Ella Wiles, Research Assistant
Farmers’ perceptions of climate change and climate solutions
I started working as a research assistant for GSI with lots of big ideas. I’d just graduated from an inspiring and somewhat eccentric MSc focusing on strategic leadership towards sustainability in the Swedish countryside. I went from working creatively with others tucked away on an island on the edge of an archipelago to the independent working environment of GSI in my hometown of Cambridge. It was my first independent paid research role. This could have been a difficult jolt of a transition, but instantly it became apparent the gem in GSI’s crown is the freedom and independence the institute instils in its researchers.
During my masters I had spent the year researching and talking to practitioners of urban agriculture, a subject that sits very close to my heart. It’s touching to be so warmly welcomed onto a research team, so conscientious of each individuals field of interest, that they work to combine those interests with the current research projects.
I started working on a pilot project that aimed to identify UK farmer’s perceptions of climate change and climate solutions. This meant I could draw on the skills I had developed during my masters, those of analysing the cultural factors that shaped practitioners behaviour. As well as develop the research and analytical skills I had refined over the previous year.
GSI staff equipped me with a briefing pack containing a few articles and a brief that outlined GSI’s project aims. This provided a very useful reference point throughout the project and brought me back to the big picture whenever I got lost in the leaves of detail.
My research started with an intense literature review, a search for surveys that had asked farmers about their perceptions of climate change. I decided to network extensively within the field, drawing on the knowledge of academics, government agencies and environmental organisations to determine the amount of research that had already been conducted on the subject. I talked to experienced UK farmers and DEFRA policy makers via a handful of phone calls that further helped me direct my research. Soon I’d built up a large literature review and had a good idea of the landscape of my project. Weekly check-ins provided a space to talk about additional projects that I could pick up alongside my research. I wrote an article for Sustainability Easts’ Adaptation Network newsletter about my research and went to the Chelmsford campus for a science and engineering fair to talk to young students about incorporating sustainability in their careers.
The open and inclusive environment of GSI allowed me to share key findings with members of the team specialised in specific areas, whilst the lack of micromanagement allowed me to explore using methods that suited my research style.
I have learnt a great deal from working in the GSI’s environment, from the spontaneous debates and discussions of current affairs to the research avenues i’ve discovered after sharing thoughts with members of the team.
The research assistant role offers a space for both personal and professional development that cannot be learnt in a classroom. I would strongly recommend the position to anyone wanting to bridge the gap between academia and a professional position in their chosen field.
If you would like to find out more about this project do have a look at the briefing note, or the video of the lunchtime GSI seminar I gave on 24 September 2012 by clicking here, or email ella.wiles@anglia.ac.uk.
Lydia Wade, Research Assistant
The Psychology of Trust and its relation to Sustainability
Since starting work as a research assistant at the GSI I’ve gone from not having much of a clue about or interest in climate change and sustainability to being quite obsessed with it. As a result I have noticed some subtle and some not-quite-so-subtle changes about myself:
- Subtle changes: when checking the BBC News website I now find myself heading straight for the Science and Environment section (a section I previously hadn’t even noticed, let alone considered clicking on) rather than heading directly for the most popular horror story of the day (which, of course, I do still read).
- Not-so-subtle changes: I’ve turned into my Dad. I now inform my friends and family when they have left an empty room without turning the lights off, and I fish out plastic and paper from the bins and put them with the recycling (bins at home that is –not bins in the park!).
So, enough about me turning into my Dad . . . I have actually had some work to do on this work placement.
I’ve been set two tasks; the first is to write a briefing note on the psychology behind trust, the second is to conduct interviews with various experts who communicate science to the public.
What trust is, and why we trust others, is a very interesting but extremely broad topic to research. As a result, I spent a good week at the start just reading lots of trust related academic articles, trying to figure what might be most relevant to the subject of trust in scientists (which is partly what the wider GSI project is about. One aspect that my supervisor, Dr Rosie Robison, was interested in is how psychologists measure an individual’s trust propensity; this is an individual’s general trust level. The Interpersonal Trust Scale is a questionnaire which can be used to do this by assessing two factors: 1) how much an individual trusts social institutions/people (e.g., politicians, teachers, salespersons) and 2) an individual’s ‘general optimism’ towards society. The scores are added and a high score indicates trust in variety of social settings. An online version of the questionnaire is available here.
Psychologists also often use the ‘Trust Game’ to manufacture a situation where trust levels can be observed and measured. In this game there are two players in separate rooms – the Sender and the Receiver. The Sender is given £10 and a choice: they can either keep this money or they can invest some or all of it. Any invested money is tripled and given to the anonymous Receiver, who can decide how much (if any) to give back to the Sender. Any money players have at the end of the game is theirs to keep. Psychologists are interested in measuring the amount of money invested by the Sender; as sending money is positively correlated with trust and suggests that the individual will be trusting in many situations. On average Senders transfer around 50% of their money (£5) and receive around 30% of their tripled investment back (£4.50), meaning they occur a slight loss.
Q: So why not just take the money and run?
The Sender could just take their £10, not wishing to risk losing any money, and leave the Receiver with nothing. Likewise, the Receiver could take all the invested money and leave the Sender out of pocket. A few participants did exactly that, however most people opted to share their investment. Why?
A: One reason is because we are influenced by social norms.
A person who is generally trusting of others in society has probably had many good experiences of people being kind, reliable and honest and fewer negative experiences, such as being let down or deceived. They are also more likely to be a kind, honest and reliable person themselves. Therefore, when the Sender is faced with the above scenario, their decision on whether or not to invest money may be influenced by social norms (i.e., their idea of what society may deem to be the ‘correct’ way of behaving). The Sender may imagine how others would act in their situation and use this to guide their own decision. Furthermore, the Sender is trusting that the Receiver will conform to the social norm of reciprocation.
The majority of Receivers do conform to reciprocate, as it is a very powerful social norm. Without it, buying your friends a round of drinks in a pub would become a very one-sided and expensive pastime!
However, there are many reasons why the Receiver might choose not to share any of the investment, such as:
Past experience – their past may have taught them not to trust in the goodwill of others.
- Individualistic social norms – their social circle may share norms that encourage more individualistic values (e.g., people should put their own needs and desires first).
- Personal circumstances – a person may wish to send money or reciprocate, but they may require the money to meet their basic needs, such as food and rent.
I would probably invest £6, because going home with £4 is not too bad and I’d be fairly optimistic that the Receiver would reciprocate. If I was the Receiver, I would give half the money I receive back to the Sender, as this would ensure they go home with more money as a result of trusting me! What would you do?
I’m sad to say that I’ve now finished my studentship with the GSI. However I’m looking forward to starting my second year studying Psychology at Anglia Ruskin, knowing I’ll be taking with me all the research skills I’ve honed in this placement. I have had a brilliant couple of months working alongside a lovely team. As Ella Wiles so eloquently phrased it in “the gem in GSI’s crown is the freedom and independence the institute instills in its researchers”.
If you would like to find out more about this project do have a look at the briefing note, or the video of the lunchtime GSI seminar I gave on 24 September 2012 by clicking here, or email Lydia.Wade@student.anglia.ac.uk
Inside the GSI 