Hi, sorry for the confusion. I came here for some interviews and not to discuss if my dissertation subject is correct or not. I don't wish to proceed anymore, so if a member of the board wants to delete this thread or my account I have no issue with it.
Surely we have just lost an opportunity to influence and maybe persuade a young person to our point of view by attacking what he is trying to do.As all forum members know there is a huge discrepancy between an EV owners 'perception' of this new technology and others who are massively influenced by the myths pushed out daily by poorly informed journalists.
That is reflected in post #5 - Quote "In reality, 80% of people (who do not own EVs) that I have interviewed don't believe EVs are the answer to a cleaner planet."
What influenced them when reaching that conclusion? In any case, anyone who carefully considers that question would agree that EVs are not THE answer to a cleaner planet. But for sure they are ONE solution. If they were asked if EVs were ONE solution would that same 80% be seen or 100%? Or are there still 20% rabid petrolheads out there who would die if they lost their petrol engines? Despite the entire EV drive solution being far superior in economy, speed, and efficiency.
Which is why the massive legacy motor manufacturers are scrambling to catch up. They have at last woken up and smelled the coffee.
The 'perception' of non-EV owners has been tainted by false myths and induced fears of being stranded by a lack of electrons. And by being asked misleading questions. One factor which has been demonstrated multiple times is that when such drivers are exposed to the normal use of an EV for an extended period they are reluctant to hand back that car and return to their noisy, smelly, vibrating and quite frankly inferior fossil fuel car. Quite apart from the huge running cost savings.
A dissertation examining the gulf that exists between those whos perception of EVs is causing them to avoid ownership against those who made the transition and will never return could be interesting. But it should really be undertaken by someone with personal experience of both sides of the study. Anything else risks asking questions re-inforcing the myths rather than dispelling them and attempting to allay the fears of those whose only knowledge of EVs has been gleaned from negative reviews.
We know that's not accurate.Surely we have just lost an opportunity to influence and maybe persuade a young person to our point of view by attacking what he is trying to do. He must think that we are a bunch ill-mannered bigots. I hope that's not actually accurate.
Allowing self-selection is a no-no anyway. You'll always end up with people who have a strong urge to give an opinion whereas most can't be bothered. So the results will never be representative.The problem with a 'three skype call' approach is that it may not reflect a true consensus of opinions due to such a small sample.
But it doesn't matter. These academic studies are purely to show-off (hopefully) the student's ability to gather, collate and analyse data.I'm not sure how effective it would be when used as half of a dissertation evidence base.
I’m surprised no one has said it, but you really are a nasty piece of work and that’s putting it mildly.Your proposition is vague and meaningless. Sorry to be harsh but it needs some work.
Are you actually going to investigate the sustainability of EVs or just the public's perception of EV sustainability?