Skip Navigation

Sub-Saharan Africa

Editorials

SciDev.Net survey results: How are we doing?

David Dickson

23 October 2009 | EN | ES | FR | 中文

scisurvey_Flickr_cfimages.jpg

Your responses, whether positive or critical, offer us valuable guidance for the future

Flickr_cfimages

The most recent SciDev.Net user survey offers valuable insights into how well we are meeting your needs.

In performing arts, feedback from an audience, whether appreciative or critical, is both direct and immediate. But in print and electronic media, the physical gap between writer and reader means that one's efforts are often greeted with silence.

At SciDev.Net, we take care to survey our users for their views, deeply appreciate those who take time respond to us, and pay close attention to the answers we get. We rely on these indirect means to gauge whether or not we are meeting our audiences' needs and expectations.

Our most recent survey, conducted in August this year, was no exception. We received a healthy response with more than 1400 of you taking the time to reply which, according to survey specialists, indicates a high level of enthusiasm for our work, and for which we are very grateful.

We're doing well

I was delighted to find that the overall message is very positive. Almost all respondents described the website as either excellent (45 per cent) or good (49 per cent). More than half (52 per cent) of respondents would "strongly recommend" SciDev.Net to colleagues. As an independent analyst of the data said, "SciDev.Net's website has a great many fans."

The survey also reassures me that we are achieving the right balance of material across our different sections. News is, perhaps unsurprisingly, the most popular section, being regularly visited by 68 per cent of users; indeed, 11 per cent of you claim to visit the site daily.

But the opinions and topics sections — which include our regular spotlights — also have their fans. 84 per cent of respondents, for example, said our spotlights provided an "excellent overview" of the topics they cover.

And I am particularly pleased to see that notices are fulfilling their role. More than three-quarters of respondents consult our grants section and more than half of you regularly consult both the events and announcements sections.

What impact we have

But the survey also helped us to find out what you, as users, do with the material that you've read — crucial information that will help us make the most impact in development circles.

Most respondents thought that SciDev.Net's greatest value lies in increasing awareness of science and technology, and improving understanding of these.

The next most valued service of the website was providing background reference material. This serves as a useful reminder that, with almost 7,500 articles in SciDev.Net's (searchable) database, we have built up a valuable store of information about science and development since launching in 2001.

Perhaps more surprisingly, almost two-thirds of academic researchers replying to the survey either "agreed" (50 per cent) or "strongly agreed" (13 per cent) that SciDev.Net had helped them improve their science communication skills. Indeed, more than two-thirds (68 per cent) of all respondents expressed an interest in attending or providing science communication training workshops.

I was particularly pleased with the impact we seem to be having in the policymaking process. Two-thirds of policymakers responding to the survey "strongly agreed" that SciDev.Net increased their awareness of the importance of science and technology in meeting development goals.

How to improve?

Inevitably, some comments were more critical. Even these, however, have provided us with valuable guidance for developing both the website and our other activities.

Some respondents had personal complaints. A few, for example, felt that the typeface we use is too small, while others had difficulty navigating around the site.

Some comments will be easier to address than others. To those who told us about unanswered emails, we apologise and promise to do better in the future. Complaints about broken links are being investigated. And comments that the survey was too long will be seriously considered when we plan our next one.

But other criticisms will be more difficult to address. Asked to reflect on what would most improve the website, the majority of those who responded simply asked for more: more regional coverage, more topics, more languages.

We would love to oblige. Our main obstacle is not a lack of will — or technical capability — but of resources, primarily financial. But here again your views should help. The overall positive response to our survey will hopefully help convince donors that we provide an essential and widely-appreciated service that deserves continued support.

Link to summary of the Scidev.Net user survey 2009

David Dickson
Director, SciDev.Net

Comments

Nagib Nassar ( Brazil )

28 October 2009

I must confess to a great admiration by Scidev , its editorial board and geniously written articles of its editor in chief. Have accompanied it from the first day of its issue and was most emotioned by seeing it grows day by day, and year by year as if was one of my sons untill it reached this excellent form I was one of respondents who described the website as excellent, and would "strongly recommend" SciDev.Net to colleagues. Among majority of readers, I believe , have reassured you are achieving the right balance of material across different sections. I am particularly pleased to see that more than 95 per cent of consulted readers have voted that scidev is fulfilling its role. Am happy too to link editorial articles to geneconserve www.geneconserve.pro.br Nagib Nassar Professor,Universidade de Brasilia, Brazil www.geneconserve.pro.br

David Chester ( Israel )

17 November 2009

Before we pat ourselves too strongly on the back, perhaps we should appreciate what is going on behind that back. Science should be able to help government to better govern as well as technically about what to govern. But in this we fail. To better govern we must ensure a better understanding of how macroeconomics works and how it is possible for a few people who own land to hold at ransom the vast majority who don't. This is macroeconomics and it is a science.

Add your comment

All comments are subject to approval and we reserve the right to edit comments containing inappropriate/unsuitable language. SciDev.Net holds copyright for all material posted on the website. Please see terms of use for further details.

You need to be signed in to post a comment or to email a consenting comment author. Please sign in or sign up.

Back to Editorials
To the top