SESERV Focus Group Selection Survey

SESERV Focus Group Selection Survey Oct-Dec 2011

Michael Boniface, Brian Pickering University of Southampton IT Innovation Centre (mjb@it-innovation.soton.ac.uk)

Eric Meyer, Cristobal Cobo, Anne-Marie Oostveen Oxford Internet Institute (eric.meyer@oii.ox.ac.uk) www.seserv.org

University of Southampton IT Innovation and Oxford Internet Institute 2011, 2012

Page 1

SESERV Focus Group Selection Survey

Table of Contents
1 2 3 4 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 3 Online Survey .................................................................................................................................. 3 Results ............................................................................................................................................. 4 Focus Groups: the Athens Workshop .............................................................................................. 9

University of Southampton IT Innovation and Oxford Internet Institute 2011, 2012

Page 2

SESERV Focus Group Selection Survey

1 Introduction
During the first year of the SESERV project1, a number of cross-sectorial topics were identified as a result of two main activities: i. The SESERV Oxford workshop hosted by the Oxford Internet Institute, bringing together technologists, policy makers and experts across various Challenge 1 ICT projects and socio-economic projects. Eight major topics were identified that participants highlighted through a number of break-out sessions on various subjects2; In an effort to validate tussle analysis, SESERV network specialists engaged with a number of Challenge 1 ICT projects to establish any common tussle concerns and patterns. From this analysis, seven major tussle groups were identified that recurred across different technology projects.

ii.

Reviewing these fifteen (eight societal from the SESERV workshop, and seven economic from the tussle analysis) topics, some were clearly of interest and relevance to both social as well as economic researchers, whereas others were relevant exclusively to one or the other sphere. In consequence, the fifteen topics may be classified as Economic (E), Societal (S) or Socio-Economic (SE). For SESERVs second year, and given how successful and informative the SESERV workshop breakout sessions had proved to be, a survey was run to rank the fifteen cross-sectorial topics in order of relevance and interest to the participants. The results would identify the themes to be used as the basis for a series of focus groups to be held in the first half of 2012. This report summarises the results of that survey.

2 Online Survey
An online survey (http://seserv.limequery.com) was organised, in which respondents were asked to rank a selection of fifteen Future Internet (FI) topics in order of importance: respondents simply dragged the statement to the appropriate position (from top to bottom). In practice, respondents restricted their ranking choices to the top five. The topics were: 8 were the cross-sectorial themes identified in the Oxford workshop and analysed in2; and 7 as the most common tussle groups, identified in3. The topics from the Oxford workshop may be termed social in nature; and those reported with tussle groupings economic. However, there was a certain overlap in
1 2 3

http://www.seserv.org SESERV Deliverable D3.1: First report on Social Future Internet Coordination Activities SESERV Deliverable D2.1: First Report on Economic Future Internet Coordination Activities

University of Southampton IT Innovation and Oxford Internet Institute 2011, 2012

Page 3

SESERV Focus Group Selection Survey

some cases: for instance, a concern around sensitive data was raised both in terms of tussles (in broadly economic terms) as well as during discussions at Oxford. These shared topics may be viewed therefore as socio-economic. The topics of all three types (economic, social and socio-economic) are listed in Table 1 below. In addition, participants were asked whether they would be prepared to get involved with focus-group-based discussion; they were asked to select between: I do not wish to participate in any focus groups Economic issues only Social issues only Both social and economic issues Of the 59 respondents, only one did not specify a preference. In addition, respondents were asked to leave their contact details, with a view to inviting them for further comment or even direct participation in the focus group discussions. Although an optional field, only seven out of the 59 respondents left no contact details.

3 Results
The survey was formally closed on 20th December, 2011. Those who had left contact details were sent an email thanking them for their participation. Unless they stated they did not wish to participate in focus groups, they were told that they would be contacted after the holiday period. The results of the survey are summarised in Table 1 below, showing overall scores and rankings (the top five), as well as a secondary ranking showing the top socio-economic topic, the top two economic and top two social issues according to some 59 respondents. Table 1: Ranking of Socio-economic themes TOPIC How network security is achieved The effect of polarised positions in discussions around the FI on future developments How access to sensitive data is handled Achieving appropriate and efficient routing across networks Whether there is a need for more user-centricity and
Area Score Rank R2

E.1 S.2

61 29

E1

SE.3 E.4

90 40

2=

SE1

S.5

90

2=

S2

University of Southampton IT Innovation and Oxford Internet Institute 2011, 2012

Page 4

SESERV Focus Group Selection Survey

TOPIC control in the design and use of online services Who is responsible for agreement violation across networks How we clarify digital rights (including copyright, privacy, and so forth) The importance of increased transparency of data and systems to end-users How interconnection agreements between ISPs are resolved The importance of multi-disciplinary collaboration to the success of the Future Internet How content and service delivery are controlled How scarce resources are shared How important it is to have global regulatory frameworks for the FI The importance of enabling the increase in digital literacy (skill and knowledge around the FI) The need to solve the lack of common terms and vocabularies around the FI, services and networks E.6 30
Area Score Rank R2

SE.7

56

S.8

69

E.9

26

S.10

126

S1

SE.11 E.12 SE.13

64 56 29

5 E2

S.14

62

S.15

42

Results from the morning of 19 Dec 2011

th

Key: Topic The specific tussle group (for economic issues: see D2.1) or cross-sectorial theme (for societal issues, see D3.1). Area E = economic only; S = societal only; SE = both economic and societal (these are issues which appeared to be common across both areas); the digit after the Topic Area (eg. E.1, S.2, and so forth) is simply the order in which the topics were presented in the online survey. Score Cumulative score across all respondents. The survey asked respondents to select the 5 most important of the 15 topics. A topic which was selected as most important (first
University of Southampton IT Innovation and Oxford Internet Institute 2011, 2012 Page 5

SESERV Focus Group Selection Survey

in the respondents rankings) was assigned 5, the next most important (second in the rankings) 4, and so on down to 1 for the fifth most important. A cumulative score of 25 across five respondents would therefore indicate a topic that was ranked most important by all five respondents. Rank This is the overall ranking of the topics: 1 is assigned to that topic which received the highest overall cumulative score, and so on down to 5 (since there are to be five focus groups). R2 The a priori plan was to have two economic, two societal and one socio-economic focus group. The rankings in this column identify the two top economic themes (E1 and E2), the two top societal themes (S1 and S2), and the top socioeconomic theme (SE1).

Table 2: Preference for attendance to specific topic areas I do not wish to participate Both social and economic issues Social issues only Economic issues only TOTAL
N=59 (of whom 7 left no name)

10 42 2 5 594

Figure 1: Spread of Responses across the domains of Socio-Economic, Economic and Societal Themes
4

One respondent did not rank the topics

University of Southampton IT Innovation and Oxford Internet Institute 2011, 2012

Page 6

SESERV Focus Group Selection Survey

A total of 2905 ratings were made, distributed as shown in Figure 1. Given the number of topics within a given category, the expectation would have been that 26.67% of responses would go to Socio-Economic, 33.33% to Economic, and 40% to Societal topics; as shown in the figure, some 2.5% and 5.9% more responses were received for Socio-Economic and Societal topics respectively, whereas Economic topics attracted some 8.5% less than expected.

Figure 2: The average rating for the fifteen topics (1=low priority; 5=highest priority) Figure 2 shows the rating results per category (Economic, Societal and Socio-Economic): the

average rating for each topic was calculated over the total number of responses for that topic and is shown above each individual column. The overall average rating for Economic, Societal and Socio-Economic topics is overlaid on the individual columns. The spread of interest is difficult to interpret in any simple way. What, for instance, should be made of the strength of opinion of a given issue: 40 out of the 59 respondents rated Multi-disciplinary collaboration around the mid-point, 3; yet only 8 out of 59 rated Polarised views higher at 3.5. Should the 3-rating by 40 respondents count more? Instead of attempting some kind of weighting, consider first the raw averages and how a rank ordering based on those averages may appear. Figure 3 shows the average ratings in rank order, with the topic marked with the highest priority to the left and that with the lowest to the right. The spread is from 2.50, the rating for Efficient Routing, to 3.82 in respect of the

The expectation would be 5 x 59 = 295; however, one respondent did not rate the topics, but only expressed a preference on the type of discussion they would engage in.

University of Southampton IT Innovation and Oxford Internet Institute 2011, 2012

Page 7

SESERV Focus Group Selection Survey

need for a Common Vocabulary. Of the top five rated topics, four are societal in nature and one economic.

Figure 3: Average ratings as in Figure 2, ordered from the topic judged most important down to least important

Simply ordering the topics on the basis of average rating begins to suggest a possible topic grouping, at least in the sense of some common concerns and themes. Table 3 suggests some common issues and areas of interest which relate to the ordered topics, grouped into the top, middle and bottom five in terms of overall ranking. Roughly speaking, the top five seem to relate to bringing together experts, users and technologists to discuss the Future Internet (FI) in terms that can be understood by all. The next five suggest the types of challenges facing service and content delivery in the FI. The bottom five, finally, could be classed as topics of network management.
Table 3: Topic groupings and discussion areas suggested

Topics in order of priority Common vocabulary Polarised Views Network Security User-centricity Multi-disciplinary collaboration

Coverage and focus Getting all sides talking: the top-rated five topics seem to relate to issues of how to get the users and all relevant experts and technologists to discuss issues. Network Security seems slightly at odds with the overarching concern about getting all relevant parties into discussion. It could, however, be Page 8

University of Southampton IT Innovation and Oxford Internet Institute 2011, 2012

SESERV Focus Group Selection Survey

Topics in order of priority Coverage and focus taken as one of the main issues affecting Future Internet (FI) usage: how can I guarantee my transactions/credentials/content is safe? This is a clear candidate for a review of what all interested parties think. Specific challenges in service delivery: the second set of topics seem to be able how we make sure that content and services are well received and can be managed appropriately (Content and service delivery). We are talking here about getting the best out of the services: users need to know how to interact with FI services (Digital Literacy), their data need to be handled appropriate (Sensitive Data), and this will involve the exploitation of limited resources (Scarce resource sharing) and what should be done if the sought for level of service is not met (Agreement Violation). Service and infrastructure management: the third and final group of topics revolves around regulation and management. This set reflects concerns about dealing with services and content that are passed across different providers and even states. For this to succeed, there needs to be some common framework in support of user expectations and their rights in using the FI.

Agreement violations Sensitive data Scarce resource sharing Digital Literacy Content and service delivery

Increased transparency Global regulation Interconnection agreements Digital Rights Efficient Routing

With this broad-stroke, subjective approach, we have a way forward. In the first set of focus groups, we will concentrate on these three basic areas: i. ii. iii. getting the sides together, looking at service delivery, and management of services and infrastructure.

4 Focus Groups: the Athens Workshop6

To set off the focus group discussions, three short (1.5 hours) focus groups will be run to explore the arbitrary topic groupings derived from the online survey, rated and ordered as described in the previous sections. It is the intention that the groups should be moderated to include and explore topics from the online survey which seem most relevant to topic groupings as discussed above and as summarised again in Table 4.

http://www.seserv.org/fiseconversation/theinterplayofeconomicsandtechnologyforthefutureinternetseservworkshopjanuary312012athe nsgreece

University of Southampton IT Innovation and Oxford Internet Institute 2011, 2012

Page 9

SESERV Focus Group Selection Survey

Table 4: Athens topics as they relate to the topics from the online survey Overall topic as advertised Related topics from online survey

Common vocabulary User-centricity and transparency of Polarised Views Network Security Future Internet technologies User-centricity Multi-disciplinary collaboration Agreement violation Content and service delivery Sensitive data Scarce resource sharing architectures for the Future Internet Digital literacy Content and service delivery Increased transparency Interconnection agreements and Global regulation Interconnection agreements monitoring Digital Rights Efficient Routing

The findings of these initial focus groups will be published along with the workshop reports.

University of Southampton IT Innovation and Oxford Internet Institute 2011, 2012

Page 10