Repositioning communications around the MnDRIVE brand will allow the University to better build awareness and support for the program. Messaging must meet two criteria to successfully appeal to the general public.
Comprehension Significance
Barrier Inaccessible descriptions Irrelevant to audience Audience reaction “I don’t know what this means.” “Who cares?” Solution Simple, concise, active writing Shift focus from U to audience
Make MnDRIVE easier for the average Minnesotan to understand through simpler terms, shorter words, and more active sentences.
The University can gauge how easy text is to read using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level test. This test looks at the average Readability Metrics on MnDRIVE Website length of sentences and number of syllables per word to Grade Passive determine what grade level of education a person needs to Website Section Level Sentences understand the writing (e.g., a score of 12 means it takes a About MnDRIVE 16.7 12.5% high school diploma). An eighth grade target is standard for Robotics 24.0 0% speaking to the general public, but the multi-word, syllable- Global Food 13.9 50% dense program and department names at the University will Environment 18.3 0% unavoidably boost grade level scores. Therefore, the University Brain Conditions 16.1 0% should aim slightly higher, at grade level 11. Cancer Clinical Trials 15.4 25%
In addition to the meeting the reading grade level target, Average 17.4 14.5% MnDRIVE text should contain as few passively constructed Target ≤ 11.0 < 10% sentences as possible. Aim for less than 10 percent.
The public must see how the program affects their everyday lives to feel any interest toward it. Revise messaging to draw the focus away from internal details that bear no value to key audiences, such as MnDRIVE’s internal structure and the program’s benefits to the University. Instead, work the following elements, informed by audience research, into externally facing materials:
• Improving our communities’ health, environment, and prosperity • Proudly funded by Minnesotans, for Minnesotans • A research program as unique as Minnesota
Learn more at: mndrive.umn.edu © 2020 Regents of the University of Minnesota. The University of Minnesota is an equal opportunity educator and employer. Describe MnDRIVE with a short and simple statement that is relevant to audiences.
MnDRIVE, a unique research program funded by Minnesotans, improves our communities’ health, environment, and prosperity.
Original “About MnDRIVE” web page text Revised text with new messaging Readability: 16.9 Passive sentences: 9% Readability: 11.0 Passive sentences: 0%
MnDRIVE—Minnesota’s Discovery, Research, and MnDRIVE, a unique research program funded by InnoVation Economy—is a partnership between the Minnesotans, improves the health, environment, University of Minnesota and the State of Minnesota and prosperity of our communities. that aligns areas of research strength with the state’s key and emerging industries to address grand The program matches up University of Minnesota challenges. In 2013, the State of Minnesota authorized research with needs across the state. Its projects an $18 million recurring annual investment in four create new medical treatments, clean up lakes and research areas: Robotics, Global Food, Environment, streams, grow the industries our state thrives on, and Brain Conditions. In 2017, the state appropriated and more. another $4 million per year for a fifth research area: MnDRIVE involves five research areas: Robotics, Cancer Clinical Trials. Global Food, Environment, Brain Conditions, and The University of Minnesota Informatics Institute Cancer Clinical Trials. Each area works with industry (UMII), which fosters and accelerates data-intensive and community partners to find new solutions and research, receives partial funding from MnDRIVE and put them to work. provides key support to these projects. Other areas MnDRIVE also funds research that uses large that receive recurring funding from MnDRIVE include amounts of data, new equipment for needed for technology commercialization and research labs, and efforts to turn the results of its projects infrastructure. into products and services that help us in our daily MnDRIVE represents a unique, collaborative research lives. model involving interdisciplinary research projects The state Legislature formed MnDRIVE in 2013. across the University that address grand challenges Since then, over 1,200 researchers from 150 and include industry and community partnerships as a departments across the Twin Cities, Duluth, and key component. Each of the research areas have Morris campuses have been involved. committees and advisory boards to provide guidance on research objectives. The Office of the Vice President for Research runs MnDRIVE and tracks its progress in sparking new The Office of the Vice President for Research (OVPR) ideas and making life better for people in this state. provides accountability measures for the initiative and helps advocate for the program at the state capitol. See highlights from MnDRIVE’s first five years. Success metrics are tracked across all research areas to assess the impact of MnDRIVE research, education, and industry relationships on economic development and quality of life for Minnesotans. Since its inception, MnDRIVE research across the five research areas has involved more than 1,200 researchers in more than 150 departments and dozens of colleges across three campuses (Twin Cities, Duluth, and Morris). See more MnDRIVE at 5 program milestones and highlights. Scientific Research & Minnesota
Examining the relationship between Minnesotans’ sense of identity and involvement with the state and their support for university research
Kevin Coss
Summer 2020 Capstone
“Rebranding MnDRIVE: A Research Program for Minnesotans”
Professional MA in Strategic Communications Table of Contents
Executive Summary 3
Insights 4
Method 5
Results 7 Largest problem facing Minnesota 7 Personal connection to Minnesota 7 Knowledge of state’s economic condition 8 Hearing about state programs and laws 8 Discussing state programs, laws, and budget 8 Lawmakers’ consideration for the average Minnesotan 8 State money to support public universities 9 Words associated with scientific research 9 Words associated with University of Minnesota research 100 Potential of scientific research to improve society 11 Potential of scientific research to improve own life 11 Taxes’ role in supporting scientific research 12 Awareness of MnDRIVE program 12 Demographic information 13
Appendix A: Interview Transcripts 14
Appendix B: Interview Introductory Scripts 48
Appendix C: Interview Guide 49
Executive Summary
The MnDRIVE research program constitutes an uncommon partnership between a state’s government and its public research university, setting aside recurring state funding to University of
Minnesota research that stands to directly benefit the health, environment, and prosperity of Minnesotans.
Despite its designs to benefit residents, the program’s low awareness among them may threaten its long- term survival. To understand how residents think about state programs and university research, the author of this report conducted a series of qualitative, in-depth interviews with Minnesota residents comprising various ages and genders who live across many different regions of the state. These interviews presented participants with a series of questions about how in-touch they feel with the state’s economy and policies, what they think of scientific research, and what role state support should play in supporting scientific discovery. These questions sought to answer the central research question: “What is the relationship between Minnesotans’ sense of involvement and identity with the state and their feelings of support for university research?” Following each interview, the researcher transcribed the responses provided by the participants and then analyzed the responses for prevalent themes and ideas.
The researcher found Minnesotans identify strongly with their state and show concern for the health of its residents and its economy. Minnesotans believe scientific research benefits their society and warrants taxpayer support, but they are unfamiliar with the MnDRIVE research program. This report recommends using the insights obtained to reconfigure the MnDRIVE brand and messaging to better connect with residents’ values, expand awareness of the program, and build broad support and advocacy to ensure its continued success.
Insights
Minnesota residents feel a strong sense of identity with, and connection to, their state and proudly accept the demonym “Minnesotan.” They believe the state is in good condition overall, but their largest standing concerns pertain to physical human health and economic prosperity (possibly influenced by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, which has deleteriously affected both). While Minnesotans care about the economy, they vary widely in how well informed they feel about it.
When it comes to state policy, Minnesotans tend to learn about changes in state programs and laws through a variety of different news media spanning print and broadcast outlets, with Minnesota Public
Radio the most popular source. Whether they discuss these subjects with family, friends, or coworkers varies from person to person, but when the subject pertains to the workplace, more conversations with coworkers follow. Half of Minnesotans believe their state lawmakers put residents’ interests first, while the other half think these lawmakers’ decisions are influenced by private money or efforts to advance their own political careers. Minnesotans believe that state money should support public universities, primarily to provide new opportunities for residents and cultivate an educated workforce.
On the subject of scientific research, Minnesotans tend not to conjure up visions of inventions, cures, or other real-world impacts when thinking about science, but instead picture elements of the research process: laboratories, equipment, and data. When asked, however, about whether such research benefits society, Minnesotans say that it does, especially in regards to human health, the environment, and the economy. They also believe research can help them personally, though even when asked to focus on themselves they started to think of the welfare of their communities. Minnesotans approve of their tax dollars supporting scientific research, provided the research areas are selected by experts (not legislators) and address state needs. When specifically thinking of University of Minnesota research, Minnesotans speak of an innovative and reputable institution with great medical research. They do not recognize the
MnDRIVE research program by name and are not familiar with what it is or what it does. The University of Minnesota may consider the following ways to apply these insights, discussed in greater depth in the “Rebranding MnDRIVE: A Research Program for Minnesotans” campaign presentation:
1) Rebrand and rephrase: Reconceive of the messaging used to describe MnDRIVE to emphasize
its mission to make the state a better place using language accessible to the general public. Show
state residents how this research program stands to improve their communities and connect to the
values they expressed in this report’s interviews.
2) Expand awareness: Use a mixture of earned, shared, and owned media (along with paid, if the
budget allows for it) to spread knowledge of MnDRIVE. Only with stakeholders’ awareness and
understanding of the program can they become supporters. Internal communications can also plan
a role, increasing the flow of information between researchers, administrators, and
communicators to ensure stories of important research are told.
3) Garner broad support and advocacy for MnDRIVE: With messages now keyed in to resonate
with Minnesotans’ priorities and identities, and with a variety of external communications
channels bringing these messages to new audiences, call upon residents and legislators to support
the longevity and success of this rare, mutually beneficial state-funded program. Method
This report presents the findings of qualitative, in-depth interviews. The purpose of these interviews was to determine the relationship between Minnesotans’ sense of identity and involvement with the state and their feelings of support for university research, the findings of which can then be used to inform a strategic communications campaign that reinvigorates awareness and enthusiasm around the
MnDRIVE research program.
To properly gather unbiased results, those asked to participate represented a variety of ages and a balance of genders. Efforts were also made to ensure participants represented a variety of geographical regions and approximately matched the population ratio of residents who live within and outside of the
Twin Cities metropolitan area (55 percent of the state’s population lives in the metro). None of the participants were family members or personal friends of the researcher, and none were current faculty, employees, or students of the University of Minnesota. Interviews were conducted by phone and then transcribed between the dates of March 22, 2020 and May 5, 2020, by Kevin Coss, a graduate student in the Professional Master of Arts in Strategic Communication program at the University of Minnesota’s
Hubbard School of Journalism and Mass Communication.
Key insights from the resulting data are presented in the subsequent pages. The appendix that follows contains transcripts from each question and participant, as well as the introductory script written to introduce the research to the participants and the interview guide used to conduct the interviews. Results
Largest problem facing Minnesota
While participants’ responses covered a broad range of issues, the two themes that appeared most frequently were the current coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) and the state of the economy. Six of the
10 participants alluded to the economy either as the largest problem facing the state or as a component of a different problem. When it came to the economy, participants talked about topics as varied as small town economic development, the availability of funds to support public schools, income inequality, and
“getting the economy back on track” (Participant 5) from its pandemic woes. Several participants expressed notes of qualified optimism when speaking about these problems, noting that Minnesotans do well in the “way we approach things” (Participant 3), that its residents “seem to be pretty well situated
compared to the rest of the country” (Participant 6), and that the state has got it together “more than most other places in the world” (Participant 9).
Key finding: Minnesotans are concerned about their own health and the economy, but believe the state is in good condition overall.
Personal connection to Minnesota
Out of the 10 participants, nine responded with certainty that they do consider themselves to be a
“Minnesotan,” many of them emphatic in their responses. “We could live anywhere in the world; this is where we chose to be,” noted Participant 7. While many participants voluntarily noted how long they have lived in the state, the length of that time did not appear to affect whether they self-identified as a
Minnesotan. As Participant 1 said, “even though I’ve only been here for a couple of years, I consider myself pretty connected at this point.”
Key finding: Minnesotans feel a strong sense of identity with, and connection to, their state. Knowledge of state’s economic condition
About half of the participants conveyed that their knowledge of the state economy was moderate or strong. Of those who doubted their own knowledge on this subject, several felt they were better informed of the economic picture at the national level. Many alluded to the limitation of time, not a lack of availability of information or access to it, as what made it difficult to keep up with the state economy, noting “I get bogged down in focusing on my job so then I’m not much paying attention to that”
(Participant 8) and “if I wanted to, I could spend the day reading information” (Participant 5).
Key finding: Minnesotans vary widely in how well informed they feel about the state economy.
Hearing about state programs and laws
Participants spoke of a wide variety of newspapers and television and radio programs when indicating how they hear about state programs and laws. Four participants specifically mentioned listening to Minnesota Public Radio, making it the most commonly referenced news source among the responses. A few participants mentioned social media as a news source, though attitudes toward social channels as useful news sources varied. Participant 10 noted, “usually, a lot of those posts are just reposting news stories” and Participant 4 said, “I don’t trust social media.”
Key finding: Minnesotans learn about changes in state policy through many different news
media, with Minnesota Public Radio being the most popular mentioned source.
Discussing state programs, laws, and budget
Participants were nearly evenly split between those who discussed state programs, laws, and the overall budget frequently (defined, for this purpose, as a couple of times a week or more) and those who did not. Discussions into these topics were noted as coming up most often between family members and among colleagues at workplaces. Participants noted workplace conversations were more frequent when the state program, law, or budgetary matter related directly to their job; “those are the ones that we tend to discuss more at work,” noted Participant 10. Participant 1 said that when their coworkers felt “pretty clued into [the subject]” they were “incredibly opinionated.” Four respondents said they rarely chose to
discuss these topics, with Participant 5 noting, “it may come up around me, but I don’t engage much in
that.”
Key finding: Minnesotans vary in how often they discuss state policy, but workplace relevance drives more frequent conversations.
Lawmakers’ consideration for the average Minnesotan
Half of participants said they felt state lawmakers think about the average Minnesotan when making decisions about the state budget. “I know that even if they have an opinion that differs from mine, they are still trying to do the right thing,” Participant 9 said, while other participants credited state legislators as being more aware of constituents’ interests than their federal counterparts. Participant 6 pointed out that state legislators often make their principal income from a job outside of politics, and this leads them to be “out in the public” and to “make [themselves] available” more than federal lawmakers.
Those who did not feel lawmakers thought about the average Minnesotan mentioned their willingness to let private money influence policy decisions, put their own re-election before their constituents’ interests, and “cater to certain groups of people for political reasons” (Participant 7).
Key finding: Minnesotans are evenly divided between those who believe their lawmakers put residents’ interests first and those who do not.
State money to support public universities
Of the 10 participants, nine said they thought state money should support public universities (the final participant said some state funding may be appropriate, but that universities should get most of what they need from students). Several participants said it was important to ensure students have access to opportunities, and that part of that involves state funding to prevent tuition from becoming too expensive to afford. “I believe one of the shames of our country is the amount of cost to go to school,” said
Participant 7. Several participants said state support for public universities provided a return benefit to the state, thanks to the skilled workers produced through higher education. “The economic prosperity we enjoy in Minnesota is based on having a world-class educated workforce,” noted Participant 6.
Participants also alluded to a sense of societal obligation. As Participant 1 said, “Education is important,
and if we want to get the benefits of an educated and skilled society, then we should all be ponying up for
it.”
Key finding: Minnesotans think state money should support public universities to provide new opportunities for residents and cultivate an educated workforce.
Words associated with scientific research
The participants’ responses to this question centered on words that pertain to the in-progress conduct of scientific research (as opposed to the outcomes or results of this research). Four of the participants mentioned laboratories and the physical equipment that one might find in them (microscopes, white coats). A different selection of four came up with words that define the principles around scientific research (accuracy, curiosity, unbiased, peer review, evidence). Notably, none of the participants thought of words associated with the outcomes of research, such as the knowledge, cures, or technologies that result. They did not allude, for example, to a cleaner environment, better health, or greater understanding of the world.
Key finding: In general, Minnesotans do not readily connect the idea of scientific research to real-world impacts.
Words associated with University of Minnesota research
Compared with the previous question, participants’ responses for this question included fewer references to physical spaces and objects associated with research. Instead, they mentioned words like imaginative, capable, reputable, and trustworthy. Four participants specifically mentioned the medical
research of the University of Minnesota, with Participant 6 saying, “they’ve come up with some
remarkable discoveries in advancing health care in this country,” and Participant 10 noting “the
University of Minnesota has really been on the front lines” of the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants 3
and 7 said the university was terrible at transitioning ideas from the laboratory to the marketplace (a process called technology commercialization), while Participant 5 wondered whether financial restraints
could impair scientific inquiry. Only one participant mentioned inventions associated with the university
(Participant 9 spoke of Honeycrisp apples and cold-hardy wine grapes). Three participants stated they had nothing different to say about the University of Minnesota compared to the previous question about scientific research in general.
Key finding: Minnesotans think of the University of Minnesota as an innovative and reputable institution with great medical research.
Potential of scientific research to improve society
All 10 participants said with certainty that scientific research can improve society. Five of these participants referenced knowledge itself being worth pursuing, with Participant 1 saying, “Knowledge is important, and as we learn things, we can use that knowledge for practical advancements that help people at a grand level.” Top among the examples participants gave for why they believed science could benefit society were medical advancements (for COVID-19, Alzheimer’s, and, historically, smallpox and polio), environmental benefits (climate change, renewable energy), and economic prosperity (“American prosperity is based on smart people figuring out ways of creating new technologies or new applied sciences,” noted Participant 9).
Key finding: Minnesotans believe scientific research benefits society, especially human health, the environment, and the economy.
Potential of scientific research to improve own life
All 10 of the participants said scientific research can lead to changes that improve their own life.
Medical advances remained central examples in participants’ responses. “If we come up with a solution for COVID-19, that would improve my life, improve your life, improve everybody’s life in Minnesota,”
Participant 6 noted. Participants also spoke of the possibility for a cleaner environment and improved agricultural practices. Interestingly, many participants thought about the well-being of other Minnesotans when responding, despite the question’s focus on them as individuals. “I don’t live in a vacuum,” said Participant 6. “If my community prospers, I will prosper … scientific advancement tends to raise
everybody’s ship.” Two participants mentioned the rapid technological advancements in consumer
electronics as evidence of how research can benefit their lives. “I definitely think that science basically
benefits all of us in way more ways than we know,” Participant 10 said.
Key finding: Minnesotans believe scientific research can improve their personal health and environment, but they want the same for their neighbor.
Taxes’ role in supporting scientific research
Nine of the 10 participants said money from Minnesotans’ taxes should be spent to support
scientific research (the outlying opinion suggested that while tax-funded research would be appropriate in select circumstances, most research funding should come through the free market). Participants across the board expressed some conditions and constraints for how tax-funded research dollars should be spent,
with a greater amount of trust shown to priorities set by scientists and purposes that would benefit state
residents than to what lawmakers think is important. “Legislators are not experts,” said Participant 6.
“They are not in a position to deal with which what particular research needs to be funded and what
doesn’t.” The same participant said taxes into research addressing statewide priorities like agriculture and
water quality were always good uses of the state budget. Participant 10 said public funding for science
plays a crucial role, allowing researchers to “investigate things that aren’t necessarily going make
anybody a billion dollars, but are still interesting and important and will further our understanding of how
the world works, or even how the universe works.”
Key finding: Minnesotans approve of their tax dollars supporting research, provided the research
areas are selected by experts and address state needs.
Awareness of MnDRIVE research program
Of the 10 participants questioned, nine of them said they had not heard of MnDRIVE. Participant
10 said the program sounded vaguely familiar as a “research granting program of some kind,” but could not provide any further details about MnDRIVE as an overall program or any of the MnDRIVE-funded research projects.
Key finding: Minnesotans are not aware of the MnDRIVE research program.
Demographic information
Age:
• Responses: 28, 28, 37, 39, 39, 53, 63, 69, 72, 80.
• Mean age: 50.8 years
• Median age: 46.0 years
Length of time (in years) living in Minnesota:
• Responses: 6, 9, 20, 30, 33, 35, 41, 53, 53, 69.
• Mean length: 34.9 years
• Median length: 34.0 years
Current city of residence:
• Duluth
• Lake Elmo
• Lakeville
• Lutsen
• Marshall
• Minnetonka
• Moorhead
• St. Paul
• Willmar
Appendix A: Interview Transcript
1. In your eyes, what is the largest problem currently facing Minnesota?
Participant 1:
I think the largest problem facing the state of Minnesota is climate change, mostly because I think it’s the greatest problem facing the whole planet. It affects everywhere a lot, and changing climate is a huge issue that affects everybody.
Participant 2:
Well, I guess it’s more global, but the whole crisis with COVID-19. Right now that would be the main thing.
Participant 3:
You know there’s the obvious… Though I feel like Minnesota’s really in a pretty good place from the standpoint of the way that we live, the way we approach things. Maybe it would be struggling with the homeless in Minneapolis and St. Paul, probably more Minneapolis. I think we came to a good resolution last year, if you recall the homeless that were lining the freeway down there on Hiawatha (I guess it’s not a freeway). I felt that the state did a pretty good job (or the county or the city or whatever) of trying to figure out how to manage that. I didn’t notice it this winter, so I’m assuming that means they found a resolution that was more beneficial. Other thing I’m conscious of is the sex trafficking and the abuse situation, especially having to deal with the Indian reservations, and how that has really led to a lot of problems and risk for those areas.
Participant 4:
I guess it’s hard to point out, for me, one of them. I think environmental issues are crucial, education, health care (and as part of that the cost of health care), equal rights for immigrants and various nationalities. Probably a big one would be safety for children.
Participant 5:
With the epidemic happening, you know I suppose it’s about getting the economy back on track. It goes so many ways. You have your branches of the economy, your medical component to it. The industries who can help the medical component. The things you can do with the business development side. All the
changes in the way different businesses are working now, virtually, and how the changes will be
implemented in the future. Epidemic-focused in the full spectrum.
Participant 6:
Well obviously at the moment it’s the COVID-19 and solving how we manage this pandemic. We seem to be pretty well situated compared to the rest of the country. Most Minnesotans are obeying the rules and
I suspect that we can go back to a modified “before-the-COVID-19” economics. But when we can actually get fully back to our norm is still a big question in my mind. The short answer is COVID-19.
Participant 7:
That’s an interesting question. The greatest problem is that the coronavirus has our economic system completely tied up and we’re in for incredibly bad days ahead, times that we have never seen before—not in our lifetimes.
Participant 8:
I think a big problem is educational funding and disparities between the haves and have-nots—in education, but maybe that flows into other places as well. So like, I guess I would say between rural schools and urban schools, but not even all city schools. I’m talking like suburb schools, like an Edina versus east St. Paul versus Spicer, the funding is quite different because the school funding… a lot of it comes from locally passed levies and bonds, and so the districts that don’t have the money to pass those funds are not doing so well.
Participant 9:
The president, and I guess the virus, COVID… But I think those things will pass soon. You know, I think that Minnesota’s… that we’ve got our shit together more than most other places in the world. I can’t really pinpoint anything that I can think of. I mean I don’t like the growing partisanship between the two parties. I’m very concerned with rural, outstate Minnesota, like up here in the Red River Valley and the northwest a lot, and the lakes and woods, and the small town economic development; it’s something that
I’m really concerned with. But I’m optimistic about that actually, because I think that there’s a lot of good stuff happening in Wadena, and Detroit Lakes is booming, and Ada… things like that. Participant 10:
I think probably economic inequality, and particularly economic inequality by race. But also, just in general. I like around plenty of people who are white and who are pretty darn poor out here.
2. How connected do you feel to the state? Do you consider yourself to be a “Minnesotan”?
Participant 1:
I do. Even though I’ve only been here for a couple of years, I consider myself pretty connected at this point, given that I’ve been in state for six years now. I consider myself a Minnesotan.
Participant 2:
I do, yes. I have lived here pretty much all but three years of my life.
Participant 3:
Oh yeah. I’ve been here since I was 10 years old. I always thought I would not be a person who got planted and stayed in Minnesota forever and I’m probably never going to leave. I’m 63 now and I’m not going anywhere. Once in a while want to escape the taxes and go to Wisconsin, and then I kind of think,
“I don’t know…”
Participant 4:
Absolutely, totally connected.
Participant 5:
I do. Yeah, I’m not big on labels, but I live here, I love it, I love where I live. Everyone has their own point of view and I just try and respect everybody and allow it the best I can.
Participant 6:
Yeah, I’ve got several identities. A neighborhood identity, city identity, state identity, national identity, and for that matter, a citizen of the world identity. My strongest identity is probably Minnesotan. Let me
rephrase that: when I’m in another state, I’m a Minnesotan. When I’m in Minnesota, I’m from St. Paul.
When I’m in St. Paul, I’m from the north end of St. Paul. I think that’s pretty true of everybody.
Participant 7:
Yes, I do consider myself to be a Minnesotan. I split time between here and the North Shore, and I will
never be a Minnesotan to the North Shore. I will never be a local to the North Shore. People go up there
for 30, 40, 50 years and they’re still not local. The only way you can be local is if you grew up through the school system. I am connected to Minnesota as a whole. We could live anywhere in the world; this is
where we chose to be.
Participant 8:
I do consider myself to be a Minnesotan. Connected because of my involvement in politics, outdoor activities, music that I like.
Participant 9:
Absolutely. Yep, I’m very, very connected. I live six blocks from North Dakota, and it is a completely different world over there. Being a Minnesotan is part of my identity.
Participant 10:
Sort of. I was not born or raised here. I am from Washington, so I don’t know if I’m ever gonna feel like a
Minnesotan in the way that people who have spent their whole lives here do. I feel more connected to the
state than I used to, though.
3. How well informed do you feel about the state of the economy in Minnesota? How much do you know about how the economy of Minnesota is doing?
Participant 1:
As for the state, maybe 50/50? I feel like I’m clued in at the national level and then maybe at the city level
but on the state level, that’s kind of a little foggier.
Participant 2:
I don’t know so much about Minnesota, but I do look at like the DOW and the S&P 500 and, well, my
401k. But that’s not really necessarily Minnesota.
Participant 3:
I would say moderately. I’m aware of the fact that we had, prior to COVID, a very nice
excess/surplus/rainy day fund, and the governor was looking at some things to spend it on, and I mostly
agreed with the things. Generally speaking I’m a conservative, politically, but Gov. Walz has seemed
pretty considered in the decisions he’s made, and I’ve appreciated where he’s come from. So when he
was looking at what to do with that surplus prior to COVID (which again, I don’t know quite how that’s
impacted this) my husband and I talked about it and we pretty much agreed with his decisions about
where that money should be spent, or not spent for that matter.
Participant 4:
I’m kind of in a period where I’m trying to learn more about it because I’m semi-retired, so that means it
puts a focus more on how I’m going to support myself going forward. Just being for so many years
associated with the university, research and all that goes with it is really important to me, so I plan to be
really digging into economics more than I ever was.
Participant 5:
Well, as a small business owner, I’m bombarded by information and also in this time of redefining and
reinventing my business… I mean like if I wanted to I could spend the day reading information. It’s there.
It’s there for you. It’s definitely coming at you from all angles. It’s kind of up to you to sift through it,
sniff it out, and gain the truth, just like anything else.
Participant 6: Before COVID 19, I thought I was pretty well informed, but at the moment I don’t feel very well
informed. But nobody is. We’re all in a huge fog about what’s happening with the economy. I do know
there’s no airplanes flying over top of my house, there’s no traffic on the street in front of my place. And
in my travels, I can see that for a segment of the economy, the consumer segment, there’s nothing
happening. The original question was, “do I think I know what’s going on?” “Yeah, I think I know what’s
going on.”
Participant 7:
I think I know a fair bit about right now how the economy is doing. Paying more attention right now.
Participant 8:
Maybe like medium, somewhere in the middle I guess. It depends on where I’m at in life and how much
I’m paying attention to the news. A lot of times I get bogged down in focusing on my job so then I’m not much paying attention to that. Being connected to friends and knowing what’s up with up their jobs is sort of what helps me know a little bit about what’s going on with the economy.
Participant 9:
Average to better-than-average. I read the news.
Participant 10:
I would say sort of. It’s something that I try to read news articles about and keep up on, but I’m not aware of every little thing about it. I just kind of know the major points. 4. How do you typically hear about state programs (like efforts to protect the environment) and changes in state laws (like when it became legal to sell liquor on Sundays)?
Participant 1:
I mostly hear about stuff through the state bar association (that’s “bar” for lawyers, not bar for drinkers).
They send me out newsletters and I get a couple of magazines through them. The very first place I hear
about things is usually through those communications.
Participant 2:
A lot of it would be either social media or peers, basically, that probably got it from social media in the first place.
Participant 3:
We do have a subscription to the Minneapolis Star Tribune and I do peruse that, lately a whole lot more than I did before. We also have a cabin up on the North Shore so we read the Cook County press up there and so we read a lot of things that relate to the environment and stuff. I’m also a huge podcast listener, so
I listen to Garage Logic, I’ll confess it.
Participant 4:
I guess it would be either on the news or much more so online, because I collect a lot of my news online. I
don’t trust social media, especially with a science background. I want to hear it as close to the origination
of the source as can be. I’m really into listening to, for example, reporters who are stationed in various
places around the world. It’s more from the horse’s mouth that way, rather than getting it interpreted and
reinterpreted down to where things aren’t quite as focused as where they initially were. That’s partially
the scientist in me.
Participant 5:
You know, when I tune in, I’m an MPR gal. Otherwise, it’s just the community; being a business owner
and having people come in. So human contact.
Participant 6:
State issues I normally get from the Star Tribune. We also watch Almanac [on Twin Cities Public
Television] on Friday night quite a bit; I’ll catch some of the news segments there. Participant 7:
I typically hear about them either… I get my news on the internet (and that’s a terrible source, but that’s where I get my news). I get my other news from my wife, because she’s a newshound.
Participant 8:
Social media or MPR.
Participant 9:
I get the newspaper, which actually is kind of annoying… I get the newspaper, but it comes out of Fargo, the Fargo-Moorhead Forum, but it really cares a lot more about North Dakota. Fargo is the most important city in North Dakota and Moorhead isn’t the most important city in Minnesota. (It is the biggest city in western Minnesota.) I also listen to some Minnesota Public Radio; not as much as I used to, but I do from time to time. Things pop up on news feeds that I read on the internet. Mostly, I hear it from my wife. She tells me when something important is happening.
Participant 10:
Mostly new sources. Like MPR, like local cable news, stuff like that. Sometimes on social media. I have some friends who are kind of activists and they post a lot of stuff about things that are happening in the state, and so that, too. Usually a lot of those posts are just reposting news stories. 5. How frequently do you talk with family, friends, or coworkers about state programs, laws, and budget?
Participant 1:
Fairly frequently, given that so many of my friends are attorneys. Especially on like legal changes, we’re usually pretty clued into that and everyone is incredible opinionated. So it comes up a lot.
Participant 2:
Really not that often, until problems show up, or I hit a pothole in the road. I’d say probably once or twice a month.
Participant 3:
A little bit. I don’t bring up religion or politics unless people are willing to talk about it. And then if they want to talk about it, we have an open discussion and I try to listen more than I tell.
Participant 4:
Coworkers less now, because I have my office in my home. (My coworker is my dog.) I talk about them
with friends. Directly on phone sessions, or at small family gatherings. It comes up a lot. I have a brother
in law who’s in assisted living, and he calls me three times a day to tell me what’s on CNN and to gripe
about it.
Participant 5:
Not very. It may come up around me, but I don’t engage much in that.
Participant 6:
This morning I commented to my wife that we have a solution to the diabetic issue. We’re doing a $35 copay and the manufacturers are going to eat the difference. I skimmed through the article; I assume the
manufacturers are on the line to do that. In terms of talking about it… a couple of times a week maybe.
Participant 7:
I think we rarely talk about those things. I think overall, how we spend the money… I think the taxes in
Minnesota are obscene for what we get. I think that Minnesota has a big huge bureaucracy, and I think they squander money all the time. And I think taxes are just completely outrageous.
Participant 8: Oh gosh. I’d say weekly.
Participant 9:
Probably pretty often. I mean, certainly weekly or a couple of times a week. I work for a nonprofit, so that is often conversation around the lunch table or at a staff meeting. My wife is a librarian, so that is I don’t think really a nonprofit, but probably a governmental… well they’re their own thing, but they’re certainly affected by changes in policies and pushing for changes in policy. My wife does go visit congressmen and senators and stuff like that in St. Paul.
Participant 10:
Friends and family probably more often than coworkers. Although I am a state employee, so when it comes to policies that directly affect my agency, those are the ones that we tend to discuss more at work.
Probably, averaging it out, two to three times a week we have discussions like that. 6. Do you think state lawmakers (our state representatives and senators) think about the average Minnesotan when they are making decisions about the state budget? (Tell me more.)
Participant 1:
I think they do, given what I know. I’m maybe a little more clued in than normal because the judge I used to work for still knows a lot of people in the legislature and is still privy to how a lot of the conversations go down.
Participant 2:
I know they’re supposed to, but whether they do or not, I don’t think so. I think they’re all corrupt, but that’s just me personally. I’m sure there’s some of them that are good, but... Somebody’s always paying their way in.
Participant 3:
You know, I’m going to be Minnesotan enough to say I think they do a better job at the state level than
they do at the federal level. I don’t know my representatives currently very well, so I can’t speak to those
people in particular. But yeah, I would say at the federal level, I don’t feel there’s a lot of concern except
for how things look politically and whether they’re going to get elected next. At the state level, I’m just
not familiar enough with the people to say.
Participant 4:
Gosh, I hope they do. The ones I tend to follow most or to see most I think really are concerned about
that.
Participant 5:
You know, I don’t know them well enough to say, but I’m going to say it’s completely individual. I
would like to think that some are. Everyone’s coming at it from a different angle. Some area definitely
coming at it from their own, say, vanity, and their cronies around them, and not really thinking about the
full spectrum of all individuals. It’s more about them. And I think some people truly are looking at all
sides.
Participant 6: Yeah, I think a state senator is very much more in contact with the populus. They have to be, or
somebody’s gonna come take their job. I think some of them maybe see themselves as professional
politicians, a career for a lifetime, but a lot of them are citizen politicians. They got an extra job (second
job, third job) where they make their principal income. And when you’re doing that, you’re out in the
public and you make yourself available, obviously. I think they are very much sensitive about what’s
going on with the average Minnesotan. Or at least their average constituent. We have a wide variety of
neighborhoods they represent, so obviously if you’re representing North St. Paul you’re going to see
things differently than if you’re representing Pipestone.
Participant 7:
No. I think the most important thing to many of them are being politically correct, whatever that turns out to be this week. And I think that they really believe that their success is measured by number of bills that they pass, and I think that they try to cater to certain groups of people for political reasons.
Participant 8:
I think some do, but I don’t think they all do.
Participant 9:
Yeah; I know it. They do. One thing I like about living up here in this area, in Moorhead, is I know my state senators, my state reps, my mayors, all my city council people. And I know that even if they have an opinion that differs from mine, they are still trying to do the right thing as they think it should be done. I think almost anybody who goes into public service has their heart in the right place, with some notable exceptions who are stirring everything up.
Participant 10:
I think that they sometimes do. I think that there can be a little bit of a disconnect sometimes, because I do think that even at a state level, sometimes there’s a little too much private money or private interest in politics. I used to live in the cities, and it just seemed that people who are property developers just had a ton of sway over policy and stuff like that. I don’t know if the average Minnesotan really cares about whether people are going to be able to develop 25 new condominiums in the Twin Cities. I do wonder about that. I also think that there’s this sort of… out here, there’s a lot of things that seem to be done with an eye toward re-election that I don’t know if always benefit the constituents, but that the constituents want to hear. We have as our congress person the most conservative democrat I’ve ever encountered, who is pretty much always putting on a show of walking away from the mainstream Democratic Party. It seems that it really is more about proving over and over that he’s not like other Democrats than it is about anything that necessarily benefits anybody. The Republicans who ran out here for office and win kind of have to do the same thing. They seem to be more focused on differentiating themselves from what the
Democrats are doing rather than whether or not the policies they’re advocating will actually help people the people that live out here. I think politics maybe is getting in the way of people being really directly accountable. 7. Do you think that state money should be spent to support public universities? Why or why not?
Participant 1:
Yes. Education is important and if we want to get the benefits of an educated and skilled society, then we
should all be ponying up for it.
Participant 2:
I would say yes. The more money you can give to the universities, the better. Pretty much just the education factor. The more that the younger generation learns, hopefully we don’t repeat mistakes that
were learned in the past.
Participant 3:
So I very mixed feelings about that. I think that the state universities should be able to get most of what they need from their focus on the students, and that the students should be the priority (educating those students and preparing them for a career). I don’t know. I suppose the state has to support it some, but my experience would lead me to believe just giving more money to any kind of education doesn’t necessarily solve the problem. You gotta have other things in place in order to be able to make it a good education system.
Participant 4:
Yeah. If it’s a state university, as opposed to, say, a Macalester or whatever… they’re just locked together. Unless a state university is taking in a lot of bucks from someone who has an agenda, which I suppose in some cases we are, I would very much rather see it come from the government.
Participant 5:
Yes, and federal money should be. There are more opportunities, possibilities, choices, for anybody at any age, to change tracks, make things happen for themselves. Because I know a lot of people use money as that big barrier to put in front of them to stop the motion. And if there was more of a sense of possibility and opportunity then they would have more choices.
Participant 6: The economic prosperity we enjoy in Minnesota is based on having a world-class educated workforce.
State-supported higher education is responsible for the high quality of our workforce and has been for
generations. Tuition only will not support medical education, engineering education, and the other science fields. Without teaching a new generation of scientist, we will not have people to do cutting-edge research. I see the state of Minnesota as putting in seed money for the future prosperity of all
Minnesotans. In real time, we are faced with COVID-19 in Minnesota. Our state political leaders are depending in large degree to the expertise of U of M-trained scientists. As a citizen, I want them to be the best available to advise our political leadership and feel my tax dollar has been well spent to have them leading the response to the pandemic. I believe the U of M is essential in maintaining our prosperity and
building a better future for everyone.
Participant 7:
Yes I do. I believe state universities… I believe one of the shames of our country is the amount of cost to
go to school. And I think that… I can tell you from example in my life. I grew up in New York City and
my dad was a barber, never made much money. I was able in high school (this was the early 60s) to take a
test. Because I scored in the top one-fifth on that test, I was given a free-ride scholarship to any school
within New York City, or any school within New York state. And so I was able to go to a private
engineering school and get a pretty good education, at no cost for tuition or books. If my father was a
lawyer or something I wouldn’t have gotten that; it was all prorated. In any event, I think it’s really a
shame what the University of Minnesota costs for in-state kids. Outrageous. I think that it ought to be half of that, a third of that for students, or a quarter of that.
Participant 8:
Yes. I guess I would say probably because the money that’s coming out of students pockets to pay for tuition isn’t gonna be enough to cut it.
Participant 9:
Yeah, definitely. It’s smarter to have education be one of our natural resources in our state than it is to rely on things like coal or lumber. Education creates wealth and it creates informed citizens. And, also, if you don’t fund it, then only rich kids get to go to college. You can look at the European aristocracy: just because you’re born rich doesn’t mean you’re smart—you could be far from it. I wouldn’t have been able to go to college (I went to a very inexpensive college here in Moorhead) and I wouldn’t have been able to go to that if not for public funding, and for grants, and for scholarships. There are a lot of really smart poor kids that it would benefit America if we give them a chance to speak and, you know, take charge of things too. It’s kind of like 100 years ago, when only men were allowed to go to college and be lawyers and senators and stuff. And it’s like, “OK, you educate women, you just doubled your applicant pool of competent people in your country.”
Participant 10:
Yes I do. I think that it should support public universities and that then, in turn, public universities should be a little bit beholden to the taxpayer. Not in terms of any kind of economic goals, but in terms of providing quality education at a reasonable price and so forth. I think that that’s a good trade-off.
8. When you think of scientific research, what words come to mind?
Participant 1:
University lab, studies, evidence.
Participant 2:
I don’t really think about that much. I know that they claim they do it all the time, but I guess I never really looked into whether they do do research or what they do if it’s on anything important.
Participant 3:
Laboratory, investment, need, curiosity.
Participant 4:
Accuracy, nonbiased, in-depth, strongly backed by science, not opinion.
Participant 5:
Right and wrong, pluses and minuses, less magic, stops people, limiting. It can also be expansive.
Participant 6:
I’m an engineer by training, so I’m very much a believer in science. Science has got to have peer review,
and it has to come from a source, a place where there is a peer review. It’s not backyard science. Science
section Tuesday in New York Times, The Economist’s weekly science section.
Participant 7:
The research doesn’t benefit students. Teachers, professors are under incredible pressure to publish, and the term “publish or perish” really is true. I was about to get my PhD from Virginia Tech and I talked to some of my professors about it (this was a long time ago, but I still see it today) and they said, “you want to teach? Go to a community college. You want to stay at a university? You’re going to have to do research. Your whole job is to get the best graduate students so you can look good and get money, and
that’s the way that you’re going to be able to have a career.” They said, “you’re at a university, you don’t
have time to prepare for classes.” A very good friend of mine is a top man in materials at Texas A&M.
Teaches one class a year. His whole job is to get money, go around the world and get money. So that doesn’t benefit the students. I’m all for research, I think that somehow there needs to be research, but also I think the schools need to serve students. And certainly the University of Minnesota is not doing a good
job serving the students.
Participant 8:
Labs, university campuses, test subjects, research, data.
Participant 9:
Lab, classroom, white coat, microscope, studying.
Participant 10:
Standardized, accurate, but also subject to error 9. When you think of scientific research done at the University of Minnesota, what words come to mind?
Participant 1:
I’m not really sure. I didn’t really go to the undergrad part of the University of Minnesota I’m not really keyed into the University community. So I don’t know if my answer would be any different than just for research generally.
Participant 2:
I know they do a lot for medical, with the… is it Amplatz Children’s Hospital? I’ve been there a couple of times. Yeah, my dad works for Best Buy and they put on a program there so I volunteered a couple of
times and set up a couple of Wiis for some kids to play with. Some of the Vikings players showed up.
Yeah, I don’t know. There aren’t really any words that are popping into my head right now about
scientific research.
Participant 3:
So I have a bad experience with research at the University of Minnesota. I would say… imaginative. They
certainly have individuals who are very bright, very capable. I would say that they are awful at
transitioning their ideas into something that can be commercialized. Anti-commercial?
Participant 4:
Solidly based, recognized. I think of more phrases than words: well-established, trustworthy, fact-based versus opinion. Widely published. Trustworthy.
Participant 5:
I don’t know. Who’s in charge of it? Is it money based, or are they able to really take something and explore it to the fullest? Or are they pressured for the answer because they’re out of funds now? I don’t know enough about it to really have an opinion.
Participant 6:
I think of the medical research. They’ve come up with some remarkable discoveries in advancing health care in this country. I also think that it’s a seed bed for spurring companies. I think those young researchers are doing research, they’re just the natural entrepreneurs that can drive our economy going forward. Anything we can do to support that group I think is really great. Other states would be so lucky
to have a University of Minnesota. Future economic growth comes out of university research. And more,
I think it’s training the people, giving them the tools to do the research and the tools to go forward into
the business world.
Participant 7:
The U of M has a terrific medical school, and I think it has a very good reputation. I think that the
university has a particularly difficult time transferring technology to the private sector. I think that they’re
as bad as any school in the nation. If they want a model, look at UCLA. UCLA is a terrific model for
doing that.
Participant 8:
Innovative, forefront, publicized. I see that on TV. There are campaigns to push that forward. I saw some sort of an ad on TV that was specific to the U of M. Ad made to say, “hey look at all these great things we’re doing.”
Participant 9:
Honeycrisp apples, World War 2 starvation study, grapes for winemaking in Minnesota. Clean water, conservation, clean air. All the stuff that 3M does, even though that’s 3M. Food, crops. Extension helping people out up here.
Participant 10:
Not really, except now I’m thinking about COVID-19 and stuff like that. I know that the University of
Minnesota has really been on the front lines with some of the research in a couple of areas with that, like developing a cheaper ventilator machine and stuff like that. 10. Do you think that scientific research can improve society? Why or why not?
Participant 1:
Yes, because that’s how we progress. Knowledge is important and as we learn things we can use that knowledge for practical advancements that help people at a grand level.
Participant 2:
Yeah. The more we know about the unknown, I guess. It’s not really a good way of putting it. If someone would have looked into like this whole COVID-19 stuff earlier, too, we could have possibly been ahead
on this. But nobody could have known it was just going to pop off like this. And I’m sure there will be
more scientific research now done on a lot of these others diseases that are currently only in animals but
could transfer over.
Participant 3:
Oh yeah. I think that the more than we understand our world, the better off we can be in terms of how to
be good stewards of it and take advantage of things that are there. I come from the medical device field,
and without research and understanding, we would never have some of the advances we have for people’s
health and taking care of people. With respect to the environment, we would never understand what we
were doing that was harming the environment if we didn’t do research and we didn’t pay attention to what
those impacts could be. I think that, at some level, things like the University could do science that was
just for science’s sake, so just for the curiosity and just for the understanding, just for developing things.
Beyond that, I think that developing the research into something that has a commercial value happens
better in the private sector.
Participant 4:
Absolutely. If you think of medical research, we’re staring the need for that in the face right now. If we
have dedicated medical researchers, I think the whole world benefits, because our research goes broadly
elsewhere. We have people who are known for publishing their research, which provided the interested
parties on the other end have access to it... Living standards. We have a lot of researchers in social work.
The geology department as far as environmental studies and power sources. Participant 5:
Sure, I think it can be helpful. Some people need to have the answer before they can accept something.
Participant 6:
Yes, yes. It has. If you look at history being any indication. We’ve solved the smallpox problem and we’ve solved the polio problem. Yeah. Guys like me, I’m 80, I’ve had 10 years probably tacked on my lifetime. Possibly could argue quite a bit more than that. We’ve extended life, we’ve done away with a lot
of diseases, and we’ve taken a lot of people out of poverty. And I would say we’ve added use of science
into our communities to increase economic activities for people, extend their lives, and give them more
free time to enjoy music, etc. Read. Without science, I can only imagine where we would be.
Participant 7:
Oh, sure. I think that, for instance, research into health can cure diseases. I think that we’re going see phenomenal (depending on how bad these economic times are) phenomenal strides in the treatment of cancer, for instance. I think they’re going to figure out something about Alzheimer’s, because so many people get it.
Participant 8:
Yes. The first thing that comes to my mind is medical research, just improving people’s lives based on changes we can find to help people live a better life, as far as their health is concerned. I guess also things related to the environment, figuring out how to do things better that are not going to pollute the environment as much, but still maybe advance society in certain ways.
Participant 9:
It’s necessary. Technologies benefit economies. American prosperity is based on smart people figuring out ways of creating new technologies or new applied sciences. Climate change is a thing that’s happening and we need to figure out a way of getting off fossil fuels or dealing with these things. We’re only going to be able to think our way out of this. I personally don’t think that Americans are willing to sacrifice something, but as soon as you make an electric car that’s better than a gasoline car, then gasoline
cars are going to become extinct within five years. Just this year electric snowblowers got to be better
than gas snowblowers, so I got one of those. And I’ve already had an electric lawnmower for many years. Fewer and fewer people are going to buy electric lawnmowers or any other kind of small engine. I heard
they’re starting to get electric boats; once those get to be good, Minnesotans won’t be dumping so much
gasoline into our lakes because we don’t want to. We don’t want to deal with old gas and gummed up
spark plugs. It’s just the only thing that we have right now. So once we think our way through to better
solutions, the whole environment is going to be better. In Minnesota, we used to be filled with trees, and
we chopped them all down. You can go to all these old forests and those trees also about only 70 years
old. But our economy is not based on that anymore. We still have a lumber industry, but it’s smarter. We
grow more trees than we cut down; it’s more sustainable, which is better. In 1918, there was a forest fire
that killed a bunch of people because of stupid logging practices. Once you cut down all the trees, all the
loggers are out of work. If we can think about ways to do things smarter, it’s more sustainable for the
economy and environment, and it’s more stable. All these old logging towns in northern Minnesota aren’t
towns anymore because they cut down the trees… or they’re towns with 200 people in them just waiting
for everybody to die out. On the other hand, then we’ve got all these farming communities up in the Red
River Valley; these used to be towns that could support a lot of people because there were a lot of farm labors. Now farms got bigger, and it’s just one guy on the tractor instead of 20 guys in the field. So these smaller towns are getting smaller and smaller and smaller. North Dakota’s got it worse than Minnesota does, because there’s not shit to do in North Dakota. But in Minnesota you can drive, even if you live in the Red River Valley here, you can drive 30 miles east and you got the lakes. It’s a nice place to live. We got a good quality of life up here. Good services.
Participant 10:
Yes. I just think you can’t beat the scientific method. You know, I will say the same comment I said about
politics about scientific research. There’s huge money in some of it, pharmaceutical dollars and so on, and
so I think the effectiveness and need for the research kind of varies. But I think in general it’s a good
thing. I think on the whole, I would like to see more scientific research, I would like to see more of it be
publicly funded to increase both human knowledge and also solving problems. Both of those things are
things that sometimes scientific research can do. 11. Do you think that research can lead to changes that will directly improve your life? Why or why not? Do any examples come to mind?
Participant 1:
Yes. I have just always been a fan of things on the technological side; even everyday little gadgets or something that make things easier or more convenient—technically, that makes my life better. And then I
think the grander things that science and research can accomplish that make the world better generally
benefit me as a part of the world.
Participant 2:
Especially in the medical side, there’s always pretty much research that’s going to lead to better standard of living for everyone, which would directly relate to me. [Asked for examples] Safer vehicles, if they did research on that, that could prevent me from dying in a car crash.
Participant 3:
Yes. I’m going to go with the obvious here: a vaccine for COVID. You know the flu vaccine that enabled my husband to be able to do work at a nursing home until recently, without being worried about harming the people in the nursing home. The efforts that have been made to reduce carbon emissions so that our
cars are cleaner. The efforts in clean coal that have made it so we can burn coal in the places where we do
it in a clean way are way improved over what they used to be. Being able to clean up environments that
are polluted because we understand how to go in there and how to separate things out. I think about the
oil spill years ago, and how the expectation was that the gulf would never recover, and they were able to
go out there with little microbes that they used to gobble up the chemicals in the oil and they turned it
around in like 18 months. It became basically what it was before, and that’s staggering. How does that
happen without research?
Participant 4:
Certainly so. Because again I have to turn to the medical research. Also, environmental research—much
of that would have been associated with the geology department, which I came out of, in terms of
environmental studies. Architectural processes that depend on our knowledge, whether we’re building on
bedrock or a swamp. Biological studies. We have a wonderful college of veterinary medicine that not only takes care of people’s pets, which are huge emotional creatures to have mental health. Not only that,
but agricultural studies that help us feed the population also develop new ways of bringing either food
sources or whatever out into the rest of the world where they need it.
Participant 5:
Never thought about it in that regard before. I’m sure there’s some ways that it would. Nothing really comes to mind right now.
Participant 6:
Yeah, if we come up with a solution for COVID-19, that would improve my life, improve your life,
improve everybody’s life in Minnesota. At 80 [years old], the most direct impact would be health.
Obviously, COVID-19 is a big winner for people over 80. As far as a solution to Alzheimer’s, that would
be a major contribution that could really impact my life. Half of us who are my age have some form of
dementia. That’s a big one. It’s quite amazing that we don’t have more information about the aging side
of the equation. Most of the studies in health care are really slanted toward a younger demographic, and
what we learned from younger ones might not apply to people in my demographic. Let me digress a little
bit. I personally think that individuals have to be responsible for their own health. And if you’re doing
dumb things with your own health (you’re drinking excessively, or you’re smoking, or if you’re not
getting enough exercise, or whatever else, or you don’t seem to be able to manage a social life, to the
point where you’re living in isolation). Those things individuals can control. I think new scientific studies
are useful, but they’re only useful to the point that people actually adapt to them and change themselves.
It’s very hard for people. We are very set in our ways. We want to eat a certain kind of breakfast cereal,
or we want to drink a certain kind of scotch whisky. But to answer your question, yeah: there could be
some major things that come out of science that improve my health. And I don’t live in a vacuum. If my
community prospers, I will prosper. If my community suffers, I will end up suffering someplace along the
way. I don’t know where, but it will happen. So I think scientific advancement tends to raise everybody’s
ship.
Participant 7: Sure. I think that research into medical things, into materials. In some respects, the internet and those kinds of things improve life. I think exploring the universe is a very good thing to do. It depends on how you count “research.” I think that there are some psychological research things that can be beneficial.
Participant 8:
Yes. I guess I’m thinking about things related to the water around where I live. The U I feel like is involved with things that attempt to protect our waterways. I know there’s even a facility in Willmar related to the U of M that has to do with poultry stuff around here, so maybe I would hope that they do something related to “where does all the waste go from that industry, and how does that affect the immediate environment around me.” But honestly I don’t know what they do with that. It’s like a U of M outpost or something, I’m not sure exactly what it’s called. I drive by it, or I used to (maybe it’s not there anymore?).
Participant 9:
It’ll be cool once… my wife and I both have high rates of a lot of cancer in our family. Once we cure cancer that will be pretty great. That will be a load off my mind. Do something to boost up my liver so I can drink as much beer as I like. Just having an electric snowblower and electric lawnmower does make my life so much easier because my stuff works. Advancements in U of M’s crop programs helps feed me.
They’re figuring out ways to grow grapes that let me drink local Minnesota wine that’s good, and it’s also an economy thing.
Participant 10:
Oh yeah, sure. I think the more we know about... Just in my own lifetime, the level of technology has just vastly improved. Some of that is scientific research, at some level. The fact that I’m able to be talking on this thing [referring to the phone used in the interview] that’s a miniature computer that I can hold in my hand, that’s crazy. If you go back to 1986 or something when I was a kid, you’ve got the really rudimentary computers and stuff like that. It’s pretty amazing, actually, but I think that there are similar advances in human health, and in medicine, and in our ability to understand environmental issues and all sorts of other things that are potentially beneficial to me directly. I definitely think that science basically benefits all of us in way more ways than we know. 12. Do you think that money from your taxes should support scientific research? Why or why not?
Participant 1:
Yes. Again, because it’s a mutual benefit, and the more support we give scientists and researchers, the
better work they can attempt to do. And if they can do better work, then they can deliver better results that
make people’s lives better.
Participant 2:
I hope that it does. I don’t know exactly where that money goes, but I hope that it goes to improving my life in Minnesota and others around here. But again, once it goes to the state, who knows what happens with it?
Participant 3:
I’m really a fan of the free market. And so, I feel like when there’s something that is of interest to people, they can find money to go and explore it. Like I said, science for science’s sake might be something at the university level, so maybe that’s where there would be an appropriate amount from tax dollars, but the
problem is that tax dollars get applied with a government oversight that I don’t always agree with. The
oversight can be more way more expensive and take way more of the tax dollars that what actually gets
applied to the research.
Participant 4:
Yeah, as long as the people who are deciding where it goes have an extremely solid background in what they’re doing. I don’t want my money going to people who rub stones and make wishes.
Participant 5:
Yeah, a fraction, right? I’d rather devote it to that than some things. I just don’t think there’s enough money for community right now, so that’s where I’m like, “I don’t know.” Because, like, I don’t think that the kids are getting enough support. So when the bare bones really isn’t being nurtured, when people aren’t really being given their potential to expand, that’s what I struggle with.
Participant 6: If it’s a state issue. For example, water pollution is really more of a state issue (water’s within a state;
whatever we dump into the Mississippi, we know that it’s going to go down to Winona). Definitely some
state money should be used to look at water pollution or the management of natural resources. The deer
herd for example. We’re looking at chronic wasting disease. There’s a natural issue that we really should
be looking at. With global warming, we will have moose in Minnesota and we should be looking into
that. I think it’s [University researcher Michael] Osterholm: we definitely should have a strong oversight
in our health community. Maybe I’m particularly sensitive with COVID-19 right now. The state really
needs to take the lead in encouraging good health. For research, how would you do that? Legislators are
not experts. They are not in a position to deal with which what particular research needs to be funded and
what doesn’t. They may think they know it, and I hope certainly that they would try, but I don’t know if
they would necessarily make the best decisions on where to fund it. But they can issue grants and give
that to one of the universities in Minnesota and let that community decide where to spend the money. I
mean, there’s lot of ways it could be done intelligently. Normally in this state, I think we try to get the
most out of our buck. Because legislators are so close to the people, if they’re spending money that their
constituents think is a waste, they’ll hear about it. They’re pretty sensitive about wasteful spending. The
other thought that came to my mind right now, the big one, is agriculture. It’s so important to our
economy. Supporting agriculture research: that’s a no-starter in Minnesota. They should always get
money for that. I think the U of M demonstrates that. I’m not sure all where the funding comes from in U
of M research, but I suspect some of it’s got to come from the state coffers.
Participant 7:
Yes, with a caveat. Absolutely yes, but I think that research should be transferred out to the public sector.
If you’re going to do research, you’re doing it for a reason. I think that the way to take advantage of it is not to keep it within the university system, but to get it out so it can be used.
Participant 8:
Yes, because it’s all part of bettering society. I mean, just the same way that a lot of people I know get state money for grants that pay for their art to be done. I guess if we’re paying for artists to better society
in that way it makes sense to me that we should be paying for scientists at least contributing in some way to help research there, whether it’s that they have to write in to get money from grants, then great. But I
don’t see why there shouldn’t be tax money going toward that when it’s bettering society as a whole, I
mean hopefully.
Participant 9:
Absolutely. Yeah, that will give us a leg up on a lot of the other states. I mean, Alabama and Mississippi aren’t competitors of ours because we have this tradition of valuing education. The Honeycrisp apple:
how many of those did Minnesota sell? And the crops we’ve developed in Minnesota over the years, over
the decades are helping out our agriculture industry, and they’re still coming up with new ones. Oh, and
medical stuff. Didn’t the governor say something like a quarter of all respirators made in the world are
made in Minnesota, or something like that? That’s beneficial to us right now. All this medical technology
to make me live longer.
Participant 10:
Yes, absolutely. Emphatically, yes, I want there to be… I think that, apart from all the ways it benefits society, that expansion of human knowledge is a good in itself, kind of. One of the reasons why I think public funding for science is important is that people can then investigate things that aren’t necessarily going make anybody a billion dollars, but are still interesting and important and will further our understanding of how the world works, or even how the universe works.
13. Have you heard of the MnDRIVE research program? If so, what do you know about it?
Participant 1:
I have not.
Participant 2:
MnDRIVE? I feel like I’ve heard that once, but I don’t remember where I heard that.
Participant 3:
No.
Participant 4:
No. I don’t think so.
Participant 5:
I have not.
Participant 6:
No.
Participant 7:
No.
Participant 8:
I don’t think so.
Participant 9:
I have not.
Participant 10:
A little bit. I think it is a research granting program of some kind. I kind of forget.
14. What year were you born?
Participant 1:
1992 (28 years old)
Participant 2:
1992 (28 years old)
Participant 3:
1957 (63 years old)
Participant 4:
1951 (69 years old)
Participant 5:
1967 (53 years old)
Participant 6:
1940 (80 years old)
Participant 7:
1948 (72 years old)
Participant 8:
1983 (37 years old)
Participant 9:
1981 (39 years old)
Participant 10:
1981 (39 years old)
15. How long have you lived in Minnesota?
Participant 1:
5 to 6 years.
Participant 2:
20 years now.
Participant 3:
Since 1967 (53 years).
Participant 4:
All my life (69 years).
Participant 5:
All my life (53 years).
Participant 6:
33 years. I am fifth generation.
Participant 7:
Since 1979 (41 years)
Participant 8:
Most of my life. 35 years.
Participant 9:
I was born here. 30 years.
Participant 10:
Since 2011. 9 years.
16. In which city do you currently live?
Participant 1:
Minneapolis
Participant 2:
Lakeville
Participant 3:
Minnetonka
Participant 4:
Lake Elmo
Participant 5:
Duluth
Participant 6:
St. Paul
Participant 7:
Lutsen
Participant 8:
Willmar
Participant 9:
Moorhead
Participant 10:
Marshall Appendix B: Interview Scripts
Introductory script soliciting participation:
Hello,
My name is Kevin Coss and I’m a graduate student with the University of Minnesota’s Hubbard
School of Journalism and Mass Communication.
I am conducting research with people living in regions across Minnesota to gain an understanding
for what Minnesotans value about their state and how they feel about university research.
The interviews I am conducting are confidential and anonymous. Participants’ names will not be associated with the information they provide. Instead, I will look for trends across all of the responses from which I can draw conclusions and insights.
Would you be interested in taking 10-15 minutes to participate in this interview? Your participation is optional and you may choose to stop participating at any time, in which case any answers you have provided will be discarded.
If you have any questions, please contact me at [email protected] or via phone at 608-886-4327.
Thank you,
Kevin
Beginning of interview script:
Thanks again for being willing to participate. I will be asking you a series of questions to learn about your opinions as a Minnesotan, specifically related to the state government and science.
As we go, please keep in mind that this isn’t a test—there are no “correct” answers and you are not being evaluated on your knowledge or your opinions. I am not looking for a specific answer and will not debate your response with you, so please just answer what you genuinely think or feel. “I don’t know” is a perfectly acceptable answer. Are you ready to get started?
Appendix C: Interview Guide
1. In your eyes, what is the largest problem currently facing Minnesota?
2. How connected do you feel to the state? Do you consider yourself to be a “Minnesotan”?
3. How well informed do you feel about the state of the economy in Minnesota? That is, how much do you know about how the economy of Minnesota is doing?
4. How do you typically hear about state programs (like efforts to protect the environment) and changes in state laws (like when it became legal to sell liquor on Sundays)?
5. Following on from the last question, how frequently do you talk with family, friends, or coworkers about these programs and laws, and about how taxpayer money is spent?
6. Do you think state lawmakers (our state representatives and senators) think about the average Minnesotan when they are making decisions about the state budget?
7. Do you think that state money should be spent to support public universities? Why or why not?
8. When you think of scientific research, what words come to mind?
9. When you think of scientific research done at the University of Minnesota, what words come to mind?
10. Do you think that scientific research can improve society? Why or why not?
11. Do you think that research can lead to changes that will directly improve your life? Why or why not? Do any examples come to mind?
12. Do you think that money from your taxes should support scientific research? Why or why not?
13. Have you heard of the MnDRIVE research program? If so, what do you know about it?
14. What year were you born?
15. How long have you lived in Minnesota?
16. In which city do you currently live? Content analysis of MnDRIVE earned media • Between April 2014 (the earliest data available) and December 2019, news media ran 135 stories that highlighted MnDRIVE research. • The majority of MnDRIVE coverage (76 percent) took place in Minnesota-based media outlets— an important detail given that the program is designed to improve Minnesota’s economy and quality of life. • Coverage of MnDRIVE research is overwhelmingly positive, with 97 percent of stories either suggesting a positive impact of research or portraying U researchers as visionaries or experts. • The amount of coverage around MnDRIVE research peaked in 2016. The number of MnDRIVE earned media stories was down 26 percent from this peak in 2019, providing evidence of diminished and plateauing coverage for the program.
News placements MnDRIVE Earned Media 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Year
MnDRIVE Minnesota’s Discovery, Research, and InnoVation Economy
MnDRIVE Minnesota’s Discovery, Research, and InnoVation Economy
MnDRIVE (Minnesota’s Discovery, In 2013, a little more than five years ago, the State of Research, and InnoVation Economy) is MnDRIVEMinnesota began an annual investment in the following a unique, collaborative research partnership Minnesota’sinterdisciplinary research Discovery, areas: between the University of Minnesota and Research, and InnoVation the State of Minnesota that aligns areas of Robotics, Sensors, and Advanced Manufacturing research strength with the state’s key and Economy emerging industries, as well as some of its Global Food Ventures most important challenges. Advancing Industry, Conserving our Environment
Discoveries and Treatments for Brain Conditions $22m Minnesota Cancer Clinical Trials Network* MN Legislature’s annual investment
joining UMN research with key *Launched in 2018. and emerging state industries MnDRIVE Minnesota’s Discovery, Research, and InnoVation 1,200 150 Economy750 $360m UMN researchers UMN departments UMN faculty,COATED COLORSExternal funding involved with across three students, and leveraged by MnDRIVE MnDRIVE projects campuses staff hired supported researchers
A recent survey of MnDRIVE-supported researchers reported a willingness to take 5 YEARS risks for greater societal impacts (versus $97M Total state investment following more traditional funding paths), 400+ increased connections with the public and Projects funded industry, and a greater sense of belonging 60+ MnDRIVE students graduated and pride in Minnesota. 303 Inventions disclosed by MnDRIVE researchers
Partnering with industry to discover solutions to our greatest challenges.
mndrive.umn.edu Crookston Duluth Morris Rochester Twin Cities
© 2019 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved. The University of Minnesota is an equal opportunity educator and employer.
Minimum Sizing: “MINNESOTA” .875 wide (6.25” business card size page) Maroon: Coated paper 202C 0/100/61/43 Uncoated paper 201U 0/100/63/29 RGB 122/0/25 Gold: Coated paper 136C 0/27/76/0 Uncoated paper 116U 0/16/100/0 RGB 255/204/51 MnDRIVE Robotics, Sensors, and Advanced Manufacturing
10,000 Children reached by outreach programs Talking Robots Detect Early Signs of Autism 40 Degrees/yr. expected, new Robotics Institute Professor Maria Gini’s team is using talking robots to collect data on how children interact with their surroundings and to 5TH UMTC national rank, robotics research help diagnose autism in children 2 to 4 years old. Earlier $10M Private funds for new Gemini-Huntley detection increases the opportunities health professionals Robotics Lab leveraged from $2M have to step in and begin treatment when children’s brains MnDRIVE investment still have plasticity and are more responsive.
MnDRIVE Global Food Ventures
41 Global food graduate students supported Food Safety Research Leads to New Clean Water Tech 18 Universities in oat research consortium led Claros Technologies, a UMN startup company, is a water by UMN filtration system that safely removes toxins, such as mercury and phosphorus, from our lakes, rivers, and waste streams. 5 Deep winter greenhouse pilot sites in According to a 2014 report, 44 percent of Minnesota’s waters Greater MN are impaired. The technology stems from an earlier invention to rapidly detect contamination in food.
MnDRIVE Advancing Industry, Conserving our Environment
$60B Global market, anti-biocorrosion coatings New Solutions for Biocorrosion 11 Inventions disclosed, FY2019 Duluth’s shipping industry is vital to Minnesota, but its port infrastructure is at risk from biocorrosion. UMTC & UMD researchers $1.74M Invested in 6 field-scale bioremediation demonstration projects have identified an anti-biocorrosion enzyme as an alternative to widely used toxic copper oxide paints. Field scale testing has been promising, and researchers are currently exploring commercialization opportunities in partnership with Ecolab.
MnDRIVE Discoveries and Treatments for Brain Conditions
62 Neuromodulation fellows trained National Leader in Parkinson’s Research 9 Inventions disclosed, FY2019 In 2017, the University of Minnesota was designated a Udall Center of Excellence for Parkinson’s Disease Research by NIH 3 Core facilities for neuromodulation (one of eight) to advance clinical, multidisciplinary, translational, research created and basic research into Parkinson’s. Udall Center researchers are 1 Major NIH center brought to UMN leading the development of new treatments for the disease using deep brain stimulation (DBS).
MnDRIVE Minnesota Cancer Clinical Trials Network
15 New locations open for enrollment across MN Expanding Access to Cancer Clinical Trials (est. 2018) 227 Minnesotans enrolled in cancer clinical trials Cancer is the leading cause of death in Minnesota, where nearly 3 Trials enrolling, with 5 in the pipeline half of all people will be diagnosed with some type of cancer in their lifetimes. The MN Cancer Clinical Trials Network removes 3 Additional sites enrolling soon barriers for clinics that have not had the resources to establish the infrastructure to conduct clinical trials, allowing providers in the metro area and Greater Minnesota to offer clinical research opportunities to their patients.