Difference between revisions of "Team:HKUST-Rice/Practices ExploratoryResearch"
Stephanieyiu (Talk | contribs) |
Stephanieyiu (Talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
left:4%; | left:4%; | ||
top:40%; | top:40%; | ||
| − | |||
} | } | ||
div#MYicon2{ | div#MYicon2{ | ||
| Line 35: | Line 34: | ||
<div id="MYicon1"> | <div id="MYicon1"> | ||
<a href="https://2015.igem.org/Team:HKUST-Rice/Practices"><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/e/ea/HKUST-Rice15_leftarrow.png"> | <a href="https://2015.igem.org/Team:HKUST-Rice/Practices"><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/e/ea/HKUST-Rice15_leftarrow.png"> | ||
| − | <p style="color:# | + | <p style="color:#5570b0; font-size: 130%"> Introduction </p></a> |
</div> | </div> | ||
<div id="MYicon2"> | <div id="MYicon2"> | ||
<a href="https://2015.igem.org/Team:HKUST-Rice/Practices_Debate"><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/7/7a/HKUST-Rice15_rightarrow.png"> | <a href="https://2015.igem.org/Team:HKUST-Rice/Practices_Debate"><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/7/7a/HKUST-Rice15_rightarrow.png"> | ||
| − | <p style="color:# | + | <p style="color:#5570b0; font-size: 130%"> Bioethical Debate</p></a> |
</div> | </div> | ||
Revision as of 11:17, 30 August 2015
Exploratory Research
Objectives
Presently, there is insufficient knowledge involving stakeholders and their opinion on using KPN microbial biosensor. This is chiefly the case in situations with weak research environments on the study of stakeholders’ perceptions, and in relatively emerging field in which there is insufficient evidence to categorically define them. The study of stakeholders’ perceptions on using microbial KPN biosensor is seemingly in a new field. Deploying an exploratory research is a possible way.
To accomplish this purpose, the following research questions were addressed:
- What are the perceived criteria regarding biosensor for KPN concentration detection?
- What are the expected achievements in attaining sustainability in applying microbial KPN biosensor in their field?
- How do perceptions of stakeholders change with the use of in-field microbial biosensor in terms of appropriateness of their settings?
- How do perceptions of stakeholders change with the use of in-field microbial biosensor in terms of safety?
Methodology on analysis
The research questions were examined and validated through various exploratory experimentations. In this research, interviews were used to query the beliefs and perceptions of the participants. Taking a post-positivist paradigm (Guba & Lincoln, 1994), triangulation (Denzin, 1994), member-checking (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) and the audit trail (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) were used to validate the data collected.
Target Groups
The sample was drawn from Hong Kong, including possible end-users, researchers and government officers, where more people are aware of the research in genetic engineering and the possibility of its application in environment or in their field. The ultimate intent of the research was to provide a paradigm for understanding how people perceive the in-field application of microbial biosensor. The findings from this research could enable the researchers to respond to the appropriateness of applying the microbial biosensor in a particular field and to the safety concerns of the application, and provide a paradigm for other stakeholders to decide whether to apply microbial biosensor in their field. And if the stakeholders decide to apply microbial biosensor in their field, further research, for example quantitative analysis of their perception, based on this study’s finding could help establish guidelines for promoting awareness of the pros and cons of the application of in-field microbial biosensor.
Results
Graph 2.The paradigm of the interviewees’ perceptions on the in-field application of KPN microbial sensor
The participants’ perceptions and emergent themes are consistent with the literature review, in terms of soil and water quality management schemes, local soil and water testing methods, soil management in organic farms, and the international and local regulations on the deliberate release of GEM.
The paradigm above illustrates interviewees’ perceptions on the in-field use of NPK microbial biosensors in their field (Graph 1). While most stakeholders still agreed that a biosensor possessing the expected characteristics would be an effective and efficient means to lowering their operation cost, reducing their manpower, knowing the test results quicker, and thereby making immediate strategy to manage soil or water, etc.; followed by notifying the involvement of GEM in the device, stakeholders began to consider how the desired biosensor actually fits into their field. They believed the design should be suitable to their field and considered its appropriateness.
Perceptions of HK stakeholders
Ultimately, stakeholders reflected on potential risks; at the same time, they balanced the perceived benefits and perceived harms of using the microbial biosensor. Most stakeholders’ perceptions follow a single path and the majority has no intention to use for the following reasons:
- the biosensor is useless in their field,
- the biosensor is unable to achieve sustainability in either aspects, including economics, social and environmental,
- the biosensor is an inappropriate device in their field,
- the biosensor is not suitable to be used in their workplace, and
- the perceived risks of the microbial biosensor outweighed the original perceived benefits.
Future Research
The conclusions drawn from the results offer a well-founded point of departure for future studies. Possible topics include:
- An investigation of what proportion of the general population perceives biosensors as a risky endeavour with respect to the agricultural goods they consume, especially food products.
- Projected cost differences between field-tested soil sensing devices--the proposed microbial biosensor compared to a chemical-based test kit.
- A study on differences in time between sample collection and useful results for both the proposed microbial biosensor as well as traditional chemical soil detection methods. How important is this time point to the stakeholders?
- The implications of microbial biosensing technology on the existing agricultural workforce. Would the implementation of the proposed device reduce the need for additional manpower? In other words, how does the use of a microbial biosensor affect perceptions of job availability in the agricultural field?
- The role of precision agriculture in current farming practices. Could a microbial biosensor be applied to improve these large scale measurements?
Transcripts, pictures and recordings