# Presentation: 422478

## Results from the 2006 Fermilab Today Survey

- Kelly Daley
- Co-Director
- University of Chicago Survey Lab

## Overview

- Goals
- Methods
- Results for regular readers
- Results for light- or non-readers
- Open-ended final comments
- Conclusions and recommendations

## Goals

- Assess *Fermilab Today’s *progress vs. goals from 2003 communication survey
- 2.	Gather new data regarding usability and features
- 3.	Provide recommendations to assist the redevelopment process

## Methods

**Recruitment and Response**
- 1165 participants
- 59% response rate
- No significant bias by Division or Section

- (*Table B*)

## Results from Regular Readers

**Readership**
- 85% read *FT* 3-4 per week or more
- Slightly longer time spent reading each issue than in 2003
- 	*(Tables C, D)*

## Results from Regular Readers

## Results from Regular Readers

## Results from Regular Readers

**General Opinion –Question 4**
- Most respondents rate most areas (length, interesting, useful, relevant, understandable, consistent, trustworthy, accurate, timely) positively
- Only “consistent in quality” received no “very” responses
- 	(*Table E*)

## Table E

** ****Percentage distribution of item responses to Question 4**

| Please rate Fermilab Today articles along the following dimensions.  
In general, would  you say that Fermilab Today articles are... |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  |  | Very or Somewhat | Neither | Very or Somewhat |  |
| A) | Too Short | 9.0 | 88.0 | 3.0 | Too Long |
| B) | Interesting | 65.8 | 25.9 | 8.3 | Boring |
| C) | Useful | 67.2 | 26.4 | 6.4 | Frivolous |
| D) | Relevant to Work* | 67.2 | 23.9 | 8.9 | Irrelevant to Work |
| E) | Easy to Understand* | 68.9 | 25.4 | 5.7 | Difficult to Understand |
| F) | Consistent in Quality** | 53.5 | 37.0 | 9.5 | Variable in 
Quality |
| G) |        Trustworthy* | 65.4 | 31.4 | 3.2 | Not Trustworthy |
| H) | Accurate* | 64.7 | 31.8 | 3.5 | Inaccurate |
| I) | Timely | 68.6 | 28.7 | 2.7 | Outdated |

- *   Significant differences by Division/Section or Job Title at p<.05
- ** Significant differences by Division or Job Title at p< .001

## Table FGeneral distribution of responses to Question 4

| Very positive  | Somewhat positive | Neither  | Somewhat negative | Very negative  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 520 | 886 | 1015 | 220 | 53 |
| 19%  | 33%  | 38%  | 8% | 2%  |

-  **52%**

-  **10%**

## Results from Regular Readers

**Content Evaluation – Strongly agree or agree**
- 50% - Covers the news that most interests me
- 58.6% - Informs people about the future of Fermilab
- 62.2% - Helps to foster a sense of community
- 83% - Valuable component of communication at Fermilab
- 44.8% - Covers a wide enough variety of employees
- 76.3% - Does not have too much science content
** ****	***(Table G)*

## Results from Regular Readers

**72%**

**94%**

**77%**

**68%**

**83%**

**94%**

**73%**

**88%**

## Ninety-four percent of regular readers report they always read the “Director’s Corner”
62% said the Director’s Corner keeps readers informed about the most important issues for the Lab
21% said they “did not know”
Topics for the Director’s Corner to cover:
Majority concerned the future of Fermilab

- 62% said the Director’s Corner keeps readers informed about the most important issues for the Lab
- 21% said they “did not know”
- Topics for the Director’s Corner to cover:
- Majority concerned the future of Fermilab

- Results from Regular Readers

## Results from Regular Readers

**No Opinion**

**Not enough information**

**Too much information**

**About right amount**

**ILC Coverage**

## The majority of respondents reported that the number of stories was about right in all categories except “employees” and “science policy and budget.” 

25% of respondents (N=298) listed content or stories they felt missing from FT. These respondents most commonly mentioned: 
Human interest (25% of story types mentioned)
Management information (14%)
Knowledge and training (13%)
Employee appreciation (11%)

- 25% of respondents (N=298) listed content or stories they felt missing from FT. These respondents most commonly mentioned:
- Human interest (25% of story types mentioned)
- Management information (14%)
- Knowledge and training (13%)
- Employee appreciation (11%)
- _ _

- Results from Regular Readers

**Number of Stories and Missing Content**

## Results from Regular Readers

**Very difficult to understand**

**Extremely difficult to understand**

**Just right**

**Somewhat difficult to understand**

## Why not read FT more often?

***Main***** reason do not read *****Fermilab Today***** more often**
**Light and Non-readers    N=68**

- Results from Light/Non Readers

## Infrequent Readers General Opinions

**Very few agreed that *****Fermilab Today***** covers news that most interests them or that it contains too much science content. **
**37% strongly agreed or agreed to the statement “*****Fermilab***** *****Today***** informs people about the future of Fermilab”**
**Only 26% percent agree that it fosters a sense of community**
**38%  agree or strongly agree that it is a valuable component of communications at Fermilab (83% of regular readers)**

- Results from Light/Non Readers

## Results from Light/Non Readers

**Light and Non-readers: Rating of Individual Stories**

## Complaints
Strong worries over the future of Fermilab came through in many of the criticisms, Fermilab Today tends to gloss over problems and might be “propagandistic.”

Fermilab Today focuses mostly on scientists or “important people”– it should also cover the people behind the experiments, the “everyday Joe”.

FT needs to offer more information and communication about specific Divisions

Praise
“I think Fermilab Today has been a great improvement in communication. I find it frustrating that people still complain about not knowing what's going on and yet they won't read Fermilab Today regularly.”

- Strong worries over the future of Fermilab came through in many of the criticisms, *Fermilab Today* tends to gloss over problems and might be “propagandistic.”
- Fermilab Today focuses mostly on scientists or “important people”– it should also cover the people behind the experiments, the “everyday Joe”.
- FT needs to offer more information and communication about specific Divisions
**Praise**
- “I think Fermilab Today has been a great improvement in communication. I find it frustrating that people still complain about not knowing what's going on and yet they won't read Fermilab Today regularly.”

- Open-ended Final Comments

## Fermilab Today is widely believed to serve its primary function of enhancing overall communication among staff and others invested in the Lab.

Most readers rate Fermilab Today positively in terms of its content, coverage, format and accessibility.

- Most readers rate *Fermilab Today* positively in terms of its content, coverage, format and accessibility.

- Conclusions and Recommendations

## 

Readers have few and minor usability issues. 

Almost have (46%) of respondents would like more stories about employees, and 44% would like more stories on science policy and budgets.

- Readers have few and minor usability issues.
- Almost have (46%) of respondents would like more stories about employees, and 44% would like more stories on science policy and budgets.

- Conclusions and Recommendations

## Employee recognition/appreciation articles may need to cover a wider variety of employees.

Is Fermilab Today too “propagandistic”? Should it present the Lab in a more straightforward or realistic light?

Should there be more guidance about the Lab’s future?

Should Fermilab Today do even more to foster a strong sense of community? Does it need more human interest stories; more employee profiles etc.?

- Is Fermilab Today too “propagandistic”? Should it present the Lab in a more straightforward or realistic light?
- Should there be more guidance about the Lab’s future?
- Should *Fermilab Today* do even more to foster a strong sense of community? Does it need more human interest stories; more employee profiles etc.?

- Conclusions and Recommendations

**General Concerns to Consider:**

## More discussions of the Lab’s future and the budget/funding issues

Updates on smaller projects

Replace one of the Director’s Corner columns with one modeled on “Divisions Corner”

Some forum for more employee participation in the publication:
A “Letter to the Editor”
“Ask a Staff Member” column

- Updates on smaller projects
- Replace one of the Director’s Corner columns with one modeled on “Divisions Corner”
- Some forum for more employee participation in the publication:
- A “Letter to the Editor”
- “Ask a Staff Member” column

- Conclusions and Recommendations

**Possible additions or adjustments**

## Features on non-scientist employees, including “lower-level” staff

Employee bios (introduce new employees) and staff profiles – more community-focused, featuring a human-interest component

Elaboration of how various types of support jobs fit into the overall work of the Lab

- Employee bios (introduce new employees) and staff profiles – more community-focused, featuring a human-interest component
- Elaboration of how various types of support jobs fit into the overall work of the Lab

- Conclusions and Recommendations

**Possible additions or adjustments**