Interview Responses Sample Clauses
Interview Responses. During the first reporting period, Ecologic Institute selected 63 FP6 and FP7 research projects for analysis within WaterDiss2.0. This list of projects to be subsequently analyzed by the WaterDiss2.0 consortium was produced in cooperation with all consortium partners as well as STREAM and Step-Wise. Ecologic Institute collated information from various sources: studies on dissemination and uptake of technology, research results, and methodologies for conducting questionnaires and interviews. A select group of projects were studied more in depth by identifying project objectives, outputs, embedded dissemination activities, and potential future impact of the outputs. From the list of over 60 projects identified, invitations to participate in a questionnaire and interview were sent to 23 project coordinators. Eighteen project coordinators filled in the questionnaire and, 15 expressed an interest in further collaboration. These projects cover most of the spectrum in water management, to the exception of: extreme events (droughts), drinking water, desalinization, and urban water. After filling out the questionnaires, the WaterDiss2.0 consortium contacted project coordinators to conduct interviews by phone or face-to-face lasting approximately an hour. Interviews have been conducted with 12 projects. For 2 projects, the questionnaire process was left out and an interview was conducted immediately instead (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ and PREPARED). The Dashboard of Projects, the centerpiece of data collection and exchange within WaterDiss2.0, has been updated accordingly. Data provided by the consortium partners also fed into the knowledge base The following graph gives an overview of the projects contacted to date, and the share of questionnaires and interviews conducted. These projects cover most of the spectrum in water management, to the exception of: extreme events (droughts), drinking water, desalinization, and urban water. A list of themes and the projects addressing each theme can be found in Table 1. Theme WaterDiss2.0 Project Water Resources Management ACQWA, AQUASTRESS, AQUATERRA, AWARE (FP6), AWARE (FP7), CLIMATE WATER, CROPWAT, EUROWET, GABARDINE, HYDRONET, MAI-TAI, MIRAGE, NEWATER, PRACTICE, PREPARED, PRIMUS, QUALIWATER, REFRESH, SCENES, SWITCH, TECHNEAU, THESEUS, WASSERMed River Basin Management AQUAMONEY, AQUAREHAB, AQUASTRESS, AQUATERRA, AWARE (FP7), CLIMATE WATER, MIRAGE, NEWATER, REFRESH, RISKBASE, SCENES, WETwin Chemical Aspects AQUAREHAB, AQUATERRA, BRIDGE, GENES...
Interview Responses. To date, eight interviews have been conducted. Coordinators from BRIDGE, CROPWAT, GABARDINE, INNOVA-MED, NEPTUNE, QUALIWATER, RISK-BASE and WADI spoke with a WaterDiss2.0 partner for at least one hour after the submission of their questionnaire. Following the interview guide, the partners extracted information pertinent to the seven core questions. This section reports all barriers and facilitators to uptake mentioned in interviews and sorts them into four categories: characteristics of the outputs, characteristics of the target audiences, characteristics of dissemination, and characteristics of the project itself. With only 8 interviews completed, reducing this list to the most commonly cited barriers and facilitators seemed premature. Also note that one project‟s barrier could be another‟s key facilitator, and some characteristics are mentioned in both sections. While generalizability about barriers is possible, context is very important, and each of the observations below comes from a specific project. ▪ Outputs o High costs of implementation o Not ready for use o Address topics that are too specific o Address geographic range that is too specific ▪ Target Audiences o Unwillingness of target groups to participate o Confidentiality requests o Deep-seated perceptions or resistance from the general public o Problems with administrative/bureaucratic permitting procedures o Intratransferability (information given to one member of a target group not being transmitted to the proper people within the organization) o Level of understanding of the research/science/output o Intertransferability (a lack of communication between target groups) o Reluctance to change technologies (consolidated and entrenched procedures based on existing tools) ▪ Dissemination o Time frame for proposal preparation o Language of publications, events, and communications o Content of a mean was too technical o Bad match between the output and local conditions for its implementation o A lack of clear dissemination responsibilities among partners o Difficulty in reaching local stakeholders o The way the EU evaluates dissemination plants (more detailed dissemination plans score better, but these do not always allow for flexibility) o Ineffectiveness of scientific publications and conferences at reaching water managers and scientific advisors o High costs of dissemination activities/lack of resources o Difficult to reach target audiences when they are large and diffuse, such as farmers o Fai...