1 / 33

An empirical analysis of the literature in the field Renske Pin & Jan Gutteling

The development of Public Perception Research in the Genomics field. An empirical analysis of the literature in the field Renske Pin & Jan Gutteling. Systematic Review. Insight in research literature “Where do we stand now?” Fill gap – further research

base
Download Presentation

An empirical analysis of the literature in the field Renske Pin & Jan Gutteling

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The development of Public Perception Research in the Genomics field An empirical analysis of the literature in the fieldRenske Pin & Jan Gutteling

  2. Systematic Review Insight in research literature “Where do we stand now?” Fill gap – further research (e.g. Bunz, 2005; Gurabardhi, Gutteling & Kuttschreuter, 2004; McComas 2006) > Method > Results > Conclusion

  3. Research questions • How can we characterize the literature on public perception of genomics? 2. Dotrendsexist in the literature on public perception of genomics? 3. What do scientific indicators tell us about the scientificnature of the published articles on public perception of genomics?

  4. Method Choices: > Databases > Document types > Period > Search Fields > Search Key design > Process

  5. Databases Relevant databases on the field (advise of information specialist) Method 1/6

  6. Document Type Journal Articles Review Articles (no bookreviews) Method 2/6

  7. Time Period As far back as possible in the databases: Web of science 1988 – 8 may 2006 Scopus 1970 – 8 may 2006 Method 3/6

  8. Search fields Scopus: TITLE-ABS-KEY (article titles, abstracts, Author Keywords, Index terms (controlled terms) Web of Science: TS (article titles, abstracts, Author Keywords, Keywords Plus) So the same fields were searched Method 5/6

  9. Search Key (consumer* or public) AND (attitude* or opinion or perception or acceptance or communication) AND (genomics or “genetically modified” or gm or “genetic modification” or “genetic engineering” or genetics) Method 4/6

  10. Process Analysis based on abstracts and reference information (no fulltext) > Selection Relevant articles (2 reviewers) > Coding variables > Statistical Analysis with SPSS 12.0 Method 6/6

  11. Results > Web of Science vs Scopus > Characteristics > Trends > Scientific Nature

  12. Hits Scopus 799 1970-1987: 31 1987-2006: 768 Web of Science 460 Double 350 Total unique articles: 909

  13. Coding Relevant Articles Criteria exclusion: • No research (28) • Not about genomics (66) • Not about public perception (364) Total deleted: 458 (Scopus: 243; Web of Science: 215) Total sample: 451(Scopus: 206; Web of Science: 245)

  14. Top Journals

  15. Most cited articles

  16. Countries Frequency Percent USA 142 31.5 GB 87 19.3 Scandinavia 28 6.2 Australia 22 4.9 Germany 20 4.4 New Zealand 15 3.3 Canada 13 2.9 Mid & Latin America 13 2.9 Switzerland 12 2.7 Netherlands 10 2.2 Japan 9 2.0 Other 44 9.8

  17. Authors Total of different authors in the field: 875 authors Mean of written articles per author: 2,7 article The 12 most productive authors: • Frewer 18 • Lusk 9 • Condit, Howard, Grunert 7 • Bauer, Gaskell, House, Macer, McCluskey, Shepherd, Wertz 6

  18. Production Productive authors (4 or more articles): 38 Important authors (2-3 articles): 114 Incidental authors (1 article): 723

  19. Publication Year Start Human Genome Project, Clone: Bull Herman “Watershed years”: GM soy to EU, Clone: Sheep Dolly Hot item None Little 1990 1997

  20. Newspaper articles Gutteling et al. 2002

  21. Trend: Research Focus

  22. Genomics • General 13% • Red (Medical) 22% • Green (Food) 61% * Based on 75% of sample: N=342

  23. Theoretical Abstracts mentioning: Theoretical base: 6% Factors: 37% Model (output): 6% Measurement instrument: 21% * Based on 75% of sample: N=342

  24. Research Method Survey/Interviews 33% Desk research/ narrative essay 9% Focus groups 4% Experiment 4% Mixed methods 9% Unknown 31% Quantitative 37% Qualitative 25% Unknown 33% * Based on 75% of sample: N=342

  25. Measured • Attitude 50% • (Perceived) Risks 24% • (Perceived) Benefits 19% • Ethical aspects 12% • Other factors 37% * Based on 75% of sample * Based on 75% of sample: N=342

  26. Other Factors … influencing acceptance • Trust • Knowledge • Demographics • Worldview, lifestyle, religion • Manufacturing process, brand, price, information, labeling

  27. Conclusions > Characteristics > Trends > Scientific Nature

  28. Characteristics of the literature • Many incidental authors, many journals • Small group of influential authors • Scopus covers much research which Web of Science does not: good additional source Conclusion 1/3

  29. Trends • Genomics upcoming item in last decade (“Watershed years”) • Many studies on green genomics • Focus from ethics to perceived benefits and risks Conclusion 2/3

  30. Scientific nature • Scientific nature often unclear: value? • Many public surveys (33%: 113) • Little theoretical framework (6%: 22) • Little systematic research on factors/modeling (6%: 22) * Based on 75% of sample * Based on 75% of sample: N=342 Conclusion 3/3

  31. Discussion • Second coder/check • Further research: • Content: analyses keywords • Two different worlds: medical – food? Other issues? Food: acceptance; Medical: doctor-patient?

  32. Questions?

  33. More information at www.sraeurope2007.eu

More Related