D1.7 Statistical analysis

Transcription

1 SecurePART Project Objective FP7- SEC Support Action Increasing the engagement of civil society in security research Project Number: D1.7 Statistical analysis Version May 2015

2 1. Change Control 1.1. Document Properties Deliverable No. D1.7 Work Package No WP1 Work Package Title Analyse current CSO involvement in FP7 Author/s Elizabeth Isaacs (Bantec), Frank Balzer (Nexus) Ansgar Düben (Nexus) Reviewer Luis Botifoll (Bantec) Name Statistical analysis Date 13 May 2015 Dissemination Level RE 1.2. Revision History Version Date Comments March 2015 Initial draft April 2015 Submitted comments and objections by the consortium May 2015 Inclusion of new section May 2015 Second version May Final version, approved by the Steering Committee meeting This document has been produced in the context of the securepart Project. The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Community's Seventh Framework Programme under Grant Agreement SEC All information in this document is provided "as is" and no guarantee or warranty is given that the information is fit for any particular purpose. The user thereof uses the information at its sole risk and liability. For the avoidance of all doubts, the European Commission has no liability in respect of this document, which is merely representing the authors view. Version th May 2015 Page 2 of 70

3 2. Contents 1. Change Control Document Properties Revision History Contents Abstract Preliminaries Characteristics of respondents Profile of the respondents Implication and knowledge CSO identity Specific activity of a CSO Opinion about CSO involvement Main findings Correlations appreciated Introduction Correlations of potential higher interest Q5 analysis Q20 analysis Q21 analysis Correlations with high significant results Q17 analysis Annex I Detailed correlation analysis Version th May 2015 Page 3 of 70

4 3. Abstract The project SecurePART aimed at understanding the status quo about CSOs participation between in security research launched a web survey and held a number of interviews. The web survey was addressed to a high database of CSOs representatives and managers around Europe; the target was indiscriminate and associated to the pan-european network of CSOs. Finally, 323 people most of them directly involved in CSOs responded. In parallel, 62 interviews were organized with CSO representatives and managers as well as the rest of stakeholders involved in security research (industry, experts, researchers, etc.) Questions were the same in both cases but target and the way of data collection varied. In this report a quantitative analysis of the responses obtained from both sources are provided. The results of this quantitative analysis will be taken into consideration for the SWOT Analysis (D1.9) and the Conclusions Report (D1.10) of workpackage Preliminaries In order to provide a more complete statistical analysis that could enrich the project results, it was decided by the SecurePART Consortium not only obtaining data to be quantitatively analysed from the interviews planned to take place in task 1.6, but also to reorient the activities of task 1.3 and in this way obtaining an additional tool, a web survey, that could increase the supply of data. In this way, the statistical analysis is provided by two data sources. The same questions have been addressed to both sources. However it is significantly different the target for the two tools employed. In the case of the web survey, respondents were basically CSO representatives related to the ENNA network that had a more disparity in knowledge on security research and familiarity with the R&D Framework Programmes; in the other case, interviews were addressed to different targets: independent experts, security stakeholders and other FP7 participants that are more familiarized with the topics of security research. Also, another significant difference can be found in the method that data has been collected. With the web survey, respondents completed an online questionnaire; with the interviews, data was orally provided in a face to face meetings or in phone conversations that were previously fixed. Irrespective of the two targets and the methods of data collection, we consider that both tools had the same objectives; these were: Identify the profile of CSOs that have participated in FP7; Identify the profile of CSO that is eventually interested in participate in H2020; Know the priorities, technologies and concerns of the CSOs that participated; Know the relationship between the CSO as a body and the role of their elected managers or Version th May 2015 Page 4 of 70

5 staff in the fulfilling of an organizational strategy; Distinguish the specific interest in security research in relation to a more general interest in research in general and H2020; Know the roles that CSOs have more preference to undertake in security research activities; Assess the type of disadvantages that CSOs are facing when participating in European research; To assess the correlation between the FP7 and CSOs expectations. In spite of the obvious differences of target and methods of data collection between the survey and the interviews, it has been preferred to undertake the qualitative analysis jointly. However, differences in the responses can be seen separately and they are compared when a significant disparity is appreciated. 5. Characteristics of respondents 5.1. Profile of the respondents Profile of the respondents Survey Interviews CSO Researcher Industry Academia Consultant Administration Facilitator Table1: Profile of respondents 337 respondents have been taken into account. Only finalized surveys have been estimated. Those firstly surveyed that finally became interviewed have been considered in the second group. An overwhelming majority of respondents consider that CSOs better define their profile or position. If Q1 is correlated with Q5 (about the latest position in the CSO) it can be concluded that respondents even with an indirect or passive link to CSO prefer to be included in this group, irrespective of the fact that their relationship is small. Version th May 2015 Page 5 of 70

6 5.2. Implication and knowledge Introduction Figure 1: Profile of respondents (in % total) The first section was compulsory to all respondents. The aim was to position the respondent in relation to the knowledge and experience acquired in security and technology issues, as well as their implication in the environment of civil society organizations Familiarity in security issues Q1. Your level of familiarization or experience in relation to security issues is Survey Interviews 1 Low Medium High Table 2: Familiarity in security issues Strong positioning of the respondents in the range low-medium knowledge (approx. 80%). Significant differences to this question are appreciated between those responding the web survey and those interviewed who consider themselves with high level of familiarity in security issues. Version th May 2015 Page 6 of 70

7 Familiarity in research in general Figure2: Familiarity of security issues (in % total) Q2. Your level of familiarization or experience in relation to research in general is Survey Interviews 1 Low Medium High Table 3 Familiarity in research issues Global number of respondents are more clearly positioned in the intermediate ranges (approx. 67%). Familiarity with research is significantly higher than on security issues Familiarity in security research Figure 3: Familiarity in research issues (in % total) Version th May 2015 Page 7 of 70

8 Q3. Your level of familiarization or experience in relation to security research is Survey Interviews 1 Low Medium High Table 4: Familiarity in security research issues Relevant self-perception of low knowledge and experience related to security research. 85% of the respondents position themselves in the range between 1-3. On the other hand, a significant but obvious asymmetry is appreciated in the two methods of data collection: in the survey, the lower ranks have a greater number of responses; in the interviews, higher levels of familiarity to security research are found Main reason for familiarity Figure 4: Familiarity in security research issues (in % total) Q4. Your familiarization or experience on research issues is primarily related to Survey Interviews Professional activity in research/teaching Intellectual curiosity, hobby Societal and/or ethical concerns Political concerns No particular interest Others Table 5: Main reason for familiarity in research For this question, only one answer was admitted in order to obtain a prioritisation. It has been preferred to prioritise the knowledge regarding the larger theme of research and not the most Version th May 2015 Page 8 of 70

9 specific of security research. Most of the respondents perceive their professional activity (36% of total) as the main reason for developing an interest in topics related to research. This feature is present in both groups, but more clearly appreciated with the surveyed population. Other significant reasons are societal and ethical concerns (23% of total) and intellectual curiosity (16% of total) Link with the CSO Figure 5: Main reason for familiarity in research (in % total) Q5. Your latest position in the CSO is as Survey Interviews Elected manager (not staff) Staff Volunteer / active member Other type of collaborator (disseminator, donor, 24 etc.) 3 27 Participant at the activities / follower of their 5 positions 8 13 Not applicable Other Table 6: Position of the respondent in relation to the CSO Only one answer was admitted to this fundamental question. Respondents are grouped according to the position they have in relation to a CSO. Both elected managers and staff reflect a daily relationship, volunteers or active members reflect also a very usual and insider relationship. On the other hand, outsider views or independency from CSOs are reflected with the rest of categories: external collaborators, mere participant or follower and others. Almost 75% of the respondents can be considered they are very connected with the CSO reality. This overwhelming majority can even be increased to approx. 87% if external collaborators and supporters are added. Version th May 2015 Page 9 of 70

10 Duration of the link with the CSO Figure 6: Position in relation to the CSO (in % total) Q6. You are involved in the CSO for Survey Interviews Less than one year Between 1-2 years Between 3-5 years Between 5-10 years More than 10 years Table 7: Duration of the involvement with the CSO The duration in CSO involvement does not reveal major differences between the five periods established. Slight majority in respondents with a duration of more than ten years long term (25%) is appreciated. Version th May 2015 Page 10 of 70

11 Figure 7: Duration of the involvement (in % total) Knowledge of the CSO environment Q7. Your knowledge of the CSO environment is Survey Interviews Very high. It is my daily environment High. It is a regular (weekly or monthly) environment Medium. It is an environment that I am in contact with, several times in a year Low. It is an environment that I am in contact occasionally, in the last five years Very low. My contact is rare or non-existent Table 8: Familiarity with the CSO environment Most of the respondents have a daily based relationship with a particular CSO (47%). A second group of respondents have a frequent relationship under a weekly or monthly basis (18%). Significantly, those interviewed expressed a higher rate of daily relationship with CSOs. Figure 8: Familiarity of the CSO environment (in % total) 5.3. CSO identity Introduction This second section has been responded only by those who are directly involved in a CSO or have the self-perception of knowing at least one CSO, internally. Respondents that are not directly involved with CSOs were allowed to answer this part of the questionnaire. However, they were requested to focus and individualise their comments to a Version th May 2015 Page 11 of 70

12 particular CSO, the one that they considered to know in better detail. In this way, we tried to avoid to be answered with a general reply concerning a group of organisations Typology of CSOs Q8. Which of the following best describes the CSO you are involved? Survey Interviews Community-based and neighbourhood organization or group Development and Peace NGO Human rights group or network Advocacy organization or groups (i.e. campaign group, public interest group) Lobby group (pressure group, private & business interest group) Network or support group devoted to societal empowerment Policy research institute, think tank or security studies institute Professional association or group Student group Trade union or employers organization Academic association or network Women s organization Faith-based organization Non-operational charitable organization (i.e. grantmaking foundation) Don t know Other Table 9: Typology of CSOs For this question, it was requested to respondents to prioritise a small description, the one most adapted, for the CSO they will talk about in the following questions. Typology of respondents is very varied and presents a wide range of CSOs. Four types of CSOs are dominant: communitybased (13,68% of the total), devoted to societal empowerment (12,38% of the total), human rights oriented (12,38%) and advocacy oriented (12,05%). Version th May 2015 Page 12 of 70

13 Geographic outreach Figure 9: Typology of CSOs (in % total) Q9. What type of geographic outreach has your CSO? Survey Interviews International European National Regional/local Other Don t know Table 10: Geographic coverage of CSOs A significant number of CSOs survey respondents have a national coverage what is directly related to the fact that ENNA, as the main survey disseminator, is composed of organizations at national level in all Europe. A second group is composed of those at regional or local level. According to this question, we cannot extract specific data about the territorial coverage of CSOs. Furthermore, it is to be noted the bias in interviewees where international or European CSOs have a significant presence. Version th May 2015 Page 13 of 70

14 Figure 10: Geographic coverage (in % total) Interrelation between territorial levels Q10. Does your CSO have any interrelation with other CSOs at different territorial levels? At smaller level (i.e. your CSO collaborates with other CSOs locally based) Survey Interviews At bigger level (i.e. your CSO is member of an umbrella integrating federated CSOs) Don t know- not appreciated Table 11: Interrelation with other levels Respondents express the connection of CSOs. Bias is also introduced by the fact that most of the respondents to the survey are associated to ENNA, and because of this they preferently express their connection at bigger level. Figure 11: Interrelation with other levels (in % total) Version th May 2015 Page 14 of 70

15 Employees at the CSOs Q11. How many employees has the CSO you are involved? Survey Interviews Less than Between Between Between More than Table 12: Number of employees at CSOs It is appreciated that most of the respondents are related with very small CSOs that have less than 10 employees (49% of total). If we also consider that a significant part of the respondent CSOs have national coverage, we can conclude that personnel resources is a very important limitation in CSOs, that can only be partially solved by the support of volunteers and other active members Members and friends Figure 12: Number of employees at CSOs (in % total) Q12. How many members/friends has the CSO you are involved? Survey Interviews Less than Between Between Between More than Table 13: Number of members/friends of CSOs Under members/friends of the CSO we have tried to join those categories of CSOs related active Version th May 2015 Page 15 of 70

16 collaborators that make the free choice to support, economically and/or by their time, the activity of the CSO. They pay a membership fee and, eventually, as volunteers they provide a in-kind contribution to the aims of the CSO. Size of CSOs according to this factor is very diverse and not easy conclusions can be extracted. Figure 13: Number of members/friends of CSOs (in % total) Links with R&D topics and security concerns Q13. How are the activities of your CSO associated with R&D and security concerns? Survey Interviews Commonly associated with security concerns Indirectly associated with security concerns Commonly associated with research and technological development issues Indirectly associated with research and technological development issues Don t know Table 14: Links with R&D topics and security concerns With this question we have tried to compare the interest CSOs have both in research and in security concerns as separated aspects. Given the high percentage of participants that do not respond, probably the question was confusing. Anyway, we appreciate there is no clear common or direct interest in security or research; the interest appreciated is tangential or indirect to the CSOs in most of the cases. In this way, a significant part of the respondents feel more attached to security concerns but they feel the link as indirect to the main objectives of their CSO. Version th May 2015 Page 16 of 70

17 Budget of CSOs Figure 14: Links with R&D topics and security concerns (in % total) Q14. How much budget is available for your CSO per year? Survey Interviews Less than Between and Between and Between and More than Don't know Table 15: Annual budget of CSOs Together with the number of employees, budget available it is a telling fact about the daily reality of CSOs. They have limited financial resources and a substantial part of this resources have to be used to cover the staff and functioning expenses of the organization. Only about 6% of the CSOs have a yearly budget higher than 5M. Figure 15: Annual budget (in % total) Version th May 2015 Page 17 of 70

18 5.4. Specific activity of a CSO Introduction This section of the questionnaire was devoted to obtain details about the thematic orientation of the CSOs, the relationship with security research and the technologies more directly connected to the activity of the CSO. Respondents not directly involved with CSOs were allowed to reply this part of the questionnaire. However, they were requested to individualise their comments and opinions to a particular CSO, the one that they knew in better detail, and avoid to provide us with a general reply concerning a group of organisations Interest in security research Q15. Is your CSO interested in security research related aspects? Survey Interviews Yes No Don t know Table 16: Interest of CSOs in security research Interest in security research does not generate a marginal interest in CSOS. A significant part of the respondents expressed their concern for different themes derived from security research. More positive answers were provided by the interviewees, but the surveyed respondents interested were a 47,50% (52,53% of the total). 30,83 % of the surveyed were not interested (27,84% of the total) and 21,67% (19,93% of the total) did not know. Figure 16: Interest of CSOs in security research (in % total) Version th May 2015 Page 18 of 70

19 Themes of security research more concerned Q16. In which aspects is your CSO concerned at security research? Survey Interviews Health risks Environmental risks Peace in the world Privacy Cybersecurity Individual civil rights Minority s rights No direct concern Don t know Other ethical/societal concerns Table 17: Concerns in security research For this question, several choices were admitted with no limit. Repercussion of security research on individual civil rights is clearly the most appealing concern for CSOs. A significant bias can be found among those interviewed; in this sense, the interest is less polarized and better distributed among different concerns (including those environmental, privacy-related and affecting minorities rights). Also it is relevant that a significant part of the interviewees did not find their ethical or societal concern in the list provided. Figure 17: Concerns in security research (in % total) Organisational involvement in security research Q17. Has your CSO been involved in any activity related to security research during the last six years? Version th May 2015 Page 19 of 70

20 Survey Interviews Yes No Don t know Table 18: Typology of CSOs The focus of this question was put on the organizational involvement as a CSO in relation to the individual involvement. About a half of CSOs have been involved in security research aspects during the last 6 years that correspond to the implementation of FP7. An expected bias is appreciated among interviewees where a clear majority of them considered the case of CSOs that played an active role in security research. Figure 18: Involvement of CSOs in security research (in % total) Individual involvement in security research Q17.1. Have you been directly involved in any activity related to security research during the last six years? Survey Interviews Yes No Table 19: Individual involvement in security research The focus of this question was put on the individual involvement in relation to the organizational involvement as a CSO. Number of answers to this question are significantly low. Among the respondents, more than 2/3 indicate that they have been involved, at least occasionally, in whatever security research activity. Version th May 2015 Page 20 of 70

21 Figure 19: Individual involvement in security research (in % total) Periodicity of the involvement Q17.2. This activity of the CSO you are involved in security research has been Survey Interviews Very usual (weekly) Usual (several times in a year) Occasional (several times in the last 6 years) Rare (one or two occasions in the last 6 years) Don t know Table 20: Periodicity of the involvement in security research Number of answers to this question are significantly very low. Among those that responded, they preferably express a occasional activity (32%), followed by an usual activity (approx. 31%). Occasionality has to be understood as an activity that takes place several times in the last years; usuality, takes place several times in the last year. Figure 20: Periodicity in security research (in % total) Version th May 2015 Page 21 of 70

22 Geographic outreach of the security research activity Q17.3. This activity has taken place at Survey Interviews International level European level National level Regional/local level Don t know Table 21: Coverage of the activity in security research Figure 21: Coverage of the activity in security research (in % total) Technology areas of relevance Q18. Which technology/ies related to security arise more concerns to the CSO you are involved? Survey Interviews Aviation, Maritime, Borders, Infrastructure protection; Counter-terror intelligence, Crisis management/civil protection, Physical protection, Protective clothing Don t know Other (Please Specify) Table 22: Technology areas relevance for CSOs For this question, several choices were admitted with no limit to respondents. A majority of Version th May 2015 Page 22 of 70

23 respondents expressed that crisis management is the technology area more relevant for their CSO activity (approx. 24%), followed at a significant distance by infrastructure protection (approx. 12%) and physical protection (approx. 10%). No important divergences are appreciated between surveyed and interviewed respondents Roles played by CSOs Figure 22: Technology areas relevance for CSOs (in % total) Q19. The main roles played by your CSO have been: Survey Interviews Observer Influencer Programme evaluator Project evaluator Actor of research User of research Commissioner of research Disseminator None of them Don t know Other (Please Specify) Table 23: Roles played by CSOs Three choices were admitted to respondents. According to the opinion collected, roles to be played by CSOs have preferably to be balanced and cover all the different phases. Approx. 17% of the preferences went to the initial phase of monitoring the policy-making agenda. In a second place, respondents expressed the preference of acting as disseminators in project execution (approx. 14%) and, thirdly, they expressed the role of influencers of the security research agenda, the advocacy activity before public bodies (approx. 13%). Version th May 2015 Page 23 of 70

24 5.5. Opinion about CSO involvement Introduction Figure 23: Roles played by CSOs (in % total) In this final subsection of the questionnaire it was requested to all respondents, CSO representatives or independent experts with no link with CSOs, to give a personal view and opinion about which are the disadvantages and barriers that CSOs are facing and what would be desirable to be undertaken The security research disadvantages Q20. Do you think CSOs in general have to face specific disadvantages when dealing with security issues in comparison with other research fields? Survey Interviews Yes No Don t know Table 24: Security research, a disadvantaged research field A significant part of the respondents (approx. 40%) is aware of the disadvantage faced because of the specificity of security research in comparison with other fields of research. This disadvantage is more appreciated by the interviewees with clearer knowledge of the specificity of security research at European level. Version th May 2015 Page 24 of 70

25 Figure 24: Security research, a disadvantaged research field (in % total) Disadvantages in the relation with other stakeholders Q21. Do you think CSOs in general have to face specific disadvantages when dealing security research issues compared with other stakeholders involved (industry, researchers, academia, etc.)? Survey Interviews Yes No Don t know Table 25: CSOs facing specific disadvantages A majority of the respondents are aware of the disadvantages faced by CSOs when participating in Horizon 2020, influencing the research agenda or just monitoring the developments. This majority is even higher among interviewees that included a varied profile composition, not specifically connected with a CSO. However is appreciated also a significant number of respondents that did not reply the question. Figure 25: CSOs facing specific disadvantages (in % total) Version th May 2015 Page 25 of 70

26 CSO wish of involvement Q22. Do you think CSOs in general have to be more involved in security research than they are now? Survey Interviews Yes No Don t know Table 26: CSOs have to be more involved Aspirational question addressed to all respondents that gave a clear overwhelming answer in favor of a greater involvement in security research. To be noted that this majority is even higher within the interviewee group. Figure 26: CSOs have to be more involved (in % total) Internal barriers faced by CSOs Q23.1 What type of internal barriers do you think have more repercussion when an hypothetical CSO consider to intervene in security research issues? Survey Interviews Staff structure /size CSO mandates / priorities Inappropriate staff skills Poor involvement of the members and other collaborators Inappropriate plan of activities to generate interest / transmit concern Other Table 27: Internal barriers faced by CSOs Only three choices were admitted to this question. Among the internal barriers, there is no Version th May 2015 Page 26 of 70

27 dominant reason behind. It is seen as the main limitation the staff structure (approx. 24%), the mandate and the priorities of the CSO (approx. 22%) and the skills of the staff (approx. 20%). Staff structure is more clearly appreciated as the fundamental limitation of CSOs by the interviewees; meanwhile surveyed respondents have more divergent views. Figure 27: Internal barriers faced by CSOs (in % total) External barriers faced by CSOs Q23.2 What type of external barriers do you think have more repercussion when an hypothetical CSO consider to intervene in security research issues? Survey Interviews Lack of interest in civil society Complexity of the environment to intervene Poor relationship with other CSOs at different territorial levels Poor relationship with other stakeholders (industry, researchers, public agencies, etc.) Others Other (Please Specify) Table 28: External barriers faced by CSOs Only three choices were admitted to this question. Among the external barriers, there is no dominant reason behind. It is seen as the main limitation the poor relationship with other stakeholders because of the lack of an structured European environment (platform, forum) with industry, researchers, etc. (approx. 27%), the complexity of this European environment (approx. 26%) and the lack of interest of the civil society and by extension the members of the CSO (approx. 25%). A divergence between surveyed and interviewed respondents is appreciated: interviewees emphasize more the complexity of the environment instead of the lack of interest in the civil society that is more remarked by the surveyed. Version th May 2015 Page 27 of 70

28 Interest in further contact Table 28: External barriers faced by CSOs (in % total) Q24. Would you accept to be contacted for an interviews in which you will be requested to answer us in detail? Survey Interviews Yes No Table 29: Respondents interested in further contact Surveyed respondents were requested to be interviewed in order to provide further details about the same specific aspects treated during the survey but with more detail, under a semi-structured interview. Only a small minority was interested in collaborate with the SecurePART project. 6. Main findings The quantitative analysis carried out only enables to extract some conclusions regarding relevance of the CSO activity. It has not been possible to extract some findings regarding effectiveness or impact of CSO activity. When examining the aim and available resources of the CSOs in order to understand and find out the CSO genre that is more involved in SR and the one that is less involved, figures shows the variety of CSOs participants nature. Regarding geographic coverage and their level of involvement, we believe that data is biased and is not sufficiently conclusive. Resources available such as number of employees and budget presents that 91% of the respondents indicate that their CSO is very small or small. CSOs with more than 100 employees and 5M are a minority in Europe. Critical mass is a very significant limitation of CSOs. CSOs do not have sufficient resources to be committed in activities that are out of the main aim of Version th May 2015 Page 28 of 70

29 the organization. Only large CSOs, with an international or European focus, have enough resources or a specific units devoted to research activities. But this is not a rule as there are very small and small CSOs with European activity focused in research. A part of the respondents show they have an interest in security research (52%). A 20% is not sure about their interest, perhaps because they need more information about what it means or how they can be involved in it. And 28% of them think that security research is not an interesting aim of the CSO. About the specific aspects that may be more interesting for the respondents, a wide spectrum of fields where they would like to be involved regarding security research is appreciated. The first one will be individual civil rights followed by minority s rights, privacy, environmental risks, cybersecurity or health risks. When asking about their past involvement in security research during the last 6 years, only a 51% of the respondents remember at least one experience. From those who can remember an experience in security research, 69% of them had a direct involvement in this activity and only a 31% of them had an indirect relationship. Analyzing the periodicity or frequency when these activities took place, a 25% of them are involved in it in a daily basis. A 31% is usually working with it, 32% in occasional moments and for a 12% was a rare or specific occasion. 54% of the activities in security research where CSOs were involved had a European background, 22% of them in a national level, 20% in an international level, and 4% in a regional or local level. Most of the CSOs that are involved in security research are medium or large organizations with branches at international, European, national and also at regional or local level. This is why; depending on the focus of activity or project where they are working, they can involve any of the specific levels. Regarding the technologies that CSOs are more interested in we can highlight the fact that 100 of interviewees did not know how to answer. In line with the security research fields most interesting for CSOs, crisis management is by large, the most important, followed by infrastructure protection, counter-terror, physical protection or borders. The roles that are more usual to be played by CSOs in security research by order or frequency are: observer, actor of research, disseminator of research results, influencer. Also a small percentage of them has worked as users of the research, project evaluators, programme evaluator or commissioner of research. Respondents were also asked about the specific disadvantages, internal and external barriers that have to face CSOs. 70% of the interviewees think that CSOs face specific disadvantages in security research compared with other stakeholders, a 60% when dealing with security issues and an 81% opinion is that CSOs should be more involved in security research than they are now. If the internal barriers are analyzed, CSOs find more difficult for them to be involved in Version th May 2015 Page 29 of 70

30 security research, by order, we find that are staff structure or size of the CSO, CSOs mandates or priorities, inappropriate staff skills, poor involvement of the members and other collaborators and inappropriate plan of the activities to generate interest. Regarding external barriers that CSOs face, relationship with other stakeholders is the key factor, followed by a perception of a complex environment and the lack of interest of the civil society in general. This shows that the respondents think the interest in security research should be increased. Relationship among CSOs does not seem to be a significant barrier compared with the rest. 7. Correlations appreciated 7.1. Introduction Both sources of data present a varying structure of participants. The interviewees presented a significantly higher level of familiarization or experience in relation to security issues (Q1), a higher level of familiarization or experience in relation to research in general (Q2), as well as a higher level of familiarization or experience in relation to security research (Q3) than those who took part in the online survey. Amongst those interviewed there were more elected managers (non staff) (29,3%) as well as staff (46,7%) than in those who were surveyed (29,3% and 43,1%). The years of involvement in the CSO and consequently knowledge of the CSO environment are higher/longer overall for the interviewees than for the participants of the online survey. Therefore the option don t know was chosen significantly more by online participants compared to the interviewees. Below it is presented the statistical coherences through the application of a Chi²-Test. The Chi²- simply shows whether a correlation exists, not how great this is. This is why the correlation coefficients Phi, Cramer-V and Contingency Coefficient are also used additionally. From this the strength of each correlation can be roughly derived: Measure of correlations Possible interpretation 0 No correlation Over 0 to 0,2 Very weak correlation 0,2 to 0,4 Weak correlation 0,4 to 0,6 Moderate correlation 0,6 to 0,8 Strong correlation It is important to take into account that due to a most extensive and nominally scaled category of answers, no statement can be effected with regard to the direction of the correlation. Where applicable the visual contingency tables deduce such correlations, the statistical measures can afford no such proof however. In the case of statistical coherences a correlation is presented as Version th May 2015 Page 30 of 70

31 far as there was one- in the following, but cannot be interpreted in the sense of the higher the more or the lower the less. For the implementation of the Chi²-Test contingency tables with two variables have been created and actual and expected values compared against each other. For conclusive significances of the Chi²-Test a maximum of 20% of the cells in the contingency tables should have an expected number of less than 5. In the following therefore only those significances are presented, for which this prerequisite is satisfied. The significance of the Chi²-Test show for values () lower than 0.05 (that is a 95% level of significance and 5% probability of error respective) a high, and for values lower than 0.01 (that is a 99% level of significance and 1% probability of error respectively) a very high significance. Significance values over 0.05 indicate no significant differences and are therefore not taken into account or presented in the following. Interpreting Cross-Tabs Most of the comparisons presented below shows significant or high significant correlations (referring to Chi²-Test) but with a weak results for Phi, Cramer-V and Contingency Coefficient. Usually there is no clear cause-and-effect relationship given by the statistical data correlations. Knowing there is a significant correlation (even if it is only a weak or very weak one) helps searching for inter-relations Correlations of potential higher interest In the first part of this section, we have selected three questions that we considered specially interesting to be correlated. These questions are: Q5. Your latest position in the CSO is as (Elected manager (not staff), Staff, Volunteer / active member, Other type of collaborator (disseminator, donor, etc.), Participant at the activities / follower of their positions, other, not applicable). Q20. Do you think CSOs in general have to face specific disadvantages when dealing with security issues in comparison with other research fields? (yes, no). Q21. Do you think CSOs in general have to face specific disadvantages when dealing security research issues compared with other stakeholders involved (industry, researchers, academia, etc.)? (yes, no). Q5 analysis Q1. Your level of familiarization or experience in relation to security issues is Q5. Your latest position in the CSO is as The correlation between the familiarization in security issues and the latest position of the Version th May 2015 Page 31 of 70

32 interviewee in the CSO is difficult to be found in significant terms. There is no a clear view about what position the respondent should be in order to have a lower or a higher knowledge in security issues. Q2. Your level of familiarization or experience in relation to research in general is Q5. Your latest position in the CSO is as There is no relation between the familiarization of the CSO in research and the latest position of the interviewee in the organization. The results show that the respondents have very different responsibilities in the organization and different levels of knowledge regarding research. There is not a clear profile of respondent that have more familiarization in research. Q13.b How are the activities of your CSO associated with R&D and security concerns? Indirectly associated with Security Q5. Your latest position in the CSO is as The analysis done with the different possible answers of Q13 (b, c, d) shows that there is a correlation between the latest position of the respondent and the activities done by the CSO. Less than the 50% of the respondents say that their activity has relation to security issues. But the most important part of them comes from the staff and elected managers. The rest is residual. As much knowledge the respondent has about the organization where they work, they understand better the possible synergies and relations they may have, in an indirect way, with security issues. When Q13 answer is Commonly associated with research in this case we can see that only a 17% of the respondents said that their activities have common relation with research issues. 92% of them are part of the staff or elected managers. When Q13 answer was Indirectly associated with research we see that, a 20% of the respondents declared that their activity have it. This is a 3% more than the ones that declared having direct relations with research issues. Again, a high percentage of respondents (78%) are part of the staff or elected managers. Regarding the analysis of Q20 and Q21, in the following table it is showed that for both questions a high correlation has been obtained when comparing with Q1, Q2 and Q3. Q20 Q21 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q20 analysis Version th May 2015 Page 32 of 70

33 Q20. Do you think CSOs in general have to face specific disadvantages when dealing with security issues in comparison with other research fields? Q1. Your level of familiarization or experience in relation to security issues is Q2. Your level of familiarization or experience in relation to research in general is Q3. Your level of familiarization or experience in relation to security research is We joined the analysis of the three correlations together because they have similar results. In the three results we find that a 40% of the respondents think that CSO has to face specific disadvantages in security, research or security research, 26,5% said that they do not feel any specific disadvantage and 33.5% do not know. If we analyze the answers of people who answer yes and that have a high level (4, 5) of knowledge in security, research or security research the values of the disadvantages they find in research issues goes from 27,5%, to 50% and to 27,5%. On the other side for respondents with low level experience in security, research or security research (1, 2, 3) the percentages goes from 72.5%, to 60.2 to 75.6%. So it seems that for the interviewees with upper knowledge feel they have to face more disadvantages in research. And it is the contrary for the interviewees with lower knowledge that feel they have to face more disadvantages in security and security research than in research in general. Q21 analysis Q21. Do you think CSOs in general have to face specific disadvantages when dealing security research issues compared with other stakeholders involved (industry, researchers, academia, etc.)? Q1. Your level of familiarization or experience in relation to security issues is Q2. Your level of familiarization or experience in relation to research in general is Q3. Your level of familiarization or experience in relation to security research is We joined the analysis of the three correlations together as they have similar results. In the three results we find that 50.5% of the respondents think that CSO has to face specific disadvantages in security, research or security research, 21.7% said that they do not feel any specific disadvantage and 27.8% do not know. Unsurprisingly, if we compare the results with what we obtained in Q20 we see that the interviewees, in a 10% more, feel that they have to face more disadvantages in general than industry, researchers, academia, etc. The results are very similar to the ones obtained in Q20 where we explained that for the interviewees with upper knowledge say that they have to face more disadvantages in research. For the interviewees with lower knowledge they have to face more disadvantages in security and security research than in research in general Correlations with high significant results In the second section, the correlations that had high significant results with a higher Cramer-V Version th May 2015 Page 33 of 70

34 indicator are presented below. Q17 analysis Q17. Has your CSO been involved in any activity related to security research during the last six years? Q1. Your level of familiarization or experience in relation to security issues is Q3. Your level of familiarization or experience in relation to security research is There is a 36.5% of the respondents that answer that they have been involved in activities related to security research in the last 6 years and a 63.5% that no. We observe the same results if we compare their level of familiarization with security issues and with security research. So we may understand that if they have knowledge about security issues they know about the related research activities. From the ones that answer yes, the experts (4 and 5) suppose a 34% and the ones with lower or medium level are 66%. The main difference perceived among both results is that, as less knowledge the respondents have about security research, more involvement they have in security research activities. The opposite occurs for the ones with high level of knowledge in security research that are less involved in security research activities. We can explain this telling that part of the respondents who told that they have (4-5) high level of knowledge in security issues sais that have (4-5) high-1 level of knowledge in security research. Q17. Has your CSO been involved in any activity related to security research during the last six years? Q13.a How are the activities of your CSO associated with R&D and security concerns? Commonly associated with Security We see that almost a 70% of the interviews that have a commonly associated activity with security research, has been involved in security research activities in the last 6 years. It is surprising that there are CSOs that declare not having activities related to security that have been involved in activities of security research. This is only a 20% of the interviewees that answer that they do not have activities associated with security. Q17. Has your CSO been involved in any activity related to security research during the last six years? Q15. Is your CSO interested in security research related aspects? A 50% of the interviews that are interested in security research aspects have been involved in security research activities in the last 6 years. There are a 37% of the interested CSOs that have not been involved in security research activities. Version th May 2015 Page 34 of 70

35 8. Annex I Detailed correlation analysis Evaluation Subject Area Security and Security Research Firstly those questions to which the general subject area of Security could be ascribed were analysed. It is especially the following questions, which are regarded as dependent variables: Q1. Your level of familiarization or experience in relation to security issues is Q2. Your level of familiarization or experience in relation to research in general is Q3. Your level of familiarization or experience in relation to security research is Q13. How are the activities of your CSO associated with R&D and security concerns? o a) Commonly associated with security concerns o b) Indirectly associated with security concerns o c) Commonly associated with research and technological development issues o d) Indirectly associated with research and technological development issues o e) Don t know Q15. Is your CSO interested in security research related aspects? Q17. Has your CSO been involved in any activity related to security research during the last six years? It is useful to regard the variables below as independent variables and to check each for possible correlations with the variables already listed: Q5. Your latest position in the CSO is as Q6. You are involved in the CSO for Q9. What type of geographic outreach has your CSO? Q11. How many employees has the CSO you are involved? Q12. How many members/friends has the CSO you are involved? Q14. How much budget is available for your CSO per year? Visual comparison of items Q1, Q2 and Q3 Version th May 2015 Page 35 of 70