Dr Bosselman argues for action
because the public are not basing their decisions on scientific evidence (Gibson,
2010). What the author believes Dr Bosselman is angling at is that it is his particular
argument that the general public are not qualified to judge correctly. The question
then becomes whether or not people in Waitakere are agreeing or disagreeing with the
arguments brought forward by both sides of the argument.
In a poll taken by the herald half of New Zealand doubts global warming (NZ herald,
2010). One in five conclusively denied it was happening while a further twenty-five
percent were unsure (NZ Herald, 2010). Will the same results be shown in Waitakere?
My assignment asks the question of whether Waitakere will have less of a belief in
resource depletion than the rest of New Zealand has shown. I will be exploring
responses around the themes of belief and also exploring terms like understanding and
knowledge and trying to see where the arguments are effective in relation to various
demographic features.
The first question that the author looked at was “how many people in Waitakere
believe that the climate is changing?” The second question that would be looked at
was “how many people in Waitakere believe that global warming is caused by
humanity?”
The responses will be grouped into categories being positive, uncertain and negative
with regards to the belief in global warming being caused by man.
1
Semiotic square.
In order to track the words in the large transcript the author will use various semiotic
squares to find the appropriate words in the large document. The starting point for my
semiotic square is the words “belief” and “believe.” Synonyms of the word belief are
faith, conviction, principle and idea. Synonyms of the word believe are consider,
deem, suppose and trust to name a few. The prior words form the assertion part of the
semiotic square. The non-assertion facet of the semiotic square is the antonym of the
words belief and believe. The words in this case would be disbelieve and disbelief.
Synonyms of these words would include doubt, mistrust, suspect and question. For
the negation area of the semiotic square the author searched for words that would
imply be the contrary of the word believe. These could include the words sceptical
and incredulous. The final area of the semiotic square is the non-negation aspect
which is simply the antonyms of the words sceptical and incredulous which are
convinced and sure.
Other words that the author will look for will be “know” and “understand” as it is
possible people will use these words when describing their beliefs around their
perceived reality of climate change. Responses along the lines of uncertain, unsure
and don’t know must also be looked at along with their antonyms of words like know,
certain, sure. These responses need to be looked at in order to gauge the strength of
the answer to the climate change question. For example an answer along the lines of
“I know that climate change is happening” is on another scale to “I think climate
change is happening” although they would be placed in the positive response
category.
Other words to gauge the strength of response are sentences with the word “is” being
a strong indication or potential doubting words like “seem” which implies distrust.
Basically all the responses to the climate change questions needed to be looked at to
gain all possible answers rather than just those formed in the semiotic square.
The interview transcript had a question surrounding people’s understanding of climate
change/ global warming and these responses were a good place to start finding data.
Do Waitakere citizens believe that the climate is changing?
The response to the question of whether or not Waitakere thinks that climate change is
occurring only Hana responded that she “did not know anything about that sort of
stuff”. This placed her in the unsure category. Bex, Dorothy and Maria are taken out
of the running for this question because although there was a question in the interview
surrounding the climate change topic they either did not answer the question or did so
in such a way as to render a category placement pretty difficult. Maria responded to
the climate change question by saying that she knew about the “fart tax”. There was
no further discussion and to display her view in one of the three categories of positive,
negative or unsure of climate change would be innappropriate.
2
This means that of the 28 transcripts only 25 will be discussed for the question
surrounding whether climate change was occurring or not. 1 out of 25 was unsure
whether climate change was occurring whilst 24 out of 25 believed that it was
occurring. In measuring strength of response by categorising the response weak or
strong there were variations. Strong responses would include weather “is” changing
from Sandra or the temperate zones “are” drier from Vincent.
There is little ambiguity in much of their responses while in the case of Dawn and Lin
who both use the words “seem” in their responses which could indicate a lack of all
out belief on their part. 22 out of 24 who believed that climate change was occurring
had a strong response compared to 2 who were deemed to have a weak response.
Tariana is an example of how scaling conclusions were reached where she states “I
don’t know much about what global warming is, but I know…. if it continues our
planet will be in danger”. By saying that if it “continues” then she is saying that she
believes climate change is happening at the moment. This places her in the strong
positive position because she doesn’t just “think” or use “perhaps” or “maybe”, she
“knows” that it is happening. Tariana is also an example using inference to find an
answer which may be problematic in some cases.
Does Waitakere believe that humanity is the main cause of global warming?
Unfortunately because again people did not provide an appropriate response there
have been some people that have been taken out of the running because as they have
not answered the question it would be unfair to place them in one of the three
categories. Antoinette is an example where she has stated whilst talking about global
warming “……which may be caused by like additional heat….”. It is not clear from
this response as to who she thinks is behind global warming and as such I believe it
must be taken out of the running when comparing because although she may have an
opinion on this subject it just has not come out through the interview process. 7 out of
28 transcripts did not provide a response that was clear enough to tell what they
believed about global warming causality.
Of the people who had a response that could be placed into a category 14 out of the
remaining 21 believed that man was the cause of global warming. Hana, Boatie and
Graham were unsure whilst Simon, Vincent, Nellie and Tim did not believe man to be
the main cause of the problem. Some of the responses were difficult to gain a reply
from but by looking at the language usage it becomes possible to ascertain their
position. Whina “knows mother earth is sick” and states that man needs to “get his
shit together”. As this is in reply to the climate change, global warming question then
it can be inferred that global warming is happening and man is the cause. With the
word “knows” this becomes a strong positive response. Valerie is a clear strong
positive response where she states “What I understand is that the earth is getting
warmer because of carbon dioxide emissions….”
An example of a weak positive response is Dawn where she states in response to the
global warming, climate change question “….understand that global warming
“seems” to be coming about through all the fuels and things we are using.”
3
Graham is unsure and says so by stating “I don’t know because I’m not an expert.”
Boatie also replies that he is “not entirely sure.” In total out of the 21 of whom it was
possible to glean a response to who caused global warming 3 were uncertain and 4
were doubtful.
Of the respondents who were placed in the positive category which was 14 out of a
possible 21 there was a strong response from 11 out of those 14. This means that 52%
of people firmly believe in climate change humankind causality as the other three
weak positive respondents used words like “seem”, “guess” and “think.” There
answers do still fall under the positive umbrella however.
75% of the respondents who replied that global warming was mainly caused by
humanity were male. 4 out of the 8 male transcripts who answered the question
believed global warming was man-instigated with a percentage of 50%. Females were
far more convinced with a hit rate of 10 respondents out of the 13 who answered the
question believing in human global warming causality. Therefore 77% of the women
that answered the question in some form believed global warming to be caused by
man.
Within the sub-group of people that answered the global warming causality question
with uncertainty and doubt there is a spread of job status with a manager, a couple of
professionals and at the other end of the scale an unemployed person and another not
in the workforce. This means there is little evidence to suggest a relationship between
income and doubting the information given to us about global warming by scientists
and the media.
Conclusion.
From analysis of the Waitakere sample it is possible to conclude from this study that
women are far more likely than men to be convinced that global warming is mainly
caused by humanity with 77% versus the male figure surrounding the belief at 50%.
Why this is so could be cause for further investigation with many practical
applications. Besides the obvious gender differences there could also possibly be
differences in the gender conditioning that have led to females believing more than
males (Bridgman. Personal communication, June 24, 2010). Also possibilities could
possibly arise around the medium that people are using to deliver their message. Do
women spend more time watching the TV or listening to the radio? Are men more
likely to be distrustful of scientists?
It is made abundantly clear in this research that there is little doubt amongst people
about the fact that the weather is changing. Considering the fact that people don’t
generally seem to own temperature measuring equipment or graph the results to see
what is happening in temperature this is interesting. People generally believe it to be
getting warmer but a few thought it was getting colder and one said the weather was
terrible until February even though the parts of the north island were in drought
conditions. The fact that 92% of people in Waitakere firmly believe the weather is
changing without the benefit of their own equipment says that the weather change
argument is effectively being brought across.
4
Interestingly with 66% of Waitakere people believing that man is THE contributor to
global warming compared to 50% in the general New Zealand population questions
can then be asked about why this is the case in Waitakere. Are the local circulars
more green focused? Does the proximity to the ranges and the western beaches make
them more ecologically focussed? Are people more bored in Waitakere and have a
higher tendency to watch TV? The more the author had to do with this research the
more he realised that he ended up with more questions than answers.
Bibliography.
Carbon, B. (2006). Gentle footprints: Boots ‘n’ all. Wellington: The Ministry for the
Environment.
Gibson, E. (2010, Jan 25). Forget fickle polls and act, says climate lawyer. The New
Zealand Herald. Retrieved from http://www.nzherald.co.nz
Horner, C. (2007). The politically incorrect guide to global warming and
environmentalism. Washington: Regency Publishing Inc.
Sim, S. (2009). The carbon footprint wars: What might happen if wee retreat from
globalisation. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
The New Zealand Herald. (2010, Jan 18). Half of Kiwis doubt global warming poll.
The New Zealand Herald. Retrieved from http://www.nzherald.co.nz
Analysis of results (35%): Students thematically analyse the transcripts from the interviews. Analyse 1 or 2 key
themes in relation to major demographic features of the sample OR Analyse the responses of a particular
demographic group in relation to a number of themes (2000 words minimum). The students will:
Mark
s
In an introduction justify the themes that you have chosen for your thematic analysis in relation to literature (one
or two sources) and develop one or more hypotheses or questions that you can test or explore
7%
Well thought out approach to the analysis. Good question. It’s the sort of question that is very helpful to have a
clear answer for before you start digging into the more difficult areas about what actions we need to take.
7%
Generate, using the semiotic square and a thesaurus, a range a words that you will use to track instances of your
theme(s)
5%
Good square and search terms. The analysis of strength of belief was a good start. In the analysis it would depend on 5%
seeing good examples of transcript be convincing about the strength of belief.
In justifying the themes that emerge:

Use verbatim appropriately from the transcripts to illustrate examples and variations in the use of themes
(verbatim without explanation is not acceptable) and present sufficient verbatim for the reader to confirm the
analysis given.

Provide basic numeric data about the frequency of the use of themes or sub-themes with different demographic
groups as appropriate
18%
Good strategy for exclusions.. Good data on the numbers and picking up on the gender differences. Useful
15%
verbatim to support your arguments, and a strong impression of an author determined to be as objective as
possible. A bit more verbatim needed to give more texture to the position s of belief,
Conclude by summarising the extent to which your hypotheses have been confirmed or your question
clearly answered
5%.
A well constructed conclusion. Instead of wondering about the gender differences, the icing on the cake would
have been a confirming article. One such is http://www.springerlink.com/content/llq15510m374583q/fulltext.html,
which agrees with you on the basis of 8 years of Gallup poll data. In fact there is a conference in Sweden on
gender and climate change that is calling for papers. Do you want to write or co-write one?
http://genderfoodpolicy.wordpress.com/2010/05/13/call-for-papers-gender-climate-change-25-26-nov-twoconferences-call-for-papers/
References Full referencing using the standard APA system – refer to the student handbook -2% if not provided.
5
4%
Escellent result. TOTAL 35%
Presentation/15
Literature /25
interview/25
6
analysis/35
Total
Grade
31/35