SlideShare utilise les cookies pour améliorer les fonctionnalités et les performances, et également pour vous montrer des publicités pertinentes. Si vous continuez à naviguer sur ce site, vous acceptez l’utilisation de cookies. Consultez nos Conditions d’utilisation et notre Politique de confidentialité.
SlideShare utilise les cookies pour améliorer les fonctionnalités et les performances, et également pour vous montrer des publicités pertinentes. Si vous continuez à naviguer sur ce site, vous acceptez l’utilisation de cookies. Consultez notre Politique de confidentialité et nos Conditions d’utilisation pour en savoir plus.
The following slides give a brief overview of the process of developing a questionnaire to evaluate the motivation of volunteers conservation projects in Scotland, England and Wales, I will discuss a little bit about: The context of the research its basis in theory and understanding of the target group, why I chose the theory I based it on, a brief overview of the questionnaire, sample size return rate
The research involved 8 conservation projects across Scotland, England and Wales. Four Water Vole projects (yellow dots) Four Red Squirrel projects (red dots) The projects were similar in that they all involve volunteers and all had an element of non native species control – for water vole projects this was to control American mink and for red squirrel projects this was to control grey squirrel. (projects range from self mobilisation – set up by communities, to interactive/co-managed, to functional - top down)
Although presented as a linear process, the development of the questionnaire was in fact a more iterative process, with reflection between all stages and throughout
Prior to pre-pilot and pilot stages it was ensured that the questionnaire was both grounded in available literature (which went beyond motivations for volunteering in conservation/environmental initiatives), current practice – by meeting with psychologists and participant observation and interviews.
Over 25 interviews of 25min-1hour were carried out – above are some quotes as well as some potential motivating factors from papers. Below are some points from the literature review: Age: Younger people may be more involved, as the future is of greater importance. However, older generations may participate as they have greater time and funds available. Sex: (research on sex is relatively outdated) females may participate more due to their nurturing nature. The male traditional role of bread winner may give females increased time to volunteer, though males may take a more active role in the community wishing to be involved in projects which have an aspect of physical exertion and allowing the chance use and show skills they may have. Education: Those with a greater level of education will participate in conservation initiatives more readily as they are informed as to the importance of these activities. Area of Residence: Urban dwellers are more likely to become involved in conservation programmes as they are less reliant on the land for activities such as farming or mining etc. Urban dwellers like those of lower social status may also be more aware of the negative effects that modern society is having upon the environment and therefore place greater importance on conservation than those living in unspoilt countryside. *summarised from work by* Gilig & Barr, 2005; Guerin, Crete & Mercier, 2001; Henderson 2005; John, 2005; Mebratu, 1998; Minteer, 2055; Rotolo & Wilson, 2006; Ryan et al., 2005; Shultz et al., 1995; Van Dyke, 2005; Van Liere & Dunlap, 1980; Orr. 2005; 2005b
Based on suggestions from the empirical studies, and insight in health pedagogik 3 theories to helped in conceptualising the questionnaire … ” Action Learning” ALT describes how action competence entails Self-regulatory motivation Knowledge and skills Social reflection This theory was based on studies from environmental schools of thought ” Social Cognitive ” by bandura Expectations and ambivalence Self-efficacy Collective self-efficacy Social support – especially in local surroundings Self-determination is a theory of motivation used widely Internal (autonomious) versus external (controlled) motivation Perceived competence Social relatedness Autonomious decision can be facilitated by autonomous support These theories contributed together with the empirical evidence from interviews, literature and participant observation helped in the development and choice of questions
Improvement of the questionnaire was an iterative process including expert feedback, pre-pilot to 20 colleagues to ensure clarity, and pilot with 25 conservation volunteers to further check questionnaire validity and test analysis.
Each Component is informed by more than one theoretical construct and has 3+ questions associated with it
For example the components of “interest” and Enjoyment have the following questions associated. For every question volunteers were asked “how true” this statement was for them as well as how important the statement was for why they were motivated to continue participating. (Statements were altered slightly for the volunteers to answer “how important” i.e. The statement I enjoy this work became “enjoying this work”... If you click the link it goes directly to the html version of the questionnaire. Volunteers replied on a 1-7 scale.
(sample is 660 as 12 were returned undelivered) we had a broad range of respondents including those with local and ecological expertise i.e. Gamekeepers/fishing ghillies, to those who are secretaries/postmen/civil servants and retired. The age range is broad and there is a relatively even split between male and female. We have data on where the majority of respondents live, we also have information on how long they have lived in the area, how long they have been involved in the project and how long they have known about the conservation problem their project aims to address.
Using a questionnaire to evaluate motivation: the BeWel project Aberdeen
a questionnaire to evaluate motivation BeWel Introductory Meeting 29 th -30 th July 2009
<ul><li>the developmental process </li></ul><ul><ul><li>context </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>knowledge of the target group </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>choice of theories </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>overview of questions asked </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>sample size and return rate </li></ul></ul>an overview
design process carry out Interviews and participant observation with subset of target participants explore relevant theory and design questionnaire to be able to assess underlying mechanisms of involvement in conservation both pre-pilot and pilot questionnaire. carry out exploratory analysis to ensure questionnaire is repeatable and results are valid postal questionnaire to study participants: pre-postal letter questionnaire posted follow up letter if not returned get to know target group theory exploratory trial implementation
grounding the questionnaire: pre- trial stage aims methods data sources Exploration of motivations for involvement in conservation action Literature review Exploring theory Participant Observation Interviews Literature from psychology, health care. Mini lit review carried out Meetings with psychologists in Aberystwyth university and Macaulay Participant observation: Steering group meetings of Cairngorms Water Vole Project (CWVP), accompanied water vole officers when visiting volunteers Interviews with steering group of CWVP, and NE Water Vole project
pre-exploratory trial empirical evidence “ (volunteers are) well driven because they’ve got their own interest ” “ maybe their motivation could flag in some areas if they feel isolated” “ im not sure how we would go about getting more motivation or keeping motivation going for volunteers” “ they need to be reassured” Volunteers seek to learn more about the world or exercise redundant skills (Cuthill & Warburton 2006) Both internally motivating factors and externally factors (such as increased community standing) are important incentives for volunteering ( Cappellari & Turati, 2004; Granek & Brown, 2005)
Theoretical phase <ul><ul><ul><li>Action Learning theory </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>(Tilbury 2005, Burke 2007) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Social Cognitive theory </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>(Bandura 1997,2004) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Self-determination theory </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>(Deci og Ryan 2000, 2002, 2005) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Internal versus external motivation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Perceived competence </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Social relatedness </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Self-regulatory motivation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Knowledge and skills </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Social reflection </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Expectations and ambivalence </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Self-efficacy </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Collective self-efficacy </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Social support </li></ul></ul>
grounding the questionnaire: exploratory trial stage aims methods data sources To identify most useful questions and design To ensure clarity To test analysis methods Expert Meetings Pre-pilot Pilot Meeting and discussion with Anke Fischer at Macaulay Email discussions with psychology experts in Aberystwyth Workshop with co-ordinators of Cairngorms Water Vole Project Pre-pilot on colleagues Pilot to NE Water Vole Project
<ul><li>translation of theory </li></ul>a) Self-regulatory motivation (ALT) b) Knowledge and skills (ALT) c) Collective self-efficacy (SCT) d) Social support (SCT) e) Internal motivation (SDT) f) Self Regulation (SDT) g) Social relatedness (SDT) theoretical constructs components in the questionnaire Interest (a, c, e, f, g) Enjoyment (a, e, f, g) Humanitarian (e, f, g) Health (a, c, f, g) Environment (e, f, g) Community/ownership (c, d, e, f, g) Skills (b, e, f, g) Perceived choice (a, f) Social (a, d, e, f, g)
<ul><li>translation of theory </li></ul>component question Interest <ul><li>This work is interesting </li></ul><ul><li>This work gives me a sense of accomplishment </li></ul><ul><li>I find this work boring </li></ul>Enjoyment <ul><li>This work makes me feel happy </li></ul><ul><li>I have fun doing this work </li></ul><ul><li>I enjoy this work </li></ul>
sample size and return rate <ul><ul><li>672 sent out </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Effective sample of 660 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>322 returned (49%) </li></ul></ul>