understanding the plurality of public interests for … - p-seg_final.pdf · understanding the...

1

Understandingthepluralityofpublicinterestsforopenstrategyinscienceandinnovation

GoYoshizawa1,MakikoSuga2,MitsuruKudo3,EriMizumachi3,5,andKeiKano4,5

1. GraduateSchoolofMedicine,OsakaUniversity

2-2Yamadaoka,Suita,Osaka565-0871Japan

[email protected]

2. DepartmentofBusinessAdministration,TezukayamaUniversity

7-1-1Tezukayama,Nara631-8501Japan

3. CenterfortheStudyofCo*Design,OsakaUniversity

1-16Machikaneyama-cho,Toyonaka,Osaka560-0043Japan

4. FacultyofEducation,ShigaUniversity

2-5-1Hiratsu,Otsu520-0862Japan

5. InstituteforIntegratedCell-MaterialSciences,KyotoUniversity

Yoshidaushinomiyacho,Sakyo-ku,Kyoto606-8501Japan

Abstract

Publicengagementmayguaranteethediversityofevidenceforpolicymakingaspublicopinionsare

qualitatively different from expert knowledge. It has been addressed in science, technology and

innovation(STI)policyworld-widely,butleftunansweredthequestionofwithwhattypeofpublics

weneedtoengage.Thisstudyaimstoidentifynewpopulationsegmentsthataremorerelevantto

policymatters relating toaspectsof innovation.Thenation-wide face-to-face interviewsurvey in

2013collected887samples fromJapanesecitizens.Acombinativemethodof factoranalysisand

decision treeanalysis shows thatonly fourquestionsaresufficient tocharacterisesixpopulation

segments for public engagement in STI policy – ‘Discouraged’, ‘Independent Engagers’,

‘Uninterested’,‘EmpoweredSceptics’,‘TrustfulEngagers’,and‘InterestedFollowers’.Thissegment

modelthusdemonstratespracticalfeasibility,globalapplicabilityandmethodologicalextendibility.

2

Introduction:publicengagementasevidenceforpolicy

Evidence-basedpracticeorpolicywas first introduced in the1990s in themedical field.Thishas

invokedanumberofattemptstoevaluateeffectivenessfordecisionmakersbyorderingavariety

ofevidencesmeasures,suchassystematicreview(Youngetal.2002;Leigh2009).However,ithas

been well known in policy studies since the 1970s that this kind of scientific knowledge and

researchisnotasuseful insocialpolicy(Lipsky1971;Nelson1974),whichhasoftenresultedina

division between ‘two communities’ of knowledge producers and policy makers (Caplan 1979).

Whenevidence-basedactivitiesinmedicine,socialwelfareandeducationarenotconfinedtothe

policylevel,butspreadtothepracticelevel,on-sitepractitionerscanberegardedascreatorsofa

third knowledge culture (Shonkoff 2000). In creating a typology of evidence (e.g. Sebba 2004;

Banks 2009) a division can be observed between scientific knowledge, political knowledge, and

professionalknowledge(Head2008).However,thistypologyplacesdisproportionateemphasison

rational expertise and faces challenges from real issues, such as illogical sentiments in criminal

policyandsocialinclusionofaboriginalgroups(Head2013).Intheperson-centredcareapproach,

evidence sources can include patients and clients, and be composed of local contexts and

environments surrounding stakeholders (Rycroft-Malone et al. 2004). Such stakeholders and

serviceusersdonotmerelybringempiricalknowledgeasthefourthtypeofevidence(Gough2007;

Head 2010) – they are rather thosewho can provide epistemological knowledge concerning the

value-ladenquestionof ‘whyweneedthispolicy’ (Nutley,Walter&Davies2003;Mingers2008).

While defining evidence is by itself a social act and a part of the policy process (Parsons 2002;

Wesselink,Colebatch&Pearce2014) and therearediverseperspectives among stakeholderson

whatevidence istrustworthy(Glasby&Beresford2006),areflexiveact toredefinethenatureof

evidence would entail a more democratic process. This would be an attempt to facilitate

interaction between knowledge producers and knowledge users for democratic policymaking

(Torgerson1986)undertheterm‘policysciences’(Lasswell1951).Inshort,publicengagementmay

guarantee the diversity of evidence in the sense that public opinions are qualitatively different

fromexpertknowledge.However,thisdoesnotmeanthatthereisanyorderofevidencebetween

expertsandcitizens.Theprocessofpublicengagementprovidesavaluableopportunitytoincrease

awarenessofanddevelopdiscussionsonwhatisevidenceamongstakeholders.

InJapan,overthelasttwentyyears,thegovernmenthaspromotedscienceandtechnology

underScienceandTechnologyBasicPlans,whicharerevisedevery fiveyears.The4thBasicPlan

(2011-15)providesforintegrateddevelopmentofscience,technologyandinnovation(STI).Asthe

interrelationshipbetweenscience,technologyandsocietybecomesevenmorecomplex,STIpolicy

3

needs increasedpublicunderstanding,public trustandpublicengagement toproduce thepublic

good. For this, policymakers pursue a more rational policymaking process and greater public

accountabilitybyplanningandimplementingevidence-basedpolicies.Againstthisbackground,the

MinistryofEducation,Culture,Sports,ScienceandTechnology(MEXT)haspromotedthe‘Science

for RE-designing Science, Technology and Innovation Policy (SciREX)’ program since 2011. The

SciREXprogramproposesa ‘rationalprocess’ andprovides ‘objectiveevidence’aiming to reform

STIpolicymaking.

In Europe, there is a significant degree of correlation between research and innovation

intensityinacountryandtheroleofsocietyintheadoptionanddisseminationofscientificresults

(Tsipouri 2012). Accepting cluster and open-innovation policies as promising (Vigier 2007), the

EuropeanCommissionrecentlydeclaredanopenstrategyinscienceandinnovation(Moedas2015).

Asoneofthestrategytools,publicengagementhasbeenaddressedinvariousphasesandlevelsof

STI policy, not only in human subject researchor labour-intensive research, but also in research

and innovation projects (e.g. crowd funding, citizen science), project design (e.g. science shops,

user innovation), program development (e.g. advisory boards), and policy formation (e.g.

technologyassessment)(Hennen2015).Yet,thistrendhasleftunansweredthequestionsofhow

tomeasureandevaluatepublicengagementactivities, andmore importantly,withwhat typeof

publicsweneedtoengage(Godin&Doré2005;Roweetal.2005;Roweetal.2008;Bauer,Allum&

Miller2007;Neresini&Bucchi2011).

Whoarethepublics?

In identifying citizen profiles for marketing research, there is a long history of segmenting the

wholepopulationintoseveralgroups(Smith1956).Readersmayfindtensionbetweenmarketing

researchfortheprivatesectorandpolicystudiesforthepublicsector,butgiventheeffectiveness

of marketing research in public service, civil servants are no longer able to manage public

administrationwithout citizen input (Kotler& Lee 2007). This is concurrentwith the newpublic

management (NPM),which stresses ‘hands-onprofessionalmanagement, explicit standards, and

measuresofperformance;managingbyresults;valueformoney;and,morerecently,closenessto

the customer’ (Rhodes 1996: 655). From the perspective of innovation studies, population

segmentation enables the characterisation of people and the identification of target customers

whengoingbeyondthe‘chasm’ininnovationdissemination(Moore2014).

Asano (2010) categorised segmentation methods into three generations. The first

generation witnessed the still most popular method based on demographics, such as age, sex,

4

marital status, residence area, literacy/education, employment status, occupation, nationality,

religion,andethnicity.Inthisgeneration,therearealreadyanumberofsurveysonpublicattitudes

towardsscienceandscientific literacy,suchastheScience IndicatorsandEurobarometers(Pardo

and Calvo 2002; Nissen 2014) and the Programme for the International Assessment of Adult

Competencies (PIAAC) (Sellar & Lingard 2014). However, these surveys segment the targeted

population a priori without taking into account their perceptions, behaviours, and attitudes in

relationtoSTIpolicy.Thesecondgenerationappearedontheresearchsceneinthe1970s,when

marketingresearchersrealisedthatdemographicsdonotsuccessfullysegmentpeopleaccordingto

theirneedsandvalues.AtypicalexampleisthePublicAttitudestoScience(PAS)surveyintheUK,

conducted five times since 2000. These surveys cluster the British population into six distinct

categories of similar attitudes to science: ‘confident engagers’, ‘distrustful engagers’, ‘late

adopters’, ‘concerned’, ‘disengaged sceptics’, and ‘indifferent’ (Castell et al. 2014). Similarly, a

clusteranalysisoftheJapanesepopulationbasedontenquestionsderivesfourdistinctcategories:

‘Inquisitive’, ‘sciencephiles’, ‘life-centred’, and ‘low interest’ (Kawamoto et al. 2013). Here,

demographic data served as explanatory (independent) variables, and served as response

(dependent) variables in these surveys. One of major limitations of this method is that it is

impossible topredictwithwhichsegmenta respondentwillbeclustered.Thisbecomesacritical

flawwhenwewishtoengagethepubliconareal-timebasisinaworkshoporsimilarsituation.We

arenotable tosegment thepublicparticipants into individualclustersandconsequently identify

whotheyare–segmentationalwaysoccursinhindsightandisnotpracticallyusable.

The third generation of segmentation has been developed to overcome the above

limitations.Itcombinesfactoranalysisanddecisiontreeanalysisandenablesthesegmentationof

respondentsintooneofseveraldistinctgroupsaccordingtotheirresponsestosimplequestions.A

study of the State of Victoria in Australia (2008) is one example of this generation. In 2007 and

2011, the state government conducted surveys on attitudes to science and technology and

identifiedsixpopulationsegmentsusingacombinationofthefollowingthreequestions:

1. Canyoupleasetellmehowinterestedyouareinscience?

2. Doyouactivelysearchforinformationaboutscienceand/ortechnology?

3. Whenyouhave looked for informationaboutscienceandtechnology in thepast,haveyou

generallybeenabletofindwhatyouwerelookingfor?

A study adopting this segmentmodel in the Japanese contextdemonstrates that a less-engaged

5

publicmayhavedifferentopinionsandperspectivesthatmighthaveneverbeencollectedthrough

the current public comment system or other conventional engagement tools for policymaking

(Kanoetal.2016).Thisideaisacognateoftheconceptofcivicepistemologies,whichmakenoa

prioriassumptionsaboutwhatpublicsshouldknoworunderstandofscienceandaskshowsome

knowledgeclaimsareperceivedasreliable(Jasanoff2005).

Newsegmentmodel

As aforementioned, Japanese STI policymakers have faced an increasing demand of public

engagement for evidence-based policy. We initially assumed that policymakers might have

different kinds of people inmind for public engagement – thosewho trust in policymakers and

would like to say engagewith them; thosewho do not trust in policymakers andwould like to

engage; those who neither trust nor wish to engage with policymakers (Table 1). The most

important target group in our initial assumption is those who neither trust in nor speak with

policymakers,butwanttomakeacomplaint.

Table1.Publicengagementstrategiesinapopulationsegmentmodel

People… makeacomplaint donotmakeacomplaint

trustin

policymakers

Policymakerspersuadethem

(publicunderstanding)

Policymakersignorethem

distrustin

policymakers

Policymakersinvolvethem

(publicparticipation)

butwantto:

Policymakersmakethemdeliberate

(publicengagement)

anddonotwantto:

Policymakersignorethem

Nevertheless, the most crucial problem is, as our preliminary interviews reveal, that STI

policymakersdonothaveaclearideaofwhoisthe‘public’orhowtoapproachthem.Ontheother

hand, most citizens have never thought about commenting to policymakers or participating in

publicpolicy.

Under these circumstances, we have recently developed a novel and tangible segment

modelunderthe‘FrameworkforBroadPublicEngagementinScience,TechnologyandInnovation

Policy’ (PESTI) project funded by the Research Institute of Science and Technology for Society

6

(RISTEX) in Japan (Kano 2014). Under the umbrella of the SciREX program, RISTEX organises a

research fundingschemetopromoteresearchand innovationprojects todevelopnewanalytical

methodologies, models and indicators, which are expected to contribute to evidence-based

policymakingforSTIpolicyinthemid-tolong-term.PESTIisatransdisciplinaryprojectconsistingof

a wide variety of experts on science communication, science education, marketing research,

scienceandtechnologypolicy,psychology, informationscience,businessscience,communication

science,anduniversity-industry-governmentlinks.

Our new assumption is that a person’s interest in STI does not necessarily and clearly

correspondtohis/herwillingnesstoengageinSTIpolicy.Astheconceptofgovernanceproliferates,

interestedpeoplemaypreferotherengagementoptionsoverparticipationinpublicpolicy.Ifthose

whoare less interested inscienceandtechnologyaretobeengagedwithSTIpolicymaking,such

policyshouldbebasedonawiderangeofpublicneedsandvaluesandwillbemoredemocratically

legitimate (Kano2014;Maenami, Yoshizawa&Kano2016).Our strategy is thus two-fold.One is

makinganachievementinpublicsegmentationforpolicymaking.Theotherisfacilitatingcitizensto

make themconsider engagement in STI governance that covers STI policy. This ideawas further

elaborated to integrate the idea of innovation marketing that reflects Rogers’ model (1983),

because citizens are merely interested in tangible technologies and products provided by the

market. Somepolicymakers are reluctant touse the term ‘market’ as it connotesneo-liberalistic

new public management, so we deliberately discuss ‘living activity’ rather than ‘consumption

behaviour’. We also wanted to relativise STI policy among all public policies, including pension

policy,medicalpolicyandnationaldefencepolicy.Bysodoing,wehaveendeavouredtoacquirea

more general profile of respondents as citizens living in this society. This is critical, particularly

whenpolicymakerswishtoapproachthosewhoarelessinterestedinSTI.Fromtheirdailyactivities,

policymakersshouldfindahooktoattractcitizenstopublicengagementinSTIpolicy.

Method

WhiletheVictorianstudyaimedtofostercommunityengagementandlittleisknownaboutwhat

type of publics support government spending on science and technology (Sanz-Menéndez, Van

Ryzin&delPino2013),ourstudyaimstoidentifynewpopulationsegmentsthataremorerelevant

topolicymattersrelatingtoaspectsofinnovation.Thisfocusarisesfromarapidlygrowingpolitical

demandformoreapplication-orientedpublic-researchperformancemeasurements(Ernø-Kjølhede

&Hansson2011).

Followinganumberofpilotwebsurveysandfocusgroup interviewson interest inscience

7

andtechnology,weconductedafull-scalesurveyasdetailedinTable2.

Table2.Surveydetails

Targetedregion Nationwide

Targetedrespondents Japanesecitizensaged16+

Surveymethod Structuredinterviewonaface-to-facebasis

Surveyperiod 12-23December2013

Sampling Two-stagestratifiedrandomsampling

Numberofsamples 2,000

Numberofsubgroups 140

Numberofvalidresponses 887

Responserate 44.4%

ThequestionnaireincludedthethreequestionsfromtheVictoriansegmentation[Q1-3],the

adoptabilityofnewtechnologiesandproducts(Rogers1983)[Q4],expectationsofSTIpolicy[Q5],

currentandideallevelsofinterviewees’owninfluenceonpolicyrelatedtoscienceandtechnology

[Q6-7], the levelof importance intervieweesplacedonvariouspolicies, includingSTIpolicy [Q8],

desirable bodies and collaborations to lead the development of science and technology [Q9],

factorsfacilitatingSTI[Q10],andreliablesourcesofinformationonscienceandtechnology[Q11].

Questions9and11wereincludedtojudgeifcitizensthinktheydonothavetobeengagedinSTI

policywhentheyareawareoftrustedbodiesandcollaborations.Question10aimedtograsphow

muchcitizensobservegovernmentpolicyaffecting thedevelopmentofSTI.Simulationofbudget

allocation to various policies [Q12] and respondents’ reflections on the simulation [Q13] can be

regardedasanovelchallengeinthiskindofpublicsurvey.Thesequestionsmakecitizensarticulate

how they can think and behave like policymakers. In the context of policymaking, policymakers

cannotonlyfocusonSTIpolicy.Likewise,ourapproachtopublicengagementinSTIpolicyshould

berelativisedwithinthewholepolicyandpoliticalarena.Thesubsequentquestionsaretobeused

forconstructingamoregeneralprofileofindividualrespondents,includingtrendsfollowingRogers’

innovation model [Q14], basic daily activities [Q15-17], information resources [Q18] and

opportunities for understanding science and technology [Q19]. Questions 18 and 19 served to

followthefirstthreequestionsfromtheVictoriansegmentmodel.

8

Analysis

AsfloororceilingeffectsofLikertscaledatawerenotfoundindescriptiveanalysis(Table3),allof

thescaledatawereproventobevalidforstatisticalanalysis.

Table3.Descriptivestatistics

Questions Min Max Ave SD

InterestinS&T[Q1] 1 5 2.76 1.049

ActivesearchforinformationaboutS&T[Q2] 1 2 1.80 0.403

S&Tinformationliteracy[Q3] 1 3 2.17 0.752

Adoptabilityofnewtechnologiesandproducts[Q4] 1 4 2.67 0.812

CurrentlevelofyourowninfluenceonpolicyrelatedtoS&T[Q6] 1 5 2.93 0.963

IdeallevelofyourowninfluenceonpolicyrelatedtoS&T[Q7] 1 5 2.58 0.924

Deregulation[Q10(1)] 1 5 2.36 0.879

Scienceeducation[Q10(2)] 1 5 1.85 0.783

Accesstocomprehensiblescienceinformation[Q10(3)] 1 5 2.04 0.867

Publiccommentstothegovernment[Q10(4)] 1 5 2.32 0.913

PublicsupportandengagementinSTIpolicy[Q10(5)] 1 5 2.20 0.837

STI-drivenbusinessgrowth[Q10(6)] 1 5 2.00 0.850

Setting Q10(5) as an observable variable, the rest of the questions in Table 3 were

factor-analysed by SPSS 21.0. As illustrated in Table 4, the factor analysis identified the

STI-facilitating factors [Q10(3),Q10(6),Q10(2),Q10(4),Q10(1)], thescientific-literacy factors [Q3,

Q2,Q1],andthepolicy-influencefactors[Q7,Q6]withhigh-reliabilitycoefficients(α>0.7).

Table4.Factoranalysis(principalfactormethod,promaxrotation)

F1 F2 F3 Communality

F1:STI-facilitatingfactor

Q10(3) .851 -.085 -.028 .654

Q10(6) .787 .026 -.025 .618

Q10(2) .786 .104 -.030 .671

Q10(4) .786 -.123 .067 .603

Q10(1) .626 .080 -.016 .428

9

F2:Science-literacyfactor

Q3 .009 .722 -.031 .508

Q2 -.103 .718 -.093 .427

Q1 .102 .585 .129 .495

Q4 .062 .302 .195 .210

F3:Policy-influencefactor

Q7 -.001 -.008 .817 .660

Q6 -.032 -.018 .705 .466

Factorloading 4.259 1.677 1.190

Contribution 34.769 10.749 6.642

Coefficientα .874 .709 .722

The stepwise multiple linear regression analysis, considering the above three factors as

independentvariablesandQ10(5)asadependentvariable,showedthattheSTI-facilitatingfactor

(F1) and the policy-influence factor (F3) are statistically significant at the 0.1% level, but the

science-literacyfactor(F2)isnotstatisticallysignificant(p=0.085).Reflectingthisresult,thesecond

stepwisemultiplelinearregressionanalysismorepreciselyidentifiedfourindependentvariablesas

statistically significant at the 0.1% level: (1) deregulation [Q10(1)], (2) access to comprehensible

scienceinformation[Q10(3)],(3)publiccommentstothegovernment[Q10(4)],and(4)STI-driven

businessgrowth[Q10(6)](Table5).

Table5.Factorsinpublicengagement

Independentvariable Coefficient Significance

Q10(1) .099 .000

Q10(3) .163 .000

Q10(4) .223 .000

Q10(6) .427 .000

Q6 .059 .014

Q7 .095 .032

R2 .661

R2adjusted .658

Fvalue 284.338 0.000

10

Byk-meansclusteringwith the resulting fourvariables (Table6), sampleswereclustered intosix

segmentsbydecisiontreeanalysis(Figure1).FollowingtheVictoriansegmentmodel,thenumber

ofclusterswassetassix.Thedecisiontreeindicatesalogicalclassificationruleaccordingtowhich

respondentswere classified intooneof the six segments by answering the four questions.Note

that (++), (+), (0), (-), (- -)and (DK),markedon lines inFigure1, respectively indicateananswer

withstronglypositive,fairlypositive,neutral,fairlynegative,stronglynegative,anddonotknow.

Table6.K-meansclustering

Cluster(Segment) 1 2 3 4 5 6

Deregulation 3 5 6 3 2 2

Accesstocomprehensiblescienceinformation 2 2 6 4 1 2

Publiccommentstothegovernment 3 2 6 4 2 3

STI-drivenbusinessgrowth 2 3 6 3 1 2

Figure1.Decisiontreeforsegmentation

11

Results

TheaboveanalysisshowssixpopulationsegmentsaslabelledandsummarisedinTable7.

Table7.Populationsegments

Segment1 Discouraged Less confident about their ability to access the

informationandpolicyprocessonSTI

25.0%

Segment2 IndependentEngagers Independentbutkeenabout interactionbetween

thegovernmentandthepublic

5.8%

Segment3 Uninterested Ignorantofandunconcernedaboutanyissues 6.3%

Segment4 EmpoweredSceptics Awareof their ownpolicy influencebutnegative

aboutpublicengagement

3.9%

Segment5 TrustfulEngagers Positive about STI policy and reliant on all the

stakeholders

38.0%

Segment6 InterestedFollowers Attracted to the development of government

policiesandrespectfultoprofessionalexperts

21.0%

A brief profile of each segment is described as follows. Note that the highest or the lowest

percentageofanansweramongallthesegmentsisshowninparentheses.

Segment1:Discouraged

Thelargestpopulationofthoseintheir20s(13.4%)werecategorisedintothissegment.Peoplein

thissegmentarelikelytoworkasanemployee(16.8%)whocannotusetimeforleisureactivities

onweekdays (26.3%).Theyoftencannot find the informationaboutscienceandtechnology that

they are looking for (33.0%). While assigning lower priority to national defence policy (58.1%),

tourismpolicy(38.5%),andculture/sportspolicy(41.3%)forJapanandJapanesecitizens,theydo

not feel assuredwhen public needs/opinions (27.4%) or collaboration between the government

andcitizens(39.1%)leadtheadvancementofscienceandtechnology.Thissegmenthastheleast

trustinuniversities(58.7%)andmunicipalgovernments(35.8%).Insummary,astereotypeofthis

segmentisayoungemployeewhoislessconfidentabouthis/herabilitytoaccesstheinformation

andpolicyprocessonSTI,anddoesnottrustinestablishedauthorities(e.g.universities,municipal

governments)orpublicengagementactivities.

12

Segment2:IndependentEngagers

This segment has self-employed workers in commercial, manufacturing, and service industries

(10.7%),aswellasotherindustries(10.7%).Theyoftenusetheradioasaninformationsourcefor

science and technology (22.7%). They observe science and technology developed by universities

(53.3%)andscienceandtechnologyinformationprovidedbyleadingJapanesecompanies(24.0%)

asnottrustable.Theyalsofeelthattherearetoomany issuesforJapan inpolicymaking(82.7%),

but they allocated budget based on their personal point of view instead of a policymaker’s

viewpoint(62.7%).Thissegmentisthemostkeentoreceiveacopyofthissurveyresult(58.7%).In

summary,astereotypeofthissegment isaself-employedworkerwho israther interested inthe

interactionbetweenthegovernmentandthepublic.

Segment3:Uninterested

Females(80.2%)andindividualsintheir70s(53.8%)dominatethissegment,whilepeopleintheir

20s,30sand40sareleastlikelytobeclassedinthissegment.Mostofthemlivewiththeirchildren

(86.8%)inasmallcity(34.0%)andtendtoundertakelabourwork(33.3%).Theydonotfrequently

go outwith their friends and acquaintances (42.5%). They have time for leisure activities in the

daytime onweekdays (42.5%), but do not visit a specific place. They are the least interested in

scienceand technology (24.5%),and the leastactive in searching for informationonscienceand

technology(1.9%).Theyalsodonotactivelyusenewtechnologiesorproducts(28.3%).Theydonot

indicate any policies as important, and any organizations as trustable to developing science and

technologyortoprovidesuch information. Insummary,astereotypeofthissegment isa female

homemakerinher70s,whoisignorantofandunconcernedwithanyissues–whetherSTI-related,

policy-related,ornot.

Segment4:EmpoweredSceptics

Thissegmentlargelyconsistsofbachelors(42.4%).Italsohasrelativelyhigh-income(between6-8

million yenper year)workers (24.2%).Mostofpeople in this segmentobserve that theydonot

have enough opportunities to deepen interest in and understanding of science and technology

(64.2%).Whiletheyarefairlyinterestedinscienceandtechnology,theyseemlessinterestedinany

kind of public policy. Their distrust of policy is also evident from the figure that, among all the

segments,theytrustleastincollaborationbetweenthegovernmentandleadingcompaniesforthe

development of science and technology (39.4%) and the government for the dissemination of

information on science and technology (21.4%). They do not even trust in scientists for the

13

dissemination of information (45.5%). In summary, a stereotype of this segment is a relatively

educated,high-incomeworkerwho isawareofhis/herownpolicy influence,but feelsnegatively

about ongoing public engagement activities, reflecting the general distrust in policy and science

experts.

Segment5:TrustfulEngagers

Thissegmentispolarisedbetweenlow-income(between2-4millionyen/year)households(29.2%)

and high-income (between 10-15 million yen/year) households (4.2%). It also has the lowest

percentageof thosewhodonot frequentlygooutwith their friendsandacquaintances (26.7%).

People in this segment find sufficient opportunities for public engagement in science and

technology (42.1%), while actively searching for information on science and technology by

themselves (23.1%). They utilise various information sources, including TV (88.6%), newspapers

andmagazines(70.2%),andlibraries(12.3%).Theyalsobelievethattheyhave(40.1%)andshould

have (65.5%) theirown influenceon issues related to scienceand technology. In their view, any

kindofpolicyistobeprioritisedandanykindoforganization,person,orcollaborationistobewell

performed in the development of science and technology. Science education is oneof themost

promisingwaystoadvanceSTI (92.8%).Thebudgetallocationsimulationmadethemthinkabout

thegovernmentpolicy(65.2%),throughwhichthey,aspolicymakers,thinkthattherearetoomany

unnecessary policies (41.8%) and the budget is too limited for the number of issues (73.8%). In

summary, a stereotype of this segment is positive about STI policy and reliant on all of the

stakeholders.

Segment6:InterestedFollowers

Males(60.6%)and individuals intheir30s(16.7%)arethemajorpopulationofthissegment.This

segmenthasthelowestrateofrespondentswhohavechildren(68.2%).Peopleinthissegmentare

likelytohavevisiteddifferent leisurefacilities,suchasamusementparks(35.6%),sportsgrounds

(31.8%),museums (27.3%)andpachinko (13.6%). Theyalsohavevarious information sourceson

science and technology, such as the internet (60.6%), books (28.0%), promotions at companies,

advertisements, catalogues (20.5%), and symposium, lectures, and events at universities and

researchinstitutions(10.6%).Theyareclearlyinterestedinscienceandtechnology(56.8%),being

confidentinfindinginformationtheywerelookingfor(22.7%).Forthem,universitiesarereliablein

the development of science and technology (78.0%) and trust well-known scientists in the

dissemination of information (89.4%). They express a relatively neutral attitude toward

14

policymaking, but face difficulty in budget allocation (90.2%). In summary, a stereotype of this

segment isasingleman inhis30s,whohasrelativelyamplesparetimeforhisown.Havinghigh

interestandliteracyinscienceandtechnology,heisattractedtothedevelopmentofgovernment

policiesandrespectfultoprofessionalexperts.

Discussion

Theaboveresults illustratethattherearedifferentviewsonpublicengagement inSTIpolicyand

suggest that the government should takedifferent approaches todifferent population segments

forthisengagement.Forinstance,trustfulengagers(Seg.5)andindependentengagers(Seg.2)are

thosewhowillinglyparticipateinconventionalengagementpolicies,whereasthegovernmentmay

needtoprovidethediscouraged(Seg.1)withtangibleinformationtostimulatebasicinterestand

impress interested followers (Seg. 6) with the policy relevance of public engagement. For

empoweredsceptics (Seg.4)andtheuninterested (Seg.3), thegovernmentmustbepatientand

continuetotrytomaketheminformed,interestedandinvolvedinSTIpolicy.Itisnoteworthythat

only four questions are sufficient to characterise the six population segments for public

engagement in STI policy. Despite reservations that evidence is just a source for policymaking

(Nutley,Walter&Davies2007),theterm‘evidence’incorporatesuncertainandambiguousrealities

incertainpolicyagendasforwhichpublicopinioncanbemobilised(Pawson2011;Pawson&Wong

2013). By broadening the range of data collected, opening up diverse perspectives in policy

appraisal(Rafolsetal.2012),andfacilitatingreflexiveandrelationallearning(Felt&Wynne2007;

Chilvers&Kearnes2016),thissegmentmodeldemonstratespracticalfeasibility,globalapplicability,

andmethodologicalextendibility.

Acknowledgements

This study is basedon the ‘Framework for BroadPublic Engagement in Science, Technology and

InnovationPolicy’ (PESTI)project fundedbytheResearch InstituteofScienceandTechnology for

Society(RISTEX)inJapan.ThepublicationofthisarticlehasbeengreatlymotivatedbytheSciREX

CenterattheNationalGraduateInstituteforPolicyStudies(GRIPS).Theauthorswouldalsoliketo

thankNoriko Suzuki andNobuya Fujiwara for their statistical elaboration (Suga et al. 2016) and

PESTImembersfortheirpracticalapplicationofthissegmentmodel.

15

Annex

1. Surveyquestionnaire

2. Infographicsofthesurveyoverview

3. Infographicsofthepopulationsegments

References

Asano,H.(2010)BasisofLatestMarketingScience[inJapanese].Kodansha.

Banks,G.(2009)“Evidence-basedpolicymaking:Whatisit?Howdowegetit?”ANUPublicLecture

Series.ProductivityCommission,Canberra.

Bauer, M.W., Allum, N. & Miller, S. (2007) “What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey

research? Liberating and expanding the agenda,” Public Understanding of Science 16(1):

79-95.

Caplan,N. (1979)“The two-communities theoryandknowledgeutilization,”AmericanBehavioral

Scientist22(3):459-470.

Castell, S.,Charlton,A.,Clemence,M.,Pettigrew,N.,Pope,S.,Quigley,A.,Shah J.N.&Silman,T.

(2014)PublicAttitudestoScience2014:MainReport.URNBIS/14/P111,IpsosMORI.

Chilvers,J.&Kearnes,M.,eds.(2016)RemakingParticipation:Science,EnvironmentandEmergent

Publics.Routledge.

Ernø-Kjølhede, E. & Hansson, F. (2011) “Measuring research performance during a changing

relationshipbetweenscienceandsociety,”ResearchEvaluation20(2):131-143.

Felt,U.&Wynne,B.(2007)ScienceandGovernance:TakingEuropeanKnowledgeSocietySeriously.

ReportoftheExpertGrouponScienceandGovernancetotheScience,EconomyandSociety

Directorate,Directorate-GeneralforResearch.Brussels:EuropeanCommission.

Glasby,J.&Beresford,P. (2006)“Whoknowsbest?Evidence-basedpracticeandtheserviceuser

contribution,”CriticalSocialPolicy26(1):268-284.

Godin, B. & Doré, C. (2005)Measuring the Impact of Science: Beyond the Economic Dimension.

UrbanisationINRS,CultureetSociété.HelsinkiInstituteforScienceandTechnologyStudies.

Gough,D.(2007)“Weightofevidence:aframeworkfortheappraisalofthequalityandrelevance

ofevidence,”ResearchPapersinEducation22(2):213-228.

Head, B.W. (2008) “Three lenses of evidence-based policy,” Australian Journal of Public

Administration67(1):1-11.

Head, B.W. (2010) “Reconsidering evidence-based policy: key issues and challenges,” Policy and

Society29(2):77-94.

16

Head,B.W.(2013)“Evidence-basedpolicymaking—speakingtruthtopower?”AustralianJournalof

PublicAdministration72(4):397-403.

Hennen, L. (2015) “Increasing public engagement in R&I: outcomes of the Engage2020 project,”

presented at Engaging Society in Responsible Research and Innovation: What’s Next?,

Brussels,November9,2015.

Jasanoff,S.(2005)DesignonNature.PrincetonUniversityPress.

Leigh,A.(2009)“Whatevidenceshouldsocialpolicymakersuse?”EconomicRoundup1:27-43.

Lipsky,M.(1971)“Socialscientistsandtheriotcommission,”AnnalsoftheAmericanAcademyof

PoliticalandSocialScience394(1):72-83.

Nelson, R.R. (1974) “Intellectualizing about the moon-ghetto metaphor: a study of the current

malaiseofrationalanalysisofsocialproblems,”PolicySciences5(4):375-414.

Kano, K. (2014) “Toward achieving broad public engagement with science, technology, and

innovation policies: trials in JAPAN Vision 2020,” International Journal of Deliberative

MechanismsinScience3(1):1-23.

Kano,K.,Suga,M.,Yoshizawa,G.,Kudo,M.,Mizumachi,E.,Goto,T.&Ebina,K.(2016)“Engaging

thepublic inSTIpolicymaking:usingsegmentationmethodasan indicator for scienceand

society,” presented at OECD Blue Sky III: Towards the Next Generation of Data and

Indicators,19-21September,Ghent,Belgium.

Kotler,P.&Lee,N.R.(2007)SocialMarketing:InfluencingBehaviorsforGood,3rded.Sage.

Lasswell, H.D. (1951) “The policy orientation,” pp. 3-15 in Lerner, D. & Lasswell, H.D. (eds.) The

PolicySciences.StanfordUniversityPress.

Maenami, H., Yoshizawa, G. & Kano, K. (2016) “‘Interactive public comment’ for regional policy

makingandevaluation[inJapanese],”JapaneseJournalofRegionalPolicyStudies16:38-47.

Mingers, J. (2008) “Management knowledge and knowledgemanagement: realism and forms of

truth,”KnowledgeManagementResearch&Practice6(1):62-76.

Moedas, C. (2015) “Open innovation, open science, open to theworld,” speech given atANew

Start for Europe: Opening Up to an ERA of Innovation, 22 June 2015. Available at

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-15-5243_en.htm

Moore,G.A.(2014)CrossingtheChasm:MarketingandSellingDisruptiveProductstoMainstream

Customers,3rded.HarperCollinsPublishers.

Neresini, F.&Bucchi,M. (2011) “Which indicators for thenewpublic engagementactivities?An

exploratorystudyofEuropeanresearchinstitutions,”PublicUnderstandingofScience20(1):

64-79.

17

Nissen, S. (2014) “The Eurobarometer and the process of European integration:methodological

foundations and weaknesses of the largest European survey,” Quality & Quantity 48(2):

713-727.

Nutley, S., Walter, I. & Davies, H.T.O. (2003) “From knowing to doing: a framework for

understandingtheevidence-into-practiceagenda,”Evaluation9(2):125-148.

Pardo, R. & Calvo, F. (2002) “Attitudes toward science among the European public: a

methodologicalanalysis,”PublicUnderstandingofScience11(2):155-195.

Parsons,W.(2002)“Frommuddlingthroughtomuddlingup.Evidencebasedpolicy-makingandthe

modernisationofBritishGovernment,”PublicPolicyandAdministration17(3):43-60.

Pawson,R.,Wong,G.&Owen,L.(2011)“Knownknowns,knownunknowns,unknownunknowns:

thepredicamentofevidence-basedpolicy,”AmericanJournalofEvaluation32(4):518-546.

Pawson,R.&Wong,G. (2013)“Publicopinionandpolicy-making,”SocialPolicy&Administration

47(4):434-450.

Rafols, I.,Ciarli, T., vanZwanenberg,P.&Stirling,A. (2012) “Towards indicators for ‘openingup’

science and technology policy,” Proceedings of 17th International Conference on Science

andTechnologyIndicators,pp.675-682.

Rhodes, R.A.W. (1996) “The new governance: governing without government,” Political Studies

44(4):652-667.

Rogers,E.(1983)DiffusionofInnovation.NewYork:FreePress.

Rowe, G., Horlick-Jones, T., Walls, J. & Pidgeon, N. (2005) “Difficulties in evaluating public

engagement initiatives: reflections on an evaluation of the UKGMNation? public debate

abouttransgeniccrops,”PublicUnderstandingofScience14(4):331-352.

Rowe,G.,Horlick-Jones,T.,Walls,J.,Poortinga,W.&Pidgeon,N.F.(2008)“Analysisofanormative

framework forevaluatingpublicengagementexercises: reliability,validityand limitations,”

PublicUnderstandingofScience17(4):419-441.

Rycroft-Malone, J., Seers, K., Titchen, A., Harvey, G., Kitson, A. &McCormack, B. (2004) “What

countsasevidenceinevidence-basedpractice?”JournalofAdvancedNursing47(1):81-90.

Sanz-Menéndez, L., Van Ryzin, G.G. & del Pino, E. (2013) “Citizens’ support for government

spendingonscienceandtechnology,”ScienceandPublicPolicy41(5):611-624.

Sebba, J. (2004) “Developing evidence-informed policy and practice in education,” pp. 34-43 in

Thomas, G. & Pring, R. (eds.) Evidence-Based Practice in Education. Maidenhead: Open

UniversityPress.

Sellar, S. & Lingard, B. (2014) “The OECD and the expansion of PISA: new global modes of

18

governanceineducation,”BritishEducationalResearchJournal40(6):917-936.

Shonkoff, J.P. (2000)“Science,policy,andpractice: threecultures insearchofasharedmission,”

ChildDevelopment71(1):181-187.

Smith, W.R. (1956) “Product differentiation and market segmentation as alternative marketing

strategies,”JournalofMarketing21(1):3-8.

State of Victoria (2008) Community Interest and Engagement with Science and Technology in

VictoriaResearchReport-June2007,preparedfortheVictorianDepartmentofInnovation,

IndustryandRegionalDevelopment.Availableat

http://dsdbi.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/1005444/2007-research-report.pdf

Suga,M.,Suzuki,N.,Fujiwara,N.,Yoshizawa,G.,Kudo,M.&Kano,K.(2016)Developmentofanew

segmentation for broad public engagement in science, technology and innovation policy:

fromanopinionpollonscience,technologyandinnovation[inJapanese].VentureReview,in

preparation.

Torgerson, D. (1986) “Interpretive policy inquiry: a response to its limitations,” Policy Sciences

19(4):397-405.

Tsipouri, L. (2012) “Comparing innovation performance and science in society in the European

memberstates,”ScienceandPublicPolicy39(6):732-740.

Vigier,P.(2007)“Towardsacitizen-driveninnovationsysteminEurope:agovernanceapproachfor

aEuropeaninnovationagenda,”Innovation20(3):191-202.

Wesselink,A.,Colebatch,H.&Pearce,W. (2014)“Evidenceandpolicy:discourses,meaningsand

practices,”PolicySciences47(4):339-344.

Young,K.,Ashby,D.,Boaz,A.&Grayson,L. (2002)“Social scienceandtheevidence-basedpolicy

movement,”SocialPolicy&Society1(3):215-224.

1

No. 0077

Awareness survey on life and science & technology

December 2013

(Survey planned by) Institute for Integrated Cell-Material Sciences, Kyoto University

Science Communication Group

(Survey implemented by) Central Research Services, Inc.

Branch No. Point No. Target No. Inspected by

(1-7) (8-10)=101

Q1. ［Answer sheet 1］ How much are you interested in science and technology? Please select only one. (11)

1 2 3 4 5 6

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

Very interested Quite

interested

Neither

interested nor

disinterested

Not very

interested

Not interested

at all

Don’t know

Q2. Do you actively search for information about science and technology? (12)

1 Yes 2 No 3 Don’t know

Q3. ［Answer sheet 2］ 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? Please select the closest answer. (13)

1 (a) Yes, and it tends to be easy to understand

2 (b) Yes, but it is often difficult to understand

3 (c) No, I often can’t find what I am looking for

4 Don’t know

Q4. ［Answer sheet 3］ Which of the following statements would you say best describes how you feel

about new technology and products? Please select one. (14)

1 (a) I always try new technologies and products before anyone else does

2 (b) I always use new technologies and products after observing some people

who try them

3 (c) I always use new technologies and products after observing most of

the people around me try them

4 (d) I do not actively use new technologies or products

5 Don’t know

Go to Q5, Q5SQ in the following page.

Go to Q6 in the

following page.

2

（For those who answered “Don’t know” in Q5 and Q5S and Q4.）

Q5. ［Answer sheet 4］ Do the following items 1) – 3) raise your expectation for science and technology,

or science, technology and innovation policy? Please mark for individual item. Consider science,

technology and innovation as creating intellectual/cultural value based on scientific findings and

inventions, and innovation that develops and connects this knowledge with economic, social and

public value. Firstly, does “Civil perspective is incorporated into the policy” raise your

expectation? (Note on survey: Mark for item 1) – 3) individually.)

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

1) Incorporating a civil perspective

into the policy･･････････････････････････ …1… …2… …3… …4… …5… …6… (15)

2) Creating a structure for citizens to

participate in policy-making･････････ …1… …2… …3… …4… …5… …6… (16)

3) Citizens can feel that the policies

they need are implemented･･････････ …1… …2… …3… …4… …5… …6… (17)

Q5SQ. Please write anything else you expect of science and technology or science, technology and

innovation. If not, please circle “No.”

2 No

(18)

(To all respondents)

Q6. ［Answer sheet 5］ How much influence if any, do you feel you personally have on policy making

about science and technology issues that are important to you? Please select one. (19)

1 2 3 4 5

(a) (b) (c) (d)

A great deal A fair amount Not very much None at all Don’t know

Q7. ［Answer sheet 6］ How much influence if any, do you think you personally should have on policy

making about science and technology issues that are important to you? Please select one. (20)

1 2 3 4 5

(a) (b) (c) (d)

A great deal A fair amount Not very much None at all Don’t know

Neutral

Don’t kn

ow

Not very m

uch

Not at all

It does

very much.

It does a

little

3

Q8. ［Answer sheet7 ］ How important are the following policy items1) – 19) to Japan and Japanese

citizens? Please mark for individual item. Firstly, how important is “Pension policy” (Note on survey:

Mark for 1) – 19) individually.)

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

1) Pension policy･･････････････････････････ …1… …2… …3… …4… …5… …６… (21)

2) Medical/nursing care policy･････････ …1… …2… …3… …4… …5… …６… (22)

3) Policy on parenting support･････････ …1… …2… …3… …4… …5… …6… (23)

4) Policy of safety/security of life･････ …1… …2… …3… …4… …5… …6… (24)

5) Information and communications policy････ …1… …2… …3… …4… …5… …6… (25)

6) Energy policy････････････････････････ …1… …2… …3… …4… …5… …6… (26)

7) Environmental policy･･････････････ …1… …2… …3… …4… …5… …6… (27)

8) Employment policy･･････････････････ …1… …2… …3… …4… …5… …6… (28)

9) Industrial policy･･････････････････ …1… …2… …3… …4… …5… …6… (29)

10) Agriculture, forestry and fishery policy …1… …2… …3… …4… …5… …6… (30)

11) Disaster recovery policy･･･････ …1… …2… …3… …4… …5… …6… (31)

12) Disaster prevention/disaster

reduction policy････････････････････ …1… …2… …3… …4… …5… …6… (32)

13) Public works policy･･･････････････ …1… …2… …3… …4… …5… …6… (33)

14) Policy on assistance to

developing countries･･････････････ …1… …2… …3… …4… …5… …6… (34)

15) National defence policy･････････ …1… …2… …3… …4… …5… …6… (35)

16) Tourism policy･･･････････････････････ …1… …2… …3… …4… …5… …6… (36)

17) Culture/sports policy････････････ …1… …2… …3… …4… …5… …6… (37)

18) Education policy････････････････････ …1… …2… …3… …4… …5… …6… (38)

19) Science, technology and

innovation (*) policy …1… …2… …3… …4… …5… …6… (39)

*【Note】 State the following note in the answer sheet

“Science and technology innovation is the creation of intellectual/cultural value based on scientific findings and

inventions, and technological revolution that develops this knowledge into economic, social and public value.”

Neutral

important

at all

importan

t

Very

Importan

t

Not

Not im

portan

t

Don’t kn

ow

4

Q9. ［Answer sheet 8］ Which of the following organizations, persons, or collaboration in 1) - 14) make

you feel assured as a citizen when they lead the advancement of science/technology? Please mark

for individual item. Firstly, does “University” make you feel assured? (Note on survey: Mark for 1) –

14) individually.)

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

1) University････････････････････････････････ …1… …2… …3… …4… …5… …6… (40)

2) Municipal government･････････････････ …1… …2… …3… …4… …5… …6… (41)

3) Scientist ･････････････････････････････････ …1… …2… …3… …4… …5… …6… (42)

4) Government･････････････････････････････ …1… …2… …3… …4… …5… …6… (43)

5) Leading Japanese companies････････ …1… …2… …3… …4… …5… …6… (44)

6) Public needs/opinions････････････ …1… …2… …3… …4… …5… …6… (45)

7)

Specified non-profit

organization

(NPO）･･････････････････

…1… …2… …3… …4… …5… …6… (46)

8) National/public laboratory････ …1… …2… …3… …4… …5… …6… (47)

9) Collaboration between the

government and citizens･････････ …1… …2… …3… …4… …5… …6… (48)

10) Research of various fields

jointly･･････････････････････････････････ …1… …2… …3… …4… …5… …6… (49)

11)

Government and

national/public laboratories

jointly･･････････････････････････････････

…1… …2… …3… …4… …5… …6… (50)

12)

Collaboration between the

government and leading

companies･･･････････････････････････････

…1… …2… …3… …4… …5… …6… (51)

13)

Collaboration between

national/public laboratories

and leading companies････････････

…1… …2… …3… …4… …5… …6… (52)

14)

Collaboration between

universities, public

administration, and

companies･･･････････････････････････････

…1… …2… …3… …4… …5… …6… (53)

Neutral

assu

red

assured at all

I feel very

I do no

t feel very

Don’tkn

ow.

I feel

som

ewhat

I do no

t feel

5

Q10. ［Answer sheet 9］ Which of the following items 1) – 6) do you think would advance science and technology innovation? Please mark for individual item. Firstly, do you think “Relaxation of regulations” prompts science and technology innovation? (Note on survey: Mark for 1) – 6) individually.)

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

1) Relaxation of regulations･････････････ …1… …2… …3… …4… …5… …6… (54)

2) Science education････････････････････ …1… …2… …3… …4… …5… …6… (55)

3)

Easy-to-understand

communication of information on

science and technology･･･････････････

…1… …2… …3… …4… …5… …6… (56)

4) Conveying opinions from citizens

to the government･････････････････････ …1… …2… …3… …4… …5… …6… (57)

5) Support and involvement of citizens in

the policy of science, technology and

innovation･････････････････････････････････ …1… …2… …3… …4… …5… …6… (58)

6） Increase of successful companies in

science, technology and

innovation･････････････････････････････････ …1… …2… …3… …4… …5… …6… (59)

Q11. ［Answer sheet 10］ How much trust do you have in the science and technology information

provided by the following groups? Please mark for individual items. Firstly, are “Universities” reliable? (Note on survey: Mark for 1) - 11) individually.)

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

1) Universities･･････････････････････････････ …1… …2… …3… …4… …5… …6… (60)

2) Municipal governments･･･････････････ …1… …2… …3… …4… …5… …6… (61)

3) Scientists ････････････････････････････････ …1… …2… …3… …4… …5… …6… (62)

4) Government ･･･････････････････････････ …1… …2… …3… …4… …5… …6… (63)

5) National/public laboratories･････････ …1… …2… …3… …4… …5… …6… (64)

6) Mass communication

(TV/newspaper, etc.) ･････････････ …1… …2… …3… …4… …5… …6… (65)

7) Leading Japanese companies････ …1… …2… …3… …4… …5… …6… (66)

8) Japanese government･･･････････････ …1… …2… …3… …4… …5… …6… (67)

Neutral

advan

ce much.

advan

ce at all.

Don’t kn

ow

very much.

It would

advan

ce

It would

not

It would

advan

ce

It would

not

reliable

Neutral

reliable

at all

reliable

Very

Not very

Don’t kn

ow

Som

ewhat

Not reliab

le

a little.

6

9) Global companies････････････････････ …1… …2… …3… …4… …5… …6… (68)

10)

Popular TV shows on science and

technology (“Galileo,”

“Kasouken-no-onna,” “Emergency

ward 24,” “Jin,”

etc.) ･････････････････････････････････････

…1… …2… …3… …4… …5… …6… (69)

11)

Well-known scientists (Dr

Koichi Tanaka, Dr Masatoshi

Koshiba, Dr Toshihide Masukawa,

etc.) ････････････････････････････････････

…1… …2… …3… …4… …5… …6… (70)

(8-10)=102

Q12. ［Answer sheet 11］ Assume Japan’s budget for policymaking is 10. If you are a person in charge of

policymaking, how would you allocate the budget to the following policies 1) – 19)? Please state a

number 0 – 10 to make the total 10. Please give whole numbers. Also note that “0” means that no

budget is given to the policy.

1) Pension policy･････････････････････････････････････････････････ (11-13)

2) Medical/nursing care policy･･･････････････････････････････ (14-16)

3) Policy on parenting support･･･････････････････････････････ (17-19)

4) Policy of safety/security of life････････････････････････････ (20-22)

5) Information and communications policy･････････････････ (23-25)

6) Energy policy･･･････････････････････････････････････････････ (26-28)

7) Environmental policy････････････････････････････････････ (29-31)

8) Employment policy･････････････････････････････････････････ (32-34)

9) Industrial policy･････････････････････････････････････････ (35-37)

10) Agriculture, forestry and fishery policy･･････････ (38-40)

11) Disaster recovery policy･･････････････････････････････ (41-43)

12) Disaster prevention/disaster reduction policy･･･ (44-46)

13) Public works policy･････････････････････････････････････ (47-49)

14) Policy on assistance to developing countries････ (50-52)

15) National defence policy ････････････････････････････ (53-55)

16) Tourism policy･････････････････････････････････････････････ (56-58)

17) Culture/sports policy･･････････････････････････････････ (59-61)

7

18) Education policy･･････････････････････････････････････････ (62-64)

19) Science and technology innovation (*) policy ･･･ (65-67)

Ensure to have whole numbers, and that the total of 1) – 19) is “10.”.

（Note on survey: If the total of 1） - 19) is not “10” or if the numbers include small numbers,

ask the question again as much as possible. Note that “0” means that no

budget is given.)

Ｘ Don’t know (68)

Q13. ［Answer sheet 12］ As you answered Q12 as if you are a person in charge of policymaking, what

did you feel or think? Please mark for individual items. Firstly, what did you think about “It is

difficult to allocate budget from the viewpoint of policymaker”? (Note on survey: mark 1) – 9)

individually.)

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

1)

It is difficult to allocate budget

from the viewpoint of

policymaker･････････････････････････････

…1… …2… …3… …4… …5… …6… (69)

2) More budget should be allocated

to human resources････････････････････ …1… …2… …3… …4… …5… …6… (70)

3) It made me think of the

government’s policies････････････････ …1… …2… …3… …4… …5… …6… (71)

4) We should allocate budget for the

future･････････････････････････････････････ …1… …2… …3… …4… …5… …6… (72)

5) There are too many unnecessary

policies･･･････････････････････････････････ …1… …2… …3… …4… …5… …6… (73)

6) They are all necessary policies･････ …1… …2… …3… …4… …5… …6… (74)

7) There are too many issues for

Japan･･････････････････････････････････････ …1… …2… …3… …4… …5… …6… (75)

8) Budget is too limited for the

number of issues ･･････････････････････ …1… …2… …3… …4… …5… …6… (76)

9)

I allocated budget from my

personal point of view, instead of

policymaker’s viewpoint ･････････････

…1… …2… …3… …4… …5… …6… (77)

Neutral

disagree

Don’t kn

ow

agree

Stro

ngly

Stro

ngly

Agree

Disagree

8

Q13SQ. Please write any other things that you felt or thought while making the budget allocation from

the viewpoint of policymaker. If not, state “No.”

2 No

(78)

Q14. ［Answer sheet 13］ Do you think you are quick to catch on to a trend? Please select one. (79)

1 2 3 4 5 6

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

I think I am

very quick.

I think I am

quick.

Neutral

I don’t think I

am quick.

I don’t think I

am quick at all.

Don’t know

Q15. ［Answer sheet 14］ Do you go out with your friends and acquaintances? Please select only one. (80)

1 2 3 4 5 6

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

Very

frequently

Frequently Neutral Not frequently Very rarely Don’t know

Ｑ16. ［Answer sheet 15］ When do you use time for leisure activities such as your hobby, culture

lessons and other amusement? Please select all the relevant answers. (81)

1 (a) Daytime between

Monday to Friday

5 (e) Evening on Saturdays

2 (b) Daytime on Saturdays 6 (f) Evening on Sunday and public holidays

3 (c) Daytime on Sunday and

public holidays

7

(g) Never (I cannot take time for leisure.)

4 (d) Evening between

Monday to Friday

8

Don’t know

Q17. ［Answer sheet 16］ What leisure facilities you have visited in the past one year using your leisure

time? Please select all the relevant answers. (82,83)

1 (a) Library 11 (k) Theme parks and leisure facility including Tokyo

Disneyland, Universal Studios Japan

2 (b) Aquarium/Zoo

3 (c) Botanical garden 12 (l) Pachinko

4 (d) Science museum 13 (m) Horse race/motorboat race/bicycle race

5 (e) Museum 14 (n) Temple or shrine

6 (f) Art museum 15 (o) Pool or gym

7 (g) Movie theatre 16 (p) Sports ground for baseball, soccer, tennis, etc.

8 (h) Theatre 17 (q) Sports stadium

9 (i) Children’s center 18 (r) Other (In specific )

10 (j) Amusement park 19 (s) None of the above

20 Don’t know

9

Q18. ［Answer sheet 17］ Where do you usually come across information or news on science and

technology? Please select all the relevant answers. (84,85)

1 (a) TV 8 (h) Symposium, lectures, events at universities and

research institutions

2 (b) Radio 9 (i) Promotion event at companies, advertisement,

catalogues

3 (c) Internet 10 (j) Conversations with family and friends

4 (d) Newspaper, magazine 11 (k) Other (In specific ）

5 (e) Books 12 (l) None in particular

6 (f) Science

museum/museum 13

Don’t know

7 (g) Library

Q19. ［Answer sheet 18］ There are opportunities for scientists and engineers to introduce science and

technology in a comprehensive way through experiences at science museums and museums, or

open house of laboratories, lectures and science cafés. In addition, TV programs and articles on

science and technology are introduced on TV, the Internet, newspapers and magazines. Do you

think these opportunities are sufficient to deepen interest and understanding on science and

technology? (86)

1 2 3 4 5

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Strongly

agree

Tend to agree Tend to disagree Strongly

disagree

Don’t know

10

(8-10)=103

Lastly, we would like to ask about yourself in order to analyse your answers statistically.

Ｆ1. Gender (Researcher makes a judgment) (11)

1 Male 2 Female

Ｆ2. ［Answer sheet 19］ Which one of the following age groups do you belong to? (12,13)

1 (a) 16 - 19 6 (f) 40 - 44 11 (k) 65 - 69

2 (b) 20 - 24 7 (g) 45 - 49 12 (l) 70 - 74

3 (c) 25 – 29 8 (h) 50 - 54 13 (m) 75 - 79

4 (d) 30 - 34 9 (i) 55 - 59 14 (n) 80 and over

5 (e) 35 - 39 10 (j) 60 - 64

Ｆ3. ［Question 20］ What is your educational background? Consider graduated if you are still in school or

left school without diploma. (14)

1 2 3 4 5 6

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

Elementary/junior

high school

（and old-

education-system

elementary school）

High school

(and old-

education-system

junior high school)

Two-year

college/

vocational

school

University

(and old-

education-system

high school)

Graduate

school

Don’t

know

To Ｆ5 To Ｆ5

Ｆ4. (For those who selected ”c” – “e” at F3)

［Answer sheet 21］ What is your expertise? Please select only one. (15,16)

1 (a) Science and Engineering

(Physics)

7 (g) Medical

2 (b) Science and Engineering

(Chemistry)

8 (h) Dentistry

3 (c) Science and Engineering

(Biology)

9 (i) Medicine

4 (d) Science and Engineering

(Geology)

10 (j) Other than (a)-(i)

5 (e) Science and Engineering

(Mathematics)

11 Don’t know

6 (f) Agriculture, forestry and

fishery

11

Ｆ5. (To all respondents)

［Answer sheet 22］ Where did you mainly live until the age of 15? Please select one from the

following category. (17)

1 (a) Major city

2 (b) Suburbs or outskirts of major city

3 (c) Medium-sized city in rural area

4 (d) Town or village in rural area

5 Don’t know

12

Ｆ6. ［Answer sheet 23］ What is your current occupation? Please select one main occupation from the

following list. （18,19）

1 (a) Agriculture, forestry, and fishery

industry (Self-owned)

2 (b) Agriculture, forestry, and fishery

(Family employee)

3 (c) Commercial, manufacturing and

service industries (Self-owned)

4 (d) Commercial, manufacturing and

service industries (Member of

family employee)

5 (e) Freelance (Self-owned)

6 (f) Freelance (Member of family

business)

7 (g) Management position（Employee）

8 (h) Specialist / Technical work

(Employee)

9 (i) Clerical work (Employee)

10 (j) Labor work (Employee)

11 (k) Homemaker (Unemployed)

12 (l) Student (Unemployed)

13 (m) Other (Unemployed)

14 Don’t know To F8

Ｆ7. ［Answer sheet 24］（For those who selected ”k” - ”m” at F6）

What is the occupation you have had the longest period of time? Please select only one from the

following list. (20,21)

1 (a) Agriculture, forestry, and

fishery (Self-owned)

8 (h) Specialist / Technical work

(Employee)

2 (b) Agriculture, forestry, and

fishery (Member of family

business）

9 (i)

Clerical work (Employee)

3 (c) Commercial, manufacturing and

service industries (Self-owned)

10 (j) Labor work (Employee)

4 (d) Commercial, manufacturing and

service industries (Member of

family business）

11 (k)

Homemaker (Unemployed)

5 (e) Freelance (Self-owned) 12 (l) Student (Unemployed)

6 (f) Freelance (Member of family

business）

13 (m) Other (Unemployed)

7 (g) Management position

（Employee）

14 (n) I have never worked before.

15 Don’t know

To F8

13

Ｆ8. （To all respondents）Do you have any children? (22)

1 Yes 2 No Go to Ｆ10 on the next page.

Ｆ9. [Answer sheet 25](For those who selected “Yes” at Ｆ8)

Please select current educational status of all of your children. Please select all the relevant items. (23,24)

1 (a) Pre-school 7 (g) Vocational school

2 (b) Lower grade at elementary

school

8 (h) Two-year college

3 (c) Middle grade at elementary

school

9 (i) University

4 (d) Higher grade at elementary

school

10 (k) Graduate school

5 (e) Junior high school 11 (l) Working

6 (f) High school 12 (m) Other (In specific ）

13 Don’t know

14

Ｆ10. (To all respondents)

［Answer sheet 26］ What is the approximate pre-tax income of your entire household per year? (25)

1 (a) Less than 2 million yen 5 (e) Between 8 – 10 million yen

2 (b) Between 2 – 4 million yen 6 (f) Between 10 – 15 million yen

3 (c) Between 4 – 6 million yen 7 (g)) Over 15 million yen

4 (d) Between 6 – 8 million yen 8 Don’t know

Ｆ11. We will be publishing the results of this survey on the Internet, and we will be happy to send a copy

to the respondents who are interested. Would you like to receive a copy? (26)

1 Yes 2 No

That completes the survey. Thank you very much for your cooperation.

1Awareness survey on life and science & technology

2,000

887

120000000

800000

No. of sample

No. of valid responses

About

About

1.0%

32.4%

1.1%

Don’t knowNot interested at all

Not very interested

Neither interested nor disinterested

Quite interested

Very interested9.5%

34.0%

32.0%

17.0%

6.3%1.1%

Q1 Q2 Q3How much are you interested in science and technology?

Q6How much influence if any, do you feel you personally have on policy making about science and technologyissues that are important to you?

Q7How much influence if any, do you think you personally should have on policy making about science and technology issues that are important to you?

N/A

Don’t know

No

Yes19.5%

76.6%

2.9%

1.0%N/A0.0%

N/A

Don’t know

No, I often can’t find what I am looking for

Yes, but it is often di�cult to understand

Yes, and it tends to be easy to understand14.1%

27.1%

25.4%

32.4%

1.1%

N/A N/ADon’t know

None at all

Not very much

A fair amount

A great deal7.0%

25.6%

39.0%

24.7%

3.7% Don’t know

None at all

Not very much

A fair amount

A great deal6.0%

49.2%

30.8%

8.9%

5.2%

Q4Which of the following statements would you say bestdescribes how you feel aboutnew technology and products?

N/ADon’t know

I do not actively use new technologies or products

I always use new technologies and products after observing most of the people around me try them

I always use new technologiesand products after observing some people who try them

I always try new technologies and products before anyone else does6.9%

32.6%

43.6%

14.5%

2.4%0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Do you actively search for information about science and technology?

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

Survey public needs/opinions and involvement in science, technology

and innovation policy, to foster the development of a social system

in which citizens can widely participate in the process of policy making.

1 Interest, understanding and information-gathering regarding

　 science and technology

2 Subjective evaluation of the citizens’ own influence over formation

of policies on science, technology and innovation

3 Various policies in Japan, and citizens’ interest in and evaluation of

science, technology and innovation

4 Organizations/persons/partnerships that contribute to the advancement of

science and technology

5 Attitude to new technologies and new products

6 Lifestyle

* The survey was conducted with the title of “Awareness survey on

life and science & technology.”

SURVEYOVERVIEWOpinion poll on science technology

Objective of the survey

Key items of survey

Design of the survey

Sample planning

Japanese citizens aged 16 and over

No. of points: 140 points

1 Region of survey: The whole country

2 Target of the survey: Japanese citizens aged 16 and over

3 No. of sample: 2,000

4 No. of valid responses: 887 (44.4%)

5 Method of survey: Interview by researcher

6 Period of survey: December 12 – 23, 2013

1 Population: Japanese citizens aged 16 and over

2 No. of sample: 2,000

3 No. of points: 140 points

4 Sampling process: Stratified two-stage random sampling

and innovation

N/A

Don't know

Not important at all

Not important

Neutral

Important

Very important

Science, technology and innovation policy

Education policy

Culture/sports policy

Tourism policy

National defence policy

Policy on assistance to developing countries

Public works policy

Disaster prevention/disaster reduction policy

Disaster recovery policy

Agriculture, forestry and fishery policy

Industrial policy

Employment policy

Environmental policy

Energy policy

Information and communications policy

Policy of safety/security of life

Policy on parenting support

Medical/nursing care policy

Pension policy

Q8 Q9

Q11

Which of the following organizations, persons, or collaboration make you feel assured as a citizenwhen they lead the advancement of science/technology?

How much trust do you have in the scienceand technology information provided by the following groups?

Q13if you are a person in charge of policymaking, what did you feel or think?

25.7

39.9

25.9

4.7

0.7

2.9

0.1

10.9

35.5

37.3

9.7

2.3

4.2

0.1

33.5

36.6

21.0

4.5

0.5

3.7

0.2

16.7

30.4

31.6

13.4

4.6

3.2

16.0

36.9

31.6

9.5

2.5

3.5

0.1

13.9

29.9

40.1

9.7

2.4

4.1

0.0

5.6

26.0

44.6

13.6

3.9

5.9

0.2

27.2

42.8

21.5

3.3

0.6

4.6

0.0

20.3

36.5

31.8

6.0

1.7

3.6

0.1

28.1

43.7

21.0

3.3

0.2

3.6

0.1

27.8

44.9

19.2

3.5

0.7

3.8

0.1

0.1

19.1

39.0

28.1

8.0

2.3

3.5

0.1

25.3

38.4

24.8

5.6

1.5

4.3

0.1

28.1

39.8

23.2

4.4

0.8

3.7

0.0

I do not feelassured at all

I do not feelvery assured

Neutral

I feel somewhat

I feel very

Collaborationbetween universities,

public administration, and companies

Collaboration betweennational/public laboratories

and leading companies

Collaboration betweenthe government and

leading companies

Government and national/public laboratories jointly

Research of variousfields jointly

Collaboration between thegovernment and citizens

National/publiclaboratory

Specified non-profitorganization (NPO）

Publicneeds/opinions

Leading Japanesecompanies

Government

Scientist

Municipalgovernment

University

19.6

52.5

21.0

3.8

0.3

2.7

1.7

2.6

0.0

7.2

42.4

37.3

8.7

0.1

0.3

2.9

28.4

42.8

22.7

2.8

0.0

4.1

2.9

0.5

3.3

23.3

48.9

20.7

3.3

0.0

7.2

3.2

2.5

3.7

4.4

2.8

6.8

35.3

33.6

16.7

0.5

1.2

6.4

12.1

37.1

35.9

7.2

0.1

5.7

6.4

0.3

4.2

39.1

39.2

14.8

2.3

0.1

5.2

24.5

43.4

14.7

0.1

5.9

37.2

39.3

11.3

0.1

3.3

18.6

42.7

24.9

0.1

6.1

34.8

37.2

14.8

0.1

Well-known scientists

Popular TV showson science and technology

Global companies

Japanese government

Leading Japanese companies

Mass communication (TV/newspaper, etc.)

National/public laboratories

Government

Scientists

Municipalgovernments

Universities

44.9

37.9

10.3

3.0

0.5

3.5

0.0

15.1

34.6

37.1

5.2

0.6

7.2

0.2

12.0

41.6

31.3

7.6

1.7

5.9

0.0

29.4

46.3

14.4

2.1

0.6

6.9

0.2

20.6

27.2

33.1

11.4

1.8

5.9

8.1

25.5

38.0

19.1

4.5

4.7

0.1

24.7

47.2

16.9

5.3

0.5

5.3

0.1

24.2

38.6

22.2

7.6

1.0

6.4

0.0

0.0

14.4

36.9

28.7

10.3

2.5

7.2

0.0I allocated budget from

my personal point of view, insteadof policymaker’s viewpoint

Budget is too limitedfor the number of issues

There are too many issuesfor Japan

They are all necessary policies

There are too manyunnecessary policies

We should allocatebudget for the future

It made me think ofthe government’s policies

More budget should beallocated to human resources

It is di�cult to allocate budget from the viewpoint of policymaker

2

How important are the following policyto Japan and Japanese citizens?

N/A

Don't know

Q10Which of the following items do you think would advance science and technology innovation?

[%]

1.1

9.7

15.2

34.5

34.0

5.1

0.3

0.6

6.2

33.9

42.4

15.6

1.2

0.1

0.9

6.2

27.4

39.9

22.3

3.2

0.1

1.2

6.7

18.5

35.1

32.0

6.4

0.1

0.3

9.0

19.3

39.2

27.7

4.3

0.1

0.8

8.6

28.9

37.1

22.8

1.8

0.1Increase of successful

companies in science, technology and innovation

Support and involvement ofcitizens in the policy of science,

technology and innovation

Conveying opinions from citizens to the government

Easy-to-understandcommunication of information

on science and technology

Science education

Relaxation of regulations

N/A

Don't know

It would not advance at all.

It would notadvance much.

Neutral

It would advance a little.

It would advancevery much.

N/A

Don't know

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly agree

71.5

78.0

22.0

4.1

1.8

0.3

0.2

0.1

19.2

2.0

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.0

55.2

30.3

9.7

2.8

1.0

0.7

0.2

51.3

37.8

8.8

1.5

0.2

0.5

0.0

54.5

31.8

10.4

1.7

0.3

1.2

0.1

50.1

38.3

8.9

1.4

0.2

0.9

48.6

34.9

13.0

1.7

0.5

1.1

31.6

43.5

18.9

2.7

0.5

2.8

0.0

34.3

39.5

21.0

3.2

0.5

1.6

0.1

62.6

28.4

7.0

1.0

0.3

0.6

0.1

50.2

37.3

10.0

1.6

0.1

0.7

0.1

22.4

37.0

30.1

6.9

1.7

1.8

0.1

0.2

0.2

26.0

44.9

23.0

3.6

0.5

1.8

0.2

15.4

34.5

35.6

9.8

2.1

2.4

0.1

31.5

35.9

24.6

4.7

1.4

1.7

0.3

14.4

39.2

33.4

8.1

2.9

1.6

0.3

18.2

38.8

31.9

8.0

1.5

1.5

0.2

50.7

34.4

12.0

1.2

0.5

1.0

0.2

29.5

39.5

24.5

2.3

0.6

3.6

0.1

N/A

Don't know

Not reliable at all

Not very reliable

Neutral

Somewhat reliable

Very reliable

[%]

[%]

[%]

[%]


Q14

N/ADon’t know

I don’t think I am quick at all.

I don’t think I am quick.

Neutral

I think I am quick.

I think I am very quick.5.5%

22.5%

37.5%

26.7%

7.4%

0.2%0.0%

0.0%0.0%

Q15

N/ADon’t knowVery rarely

Not frequently

Neutral

Frequently

Very frequently9.2%

33.7%

24.5%

25.5%

7.1%

Q17What leisure facilities you have visited inthe past one year using your leisure time?

Q18Where do you usually come across informationor news on science and technology?

Q19There are opportunities for scientists and engineers to introduce science and technology in a comprehensive way through experiences at science museums and museums, or open house of laboratories, lectures and science cafés. In addition, TV programs and articles on science and technology are introduced on TV, the Internet, newspapers and magazines. Do you think these opportunities are su�cient todeepen interest and understanding on science and technology?

Q16

N/A

Don't know

Never (I cannot take time for leisure.)

Evening on Sundays and public holidays

Evening on Saturdays

Evening between Monday to Friday

Daytime on Sundays and public holidays

Daytime on Saturdays

Daytime between Monday to Friday

3

N/A

Don't know

None of the above

Other

Sports stadium

Sports ground for baseball, soccer, tennis, etc.

Pool or gym

Temple or shrine

Horse race/motorboat race/bicycle race

Pachinko

Theme parks and leisure facility includingTokyo Disneyland, Universal Studios Japan

Amusement park

Children’s center

Theatre

Movie theatre

Art museum

Museum

Science museum

Botanical garden

Aquarium/Zoo

Library

N/A

Don't know

None in particular

Other

Conversations with family and friends

Promotion event at companies, advertisement, catalogues

Symposium, lectures, events at universities and research institutions

Library

Sciencemuseum/museum

Books

Newspaper, magazine

Internet

Radio

TV

N/A

Don’t know

Tend to disagree

Strongly disagree

Tend to agree

Strongly agree

Do you think you are quick to catch on to a trend?

Do you go out with your friendsand acquaintances?

When do you use time for leisure activitiessuch as your hobby, culture lessons and other amusement?

33.1%

38.3% 83.2%

14.2%

40.0%

60.7%

17.5%

7.4%

9.5%

5.4%

13.8%

20.6%

0.3%

5.2%

0.1%

0.0%

9.7%

27.5%

45.4%

10.6%

6.7%

0.1%

32.9%

14.8%

13.8%

19.3%

29.8%

44.3%

15.8%

7.6%

25.1%

24.5%

9.0%

3.8%

40.0%

17.7%

23.3%

13.6%

6.2%

11.2%

0.3%

0.0%

34.3%

46.1%

17.1%

16.9%

12.9%

15.6%

1.5%

0.3%


4

F1Gender

FemaleMale 46.8% 53.2%

F2Which one of the following age groups do you belong to?

20-2

416

-1925

-29

30-34

35-3

940-4

4

45-49

50-54

55-5

960-6

465

-69

70-74

75-7

980 a

nd ove

r

5.2%

4.5%

3.9%

4.6%

6.0%

8.8%

6.9%

7.6%

9.6%

10.6

%

8.7%

10.8

%

6.5%

6.3%

What is your educational background?

Don’t k

now

N/AGraduat

e sch

ool

Univers

ity

Two-y

ear c

olleg

e/

　　vo

catio

nal sc

hool

High sc

hool

Elemen

tary

/junior

high sc

hool

12.3

%

43.6

%

19.5

%

22.2

%

2.1%

0.1%

0.1%

F3

（and o

ld-e

ducatio

n-sys

tem

　　ele

men

tary

schoo

l）

(and o

ld-e

ducatio

n-sys

tem

　　junior

high sc

hool)

(and o

ld-e

ducatio

n-sys

tem

　　high

schoo

l)

F5Where did you mainly live until the age of 15?

N/ADon’t k

now

Town o

r villa

ge

　　in

rura

l are

a

Medium

-size

d city

　　in

rura

l are

a

Subur

bs or

　　ou

tskirt

s of m

ajor c

ity

Major c

ity

14.0

%

9.7%

37.2

%

38.6

%

0.2%

0.3%

F6What is your current occupation?

N/ADon’t k

now

Other

(Unem

ployed

)

Studen

t (Unem

ployed

)　

Homem

aker

(Unem

ployed

)

Labor

wor

k (Em

ployee

)

Clerica

l wor

k (Em

ployee

)

Special

ist /

Tech

nical w

ork (

Employ

ee)

Manag

emen

t pos

ition（

Employ

ee）

Freela

nce (M

ember

of fa

mily

busines

s)

Freela

nce (S

elf-o

wned)

Comm

ercia

l, man

ufactu

ring

　　an

d ser

vice i

ndustrie

s (Mem

ber of

fam

ily em

ployee

)

Comm

ercia

l, man

ufactu

ring

an

d ser

vice i

ndustrie

s (Self

-owned

)

Agricu

lture

, fore

stry

, and fi

sher

y (Fa

mily

employ

ee)

Agricu

lture

, fore

stry

, and fi

sher

y indust

ry(S

elf-o

wned) 　

2.1

%

1.4

%

4.3

%

1.7

%

3.9

%

0.7

%

4.3

%

13.0

%

10

.3%

14

.7%

21

.1%

7.2

%

14

.7%

0.1

%0

.7%

F4What is your expertise?

N/ADon’t k

now

Other

than

　　 (P

hysics

)-(Med

icine)

Science

and E

nginee

ring

(Phys

ics)

Science

and E

nginee

ring

(Chem

istry

)

Science

and E

nginee

ring

(Biol

ogy)

Science

and E

nginee

ring

(Geo

logy)

Science

and E

nginee

ring

(Mat

hemat

ics)

Agricu

lture

, fore

stry

an

d fish

ery

Medica

l

Dentis

try

Medici

ne

8.7%

2.1%

2.3%

0.3%

3.6%

1.3%

5.7%

1.5%

2.1%

71.5

%

0.3%

0.8%

(For those who selected ”Two-year college/vocational school ” – “Graduate school” at F3)


5

F7What is the occupation you have had the longest period of time?

N/ADon’t k

now

Other

(Unem

ployed

)

Studen

t (Unem

ployed

)

Homem

aker

(Unem

ployed

)

Labor

wor

k (Em

ployee

)

Clerica

l wor

k (Em

ployee

)

Special

ist /

Tech

nical w

ork (

Employ

ee)

Manag

emen

t pos

ition (

Employ

ee)

Freela

nce (M

ember

of fa

mily

busines

s)

Freela

nce (S

elf-o

wned)

Comm

ercia

l, man

ufactu

ring a

nd ser

vice

　　indust

ries (

Member

of fa

mily

busines

s)

Comm

ercia

l, man

ufactu

ring

an

d ser

vice i

ndustrie

s (Self

-owned

)

Agricu

lture

, fore

stry

, and fi

sher

y

　　(M

ember

of fa

mily

busines

s)

Agricu

lture

, fore

stry

, and fi

sher

y

　　(S

elf-o

wned)

I hav

e nev

er w

orke

d bef

ore.

1.0

%1

.0%

1.0

%1

.3%

4.5

%

13.9

%

23

.4%

18

.1%

10

.2%

11.0

%

1.6

%

5.8

%

2.1

%0

.0%

2.4

%

2.6

%

F8Do you have any children?

N/A

75.3% 24.5%

0.2%

Yes No

F10What is the approximate pre-tax income of your entire household per year?

N/ADon’t k

now

Over 1

5 milli

on ye

n

Betwee

n 10 –

15 m

illion

yen

Betwee

n 8 –

10 m

illion

yen

Betwee

n 6 –

8 milli

on ye

n

Betwee

n 4 –

6 milli

on ye

n

Betwee

n 2 –

4 milli

on ye

n

Less t

han 2

milli

on ye

n

10.5

%

25.4

%

15.9

%

11.7

%

5.9%

23.3

%

2.6%

2.0%

2.7%

F9Please select current educational status of all of your children.(For those who selected “Yes” at F8)

Pre-s

choo

l

Lower

grad

e

　　at

elem

enta

ry sc

hool

Middle gr

ade

　　at

elem

enta

ry sc

hool

Higher

grad

e

　　at

elem

enta

ry sc

hool

Junior

high sc

hool

High sc

hool

Vocat

ional

schoo

l

Two-y

ear c

olleg

e

Univers

ity

Graduat

e sch

ool

Wor

king

Other

Don’t k

now

N/A

12.4

%

5.8%

3.3%

5.1%

8.2%

8.7%

1.2%

0.7%

6.0%

0.9%

70.4

%

0.3%

0.0%

0.1%

F13We will be publishing the results of this survey on the Internet and we will be happy to send a copy to the respondents who are interested. Would you like to receive a copy?

N/A

45.9% 53.4%

0.7%

Yes No

Towns a

nd Villa

ges

Small

city

(le

ss th

an 10

0,000 p

epole

)

Medium

-size

d city

　　(500,0

00 peo

ple or

mor

e)

Major c

ity

(21

larg

est c

ities)

23.1

%

41.7

%

25.1

%

10.0

%

F11City scale

Kyusy

u

Shikoku

Chugoku

KinkiTo

kai

Higash

iyam

a

Hokur

iku

Kanto

Tohok

u

Hokka

ido

3.6%

7.0%

28.0

%

5.5%

4.6%

11.5

%

15.2

%

7.0%

3.2%

14.4

%F12Region


Which of the following items 1 – 4 do you think would advance science,

technology and innovation (STI)? Please mark for individual item.

Easy-to understand communication of information

on science and technology

Conveying opinions from citizens to the government

Increase of successful companies in STI

Relaxation of regulations

It would advance very much.

It would advance a little.

Neutral

It would not advance much.

It would not advance at all.

Don't know

A

B

C

D

1

2

3

5

6

4

Q

5 2 6 1 4 3

PESTISEGMENT

What ’ s

A

B

C

D

1 2 3or or

1 2or

1 2or

-

1 2 3or or

1 2or

3 4or 5or

-

1 2 3or or

3 4 5or or

-

1 2or

1 2 3or or

3 4 5or or

-

3 4 5or or

4 5or

-

-

-

Those who chosefor any of the 4 items

6

0SEGMENTPESTI

SEGMENT SEGMENT SEGMENT SEGMENT SEGMENT SEGMENT

PESTI segmentation is a method developed by PESTI *1

to classify people with the degree of “participation in the

science, technology and innovation (STI) policy” into 6 groups

(technically called segments). The people are classified as 5, 2,

6, 1, 4, 3 in the order of degree of “participation in the science,

technology and innovation policy.”The 6 segments are determined by the combination of four

answers: “1-1. Easy-to-understand communication of

information on science and technology,” “1-2. Conveying

opinions from citizens to the government,” “1-3. Increase of

successful companies in STI,” and “1-4. Relaxation of

regulations” to the question “Q1. Which of the following items

do you think would advance STI?.”

PESTI is a research development project launched in 2012 with researchers from six

universities: Kyoto University, Osaka University, Kobe University, Shiga University, Tottori

University and Tezukayama University, with the objective of forming policies that incorporate

citizens’ needs regarding science and technology innovation. It is positioned as a part of JST” Strategic Basic Research Programs (Research and Technology for Society): R&D program of

Science of Science, Technology and Innovation Policy” conducted by the Japan Science and

Technology Agency (JST), the Research Institute of Science and Technology for Society (RISTEX),

and also as a part of The Science for RE-designing Science, Technology and Innovation Policy

(SciREX) which is promoted by the Ministry of Education, Culture Sports, Science and Technology.

The segment no. and the degree of “participation in science and technology innovation policy” do not correspond to each other, as the segment no. was automatically allocated in the process of

developing segments.

A group of people who have the potential to participate in the policy of science and technology

innovation if given a chance.

The combination of segments 5 and 2 is set as “group of people

with participation in STI policy,” the combination of 6 and 1 as

“people with potential participation in the STI policy,” segment 4 as

“people with low participation in the STI policy,” and segment 3 as

“people with no participation in the STI policy.”The result of the opinion poll conducted by PESTI in December

2013 found that the group of people with participation, people with

potential participation, people with low participation and people

with no participation accounted for 49.1%, 35.1%, 3.7% and 12.0%

respectively.

　

*1

Group with participation 49.1% Group with the potential to participation 35.1%

Group with no participation 12.0%

Group with low participation 3.7%

Designed by TOMITA Makoto, ARASHIN Momoko

*2

*3

1SEGMENTPESTI

Group with the potential

to participation in STI policy

13.4%+20s


Other (Unemployed)

33.0%-Temple or shrineDaytime between Monday to Friday

Public needs/opinionsCollaboration between the government and citizens

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?

33.0%+No, I often can’t find what I am looking forUniversities

Municipal governments

41.3%-Culture/sports policy

Age

20.2%

179 people

1

When do you use time for leisure activities such as your hobby, culture lessons and other amusement?

What leisure facilities you have visitedin the past one yearusing your leisure time?

How important are thefollowing policy itemsto Japan and Japanese citizens?

How much trust do you havein the science and technologyinformation providedby the following groups?

What is your current occupation?

16.8%+

9.5%-

26.3%-

Which of the following organizations, persons, or collaboration make you feel assured as a citizenwhen they lead theadvancement ofscience/technology?

58.7%-

35.8%-

27.4%-

39.1%-

58.1%-National defence policy

38.5%-Tourism policy

SEGMENTPESTI

XX%+

XX%-　

Item name

Item name

The least amount than other segments

The largest amount than other segments

2SEGMENTPESTI

Group with participation

in STI policy

10.7%+Commercial, manufacturing and service industries (Self-owned)

10.7%+Freelance (Self-owned)

7.4%+Management position (Employee)

58.7%+Yes

13.3%-Small city

10.7%+Hokuriku

53.3%-University

62.7%+I allocated budget from my personalpoint of view, instead of policymaker’s viewpoint

82.7%+There are too many issues for Japan


8.5%

75people

2

Would you like to receive a copy of the results of this survey?

RegionIf you are a personin charge of policymaking, what did you feel or think?

What is your current occupation?

What is the occupationyou have had the longestperiod of time?

City scale


Where do you usuallycome across informationor news on scienceand technology?

24.0%-

22.7%+RadioSpecialist / Technical work (Employee) 4.0%-


SEGMENTPESTI

XX%+

XX%-　

Item name

Item name



3SEGMENTPESTI

Group with no participation

in STI policy

47.2%-

3

80.2%+

53.8%+

3.8%-

5.7%-

2.8%-

Female

30s

40s

70s

Elementary/junior high school (and old- education-system elementary school)

University(and old- education-system high school)

Other clerical work(Employee)

Homemaker (Unemployed)

Other (Unemployed)

86.8%+Yes

Suburbs or outskirts of major city

Medium-sized city in rural area

Commercial, manufacturing and service industries (Self-owned)

Labor work (Employee)


Student (Unemployed)

20s

Less than 2 million yen

Between 4 – 6 million yen



27.4%-Yes

30.2%-Medium-sized city

34.0%+Small city

4.7%-Tokai

8.5%+Shikoku

42.5%+Not frequently

Daytime between Monday to Friday

21.7%-Library

20.8%-Aquarium/Zoo

2.8%-Science museum

7.5%-Museum

19.8%-Art museum

22.6%-Movie theatre

6.6%-Theatre

12.3%-Amusement park

12.3%-Theme parks and leisure facility including Tokyo Disneyland, Universal Studios Japan

21.7%-I always use new technologies and products after observing some people who try them

9.4%-Sports ground for baseball, soccer, tennis, etc.

33.0%+None of the above

6.6%-Pool or gym

70.8%-

10.4%-

TV

Internet

45.3%-Newspaper, magazine

3.8%-Books

0.9%-Library

0.9%-Symposium, lectures, events at universities and research institutions

5.7%-Promotion event at companies, advertisement, catalogues

22.6%+None in particular

Evening on Saturdays

30.2%-Government

36.8%-Leading Japanese companies

37.7%-National/public laboratory

Research of various fields jointly

Popular TV shows on science and technology

Well-known scientists

52.8%-Governmentand national/public laboratories jointly

37.7%-Collaboration between national/public laboratories and leading companies

43.4%-Collaboration between universities, public administration, and companies

16.0%-Specified non-profit corporation (NPO)

It is difficult to allocate budget from the viewpoint of policymaker

More budget should be allocated to human resources

It made me think of the government’s policies

We should allocate budget for the future

There are too many unnecessary policies

There are too many issues for Japan24.5%-

1.9%-

Interested

Search for information

VSEG5(The least interesting)

VSEG3(The second interesting )

28.3%+I do not actively use new technologies or products

43.4%-Disagree

18.9%-Having influence

32.1%-Should have influence

45.3%-Science education

National/public laboratories


Japanese government

Global companies

88.7%-Pension policy

93.4%-Medical/nursing care policy

70.8%-Policy on parenting support

82.1%-Policy of safety/security of life

52.8%-Information and communications policy

66.0%-Energy policy

68.9%-Environmental policy

68.9%-Employment policy

50.9%-Industrial policy

61.3%-Agriculture, forestry and fishery policy

80.2%-Disaster recovery policy

37.7%-Policy on assistance to developing countries

72.6%-Education policy

47.2%-Science, technology and innovation policy12.0%

106 people

Interest in science and technology? SEGMENT

VICTORIAGender & age

What is youreducational background?

Where did you mainlylive until the age of 15?

Would you like to receive a copy of the results of this survey?

When do you use time for leisure activities such as your hobby, culture lessons and other amusement?

Do you go out with your friends and acquaintances?

Region


Do you think opportunitiesare sufficient to deepeninterest and understandingon science and technology?


About science and technology

If you are a personin charge of policymaking, what did you feel or think?

What is the approximate pre-tax income of your entirehousehold per year?

How doyou feel aboutnew technology and products?

Which do you think would advance science, technology and innovation ?

What isyour current occupation?

What is the occupationyou have had the longestperiod of time?

Do you have any children?

City scale


Where do you usually come across information or news on science and technology?

About science and technology issues that are important to you.

2.8%-

33.0%+

28.3%+

3.8%-

51.9%+

36.8%+

5.7%-

5.8%+

33.3%+

13.0%-

1.4%-

24.5%+

5.7%-

5.7%-

17.0%-

F2.5%+

9.4%-

1.9%-

46.2%+

18.9%-

56.6%-

50.9%-

28.3%-

28.3%-

24.5%-

67.9%-

27.4%-

34.0%-

45.3%-

32.1%-

53.8%-

8.5%+Higashiyama


SEGMENTPESTI

XX%+

XX%-　

Item name

Item name



Group with low participation

in STI policy

42.4%+University (and old- education-system high school)

6.1%+Agriculture, forestry, and fishery (Family employee)

24.2%+Between 6 – 8 million yen

Collaboration between the government and leading companies

Budget is too limited for the number of issues

64.2%+Disagree

45.5%-Scientists

21.2%-Government

15.2%+Not policy on parenting support

12.1%+Not policy of safety/security of life

12.1%+Not information and communications policy

6.1%+Not environmental policy

9.1%+Not employment policy

12.1%+Not industrial policy

6.1%+Not disaster recovery policy

15.2%+Not disaster prevention/disaster reduction policy

21.2%+Not public works policy

27.3%+Not policy on assistance to developing countries

18.2%+Not national defence policy

39.4%+Not tourism policy

27.3%+Not culture/sports policy

12.1%+Nou education policy

9.1%+Not science, technology and innovation policy

4SEGMENTPESTI

3.7%

33 people

4


What isyour current occupation?



Interestin science and technology? SEGMENT

VICTORIA

VSEG1(The third ） 17.3%-



39.4%-


42.4%-


SEGMENTPESTI

XX%+

XX%-　

Item name

Item name



5SEGMENTPESTI

Group with participation

in STI policy



3.6%-Hokuriku

26.7%-Not frequently

Information about science and technology

23.1%+Actively search for information

19.2%+Aquarium/Zoo

6.1%-Pachinko

88.6%+

70.2%+

TV

Newspaper, magazine

12.3%+Library

59.3%+Municipal government

80.5%+Scientist

64.1%+Leading Japanese companies

57.9%+Public needs/opinions

44.6%+Specified non-profit corporation (NPO)

84.1%+National/public laboratory

77.3%+Collaboration between the government and citizens

85.5%+Research of various fields jointly

85.8%+Government and national/public laboratories jointly

73.8%+Collaboration between the government and leading companies

79.1%+Collaboration between national/public laboratories and leading companies

83.6%+Collaboration between universities, public administration, and companies

61.0%+Government

It made me think of the government’s policies

There are too many unnecessary policies

13.9%-VSEG5(The least )

42.1%+Agree

40.1%+

65.5%+

Science education

81.6%+Universities

61.6%+Municipal governments

84.1%+Scientists

52.9%+Government

82.5%+National/public laboratories

27.9%+Mass communication (TV/newspaper, etc.)

58.5%+Leading Japanese companies

54.9%+Japanese government

62.7%+Global companies

95.5%+Pension policy

99.4%+Medical/nursing care policy

92.8%+Policy on parenting support

95.5%+Policy of safety/security of life

81.9%+Information and communications policy

94.2%+Energy policy

95.5%+Environmental policy

92.5%+Employment policy

87.7%+Industrial policy

83.8%+Agriculture, forestry and fishery policy

96.9%+Disaster recovery policy

94.2%+Disaster prevention/disaster reduction policy

73.3%+Public works policy

63.8%+Policy on assistance to developing countries

77.7%+National defence policy

67.7%+Tourism policy

71.6%+Culture/sports policy

92.5%+Education policy

81.9%+Science, technology and innovation policy

38.4%+Popular TV shows on science and technology

Budget is too limited for the number of issues

40.6%

359

5


VICTORIA

Region








About science and technology issues that are important to you.

65.2%+

41.8%+

73.8%+

92.8%+


Do you go out with your friends and acquaintances?

Which do you think would advance science and technology innovation?

SEGMENTPESTI

Having influence

Should have influence

people

XX%+

XX%-　

Item name

Item name



6SEGMENTPESTI

Group with the potential

to participation in STI policy

Male

Elementary/junior high school (and old- education-system elementary school)

68.2%-Yes

Suburbs or outskirts of major city

Town or village in rural area

30s

TokaiMuseum

Amusement park

Pachinko34.8%-Municipal government

90.2%+It is difficult to allocate budget

56.8%+Interested

12.1%+VSEG2(The most interesting)

Internet

BooksSymposium, lectures, events at universities and research institutions

Promotion event at companies, advertisement, catalogues

22.7%+Yes, and it tends to be easy to understand

7.6%+Not pension policy

Sports ground for baseball, soccer, tennis, etc.

14.9%

132people

6


VICTORIAGender & age


Where did you mainlylive until the age of 15?

Region What leisure facilities you have visitedin the past one yearusing your leisure time?



Do you have any children?



60.6%+

28.0%+

10.6%+

20.5%+

17.4%+27.3%+

35.6%+

13.6%+

31.8%+

60.6%+

16.7%+

6.8%-

15.9%+

30.3%-

About science and technology

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?

78.0%+University

89.4%+Well-known scientists


SEGMENTPESTI

XX%+

XX%-　

Item name

Item name



understanding the plurality of public interests for … - p-seg_final.pdf · understanding the...

Documents