Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Use and utility of information channels for self-help advocacy groups McCreary, Elaine Kathryn 1984

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1984_A2 M33.pdf [ 11.88MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0055806.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0055806-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0055806-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0055806-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0055806-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0055806-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0055806-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0055806-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0055806.ris

Full Text

USE AND UTILITY OF INFORMATION CHANNELS FOR SELF-HELP ADVOCACY GROUPS by ELAINE KATHRYN McCREARY A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE, ADULT, AND HIGHER EDUCATION We a c c e p t t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n as conforming to the r e q u i r e d s t a n d a r d THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA October 1984 (g) E l a i n e Kathryn McCreary In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f the o f B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and study. I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e copying of t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the head o f my department o r by h i s o r her r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s understood t h a t copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be allowed without my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . requirements f o r an advanced degree a t the U n i v e r s i t y Department o f The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 Date )E-6 (3/81) i i ABSTRACT In t h i s study of s e l f - h e l p advocacy groups the r e s e a r c h focused on how informal l e a r n e r s , as users of i n f o r m a t i o n , r a t e channels i n s o c i e t y f o r t h e i r use and u t i l i t y i n the a c q u i s i t i o n of f u n c t i o n a l l y d i f f e r e n t kinds of i n f o r m a t i o n . A t o t a l of 105 respondents from 19 advocacy groups completed p r o t o c o l s . Data were submitted to c o n v e n t i o n a l analyses f o r d e s c r i p t i v e s t a t i s t i c s u s ing SPSS :9 and SPSS:X. I n f e r e n t i a l s t a t i s t i c s were c a l c u l a t e d on a four-way, repeated measures, mixed e f f e c t s a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e using BMD-P8V. Int e r v e n i n g personal and group v a r i a b l e s were t e s t e d f o r p o s s i b l e i n f l u e n c e on the r e s u l t s . R e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d that there was a core of multipurpose channels that were used a great d e a l , and a number of s p e c i a l i z e d channels that were each used only s p a r i n g l y . Economic, environmental, and pe r s o n a l i s s u e groups showed d i f f e r e n t emphases i n t h e i r r e p o r t e d use of channels. Most channels r e c e i v e d t h e i r h i ghest r a t i n g f o r general background i n f o r m a t i o n . The p a t t e r n of user r e p o r t s , as estimated by the a n a l y s i s of va r i a n c e main e f f e c t s , r e f l e c t e d the s t r u c t u r e of key v a r i a b l e s . Two-way i n t e r a c t i o n s were found . to be s i g n i f i c a n t between the channel c a t e g o r i e s and two other v a r i a b l e s — types of info r m a t i o n and kinds of user group. i i i TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT . i i LIST OF FIGURES v i i LIST OF TABLES v i i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . i x Chapter I. INTRODUCTION 1 The S o c i a l A c t i v i s t T r a d i t i o n i n Adult E d u c a t i o n . . 1 Key Features of Contemporary Adult Education 2 L i f e l o n g d u r a t i o n 2 Self-conducted 4 A n t i c i p a t o r y . . . . 6 Peer group s e t t i n g s 7 The l e a r n i n g s o c i e t y 8 The Problem of I n t e r e s t 10 Purpose of the Study 12 I I . SELF-HELP GROUPS: A SPECIAL CASE OF INFORMAL LEARNING 14 The Phenomenon of S e l f - H e l p Groups 14 D e f i n i t i o n of s e l f - h e l p groups 16 C l a s s i f i c a t i o n i n t o four c a t e g o r i e s 16 Scope of s e l f - h e l p advocacy a c t i v i t y 18 The S o c i e t a l Context of S e l f - H e l p Advocacy 20 The o r i g i n s of small p u b l i c groups 20 Other v a r i e t i e s of s o c i a l a c t i v i s m 26 Assumptions about how s o c i e t y operates 29 i v I I I . P R E L I M I N A R Y STUDY 32 T h e R o l e o f I n f o r m a t i o n i n A d v o c a c y G r o u p s 32 R e s t a t i n g t h e r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n 35 T h e T h r e e C a s e s E x a m i n e d 35 T h e i n t e r v i e w s c h e d u l e u s e d 36 F i n d i n g s f r o m t h e p r e l i m i n a r y s t u d y 37 C h o i c e o f r e s e a r c h d e s i g n f o r t h e m a i n s t u d y 38 I V . L I T E R A T U R E R E V I E W 40 I n f o r m a t i o n S c i e n c e 41 F o r m a t s f o r r e s e a r c h o n i n f o r m a t i o n f l o w 41 A s s i s t i n g t h e i n f o r m a t i o n s e e k e r 43 S o c i a l C h a n g e 44 I n f o r m a t i o n r e q u i r e d f o r s o c i a l d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g 44 S o c i a l N e t w o r k s R e s e a r c h 45 N e t w o r k v a r i a b l e s r e l e v a n t t o t h i s s t u d y 46 V. T H E R E S E A R C H V A R I A B L E S 48 R e f i n i n g t h e R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n 48 D e p e n d e n t V a r i a b l e s 50 U s e - o f - c h a n n e l 50 U t i l i t y - o f - c h a n n e l 51 I n d e p e n d e n t V a r i a b l e s - 53 T y p e o f u s e r g r o u p 53 G e n e r i c t y p e s o f i n f o r m a t i o n 55 T y p e s o f c h a n n e l 62 S p e c i f i c R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n s a n d H y p o t h e s e s 68 T e s t i n g t h e I n f l u e n c e o f I n t e r v e n i n g V a r i a b l e s . . . . 73 V VI. INSTRUMENT DEVELOPMENT 76 Content V a l i d i t y 76 The channel types 77 Construct V a l i d i t y 81 The information types 82 The r a t i n g s c a l e s 86 Face V a l i d i t y . . . • 86 Logos f o r the infor m a t i o n c o n s t r u c t s 86 An o p t i o n a l r a t i n g task 87 R e l i a b i l i t y 90 V I I . METHODOLOGY 94 Subject S e l e c t i o n 94 I d e n t i f y i n g a c t i v e groups 94 Screening c r i t e r i a 95 Gaining access 96 A d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the Instrument 98 Ex p l a n a t i o n of the task 98 D i s c u s s i o n of group h i s t o r y 99 I n d i v i d u a l completion of p r o t o c o l s 100 Return Rates 100 Data Handling 102 v i V I I I . RESULTS 105 C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of P a r t i c i p a n t s 105 D e s c r i p t i o n of groups i n each' category 106 Demographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of group members... 107 Patt e r n s of Information A c q u i s i t i o n 111 A c q u i s i t i o n of the four types of i n f o r m a t i o n . . . 111 Preferences of the user groups 119 User p e r c e p t i o n s of the 32 channels 122 T e s t i n g the Conceptual Framework 125 A n a l y s i s of va r i a n c e main e f f e c t s 125 M u l t i p l e comparison of main e f f e c t means 129 T e s t i n g the Hypothesized R e l a t i o n s h i p s 131 A n a l y s i s of va r i a n c e i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s 131 M u l t i p l e comparison of i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t means 133 T e s t i n g the Inf l u e n c e of I n t e r v e n i n g V a r i a b l e s . . . . 138 Regression on demographic v a r i a b l e s 138 Regression on group o p e r a t i o n v a r i a b l e s 140 IX. CONCLUSIONS 144 Regaining the Long P e r s p e c t i v e 144 Summary of the F i n d i n g s 145 L i m i t a t i o n s of the Study 151 Suggestions f o r Subsequent Research 154 APPENDICES 161 REFERENCES 191 v i i LIST OF FIGURES 1. The Growth of Organisms and the Growth of Knowledge... 33 2. Formats f o r Research Stud i e s on Information Flow 42 3. Purposes f o r Which Advocacy Groups Acquire Information 57 4. " P o l i t i c a l Impact" of Items i n the Information Pools of Advocacy Groups 59 5. Four Generic Types of Information Used by Advocacy Groups 60 6. Examples of the Four Generic Types of Advocacy Information 61 7. C a t e g o r i z a t i o n of Information Channels f o r the Study.. 66 8. Facet Design of Three Independent and Two Dependent V a r i a b l e s 67 9. T r i a l V e r s i o n of the Instrument Items 79 10. T r i a l Instrument Format With E x t r a Rating Task 89 11. S t a t i s t i c a l Design: Data Block 103 12. S t a r p l o t of Eig h t Channels Used Most to Acquire Each Type of Information 115 13. Respective Use of Top Channels by Each Kind of User Group 118 v i i i LIST OF TABLES 1. D i s t r i b u t i o n of Men and Women Respondents i n Three Types of Advocacy Group 108 2. D i s t r i b u t i o n of Respondents by L e v e l of Education i n Three Types of Advocacy Group 108 3. Age, Income and Memberships Held by Respondents/ Reported by Group Type 110 4. Mean Use and U t i l i t y Ratings of a l l 32 Channels f o r Each Information Type 112 5. O v e r a l l Mean Use of Each Channel by Each Group Type... 121 6. Mean U t i l i t y Rating of Channels f o r Each Type of Information 123 7. A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e : Main E f f e c t s of the Four F i x e d - E f f e c t s F a c t o r s 126 8. Two-Way I n t e r a c t i o n s i n the M u l t i p l e A n a l y s i s of Variance 131 9. C e l l Means f o r I n t e r a c t i o n of Channel C a t e g o r i e s with Information Types 134 10. C e l l Means f o r I n t e r a c t i o n of Channel C a t e g o r i e s with Group Types.. 135 11. Regression on Demographic V a r i a b l e s as P r e d i c t o r s of a Personal O v e r a l l Mean Score 139 i x ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS T h i s p r o j e c t and the t r a i n i n g which immediately preceded i t were f i n a n c i a l l y supported by the S o c i a l Science and Humanities Research C o u n c i l of Canada, and the Family Housing O f f i c e of the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, f o r which I thank the persons d i r e c t l y i n v o l v e d , and the f e l l o w c i t i z e n s i n d i r e c t l y i n v o l v e d who have c o n t r i b u t e d to making Canada a r i c h , g e n t l e l a n d of o p p o r t u n i t y . I wish to acknowledge the c o n t r i b u t i o n s made by P r o f . Roger Boshier, c h a i r p e r s o n of the s u p e r v i s o r y committee, and the other members, P r o f . B i l l N i c h o l l s of the School of Social. Work, and P r o f . Anne P i t e r n i c k of the School of L i b r a r i a n s h i p . P r o f . N i c h o l l s , c u r r e n t l y on s a b b a t i c a l leave, was p a r t i c u l a r l y s k i l l f u l at b r i d g i n g the gap between s c i e n t i f i c p o r t r a y a l and l i f e as i t i s l i v e d . I wish to express g r a t i t u d e to many sup p o r t i v e f r i e n d s and c o n s u l t a n t s who cannot a l l be named here, foremost among them Grant C l a r k e f o r whom I have the deepest respect and a f f e c t i o n , a rare s o u l indeed. 1 Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION The S o c i a l A c t i v i s t T r a d i t i o n i n Adult Education A review of the modern h i s t o r y of a d u l t education in North America r e v e a l s s e v e r a l r e c u r r i n g s o c i a l f u n c t i o n s , among them one which has been v a r i o u s l y l a b e l e d c i t i z e n s h i p e d u c a t i o n , education f o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n , education f o r s o c i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , empowerment education, or s o c i a l a c t i v i s t e d u c a t i o n . T h i s c l u s t e r of terms encompasses some d i f f e r e n c e s i n nuance, but the c e n t r a l theme i s the same: a h i s t o r i c a l l y r e c u r r i n g kind of systematic l e a r n i n g by which persons become more capable of t a k i n g p a r t i n a s e l f - g o v e r n i n g s o c i e t y . I t i s w i t h i n the s o c i a l a c t i v i s t t r a d i t i o n of a d u l t education that the problem of i n t e r e s t arose f o r t h i s study. Canadian a d u l t educators a s s o c i a t e d with the A n t i g o n i s h Movement in Nova S c o t i a (Coady,l939; Laidlaw,1961), or the nationwide C i t i z e n s Forum r a d i o broadcasts (Kidd,l963) c r e a t e d study c i r c l e s that focused on economic and s o c i a l problems of the day. These were s i t e s of i n f o r m a l education: " i n f o r m a l " because a c t i v i t i e s d i d not l e a d to a c c r e d i t a t i o n , but "education", nonetheless, which was s y s t e m a t i c a l l y designed by p r o f e s s i o n a l educators and mediated by pamphlets, or r a d i o broadcasts and correspondence. In contemporary s e l f - h e l p advocacy groups one f i n d s a modern counter p a r t to the study c i r c l e s with a noteworthy d i f f e r e n c e . The l e a r n i n g that takes 2 place i n present day advocacy groups i s not predetermined or s y s t e m a t i c a l l y designed f o r them by educators. Advocacy groups are r i c h i n s t i m u l i r e l e v a n t to the members' l e a r n i n g i n t e r e s t s , and thus serve as educative s e t t i n g s ; but l a c k i n g i n predetermined l e a r n i n g outcomes and preplanned sequences of a c t i v i t i e s , they are " i n f o r m a l " i n nature. The people l e a r n what they f i n d and b r i n g i n t o the group f o r themselves. The education that takes p l a c e i s a product of shared r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , and e x e m p l i f i e s s e v e r a l key f e a t u r e s which res e a r c h e r s a s s o c i a t e with contemporary a d u l t e d u c a t i o n . Key Features of Contemporary Adult Education Many terms c o u l d be s e l e c t e d to c h a r a c t e r i z e a d u l t education a c c o r d i n g to the p e r s p e c t i v e of the observer, but there are f i v e which d e s c r i b e trends emerging i n the f i e l d , each of which c o n t r i b u t e d something to the d e f i n i t i o n of t h i s r esearch p r o j e c t . L i f e l o n g d u r a t i o n The o l d e s t term s t i l l being used to d e s c r i b e contemporary trends i n a d u l t education i s " l i f e l o n g " . Ever s i n c e being mentioned i n the l e t t e r of t r a n s m i t t a l accompanying the 1919 Report to the B r i t i s h M i n i s t r y of R e c o n s t r u c t i o n , the notion of l i f e l o n g education has been e l a b o r a t e d upon u n t i l i t has become a cornerstone of a d u l t education theory and p o l i c y p l a n n i n g . In the e a r l y years v i s i o n a r y authors gave l i f e l o n g education an almost m y t h i c a l connotation as though i t co u l d heal a l l 3 d e f i c i e n c i e s i n an i n d i v i d u a l and overcome a l l i n e q u a l i t i e s i n s o c i e t y (Yeaxlee, 1929). Perhaps i n e v i t a b l y i t was drawn i n t o the j u r i s d i c t i o n of p r o f e s s i o n a l educators, f i r s t to be equated with c o n t i n u i n g education (Jessup,1969); and then to be used as a r e f e r e n c e p o i n t f o r the planning of school c u r r i c u l u m (Dave,1973). As t h i s f o r m a l i z a t i o n was t a k i n g p l a c e a counter t r e n d developed. In h i s essay " L i f e l o n g Learning or L i f e l o n g S c h o o l i n g ? " , O h l i g e r (1971) lamented the tendency of p r o f e s s i o n a l educators to a p p r o p r i a t e unto themselves the power to l e g i t i m a t e l e a r n i n g i n adulthood — and the p u b l i c tendency to surrender r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r l e a r n i n g to the p r o f e s s i o n a l s . He c i t e d the ideas of I l l i c h (1970a) on t h i s theme, i n p a r t i c u l a r that s c h o o l i n g had become "the world r e l i g i o n of a modernized p r o l e t a r i a t " . O h l i g e r agreed with I l l i c h that i n t e l l i g e n t people were becoming o v e r l y dependent on others to o r g a n i z e t h e i r l e a r n i n g f o r them, and re-emphasized the importance of l e a r n e r i n i t i a t i v e . The c o n f r o n t a t i o n O h l i g e r set up between the terms " l e a r n i n g " and " s c h o o l i n g " d i s s o l v e s when each i s c o n s i d e r e d i n i t s proper domain. Whereas " l i f e l o n g l e a r n i n g " r e f e r s to the i n t e r n a l process of i n t e n t i o n a l l y a c q u i r e d changes in knowledge, a t t i t u d e or s k i l l , " l i f e l o n g education" r e f e r s to the s e r i e s of e x t e r n a l events and s e t t i n g s which prompt and support those i n t e n t i o n a l changes. O h l i g e r 1 s r e f e r e n c e to " s c h o o l i n g " as usurping the l e a r n e r ' s i n i t i a t i v e a n t i c i p a t e s two l a t e r s e c t i o n s of t h i s chapter which address " s e l f - c o n d u c t e d " education, and the "educative s o c i e t y " , which comprises formal, i n f o r m a l , and 4 non-formal s e t t i n g s . Formal school s e t t i n g s then assume a l i m i t e d and a p p r o p r i a t e p r o p o r t i o n of s e t t i n g s i n the educative soc i e t y . U n t i l r e c e n t l y , the nature of schools and school systems kept educators' a t t e n t i o n focused on the e a r l y years of l i f e . But t h i s has been r e p l a c e d at the i n t e r n a t i o n a l l e v e l , and in some n a t i o n a l p o l i c i e s with a l i f e l o n g p e r s p e c t i v e . As the S e c r e t a r y - General of UNESCO put i t , "[Education] must no longer be thought of as a p r e p a r a t i o n f o r l i f e , but as a dimension of l i f e . . . " (UNESCO,1972,p.4) The p r i n c i p l e of " l i f e l o n g d u r a t i o n " appealed to the author and helped p o i n t the way to a research p r o j e c t that would h i g h l i g h t p a r t i c i p a t i o n over the l i f e s p a n . In f a c t the age of members p a r t i c i p a t i n g in the sub j e c t groups chosen f o r t h i s study was found to range from 19 years to over 80. Self - c o n d u c t e d The c a p a c i t y of people to organize t h e i r own education i s i n t r i n s i c a l l y recognized i n the term " s e l f - c o n d u c t e d " which i s used to d e s c r i b e c e r t a i n phenomena in the f i e l d of a d u l t education. Boshier d e s c r i b e d t h i s as a t r a n s f o r m a t i o n in the concept of education concomitant with the extension of l e a r n i n g a c t i v i t i e s throughout the l i f e s p a n . The idea of educatvon r e c e i v e d as a r e s u l t of school attendance i s r e p l a c e d by a more dynamic concept s t r e s s i n g a c q u i s i t i o n of knowledge, a t t i t u d e s and s k i l l s through experience, mutual i n s t r u c t i o n , and a l i f e t i m e involvement i n a broad a r r a y of formal and in f o r m a l l e a r n i n g experiences."(1980,p.4) 5 A concept of education thus transformed to emphasize acquisition returns to learners ownership of and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for their educational environments. On a similar theme, I l l i c h (1970b) asserted that people were not only capable of organizing their own education, but they must. "We must begin to liberate ourselves", he said, "from the b e l i e f that men can do what God cannot, namely manipulate others for their own salvation"(Ohliger,1971,p.11). With t h i s statement he was s t r i k i n g at the basic error in thoughtless deference to professionals and experts of a l l kinds. Ohliger focused on the p a r t i c u l a r matter of assuming control of one's own education asserting that valuable learning occurs only when the individual makes a self-motivated personal decision to engage with r e a l i t y . "Self-motivated" was used here as a more robust term than the commonly heard "s e l f - d i r e c t e d learning", which sounds rather n a r c i s s i s t i c and seems to imply only that kind of learning which is prompted from within. In fact, adult behaviour i s often propelled by external events. Adults prompted by d i f f i c u l t circumstances to learn something new may be demonstrating self-motivation to a high degree and thus f u l f i l i n g Ohliger's c r i t e r i o n for t r u l y valuable learning. The foregoing sentiments probe the ethos of self-conducted education and not just i t s mechanics, although the l i t e r a t u r e of adult education does discuss the operations implied by " s e l f -designed" and "self-managed" (Tough, 1967,1971; Gross, 1977). The notion of independently conducted education was one which the author chose to incorporate into the research project and i t s emerging d e f i n i t i o n . 6 Taken together the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of " l i f e l o n g " and " s e l f -conducted" education c o u l d encompass a l l i n s t a n c e s of responding to circumstances by independently l e a r n i n g something, but not when the t h i r d term, " a n t i c i p a t o r y " , i s added. A n t i c i p a t o r y In the view of the Club of Rome (Bot k i n , Elmandjra and M a l i t z a , 1979) the whole tenor of a d u l t education i s becoming more " a n t i c i p a t o r y " than " r e t r o s p e c t i v e " , or even "respo n s i v e " to present day circumstances. Forward l o o k i n g p e r s p e c t i v e s had been analyzed by T r i s t (1974) who a r t i c u l a t e d the d i f f e r e n c e between two kinds of fu t u r e o r i e n t e d behaviours — those which are " p r e a c t i v e " to expected c o n d i t i o n s , and those which are " p r o a c t i v e " or intended to c r e a t e the s t i m u l i f o r p r e f e r r e d f u t u r e s . P r o a c t i v e l e a r n i n g would t h e r e f o r e r e q u i r e f o c u s i n g on the gap between l i k e l y f u t u r e s and the ones we would p r e f e r to experience. W r i t e r s f o r the Club of Rome promoted p r o a c t i v e l e a r n i n g as a d e s i r a b l e outcome of a d u l t education, but d i d not c l a i m that i t was widely p r a c t i c e d . If a n t i c i p a t o r y education of t h i s l a t t e r s o r t d i d e x i s t i n the context of l i f e l o n g and s e l f - c o n d u c t e d education, i t would be found i n s i t u a t i o n s where people had become a t t e n t i v e to events and trends i n t h e i r s o c i e t y and were pre p a r i n g to do something about them. This c o u l d be happening on an i n d i v i d u a l b a s i s such as s i t u a t i o n s i n which people a c t as s e l f - a p p o i n t e d watch-dogs cf some aspect of p u b l i c l i f e , w r i t i n g l e t t e r s to the e d i t o r or to t h e i r Member of parliament — but i t takes on a powerful new dimension when people band together. 7 Peer group s e t t i n g s Considered in i s o l a t i o n from the fo r e g o i n g elements, "peer group education" c o u l d be used to denote a study group of law students engaged in higher education, a g u i l d of c r a f t s p e o p l e t a k i n g turns l e a d i n g workshops on the techniques of t h e i r c r a f t , or a group of parents of a l l e r g i c c h i l d r e n meeting to share ideas on how to cope with a fami l y dilemma. A l l of these in s t a n c e s c o u l d be c o n t a i n e d w i t h i n the r u b r i c of "peer group education". But when the term i s j o i n e d to the complex of the previous three i t serves to d i s t i n g u i s h a n t i c i p a t o r y , s e l f -conducted l e a r n i n g that takes plac e i n groups, from that which takes p l a c e through p r i v a t e l e a r n i n g p r o j e c t s . I t f u r t h e r emphasizes, i n the e q u a l i t y denoted by "peer", r e l a t i o n s h i p s among l e a r n e r s that are mutually r e s p e c t f u l and b e n e f i c i a l (Paulston,1974). It would have been as f e a s i b l e to design a study of peer group l e a r n i n g , t o t a l l y bounded by the group and taken i n i s o l a t i o n from s o c i e t y , as i t would be to study the oper a t i o n of an organ taken i n i s o l a t i o n from the organism of which i t i s a p a r t . Something c o u l d have been gained by such a study. But another p e r s p e c t i v e was a v a i l a b l e by t a k i n g i n t o account the r e l a t i o n s h i p of the peer group to the s o c i e t y i n which i t was s i t u a t e d . T h i s seemed p a r t i c u l a r l y a p p r o p r i a t e i n view of the emphasis on p r o a c t i v e l e a r n i n g i n groups where people were concerned with i n f l u e n c i n g events and trends i n t h e i r s o c i e t y . For over a decade a d u l t educators have been contemplating and c o n t r i b u t i n g p o l i c y statements towards "the l e a r n i n g s o c i e t y " . 8 The l e a r n i n g s o c i e t y There are at l e a s t three contending d e f i n i t i o n s of the " l e a r n i n g s o c i e t y " . In one sense i t i s an aggregation of those people who are c u r r e n t l y engaged i n l e a r n i n g , whether i n f o r m a l l y or f o r m a l l y , s e l f - c o n d u c t e d or teacher-conducted, r e l a t e d to t h e i r work or l e i s u r e . Beyond t h i s , the l e a r n i n g s o c i e t y i s sometimes c o n s i d e r e d to be the sum of a l l s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s and i n s t i t u t i o n s sponsoring l e a r n i n g . In t h i s second sense, the concept i s b e t t e r termed the "educative s o c i e t y " , suggesting that every s o c i a l e n t i t y , whether f o r pr o d u c t i o n , consumption, a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , worship, h e a l i n g or r e c r e a t i o n , p o t e n t i a l l y c o u l d i n c l u d e among i t s f u n c t i o n s some measure of e d u c a t i o n a l b e n e f i t f o r i t s c l i e n t s , c o n s t i t u e n t s , p a r i s h o n e r s , p a t i e n t s or members ( I l l i c h , 1 9 7 3 ; Leichter,1975; O.E.C.D.,1975). I l l i c h ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , i n p a r t i c u l a r , i s an i d e a l i z e d one presuming c o n s i d e r a b l e beneficence on the pa r t of i n s t i t u t i o n s . In a t h i r d sense the l e a r n i n g s o c i e t y i s that i d e a l s t a t e of being which co u l d r e s u l t from the implementation of a f u l l y f u n c t i o n i n g l i f e l o n g education system (Boshier,1980). There i s yet another sense of the l e a r n i n g s o c i e t y which emphasizes p r o a c t i v e l e a r n e r s i n p a r t i c u l a r , does not presume that a l l o r g a n i z a t i o n s w i l l be sup p o r t i v e of l e a r n i n g , and does not await the implementation of a system r e c o g n i z i n g and promoting the i d e a l s of u n i v e r s a l , l i f e l o n g l e a r n i n g . I t i s a view of s o c i e t y p r e d i c a t e d on the e x i s t e n c e of some v i g o r o u s , autonomous l e a r n e r s in the same, way that democracy i t s e l f i s r e l i a n t upon some c r i t i c a l minimum of s e l f - m o t i v a t e d r e s p o n s i b l e c i t i z e n s . T h i s l a t t e r view of the l e a r n i n g s o c i e t y merely notes 9 that some c i t i z e n s w i l l demand to l e a r n what they have a r i g h t to know. Demands of t h i s s o r t have l e d to such i n d i c a t o r s of a " l e a r n i n g s o c i e t y " as a consumer movement, and the American Freedom of Information Act . To summarize: f i v e f e a t u r e s of contemporary a d u l t education appealed to the author and l e d to the search f o r s e t t i n g s that would exemplify these c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n the l o c a l arena. The s e t t i n g s would have to be s e l f - i n i t i a t e d groups where p r o a c t i v e l e a r n i n g was t a k i n g p l a c e . D e f i n i n g the group s e t t i n g was not a simple task s i n c e the l i t e r a t u r e of p o l i t i c a l s o c i o l o g y d e s c r i b e d s e v e r a l phenomena which had c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s d e s i r a b l e f o r the study. In the end i t was decided to s e l e c t " s e l f - h e l p advocacy" groups as the best s u b j e c t s f o r the purposes of t h i s r e s e a r c h . How the boundaries were drawn on the r e s e a r c h s e t t i n g i s e x p l a i n e d i n Chapter 2 . S e l f - h e l p advocacy o f f e r e d an a p p r o p r i a t e s e t t i n g i n which to observe l e a r n i n g a c t i v i t y t h a t : i ) can take plac e at any stage of l i f e i i ) i s s e l f - c o n d u c t e d i i i ) i s forward l o o k i n g in the sense of attempting to i n f l u e n c e f u t u r e events i v ) i s supported by peers s i m i l a r l y engaged, and v) draws on the resources of s o c i e t y however d i s p e r s e d Of these f i v e , the most s a l i e n t f e a t u r e f o r the study was the " a n t i c i p a t o r y " p e r s p e c t i v e as p r e v i o u s l y d e f i n e d . The study focused on groups that had formed because of c o n t r o v e r s i a l s i t u a t i o n s whose "most l i k e l y " f u t u r e was unacceptable to members. Consequently, members, empowered by t h e i r s e l f -10 conducted, i n f o r m a l l e a r n i n g , were attempting to improve the outcome of s i t u a t i o n s by advocating c e r t a i n p o l i c i e s or a c t i o n s . I t i s worthy of note that concurrent with developments i n the concept of education, promoting more d e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n and l e a r n e r management, has been an e v o l u t i o n i n concepts of economic and s o c i a l management. Some of the l i t e r a t u r e on t h i s s o c i a l t r a n s f o r m a t i o n i s reviewed i n Chapter 4.' • By examining i n f o r m a l education d i r e c t e d a t p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n s o c i a l d e c i s i o n -making, the study addressed a phenomenon simultaneously r e l a t e d to s o c i a l , economic, and e d u c a t i o n a l d e m o c r a t i z a t i o n . The Problem of I n t e r e s t Since s o c i a l change was the go a l of groups s e l e c t e d f o r the study, c e r t a i n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e i r l e a r n i n g a c t i v i t i e s c o u l d be i n f e r r e d . They would be l i k e l y to undertake some systematic examination of the i n i t i a l problem s i t u a t i o n that had brought them together. They would subsequently want to know more about the decision-making processes of the socioeconomic system with which the group would have to d e a l i n order to get t h e i r s i t u a t i o n changed. Furthermore, these two obj e c t s of l e a r n i n g e x t e r n a l to the group ( i t s s i t u a t i o n and the socioeconomic system) would not be the only ones with which members would have to contend. There would a l s o be o b j e c t s of l e a r n i n g i n t e r n a l to the group such as the group's s e l f -management (Van Riper,1966), and the development of values and a t t i t u d e s by i n d i v i d u a l members (Katz & Bender,1976). Questions of group management and ..personal development would c e r t a i n l y 11 r e v e a l i n t e r e s t i n g aspects of group l e a r n i n g , but the author chose to focus on the more e x t e r n a l , p o l i t i c a l o b j e c t s of l e a r n i n g which would serve the group's reason f o r being, namely: the a l l e v i a t i o n of socioeconomic c o n d i t i o n s which they had found unacceptable. The s t a r t i n g point of r e s e a r c h on these subject groups was the q u e s t i o n : "How do they go about l e a r n i n g ? " S p e c i f i c a l l y , what a c t i v i t i e s would they undertake to l e a r n about t h e i r problem s i t u a t i o n and r e l a t e d processes i n the socioeconomic system? Since " l e a r n i n g " c o u l d i n c l u d e any i n t e n t i o n a l change in c o g n i t i o n , a f f e c t i v e c l i m a t e or behaviour of the group, i t was necessary to s t a t e the q u e s t i o n so as to emphasize change i n shared c o g n i t i o n and to exclude s p e c i f i c a l l y r e f e r e n c e s to a f f e c t i v e c l i m a t e or subsequent s o c i a l a c t i o n s of the group. Consequently the i n i t i a l r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n was s t a t e d : "How do groups develop knowledge?" Chapter 3 d e s c r i b e s a p r e l i m i n a r y study conducted in 1981, which used a four-phase model of the development of knowledge to guide an i n v e s t i g a t i o n of three advocacy groups. On the b a s i s of those f i n d i n g s i t was decided to focus in the main study on i n f o r m a t i o n a c q u i s i t i o n . In order to design the study a l i t e r a t u r e review was undertaken i n the areas of s o c i a l change, s o c i a l networks research and i n f o r m a t i o n s c i e n c e , which i s r e p o r t e d i n Chapter 4. 1 2 Purpose of the Study The study r e p o r t e d here was an e m p i r i c a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n of how i n f o r m a l l e a r n e r s i n p a r t i c u l a r kinds of groups use i n f o r m a t i o n o u t l e t s i n s o c i e t y . I t s o b j e c t i v e s were: 1. To gather d e s c r i p t i v e data on p a t t e r n s of i n f o r m a t i o n a c q u i s i t i o n by i n f o r m a l l e a r n e r s i n s e l f - h e l p advocacy groups 2. To assess how w e l l the p a t t e r n of responses accorded with the conceptual framework f o r types of i n f o r m a t i o n , c a t e g o r i e s of i n f o r m a t i o n channel, kinds of advocacy group, and " u s e - u t i l i t y " judgements; and f i n a l l y , 3. To t e s t hypothesized r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the channel, i n f o r m a t i o n and user v a r i a b l e s . Development of the framework f o r key v a r i a b l e s i s d e s c r i b e d i n Chapter 5, along with the s p e c i f i c r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s and hypotheses posed under the three o b j e c t i v e s of the study. Chapter 6 d e s c r i b e s the development of an instrument on which to rate the use and u t i l i t y of channels f o r p a r t i c u l a r kinds of i n f o r m a t i o n . Chapter 7 d e t a i l s the method of s e l e c t i n g s u b j e c t groups and a d m i n i s t e r i n g the instrument. Chapter 8 r e p o r t s f i n d i n g s on c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of p a r t i c i p a n t s , p a t t e r n s of t h e i r i n f o r m a t i o n a c q u i s i t i o n , an assessment of the conceptual framework, and a t e s t of the hypothesized r e l a t i o n s h i p s . 13 Chapter 9 r e s t a t e s the context of the study, reviews the f i n d i n g s , notes l i m i t a t i o n s , and suggests some l i n e s of research which f o l l o w from the c o n c l u s i o n s of t h i s study. 1 4 Chapter 2 SELF-HELP GROUPS: A SPECIAL CASE OF INFORMAL LEARNING T h i s chapter d e s c r i b e s the unique c h a r a c t e r of s e l f - h e l p groups and d i s c u s s e s assumptions about the s o c i e t a l context i n which they operate, i d e n t i f y i n g those on which t h i s study was based. The Phenomenon of S e l f - H e l p Groups S e l f - h e l p groups were not a t o p i c favoured by w r i t e r s and rese a r c h e r s d u r i n g a long p e r i o d of North American h i s t o r y i n which s o c i a l s e r v i c e s were i n c r e a s i n g l y p r o f e s s i o n a l i z e d . Despite t h i s n e g l e c t , they are a' worthy su b j e c t f o r s o c i a l p h i l o s o p h e r s , h i s t o r i a n s , a n d ' s c i e n t i s t s a l i k e . S o c i a l p h i l o s o p h e r s would recognize that the ethos of s e l f -h e lp groups i s a l i g n e d with the p i o n e e r i n g s p i r i t of North America. I t i s i c o n o c l a s t i c , r e j e c t i n g e l i t e s , i n c l u d i n g any who c l a i m the s o l e p r i v i l e g e of p r o v i d i n g c e r t a i n s e r v i c e s . I t i s d e m o c r a t i s i n g , r e s t o r i n g to small p u b l i c s the p r a c t i c e of making d e c i s i o n s regarding t h e i r own w e l f a r e . I t i s pragmatic, addressing the concrete d a i l y concerns of o r d i n a r y people. These q u a l i t i e s of s e l f - h e l p groups c o n t r i b u t e d to t h e i r i n t e r e s t as a s e t t i n g f o r r e s e a r c h . S o c i a l h i s t o r i a n s would f i n d a receding h o r i z o n of a s s o c i a t i o n s f o r mutual support and s e r v i c e . Not only i n the present day c o n t r a c t i n g economy, where one would expect to f i n d 15 a l t e r n a t i v e s f o r reduced p u b l i c s e r v i c e s , but even in the prosperous and high technology s e t t i n g s of the 1960's there were r e p o r t s of s e l f - h e l p housing, f o r example, in the U n i t e d States (O.S.T.I., 1969), as w e l l as numerous examples throughout the T h i r d World ( R i z v i , 1966). The depression decade of the 1930's spawned examples too numerous to mention from the c o o p e r a t i v e economics of the A n t i g o n i s h movement , to the economic, re s e t t l e m e n t , and t h e r a p e u t i c groups which d o t t e d the U.S. (Encyclopedia of S o c i a l Work, 1971). S e l f - h e l p a s s o c i a t i o n s known as " F r i e n d l y S o c i e t i e s " f l o u r i s h e d i n 1 9 t h - c e n t u r y B r i t a i n (Gosden, 1974) f o r the b e n e f i t of small r e t a i l buyers (Holyoake, 1888), farmers ( S c o t t , 1919) and o t h e r s . These were f u e l e d by the V i c t o r i a n p h i l o s o p h i e s of " s e l f - h e l p " and " t h r i f t " (Smiles, 1859) as w e l l as the Russian romanticism of "mutual a i d " as a d r i v i n g f o r c e of e v o l u t i o n (Kropotkin, 1866). Numerous records remain of r e c i p r o c a l a i d s o c i e t i e s i n the 18th century (Acland, 1786; Alcock, 1752), and even the 17th century provided examples of "mutual compacts" for insurance a g a i n s t age, s i c k n e s s , or d i s a s t e r (Dafoe, 1687) formed by lower c l a s s s a i l o r s and higher c l a s s Hugenot refugees f o l l o w i n g 1685. While some 19th-century s e l f - h e l p a s s o c i a t i o n s claimed o r i g i n s l o s t i n a n t i q u i t y , i t i s not necessary to t r a c e even the more l e g i t i m a t e s i m i l a r i t i e s with p r e - C h r i s t i a n f r a t e r n i t i e s and mediaeval g u i l d s (Gosden, 1974) to e s t a b l i s h that a s s o c i a t i o n s f o r pragmatic mutual help are not some recent i n v e n t i o n but a very long-standing form of s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n . The f o l l o w i n g d e s c r i p t i o n of s e l f - h e l p groups i s provided from the p e r s p e c t i v e of s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s who would be more 16 ' l i k e l y to focus on the form of group o r g a n i z a t i o n and s o c i a l behaviours evidenced. D e f i n i t i o n of s e l f - h e l p groups In t h i s study, s e l f - h e l p groups were d e f i n e d as "voluntary, small group s t r u c t u r e s f o r mutual a i d and the accomplishment of a s p e c i a l purpose" (Katz & Bender, 1976,p.9). T h i s d e f i n i t i o n was based on 40 case s t u d i e s of s e l f - h e l p groups and i n d i c a t e s four d e f i n i t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . The term " v o l u n t a r y " , as evidenced i n more expanded d e s c r i p t i o n s found i n the l i t e r a t u r e , i m p l i e d more than j u s t uncoerced, unpaid a c t i v i t y . I t connoted the a c t i v e , spontaneous w i l l i n g n e s s of people to c o n t r i b u t e energy to s o l u t i o n of t h e i r common problems. "Small group s t r u c t u r e s " denoted the e n t i t y and behaviours s o c i a l p s y c h o l o g i s t s s i g n i f y by that s p e c i f i c term, which i s : an aggregate of people...who a s s o c i a t e together i n f a c e - t o - f a c e r e l a t i o n s over an extended p e r i o d of time, who d i f f e r e n t i a t e themselves from others around them, who are mutually aware of t h e i r membership in the group, and whose personal r e l a t i o n s are taken as an end i n i t s e l f (Berelson & Steiner,1964,p.325). "Mutual a i d " s i g n i f i e d the g e n e r a l i z e d , long term purpose of c a r i n g f o r each other to which the group members were d e d i c a t e d . "Accomplishment of a s p e c i a l purpose" i n d i c a t e d the s p e c i f i c , s h o r t e r term goal to which they were committed. C l a s s i f i c a t i o n i n t o four c a t e g o r i e s S e l f - h e l p groups were d e s c r i b e d as being formed by peers in r e a c t i o n to a common, s e l f - i d e n t i f i e d problem or concern. Katz and Bender o f f e r e d the f o l l o w i n g typology of broad concerns, not 17 as exhaustive, but as suggestive of the c h i e f forms of s e l f - h e l p groups, based on t h e i r purposes. Groups p r i m a r i l y focused on: 1 . S e l f - f u l f i l m e n t or p e r s o n a l growth, eg. those i n the American F e d e r a t i o n of Therapeutic S e l f -h e l p Clubs 2. Soc i a l advocacy on behalf of broad i s s u e s such as the change of laws or i n s t i t u t i o n a l p o l i c i e s , and the p r o v i s i o n of new s e r v i c e s ; or on behalf of f a m i l i e s and other small groups. eg. Welfare R i g h t s , or Committee f o r the Rights of the D i s a b l e d 3. C r e a t i n g a l t e r n a t i v e p a t t e r n s f o r l i v i n g . Attempting to change s o c i a l conventions and a t t i t u d e s by i n i t i a t i n g l i v i n g and working a l t e r n a t i v e s of t h e i r own. eg. Women's L i b e r a t i o n , Gay . L i b e r a t i o n , and Operation B o o t s t r a p 4. P r o v i d i n g an "outcast haven". These are a l s o c a l l e d "rock bottom groups" s i n c e they o f f e r a refuge f o r the desperate, a s h e l t e r e d environment where they can save themselves from mental or p h y s i c a l d e c l i n e (1976,p.37) According to Katz and Bender's schema, category one contained a l l s e l f - h e l p groups which o f f e r c h i e f l y p e r s o n a l support to improve the members' p h y s i c a l or mental h e a l t h , many examples of which were o f f e r e d by Gartner and Reissman (1977), and H u r v i t z (1976). Groups i n category four were a l s o p r o v i d i n g personal care but of a more desperate k i n d . S h e l t e r s f o r b a t t e r e d women, a l c o h o l i c s or a d d i c t s belonged i n category four i f they were cr e a t e d by people with these problems who had banded together to provide care f o r themselves. This study concerned i t s e l f with groups s t r i v i n g to change 18 t h e i r socio-economic circumstances. While that change might begin as the c r e a t i o n of an a l t e r n a t i v e l i k e the category three example, Operation Bootstrap (a ghetto f a c t o r y ) , i t c o u l d not always r e s i s t becoming i n v o l v e d i n adversary a c t i o n s d i r e c t e d a g a i n s t socioeconomic i n s t i t u t i o n s l i k e the category two example of Welfare R i g h t s . C o n c e p t u a l l y i t might have been p o s s i b l e to separate counter c u l t u r a l a c t i v i t y (whereby innovators simply p r e f e r to ignore the mainstream), from adversary a c t i v i t y (whereby people t r y to i n f l u e n c e e x i s t i n g i n s t i t u t i o n s to change). But i n p r a c t i c a l experience groups concerned with an immediate l o c a l i z e d s i t u a t i o n o f t e n f i n d they have to address the l a r g e r system as w e l l . On the other hand, i n s t r i c t l y l e g a l terms "advocacy" does not n e c e s s a r i l y imply adversary a c t i o n , but r a t h e r the promotion of some p o s i t i o n . The s u b j e c t s of t h i s study were t h e r e f o r e r e f e r r e d to as " s o c i a l advocacy" groups, whether they u l t i m a t e l y took on an adversary or not. Scope of soc i a l advocacy s e l f - h e l p a c t i v i t y S e v e r a l r e p o r t s were prepared on t h i s kind of group. In the study e n t i t l e d " U p l i f t : What People Themselves Can Do" (Washington C o n s u l t i n g Group,1974) i t was repo r t e d that 10,000 p r o j e c t k i t s were d i s t r i b u t e d to p o t e n t i a l subject groups, y i e l d i n g approximately 1,000 re t u r n s from which case s t u d i e s were developed on 100 of the most s u c c e s s f u l and r e p r e s e n t a t i v e . That study i d e n t i f i e d e i g h t f u n c t i o n a l areas i n which s e l f - h e l p e f f o r t s were most in evidence: 19 1 . economic development 5. s o c i a l s e r v i c e s 2. education 6 . h e a l t h s e r v i c e s 3. employment opp o r t u n i t y 7. offender r e h a b i l i t a t i o n 4. housing 8. community o r g a n i z a t i o n In "Helping Ourselves: L o c a l S o l u t i o n s to G l o b a l Problems" (Stokes,1981) s i x areas of a c t i v i t y were d i s c u s s e d : housing; h e a l t h and f a m i l y planning; food production 'and energy s e l f -s u f f i c i e n c y as forms of economic development; and workplace M i n i s t r y of Urban A f f a i r s p u b l i s h e d "People Do I t A l l The Time" (Thompson, 1976) on the s u b j e c t of community based c o r p o r a t i o n s , using examples of h e a l t h s e r v i c e s , c o o p e r a t i v e housing, c r e d i t unions, and community t r a n s p o r t as a form of s o c i a l s e r v i c e . "Community P r o f i t " (Wismer & Pell,1981) a more recent report on community based economic a c t i o n i n Canada r e p o r t e d on two cases of economic development; three employment p r o j e c t s i n the form of a woollen m i l l , c l o t h i n g f a c t o r y , and a community pasture; community o r g a n i z a t i o n by an Indian Band c o u n c i l ; and a p u b l i c education p r o j e c t on r e c y c l i n g . O v e r a l l , the Washington C o n s u l t i n g Group's e i g h t f u n c t i o n a l areas of s e l f - h e l p a c t i v i t y r e f l e c t e d w e l l the kinds of a c t i v i t i e s r e p o r t e d in the other s t u d i e s — except f o r t h e i r reference to offender r e h a b i l i t a t i o n . Perhaps t h i s was due to t h e i r sampling in geographic areas where the p o p u l a t i o n had a higher than n a t i o n a l average of people charged by p o l i c e . A d d i t i o n of t h i s category d i d not seem, however, to a l t e r the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of group a c t i v i t i e s . S e l f - h e l p groups t y p i c a l l y d e a l t with pragmatic, t a n g i b l e aspects of human experience such p a r t i c i p a t i o n as enrichment of employment. The Canadian 20 as food, c l o t h i n g , s h e l t e r , h e a l t h , t r a n s p o r t a t i o n and di s p o s a b l e income or c r e d i t ; as a c o r o l l a r y , i n aspects such as education, r e h a b i l i t a t i o n , workplace or c i v i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n ; and u l t i m a t e l y i n some cases, with community o r g a n i z a t i o n of a r e l a t i v e l y s o p h i s t i c a t e d nature. The S o c i e t a l Context of S e l f - h e l p The o r i g i n s of small p u b l i c groups The microcosm of human p e r s o n a l i t y and the macrocosm of human s o c i e t y each have tendencies which l e a d to the c r e a t i o n of small p u b l i c groups. Some l i t e r a t u r e r e l a t i n g to the o r i g i n s of small groups i s d i s c u s s e d i n t h i s s e c t i o n . The i n d i v i d u a l overwhelmed by infor m a t i o n from a l l s i d e s , or who otherwise develops a d i s o r i e n t a t i o n and h e l p l e s s n e s s , i s d e s c r i b e d i n popular l i t e r a t u r e , c l i n i c a l s t u d i e s , and s o c i a l p hilosophy. T o f f l e r (1970) d e f i n e d " f u t u r e shock" as a p s y c h o l o g i c a l disease in which people's adaptive range has been exceeded so that they are rendered incompetent to de a l with t h e i r environments. He a t t r i b u t e d f u t u r e shock to o v e r l y r a p i d s o c i a l change, and compared i t to c u l t u r e shock, d i s a s t e r trauma, and b a t t l e f a t i g u e , i n a l l of which persons cease to f u n c t i o n r a t i o n a l l y in t h e i r own best i n t e r e s t . C l i n i c a l aspects of such "helplessness'" were documented by Seligman (1972) and others as a c o n d i t i o n i n which people came to b e l i e v e that "success and f a i l u r e were independent of t h e i r own s k i l l e d a c t i o n s ; they t h e r e f o r e had d i f f i c u l t y in l e a r n i n g 21 the responses that work". The major consequence of e x p e r i e n c i n g u n c o n t r o l l a b l e events was l o s s of the m o t i v a t i o n to i n i t i a t e e f f o r t s to c o n t r o l subsequent events, and even l o s s of the c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y to recognize when a response had been s u c c e s s f u l . Thus i t appeared that the experience of u n c o n t r o l l a b i l i t y l e d to a d y s f u n c t i o n a l apathy, which s o c i a l p h i l o s o p h e r s have termed "anomie". In h i s " C r i t i q u e of Modernity", Berger (1977) a t t r i b u t e d the "anomie" e x h i b i t e d by l a r g e numbers of i n d i v i d u a l s to f i v e dilemmas: " a b s t r a c t i o n " of s o c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s and r o l e s , which weakens the concrete and r e l a t i v e l y cohesive communities i n which human beings have found s o l i d a r i t y and meaning throughout most of h i s t o r y ; " f u t u r i t y " , which leads to endless s t r i v i n g ; " i n d i v i d u a t i o n " , which causes p r o g r e s s i v e s e p a r a t i o n of the i n d i v i d u a l from i d e n t i f y i n g with c o l l e c t i v e e n t i t i e s ; " l i b e r a t i o n " , which f r e e s l a r g e areas of human l i f e from the domination of f a t e , only to condemn people to the n e c e s s i t y of important l i f e c h o i c e s without t r a d i t i o n a l forms of guidance; and " s e c u l a r i z a t i o n " , which f r u s t r a t e s the deeply grounded human a s p i r a t i o n f o r transcendance. Of a l l these dilemmas, Berger emphasized " i n d i v i d u a t i o n " as the most i n s i d i o u s . M a r t i n d a l e a l s o d e a l t with the theme of i n d i v i d u a t i o n . His concern was that people i n the world of the great o r g a n i z a t i o n f i n d themselves i n a s i t u a t i o n which expands the scope of t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l i t y i n some re s p e c t s and s t r i n g e n t l y l i m i t s t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l i t y i n o t h e r s . . . 22 in h i s workaday l i f e as customer, p a t i e n t , c l i e n t and employee of the great o r g a n i z a t i o n s , contemporary man f i n d s h i s a c t i v i t i e s r e s t r i c t e d to a t i n y f r a c t i o n of the o p e rations which solve h i s problems (1966,p.257). Analyses a t t r i b u t i n g symptoms of p e r s o n a l i t y d i s o r d e r such as " f u t u r e shock", " h e l p l e s s n e s s " , or "anomie" to e x c e s s i v e s e p a r a t i o n of the i n d i v i d u a l from o t h e r s , q u i t e l o g i c a l l y went on to recommend reunion with other human beings as the a n t i d o t e . Berger, Berger and K e l l n e r , i n ad d r e s s i n g the a l i e n a t i o n which r e s u l t s from too much i n d i v i d u a l autonomy, p r e d i c t e d an i n e v i t a b l e r e a c t i o n a g a i n s t i t which would take "the form of l i b e r a t i o n from i n d i v i d u a l i s m to the s o l i d a r i t y of e i t h e r o l d or new c o l l e c t i v e s t r u c t u r e s " (1973,p.196). In a p a r a l l e l manner, some analyses of the macrocosm of human s o c i e t y i d e n t i f i e d dilemmas which a l s o demand a counterbalance i n the c r e a t i o n of small p u b l i c groups. The promise of c l a s s i c a l democratic theory, according to Bentham and James M i l l , was p r o t e c t i o n of the i n d i v i d u a l from the d e t r i m e n t a l use of power v i a a set of n a t i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e i n s t i t u t i o n s (Pateman, 1970); a c c o r d i n g to Jean Jacques Rousseau and John S t u a r t M i l l the promise encompassed something f a r wider — a t r u l y p a r t i c i p a t o r y s o c i e t y . According to Davis democracy was nothing l e s s than... the education of an e n t i r e people to the p o i n t where t h e i r i n t e l l e c t u a l , emotional and moral c a p a c i t i e s have reached t h e i r f u l l p o t e n t i a l and they are j o i n e d , f r e e l y and a c t i v e l y i n a genuine community ... the s t r a t e g y f o r reaching t h i s end i s through the use of p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t y and government for the purpose of p u b l i c education (1964,p.21). But many c r i t i c s a s s e r t e d that the promise of human 23 f u l f i l m e n t through democratic s o c i e t y never m a t e r i a l i z e d . Myrdahl observed that "the o r d i n a r y c i t i z e n i n America i s p r e t t y much r e s t r i c t e d to i n t e r m i t t e n t l y r e c u r r i n g e l e c t i o n s . . . p o l i t i c s i s not organized to be a d a i l y concern and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the common c i t i z e n " (1944,p.717). He noted i n s t e a d the obsession with l e a d e r s h i p whereby the o r d i n a r y American "hopes f o r i n d i v i d u a l s to step out of the mass, to f i n d the formulas f o r d i r e c t i n g events, to take the l e a d " ( o p . c i t . , p . 7 1 0 ) . His contemporary, Schumpeter, was even more c y n i c a l i n h i s s o c i a l c r i t i q u e , suggesting that democracy was nothing more than "that i n s t i t u t i o n a l arrangement for a r r i v i n g at p o l i t i c a l d e c i s i o n s i n which i n d i v i d u a l s a c q u i r e the power to decide by means of a c o m p e t i t i v e s t r u g g l e f o r the people's vote" (1943,p.269). Ther e f o r e , he proposed that once chosen f o r a term of o f f i c e , these r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s should endure no f u r t h e r attempt by c i t i z e n s to c o n t r o l them s i n c e t h i s would be a negation of the whole concept of l e a d e r s h i p . In the absence of an a c t i v e p o l i t y , M i l l s a s s e r t e d that there f u n c t i o n e d i n s t e a d a power e l i t e , "a l e v e l of power ope r a t i o n not touched by p l u r a l i s t assumptions", not subject to the c o n s t r a i n t s o p e r a t i n g at the middle l e v e l (Gamson,1975). T h i s amounted to a somewhat f a n t a s t i c a s s e r t i o n that a small element of s o c i e t y exerted l i t e r a l omnipotence. P i l i s u k and Hayden m o d i f i e d the a s s e r t i o n to a more c h i l l i n g and c o n v i n c i n g statement of the e x i s t e n c e of "a s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e which i s organized to c r e a t e and p r o t e c t power c e n t e r s with only p a r t i a l a c c o u n t a b i l i t y " ... a system of o v e r a l l 'minimal a c c o u n t a b i l i t y ' and 'minimal consent'. [Consequently] the r o l e of 24 democratic review, based on popular consent, was made marginal and r e a c t i v e (1965,p.92). In t h i s model, c o n t r o l of the the macrocosm devolves i n t o the hands of a very few. Many w r i t e r s were concerned about the s o c i a l consequences of an endless fragmentation, e i t h e r i n governing or producing, that was c o n t r o l l e d by a powerful few. Roberts and Kl o s s (1974) observed that trends toward b u r e a u c r a t i z a t i o n and i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n c r e a t e d i n t h e i r wake c o u n t e r b a l a n c i n g s o c i a l movements that were a n t i b u r e a u c r a t i c and e g a l i t a r i a n . In t h i s sense, small groups which o f f e r e d an o p p o r t u n i t y f o r a c t i v e p a r t i c i p a t i o n and equal s t a t u s r e l a t i o n s h i p s were expected to a r i s e because they p r o v i d e d the necessary counterbalance to l a r g e r s o c i a l dynamics. Small groups were c o n s i d e r e d not only i n e v i t a b l e , but d e s i r a b l e f o r the development of the type of i d e a l s o c i e t y that E t z i o n i termed the " a c t i v e s o c i e t y " , one which i s high on s o c i a l c o n t r o l but a l s o h i g h on consensus. Small s c a l e p u b l i c groups enable the formation of op i n i o n and upward expr e s s i o n of i t , which E t z i o n i f e l t was e s s e n t i a l f o r a healthy s o c i e t y . For an a c t i v e s o c i e t y to be p o s s i b l e , consensus formation must be i n pa r t upward, a l l o w i n g f o r the au t h e n t i c expression of the members p r e f e r e n c e s and for a r e a l , and not 'co-opted', p a r t i c i p a t i o n (Coleman, E t z i o n i & P o r t e r , 1970,p.138). F i n a l l y , small p u b l i c groups were c o n s i d e r e d to be d e s i r e a b l e f o r the pragmatic purpose of c o l l e c t i v e a c t i o n . Coleman f e l t t h a t . . . s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n i s important f o r one reason alone: to enable the s o c i a l u n i t to take a c t i o n as a u n i t . . . I f a community can a c t c o l l e c t i v e l y toward the problems that face i t , then i t i s w e l l o r g a n i z e d . If 25 i t cannot, then i t i s d i s o r g a n i z e d r e l a t i v e to these problems, though there may be a great amount of apparent o r g a n i z a t i o n (1957,p.672). Considered s e p a r a t e l y , the microcosm and macrocosm each po i n t to the value of small groups. T h i s i s f u r t h e r emphasized by the i n t e r a c t i o n of the two, of p e r s o n a l i t y formation and s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e s . M i l l s c o n c e p t u a l i z e d an i n t e r a c t i o n of p r e d i c t a b l e i n s t i t u t i o n s and u n p r e d i c t a b l e persons, thereby r e s o l v i n g a quandry that had e x i s t e d between two schools of Marxism. The e a r l y phenomenological school had h u m a n i s t i c a l l y assumed people to be f r e e , but i t lacked a coherent view of s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e . The l a t e r M a r x i s t school of p o l i t i c a l economy p o s t u l a t e d a d e f i n i t e s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e , but one i n which i n d i v i d u a l l i v e s were pla y e d out ac c o r d i n g to a predetermined b e h a v i o u r i s t formula. M i l l s attempted to provide "a more comprehensive model, an h i s t o r i c a l s o c i a l - p s y c h o l o g i c a l one that would analyze the i n t e r p l a y between p e r s o n a l i t y formation and s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e s " (Scimecca,1977,p.115). L i k e Marx, M i l l s saw people a l i e n a t e d from t h e i r s o c i e t y . U n l i k e Marx, he a t t r i b u t e d t h i s c o n d i t i o n , not to i r r a t i o n a l p r o duction but to a widespread p e r c e p t i o n of and ada p t a t i o n to a s o c i e t y i n b l i n d d r i f t . M i l l s was convinced that " . . . i n order to be f r e e , the i n d i v i d u a l [would have] to make the connection between ' p r i v a t e t r o u b l e s ' and ' p u b l i c i s s u e s ' (op.cit.,p.116). Small p u b l i c groups co u l d provide an i d e a l forum i n which to make that connection between the p r i v a t e t r o u b l e s of i n d i v i d u a l l i v e s and the p u b l i c i s s u e s or l a r g e s c a l e t r o u b l e s of s o c i e t y . In c o n s i d e r i n g the s o c i e t a l context in which s e l f - h e l p 26 g r o u p s w e r e t o be s t u d i e d , t h e l i t e r a t u r e r e v i e w h a s s o f a r s u m m a r i z e d a n a n a l y s i s o f t h e p e r s o n a l a n d s o c i a l o r i g i n s o f t h e c r e a t i o n o f s m a l l , s e l f - h e l p g r o u p s . T h e a d v o c a c y p u r p o s e t h e y s o m e t i m e s s e r v e e v o k e s s e v e r a l o t h e r f o r m s o f s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n a n d a c t i o n f r o m w h i c h s e l f - h e l p w i l l now b e d i s t i n g u i s h e d . C o m p a r i s o n W i t h O t h e r F o r m s o f S o c i a l A c t i v i s m T h e f o l l o w i n g p a i r s o f d e f i n i t i o n s w e r e s e l e c t e d t o c l a r i f y t h e n a t u r e o f s e l f - h e l p a d v o c a c y b y c o n t r a s t i n g i t w i t h o t h e r s o c i a l a c t i v i s t p h e n o m e n a . S e l f - h e l p a n d s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t g r o u p s C e r t a i n a c t i v i t i e s o f s o c i e t y , l i k e t h e p r o v i s i o n o f p o t a b l e w a t e r o r t h e e l i m i n a t i o n o f s m a l l p o x , a r e a c k n o w l e d g e d t o be i n t h e g e n e r a l " p u b l i c i n t e r e s t " . T h e s e a r e " p u b l i c g o o d s " f r o m w h i c h e v e r y c i t i z e n b e n e f i t s e q u a l l y . O t h e r s o c i e t a l a c t i v i t i e s , s u c h a s z o n i n g l e g i s l a t i o n f o r l a n d u s e , w i l l b e m o r e b e n e f i c i a l t o some c i t i z e n s ' i n t e r e s t s t h a n t o o t h e r s . T h u s " s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t " g r o u p s a r e t h o s e w h i c h r e p r e s e n t t h e p o i n t o f v i e w o f p a r t i c u l a r c o n s t i t u e n c i e s w i t h i n s o c i e t y . S p e c i a l i n t e r e s t g r o u p s i n c l u d e among o t h e r s , l a b o u r , r e l i g i o u s , e t h n i c , p r o f e s s i o n a l , f r a t e r n a l , a n d c o m m e r c i a l a s s o c i a t i o n s . W h e n e v e r s e l f - h e l p g r o u p s f i n d i t n e c e s s a r y t o 27 a r t i c u l a t e t h e i r p o s i t i o n to i n s t i t u t i o n s of p o l i t i c a l or economic power they are o p e r a t i n g l i k e s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t a s s o c i a t i o n s . But s e l f - h e l p groups are not subsumed under i n t e r e s t a r t i c u l a t i o n phenomena because they are p r i m a r i l y concerned with changing a s i t u a t i o n which i s at l e a s t p a r t i a l l y w i t h i n t h e i r own power and only s e c o n d a r i l y -requires t h e i r o b t a i n i n g concessions from the system. S e l f - h e l p and s o c i a l movements S e l f - h e l p phenomena share with s o c i a l movements an i m p l i c i t " c r i t i c i s m of l a c k s or f a i l u r e s of the l a r g e r s o c i e t y " (Katz & Bender,1976,p.231). However the authors go on to argue that " p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n . . . s e l f - h e l p groups... i s d i f f e r e n t [from] and has more consequences than p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n s o c i a l reform or p o l i t i c a l movements" ( i b i d ) . What s e l f - h e l p p a r t i c i p a n t s experience beyond the s o c i a l c r i t i q u e of reform movements i s a hands-on engagement with some l o c a l socioeconomic s i t u a t i o n . S e l f - h e l p a c t i v i t y represents an u n w i l l i n g n e s s to postpone s o c i a l j u s t i c e u n t i l " a f t e r the r e v o l u t i o n " f o r the group members who know each other f a c e - t o - f a c e . S e l f - h e l p a c t i v i s t s band together i n a pragmatic approach to making l i f e b e t t e r now. Se v e r a l r e p o r t s agree that harnessing s o c i a l c r i t i c i s m to concrete l o c a l a c t i o n b r i n g s about e f f e c t s on p a r t i c i p a n t s which run "deeper than those of...movements i n that they are not ' merely i n t e l l e c t u a l , but are coupled with emotional r e g e n e r a t i o n or growth" (Katz & Bender,1976,p.232). S e l f - h e l p p a r t i c i p a n t s are transformed from being merely c r i t i c s by the s a t i s f y i n g d i s c o v e r y that they have new c o n t r o l over t h e i r circumstances. 28 S e l f - h e l p and r e v o l u t i o n Some would argue that s o c i a l movements r e v o l u t i o n i z e the s o c i a l order and s e l f - h e l p a f f e c t s i t only moderately. In f a c t almost the opposite may be true i n recent times. North American s o c i a l movements since 1960 have i n c l u d e d those f o r the e q u a l i t y of b l acks and of women with the c o n v e n t i o n a l l y predominant s t a t u s of white men, a n t i - m i l i t a r i s m , ecology, consumer p r o t e c t i o n , gay l i b e r a t i o n , the i n t e r n a l d i s t r i b u t i o n of power in u n i v e r s i t i e s and churches, and growing community c o n t r o l over education, h e a l t h , and welfare s e r v i c e s (Ash,1972). Ash (1972) concluded from viewing the c o n c e n t r a t i o n of economic and p o l i t i c a l power i n North American s o c i e t y , that contemporary r e v o l u t i o n comes down to c o g n i t i v e l i b e r a t i o n from, and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l e f f o r t s a g a i n s t , the New I n d u s t r i a l S t a t e . The r e v o l u t i o n a r y p o t e n t i a l of s o c i a l movements i s compromised by the e l i t e ' s a b i l i t y to buy them o f f with v i s i b l e c o n c e s s i o n s . A few more b l a c k s and women i n prominent p l a c e s , a few more t r e e s saved, a few more government sponsored wind generators of e l e c t r i c i t y may s i g n i f y nothing more than the process of c o o p t a t i o n whereby establishments swallow up s o c i a l movements. In c o n t r a s t to s o c i a l movements, s e l f - h e l p groups, by d e f i n i t i o n , are almost incapable of being absorbed by the establishment, even on the p r e t e x t of being able to reform i t . Most w i l l shun any form of government f i n a n c i a l support. Where an o v e r - a l l s o l u t i o n would mean a b u r e a u c r a t i z e d s o l u t i o n , s e l f -h e l p groups are not i n t e r e s t e d . U n l i k e . t h e s o c i a l e n g i n e e r i n g of governments, s e l f - h e l p o f f e r s people a shared a u t h o r i t y system; u n l i k e p r o f e s s i o n a l s e r v i c e s i t o f f e r s people the 29 o p p o r t u n i t y to obtain d i r e c t s e r v i c e s without the experience of unequal s t a t u s . Perhaps the most r e v o l u t i o n a r y posture p o s s i b l e i n an i n d u s t r i a l i z e d s o c i e t y pervaded almost e n t i r e l y by s u b o r d i n a t e / s u p e r i o r i n t e r a c t i o n s i s the p r e f e r e n c e f o r equal s t a t u s r e l a t i o n s h i p s such as those inherent i n the s t r u c t u r e and o p e r a t i o n of s e l f - h e l p groups. Assumptions About How S o c i e t y Operates Any r e s e a r c h conducted on s o c i a l e n t i t i e s such as s e l f - h e l p phenomena takes p l a c e a g a i n s t a background of assumptions about the general nature of s o c i e t y . Those assumptions guide r e s e a r c h e r s to a n t i c i p a t e c e r t a i n behaviours, to s e l e c t some as more germane to the r e s e a r c h problem than others and to i n t e r p r e t evidence i n p a r t i c u l a r ways — a l l of which may be at v a r i a n c e with the e x p e c t a t i o n s , s e l e c t i o n s and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s evidenced by researchers with other assumptions. U n t i l r e c e n t l y , s o c i a l research tended to be c a s t w i t h i n one of two h i g h l y c o n t r a s t e d sets of assumptions c o n s t i t u t i n g models of s o c i e t y . The one most common in North American t h i n k i n g , the "cohesion model", i n t e r p r e t e d the v a r i o u s segments of s o c i e t y as s e r v i n g complementary f u n c t i o n s , w i t h i n which i n d i v i d u a l s f r e e l y chose a s a t i s f y i n g r e l a t i o n to the whole. Within t h i s model s e l f - h e l p groups would be expected to e x h i b i t a sense of being accepted by s o c i e t y and to i n t e r a c t e a s i l y and p r o f i t a b l y with establishment i n s t i t u t i o n s . The second one, a " c o n f l i c t model", i n t e r p r e t e d s o c i e t y as being composed of "powerful" and "powerless" c l a s s e s who were i n 30 i r r e c o n c i l a b l e competition, "a d e t e r m i n i s t i c s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e with i n d i v i d u a l s seen i n b e h a v i o u r i s t i c terms" (Scimecca,1977,p.115). Within t h i s model s e l f - h e l p groups would be expected to e x h i b i t a l i e n a t i o n from establishment i n s t i t u t i o n s and to attempt to overthrow or subvert them. L i k e o p p o s i t e s i d e s of a c o i n , n e i t h e r of these models seemed to be complete i n i t s e l f . In h i s t r e a t i s e on s o c i o l o g i c a l theory, Sztompka(1974,p.xii) a s s e r t e d that a general theory of s o c i e t y would have to address adequately the q u e s t i o n of order and p e r s i s t e n c e (Why do s o c i e t i e s h o l d together?) and that of c o n f l i c t and change (Why do s o c i e t i e s f a l l a p a r t ? ) . Perhaps the most outst a n d i n g example of such a s y n t h e s i s was p r o v i d e d by M i l l s , whose model possessed i n the o p i n i o n of Scimecca (I977,p.1l6) "an adequate conception of s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e and yet [ d i d ] not s a c r i f i c e the v o l i t i o n a l , a c t i v e nature of man". M i l l s o f f e r e d a p o s i t i v e view of people s t r i v i n g f o r f u l f i l m e n t though t h i s meant engaging i n a s t r u g g l e a g a i n s t an o p p r e s s i v e s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e . T h i s t h i r d o p t i o n i n which the f o r c e s of s o c i a l cohesion and c o n f l i c t were recognized as being locked i n a c r e a t i v e s t r u g g l e , c o u l d be thought of as a "compound model " of s o c i e t y . Such a compound model would p r e d i c t that s e l f - h e l p groups: i ) had a r o l e to play which was complementary to other i n s t i t u t i o n a l forms w i t h i n the s o c i a l system; i i ) were l i k e l y to be the o b j e c t of i n t e n t i o n a l undermining by some i n s t i t u t i o n a l forms, i n c l u d i n g s o c i a l movements, p o l i t i c a l p a r t i e s , and government 31 sponsored s o c i a l programs, a l l of which would p e r c e i v e an advantage i n coopting s e l f - h e l p a c t i v i t y . to s u i t t h e i r own purposes; and i i i ) would p e r c e i v e the n e c e s s i t y to develop s e l f -s u f f i c i e n t resources, i n c l u d i n g t h e i r own in f o r m a t i o n base, i n order to maintain t h e i r independence and s e l f - r e l i a n c e . The purpose of t h i s chapter was to demonstrate that s e l f -h e l p groups have an i n t r i g u i n g ethos, a long h i s t o r y , and a unique set of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which d i s t i n g u i s h them as a form of s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n . They serve a v a r i e t y of purposes, one of which i s s o c i a l advocacy. There are tendencies w i t h i n people and i n s o c i e t i e s t h a t l e a d to the c r e a t i o n of small s c a l e p u b l i c groups, and that h e l p e x p l a i n the o r i g i n s of s e l f - h e l p advocacy groups. T h e i r a c t i v i t i e s are somewhat kindred to s e v e r a l other forms of s o c i a l a c t i v i s m , but remain d i s t i n c t i v e . F i n a l l y , r e f e r e n c e was made to three schools of. thought on the general nature of s o c i e t y , and p a r t i c u l a r assumptions were a r t i c u l a t e d which c o n t r i b u t e d to the f u r t h e r development of the resea r c h problem. S e l f - h e l p advocacy groups are an uncommon s e t t i n g f o r a d u l t education r e s e a r c h , and o f f e r e d a rare o p p o r t u n i t y to observe e d u c a t i o n a l a c t i v i t y embodying f e a t u r e s d e s c r i b e d p r e v i o u s l y i n Chapter 1. A p r e l i m i n a r y e x p l o r a t i o n of the s e t t i n g i s d e s c r i b e d i n Chapter 3. 32 Chapter 3 PRELIMINARY STUDY T h i s chapter focuses on the f u n c t i o n of l e a r n i n g i n advocacy- groups and the r o l e that information p l a y s . I t d e s c r i b e s the p r e l i m i n a r y study which explored the whole process of i n f o r m a t i o n management as i t was conducted i n three groups, and e x p l a i n s how the f i n d i n g s l e d to a choice of resea r c h design for the main study. The Role of Information i n Advocacy Groups The i n i t i a l r e s e a r c h problem concerned the a c t i v i t i e s that groups undertake to l e a r n about the s o c i a l i s s u e s that concern them. I t asked i n p a r t i c u l a r , "How do advocacy groups l e a r n about the problem s i t u a t i o n that brought them together, and about r e l a t e d decision-making i n the socioeconomic system?" To emphasize c o g n i t i o n rather than a c t i o n , the q u e s t i o n was phrased, "How do groups develop a knowledge base?" A c o n s i d e r a t i o n of knowledge evokes r e f e r e n c e s to i n f o r m a t i o n , but are the two the same thing? Information t h e o r i s t s have proposed a d i s t i n c t i o n whereby " i n f o r m a t i o n " alone does not c o n s t i t u t e "knowledge". In the anthology "The Growth of Knowledge: Readings on O r g a n i z a t i o n and R e t r i e v a l of Information", Weiss a s s e r t e d t h a t . . . the growth of knowledge [ i s ] t r u l y a mi r r o r image of the growth of organisms... not a c o m p i l a t i o n of c o l l e c t o r s ' items. F a c t s , o b s e r v a t i o n s , d i s c o v e r i e s , as items, are but the n u t r i e n t s on which the t r e e of knowledge feeds, and not u n t i l they have been thoroughly absorbed and a s s i m i l a t e d , have they t r u l y 33 enlarged the body of knowledge (1967,p.209). The p a r a l l e l s between organic growth and the growth of knowledge are represented in Figure 1. (Top) Tbo |IUHI1I pnomo at higtar I Bottom) Tim jrowlh at Imowtaig*. (Weiss,P., in Kochen,1967,p.211) Figure 1: The growth of organisms and Che growth of knowledge Weiss i d e n t i f i e d four phases in the growth process: intake, digestion, assimilation and u t i l i z a t i o n . These refered to 1) a preliminary phase of rather indiscriminate acquisition; 2) a breakdown phase of analysis into constituent elements sorted for storage or discard; 3) a recombination phase of assembling and c i r c u l a t i n g intermediate products; and f i n a l l y , 4) an application phase where end products were put into action or used to expand the organism. The key to the process was t h i s : there is no direc t route to "connect either foodstuffs d i r e c t l y with functional products in the organism, or informational data with p r a c t i c a l results in human a f f a i r s . . . Information is not 34 tantamount to knowledge. [ I t ] i s but the raw m a t e r i a l , the pr e c u r s o r of knowledge" ( o p . c i t . , p . 2 1 0 ) . T h i s four stage process of info r m a t i o n management was taken as a model f o r how groups develop knowledge. To f u l f i l t h e i r i n f o r m a t i o n management f u n c t i o n groups would have t o : 1. Acquire i n f o r m a t i o n 2. Analyze i t 3. Synthesize new knowledge from i t 4. Put that knowledge to use Each stage of the process i m p l i e d some o p e r a t i o n a l d i f f i c u l t i e s . The second stage of a n a l y z i n g newly a c q u i r e d documents or testimony would r e q u i r e d e c i d i n g what m a t e r i a l was r e l e v a n t , checking i t s r e l i a b i l i t y , examining i t s content, e v a l u a t i n g that message a g a i n s t other data on the same p o i n t ; and f i n a l l y , i f i t was s i g n i f i c a n t enough to keep, determining in what form to st o r e i t , and where, so that i t c o u l d be found again when needed. The t h i r d stage of s y n t h e s i z i n g new knowledge from s e l e c t e d m a t e r i a l would i n v o l v e o r g a n i z i n g and recombining i t i n t o i n t ermediate statements that would improve understanding or i n f l u e n c e over some part of the l a r g e r problem; t h i s would mean t r y i n g to reduce u n c e r t a i n t y i n areas of i n s u f f i c i e n t data and t r a d i n g o f f c o n t r a d i c t o r y statements. At t h i s p o i n t intermediate statements would have to be disseminated throughout the group and proposals c i r c u l a t e d so that group members c o u l d b u i l d up a common . understanding of t h e i r predicament and the options f o r i t s r e s o l u t i o n . At the f o u r t h stage, the group would be t r y i n g to apply the knowledge i t had developed, p u t t i n g 3 5 i t to use i n one of two ways. I t e i t h e r would proceed with d i r e c t a c t i o n against i t s problematic environment, or i t might postpone that a c t i o n i n favor of d i s s e m i n a t i n g knowledge to the p u b l i c so as to s o l i c i t a l a r g e r supportive membership — or both. Although information t h e o r i s t s have formulated these four stages to the purposive development of knowledge, the ' process had not been a p p l i e d to an e m p i r i c a l examination of the behaviours of advocacy groups. While the four stages were l o g i c a l l y c o n s i s t e n t , they might not be an e m p i r i c a l l y accurate d e p i c t i o n of any group's a c t u a l o p e r a t i o n s . R e s t a t i n g the Research Question Weiss's model was adopted as the b a s i s f o r a p r e l i m i n a r y study i n which the i n i t i a l q u e s t i o n was o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d as: "How do groups manage info r m a t i o n so as to c r e a t e knowledge together?" In t h i s form, the q u e s t i o n a l e r t e d the researcher to look f o r how the p a r t i c u l a r o p e r a t i o n s of information management were c a r r i e d out i n each group. The Three Cases Examined In February 1981, the experiences of three sample groups were i n v e s t i g a t e d using an e x t e n s i v e i n t e r v i e w schedule that i n c l u d e d i n s t a n c e s of c r i t i c a l i n c i d e n t r e c a l l . The groups were i n t e n t i o n a l l y s e l e c t e d to vary on the dimensions of s i z e , years of o p e r a t i o n , and f i n a n c i a l resources a v a i l a b l e to then i n order 36 to take i n t o account the e f f e c t these f a c t o r s might have on the way a group managed i n f o r m a t i o n . The f i r s t group had s e v e r a l hundred members, had been o p e r a t i n g 30 years and had n a t i o n a l l y - b a s e d f i n a n c i a l r e s o u r c e s . The second group a l s o had a l a r g e membership, had been o p e r a t i n g seven years, and had adequate funding to p r i n t m a t e r i a l s and sponsor conferences. The t h i r d group had a small but committed membership, had been o p e r a t i n g l e s s than two years, and had v i r t u a l l y no f i n a n c i a l base. The i n t e r v i e w schedule used Each i n t e r v i e w was conducted over a two-hour p e r i o d with a s i n g l e , long-standing member of each group, two of whom were on the e x e c u t i v e committee of t h e i r groups. The interv i e w schedule used i s i n c l u d e d as Appendix A. The main purpose of the in t e r v i e w was to explore i n depth the processes of i n f o r m a t i o n a c q u i s i t i o n , management, and d i s s e m i n a t i o n w i t h i n the group. T h i s was p r e f a c e d with questions about the group's i d e n t i t y and i n t e r e s t s ; and was followed with an e v a l u a t i o n by the respondent of the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the group as a forum i n which to understand and i n f l u e n c e i s s u e s . In the course of the i n t e r v i e w , respondents were prompted to r e c a l l two c r i t i c a l i n c i d e n t s . The f i r s t had to do with decision-making w i t h i n t h e i r group. It was i n c l u d e d to d i s c o v e r how many of the members were a c t i v e p a r t i c i p a n t s i n group d e c i s i o n s , i n order to determine how many might be important handlers, and perhaps i n t e r p r e t e r s , of i n f o r m a t i o n . The second e x e r c i s e of c r i t i c a l i n c i d e n t r e c a l l had to do 37 with s t r a t e g i c i n f o r m a t i o n , i . e . , the d i s c o v e r y that someone e l s e was about to take a c t i o n that would a f f e c t t h e i r i n t e r e s t s . T h i s l i n e of q u e s t i o n i n g was prompted by a year-long p e r i o d of p a r t i c i p a n t o b s e r v a t i o n in an environmental advocacy group. Members of that group accumulated ex t e n s i v e m a t e r i a l that served to f a m i l i a r i z e members with unresolved environmental concerns. But they a l s o r a p i d l y c i r c u l a t e d items of l o c a l news r e l a t e d to government or p r i v a t e s e c t o r a c t i v i t i e s a f f e c t i n g the environment. I t became apparent that these two forms of infor m a t i o n — one that provided d e t a i l on problems as they stand, and the other that enabled i n t e r v e n t i o n i n new d e c i s i o n s and a c t i o n s — might provide important i n s i g h t s i n t o how groups develop knowledge. Fi n d i n g s from the p r e l i m i n a r y study The p r e l i m i n a r y study r e i n f o r c e d the e x p e c t a t i o n that advocacy groups d i f f e r e n t i a t e between background inf o r m a t i o n and a c t i o n - o r i e n t e d i n f o r m a t i o n ( r e f e r r e d to as " s t r a t e g i c " ) . I t revealed h i g h l y i d i o s y n c r a t i c p r a c t i c e s w i t h i n groups in the processes used to manage in f o r m a t i o n — to analyze, v e r i f y , s y n t h e s i z e and apply i n f o r m a t i o n — once the group had a c q u i r e d i t . I t a l s o h i g h l i g h t e d the c r i t i c a l importance to groups of e f f e c t i v e a c q u i s i t i o n of s t r a t e g i c information i n the form of advance warning about the a c t i o n of o t h e r s . 38 Choice of Research Design f o r the Main Study The p r e l i m i n a r y study attempted to answer the broad, i n c l u s i v e q u e s t i o n : "How do groups manage in f o r m a t i o n so as to develop knowledge together?" It addressed p a r t i c u l a r q u e s t i o n s to each of the stages of inf o r m a t i o n a n a l y s i s and s y n t h e s i s i d e n t i f i e d i n the Weiss model of the growth of knowledge. I t explo r e d the u s e f u l n e s s of a comparative case study approach. An expanded comparative case study would have r e q u i r e d a q u a l i t a t i v e r e s e a r c h s t r a t e g y , i n c l u d e d very few i n s t a n c e s , and used techniques such as p a r t i c i p a n t o b s e r v a t i o n . I t would have o f f e r e d the p o s s i b i l i t y of d i s c o v e r i n g new elements and dimensions to the interwoven processes of group i n f o r m a t i o n management and group d e c i s i o n making. But i t s very r i c h n e s s would make the r e p o r t i n g and a n a l y s i s of f i n d i n g s problematic; and i n the end, as with a l l i d i o s y n c r a t i c case s t u d i e s , the p r i c e would be l o s s of g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y . An a l t e r n a t i v e research design c o u l d be used i f the focus was changed to a s i n g l e o p e r a t i o n of info r m a t i o n management, and the much more r e s t r i c t e d q u e s t i o n : "How do groups a c q u i r e i n f o r m a t i o n ? " One t h i n g was c l e a r by deduction: no matter how good a group's i n t e r n a l f u n c t i o n i n g was, or how well i t managed infor m a t i o n once i t had obtained i t , the outcome c o u l d never be 39 b e t t e r than that allowed by the q u a l i t y of info r m a t i o n a c q u i r e d in the f i r s t p l a c e . The a c q u i s i t i o n of e s s e n t i a l information i s the s i n e qua non — that without which nothing e l s e can f o l l o w . So when i t came to e m p i r i c a l r e s e a r c h of info r m a t i o n management in advocacy groups the obvious place to begin was with the stage of a c q u i s i t i o n . Questions concerning a c q u i s i t i o n p r a c t i c e s c o u l d be approached by conducting a comparison of a c q u i s i t i o n behaviours. Comparison of a c q u i s i t i o n behaviours would r e q u i r e a q u a n t i t a t i v e research s t r a t e g y , i n c l u d e a broad s e l e c t i o n of in s t a n c e s , and use survey techniques of data c o l l e c t i o n followed by m u l t i p l e a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e . T h i s l a t t e r approach would pay a p r i c e i n l o s s of r i c h n e s s , meaning s p e c i f i c a l l y that the number of dimensions to the phenomena which, c o u l d be observed, reported and analyzed"* would have to be r e s t r i c t e d . But i t o f f e r e d the opp o r t u n i t y to impose some order on unruly phenomena by the c r e a t i o n of a framework f o r the v a r i a b l e s of in f o r m a t i o n , users and channels — the u s e f u l n e s s of which c o u l d be assessed from the data that i t e l i c i t s from respondents. A l i t e r a t u r e review was undertaken to h e l p design a study of i n f o r m a t i o n a c q u i s i t i o n , the r e s u l t s of which are reported i n Chapter 4. 4 0 Chapter 4 LITERATURE REVIEW Since the problem of i n t e r e s t concerned i n f o r m a l l e a r n i n g i n a s o c i a l a c t i v i s t s e t t i n g and emphasized p o i n t s of contact f o r i n f o r m a t i o n resources, i t r e q u i r e d a review of l i t e r a t u r e from s e v e r a l s o c i a l s c i e n c e d i s c i p l i n e s . L i t e r a t u r e on a s o c i a l a c t i v i s t t r a d i t i o n and contemporary f e a t u r e s of a d u l t education has a l r e a d y been reviewed i n Chapter 1. An e x p o s i t i o n of l i t e r a t u r e from p o l i t i c a l s o c i o l o g y was presented i n Chapter 2 that helped d e f i n e s e l f - h e l p groups as the research s i t e , and a r t i c u l a t e assumptions about the s o c i a l context. L i t e r a t u r e from i n f o r m a t i o n s c i e n c e has been i n c l u d e d i n t h i s study i n s e v e r a l chapters, a c c o r d i n g to i t s c o n t r i b u t i o n . A model of the growth of knowledge from i n f o r m a t i o n was c i t e d i n Chapter 3, because of the guidance i t o f f e r e d f o r the p r e l i m i n a r y study. In t h i s chapter, r e f e r e n c e s are i n c l u d e d which helped e s t a b l i s h the u s e r - c e n t r e d format of the main study. F u r t h e r r e f e r e n c e s are i n c l u d e d i n Chapter 5 which c o n t r i b u t e d to d e f i n i t i o n of the i n f o r m a t i o n channel v a r i a b l e . T h i s chapter a l s o i n c l u d e s c i t a t i o n s from the l i t e r a t u r e of s o c i a l change that d e s c r i b e a trend toward s o c i a l and economic d e m o c r a t i z a t i o n , as w e l l as an important r e f e r e n c e to sources of u n c e r t a i n t y in s o c i a l decision-making, that advanced d e f i n i t i o n of the i n f o r m a t i o n v a r i a b l e i n t h i s study. F i n a l l y , l i t e r a t u r e on s o c i a l networks i s i n c l u d e d to introduce aspects cf s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e and i n t e r a c t i o n r e l e v a n t to the problem of i n t e r e s t . 41 Information Science Formats f o r r e s e a r c h s t u d i e s of information flow There are b a s i c a l l y three vantage p o i n t s from which to study s o c i a l behaviours r e l a t i n g to i n f o r m a t i o n (Kunz, R i t t e l & Schwuchow,1977, pi 4). These a r e : 1. user s t u d i e s — which examine an i n d i v i d u a l ' s p r e f e r e n c e with regard to i n f o r m a t i o n channels*, media and f a c i l i t i e s ; 2. use s t u d i e s which focus on the frequency of u t i l i z a t i o n of p a r t i c u l a r i n f o r m a t i o n channels; and 3. disseminat ion s t u d i e s which track the communication flow of p a r t i c u l a r i n f o r m a t i o n such as s c i e n t i f i c and t e c h n i c a l data. F i g u r e 2 summarizes these research formats and q u e s t i o n s they generate. Information s t u d i e s g e n e r a l l y take one of these p e r s p e c t i v e s ( B r i t t a i n , 1 9 7 0 ; Eisenberg,1983; Havelock,1969). T h i s study conformed to the f i r s t type of research format, t r e a t i n g s e l f - h e l p advocacy groups as "the user". I t was designed to examine what users report on t h e i r experience with a wide range of i n f o r m a t i o n channels. Two s i m i l a r s t u d i e s had been conducted i n Michigan (Wilson, 1972; Durrance,1980), and one in Toronto has s i n c e been p u b l i s h e d (Macfarlane,1984), each of which examined i n f o r m a t i o n seeking or t r a n s f e r by what were termed "community groups", " c i t i z e n s ' groups", and " s o c i a l change o r g a n i z a t i o n s " r e s p e c t i v e l y . a) usar-canerad scudy 1) - whac Itlnda of laforoacion does cola user seek? 11) - v i a vtaac channels? b) Channel-centred scudy 1) - whac kinds at Informaclon aev* via ehla channel? 11) - who are the users of cttla eta e) Olsaead,aaclan-cenrred *cudy 1) - via whac channels la chla lalornaclon diacrlbucad? 11) - co what users? a a a a Fig. 2: Formats for research, studies on information flow 43 A s s i s t i n g the info r m a t i o n seeker The i n f o r m a t i o n seeker has been o f f e r e d a s s i s t a n c e from s e v e r a l sources. P o p u l i s t s have urged the de m o c r a t i z a t i o n of infor m a t i o n a c q u i s i t i o n and d e s c r i b e d a l t e r n a t e systems f o r i t s di s s e m i n a t i o n (Nader,1973; I l l i c h , l 9 7 3 ; Nader & Ross,1971; Gorey,l975). P r o f e s s i o n a l s i n l i b r a r y and information s c i e n c e have encouraged managers of d e l i v e r y systems to thin k c r e a t i v e l y about engaging a wider p u b l i c (Kochen,1975; Kochen & Donohue,1976; Wilson, 1977). In "The Patron and the P u b l i c " (1977), Hays, Shearer and Wilson emphasized the p r o p o r t i o n of a c t u a l users to non-users of p u b l i c l i b r a r y s e r v i c e s , and the means f o r engaging a l a r g e r segment of the general p o p u l a t i o n . Eisenberg (1983), focused on a d u l t educators i n p a r t i c u l a r and the means of i n c r e a s i n g t h e i r i n c l u s i o n of c e r t a i n information resources i n programs and courses they o f f e r . Adult educators have attempted to a s s i s t l e a r n e r s i n e s t a b l i s h i n g " i n f o r m a t i o n seeking networks". "A Model f o r Learning Resource Networks f o r Senior A d u l t s " (Apt & Hiemstra,1980) might suggest such a user-centred approach, but in f a c t i t r e f e r r e d to a bro k e r a g e • s e r v i c e (a channel-centred approach). Hudson and Danish (1980) reported a use r - c e n t r e d study i n which the sources of info r m a t i o n a user might tap were l i n k e d to a v a r i e t y of problems about which the user might be seeking i n f o r m a t i o n . While i t d i d not q u a n t i f y user behaviours, or evaluate i n f o r m a t i o n a v a i l a b l e from these sources, the Hudson and Danish a r t i c l e d i d address v a r i a b l e s comparable to those encompassed by t h i s study. 44 S o c i a l Change There i s an extensive l i t e r a t u r e on s o c a l change at the community l e v e l which promotes i n c r e a s e d l o c a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n a d e c e n t r a l i z e d system of decision-making. Some authors emphasize economic d e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n (Schumacher,1973; Satin,1978; Henderson,1978; Vanier I n s t i t u t e of the Family,1979). Others emphasized i n c r e a s i n g p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n decision-making of a l l kinds ( I l l i c h , 1 9 7 6 ; Robertson,1978; Ferguson,1980; Thapar,l978; Warren, 1977). The phenomenon of s e l f - h e l p advocacy i s an i n t e r e s t i n g example of experiments with l o c a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n economic and s o c i a l change. Information r e q u i r e d f o r soc i a l decision-making The complex process of managing s o c i a l change by community decision-making has been the s u b j e c t of o p e r a t i o n a l a n a l y s i s ( F r i e n d & Jessop, 1969; F r i e n d , Wedgewood-Oppenheim, Eddison,1970; Schon,1971; Linowes,1973). F r i e n d and Jessop made a four-year study of the r e c o n s t r u c t i o n of the c i t y of Coventry, i n which they d e s c r i b e d the process of managing or p l a n n i n g change as a combination of two d i f f i c u l t t a s k s . The f i r s t was making "robust" s t r a t e g i c c h o i c e s — ones that would leave the g r e a t e s t f l e x i b i l i t y or range of a l t e r n a t i v e s open i n the f u t u r e . The second, p r e r e q u i s i t e to making good s t r a t e g i c c h o i c e s , was reducing as f a r as p o s s i b l e the many u n c e r t a i n t i e s ( f i n a n c i a l , l e g a l , p o l i t i c a l and other) inherent in a complex s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n . U n c e r t a i n t i e s i n c l u d e those present i n a 4 5 s i t u a t i o n p r i o r to a choice of a c t i o n , and those implied by the a c t i o n i t s e l f . As A r t a n d i puts i t , "every d e c i s i o n maker at at every l e v e l wants to know what the consequences of h i s ch o i c e w i l l be" (1979, p.16). Sources of u n c e r t a i n t y which confound decision-making would have a pronounced e f f e c t on the f u n c t i o n i n g of a s e l f - h e l p group which i n i t s own small way i s planning s o c i a l change. No group c o u l d s u c c e s s f u l l y a t t a i n i t s goals while remaining u n c e r t a i n about t h e i r d e s i r a b i l i t y , or the nature of b a r r i e r s to a c h i e v i n g them. Nor c o u l d a group simply turn to some e d u c a t i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n f o r he l p with i t s decision-making u n c e r t a i n t i e s . The nature of an e d u c a t i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n i s to pro v i d e programs or t u t o r s on the b a s i s of i t s mandate, tempered by i t s economic c o n s t r a i n t s . A s e l f - h e l p group i s t h e r e f o r e r e q u i r e d to become i t s own educator, seeking from every a v a i l a b l e source what i t needs to know. In time, i t s connections to the out s i d e world take on the p a t t e r n of a s o c i a l network. S o c i a l Networks Research Among themselves s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s have made f a r c i c a l r e f e r e n c e to three great h e u r i s t i c concepts, saying "And these three t h i n g s a b i d e t h : c l a s s , r o l e , and network — and"the g r e a t e s t of these i s network" (M i t c h e l l , 1 9 6 9 , p . 1 ) . M i t c h e l l has been a foremost proponent of "network", not as a metaphor, but as a p r e c i s e a n a l y t i c a l concept,^ f o r i n t e r p r e t i n g s o c i a l behaviour. He d e f i n e d a s o c i a l network as: a s p e c i f i c set of l i n k a g e s among a d e f i n e d set of persons, with the a d d i t i o n a l property that the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of these l i n k a g e s as a whole may be 46 used to i n t e r p r e t the s o c i a l behavior of the persons i n v o l v e d (1969,p.2). With s o c i a l networks rese a r c h the behaviours under study may be as widely v a r i e d as co n j u g a l r o l e s i n a f a m i l y , drug i n f o r m a t i o n flow w i t h i n a set of p h y s i c i a n s , the s o l i c i t i n g of support f o r an e l e c t o r a l candidate, m o b i l i z a t i o n of h e l p f o r bereaved persons, job-hunting , v o t i n g p a t t e r n s ( M i t c h e l l , 1 9 6 9 ) , p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t r a n s p o r t a t i o n p l a n n i n g (Wellman,1974), s e l f -planned a d u l t l e a r n i n g ( L u i k a r t , 1 9 7 7 ) , support systems f o r urban f a m i l i e s (Tietjen,1978) and the flow of money, in f o r m a t i o n and support i n community p o l i t i c s (Galaskiewicz,1979). The purpose of t h i s study was to i n v e s t i g a t e how inf o r m a l l e a r n e r s , in p a r t i c u l a r kinds of groups, use in f o r m a t i o n o u t l e t s i n s o c i e t y . Network v a r i a b l e s r e l e v a n t to t h i s study Networks may be d e s c r i b e d i n terms of t h e i r s t r u c t u r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s (such as anchorage, d e n s i t y , r e a c h a b i l i t y , and range), or t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s (such as content, d i r e c t e d n e s s , d u r a b i l i t y , i n t e n s i t y , a n d frequency), although these v a r i a b l e s are o f t e n r e f e r r e d to by d i f f e r e n t terms ( M i t c h e l l , 1 9 6 9 ) . Not a l l network v a r i a b l e s are u s e f u l f o r e x p l o r i n g a given r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n . L u i k a r t (1977) i n h i s study of s o c i a l networks and s e l f - p l a n n e d a d u l t l e a r n i n g used as independent v a r i a b l e s the s i z e , composition and d e n s i t y of h i s s u b j e c t s ' s o c i a l network, and as dependent v a r i a b l e s the amount, source and type of help the sub j e c t r e c e i v e d through the network. T h i s study was concerned with some aspects of "inf o r m a t i o n 47 seeking networks", a focus more p a r t i c u l a r than " l e a r n i n g networks" which can subsume " l e a r n i n g exchanges" (a r e g i s t r y where s k i l l s are sought or o f f e r e d ) , or " l e a r n i n g brokerage" (a s e r v i c e whereby l e a r n e r s are r e f e r r e d to p r o v i d i n g i n s t i t u t i o n s ) . The in f o r m a t i o n seeking network i s a set of co n t a c t s e s t a b l i s h e d by the l e a r n e r or group of l e a r n e r s themselves f o r the purpose of a c q u i r i n g d e s i r e d information on a c o n t i n u i n g b a s i s . In network terms t h i s study took i n t o account the s t r u c t u r a l v a r i a b l e s of anchorage, and composition; and the i n t e r a c t i o n v a r i a b l e s of content, amount and u t i l i t y . These v a r i a b l e s are o p e r a t i o n a l l y d e f i n e d i n Chapter 5. 4 8 Chapter 5 THE RESEARCH VARIABLES R e f i n i n g the Research Question Regarding i n f o r m a t i o n a c q u i s i t i o n , users are most anxious to know: "Where can we get what we need?" Rephrased as a q u e s t i o n of s o c i a l s c i e n t i f i c p r o b a b i l i t y , that would read: "Where are you most l i k e l y to f i n d what you are seeking?" There are three v a r i a b l e s contained w i t h i n t h i s q u e s t i o n : "Where (at what contact p o i n t s ) are you (a s p e c i f i c group of users) most l i k e l y to f i n d what (the kind of information) you are seeking ?" T h i s i s a " p r e s c r i p t i v e q u e s t i o n " , r e q u i r i n g an answer that c o n t a i n s a p r e s c r i p t i o n f o r what to do i n given circumstances, in the f o l l o w i n g manner: "A given user group has been most l i k e l y to f i n d a s p e c i f i c kind of in f o r m a t i o n from the f o l l o w i n g combination of c o n t a c t s . " (THEREFORE: When seeking t h i s p a r t i c u l a r kind of i n f o r m a t i o n , a s i m i l a r user group should use t h i s s p e c i f i c combination of c o n t a c t s . ) 4 9 However, such a p r e s c r i p t i v e q u e s t i o n assumes that the i n f o r m a t i o n users i n the subject groups of t h i s study would be a c t i n g as i n f o r m a t i o n seekers. T h i s i s e m p i r i c a l l y unfounded. In f a c t , i t would seem that they act as i n t e n t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n seekers only p a r t of the time. The r e s t of the time t h e i r behaviour was s i m i l a r to - s c i e n t i s t s who c a s u a l l y (rather than r i g o r o u s l y or c r i t i c a l l y ) accumulate t h i n g s ( i d e a s , statements, images, data, addresses, reviews, r e p o r t s , and other m a t e r i a l s ) which seem to have some relevance to t h e i r general i n t e r e s t . The behaviour "to accumulate" i s f a r l e s s d i s c r i m i n a t i n g and systematic than "to seek" or "to f i n d " , but i s c o n s i d e r e d an e s s e n t i a l a c t i v i t y by a l l who are engaged in i t . Accumulating l o o s e l y r e l a t e d m a t e r i a l p r o v i d e s a r i c h n e s s to the i n f o r m a t i o n base, a l a t e r a l breadth out of which c r e a t i v e , d i v e r g e n t c h o i c e s can emerge — p r o v i d i n g novel s o l u t i o n s to o l d , f a m i l i a r problems. It was decided that an e m p i r i c a l d e s c r i p t i o n of the i n f o r m a t i o n a c q u i s i t i o n p r a c t i c e s of s e l f - h e l p advocacy groups would be l e s s than complete i f i t only reported the r e s u l t s of i n t e n s i v e i n f o r m a t i o n seeking; i t needed a l s o to report i n c i d e n t a l i n f o r m a t i o n accumulation i n order to draw the most r e l i a b l e c o n c l u s i o n s about the i n f o r m a t i o n channels i n s o c i e t y which were pr o v i n g to be most u s e f u l to advocacy groups. On another poin t of terminology, "channels" was p r e f e r r e d to "sources" as the locus of o b s e r v a t i o n s i n c e the l a t t e r term im p l i e s o r i g i n or the p o i n t of i n f o r m a t i o n c r e a t i o n . I t became apparent that channels would be of g r e a t e r immediate s i g n i f i c a n c e i n a user study, s i n c e they provide the c r i t i c a l 50 p o i n t of contact where information was a c q u i r e d . The research q u e s t i o n was o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d as: "What i s the amount (Dep.Var.1) and u t i l i t y (Dep.Var . 2 ) of i n f o r m a t i o n (Ind.Var.1) a c q u i r e d from channels (Ind.Var . 2 ) by d i f f e r e n t kinds of user group? (Ind.Var.3) DEPENDENT VARIABLES Use-of-Channel T h i s measurement was chosen as the v a r i a b l e of prime e m p i r i c a l importance. In c o n v e n t i o n a l network terms i t i n d i c a t e d the amount of i n t e r a c t i o n between the anchor p o i n t and one of the network contact p o i n t s . It was d e f i n e d i n t h i s study as the estimated r a t h e r than as the number of c o n t a c t s w i t h i n a given time p e r i o d (frequency), or the number of hours spent in contact with a channel ( d u r a t i o n ) , although frequency or d u r a t i o n are commonly used i n d i c a t o r s i n use s t u d i e s . What was of s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r t h i s study was not how people spent t h e i r time,(such as the number of o n - l i n e searches they made, or number of o n - s i t e v i s i t s ) , but how much they harvested from each p o t e n t i a l i n f o r m a t i o n channel. The measurement i n d i c a t e d as n e a r l y as p o s s i b l e the a c t u a l amount of information a c q u i r e d v i a each channel 5 1 q u a n t i t y of information a c q u i r e d v i a a channel, r e g a r d l e s s of whether contact was i n t e n t i o n a l or i n c i d e n t a l . " I n t e n t i o n a l " c o n t a c t s would i n c l u d e s p e c i f i c a l l y p u r p o s e f u l ones such as reaching i n t o a f i l e c a b i n e t . In c o n t r a s t , " i n c i d e n t a l " c o n t a c t s i n c l u d e such as p u b l i c meetings which b r i n g people together from s e v e r a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s and may provide a great d e a l of u s e f u l i n f o r m a t i o n , but are not systematic or p r e d i c t a b l e . Furthermore, the measurement i s a simple q u a n t i t y i n d i c a t o r r a t h e r , than a blend with judgements on the q u a l i t y of m a t e r i a l r e c e i v e d . I t means there was something a c q u i r e d ; i t does not c a l l t h i s " s u c c e s s f u l c o n t a c t " or " f r u i t f u l c o n t a c t " as that i m p l i e s something about the l a t e r a p p l i c a t i o n of that m a t e r i a l to the group's purposes. The v a r i a b l e demonstrates how widely the group's c o l l e c t i n g network i s spread throughout s o c i e t y . I t i s of s c i e n t i f i c i n t e r e s t because i t not only shows what a group i s c u r r e n t l y doing, but r e v e a l s whether there are some p o t e n t i a l channels not being tapped at a l l , or others being r e l a t i v e l y under u t i l i z e d . U t i l i t y - o f - C h a n n e l i T h i s measurement was a q u a l i t y c o n t r o l on the previous simple measurement of q u a n t i t y . I t was o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d as the respondent's p e r c e p t i o n of the degree of relevance to the group's purposes of any information a c q u i r e d v i a a given channel. In t h i s sense, u t i l i t y i n d i c a t e d the p r e f e r a b i l i t y of infor m a t i o n a c q u i r e d v i a one channel to that from another. I t 52 was an e v a l u a t i o n the users made in r e t r o s p e c t on the eventual u s e f u l n e s s of what they had a c q u i r e d v i a a given channel. The v a r i a b l e i d e n t i f i e d which channels the user group judged to be i t s c r i t i c a l ones, r e g a r d l e s s of the amount of m a t e r i a l i t had a c q u i r e d through those channels. I n t e r a c t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s other than those chosen f o r t h i s study c o u l d have been i n v e s t i g a t e d . For example: Type of a c t i v i t y : 1 . one-way only — eg. l i s t e n i n g to r a d i o 2. i n t e r a c t i v e but t r a n s i e n t — eg. phone c a l l 3. i n t e r a c t i v e and documented — eg. correspondence 4 . d i r e c t two-way — eg. o n - s i t e v i s i t or Mode of message r e c e i v e d : 1 . c o n v e r s a t i o n only 2. a u d i o - v i s u a l medium 3. p r i n t e d copy The purpose of t h i s study as s t a t e d i n Chapter 1, was to i n v e s t i g a t e the amount of use, and p e r c e i v e d u t i l i t y of i n f o r m a t i o n channels f o r i n f o r m a l l e a r n e r s . C o n s i d e r i n g the lack of e m p i r i c a l research even to e s t a b l i s h the e x i s t e n c e of t h i s c o n s t i t u e n c y of i n f o r m a t i o n users, d e t a i l s on the type of a c t i v i t y and the mode of message r e c e i v e d appeared to be e l a b o r a t i o n s on b a s i c data that d i d not e x i s t . The base l i n e measures of amount and u t i l i t y of i n f o r m a t i o n r e c e i v e d from a channel (how much and how v a l u a b l e ) were judged to be more fundamental c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , and so were chosen for the study. 53 I n d e p e n d e n t V a r i a b l e s T y p e o f u s e r g r o u p I n a n a t t e m p t t o c l a s s i f y t h e u s e r g r o u p s o f t h i s s t u d y t o c o m p a r e t h e i r b e h a v i o u r s , i t was d i s c o v e r e d t h a t a d v o c a c y g r o u p s m i g h t b e c a t e g o r i z e d b y s u c h c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a s s i z e , c h a n g e s t r a t e g y e m p l o y e d , o r s u b s t a n t i v e c o n c e r n . T h e f a c t o r o f g r o u p s i z e was a l r e a d y c o n t r o l l e d s o m e w h a t b y t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n t h a t s u b j e c t s b e s e l f - h e l p g r o u p s . T h i s r e s t r i c t e d t h e d o m a i n t o t h o s e g r o u p s w i t h a r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l m e m b e r s h i p w h i c h c o u l d m e e t f a c e - t o - f a c e o n a f a i r l y r e g u l a r b a s i s . C h a n g e s t r a t e g y c o u l d n o t b e a p p l i e d a s a r e l i a b l e m e a n s o f c a t e g o r i z i n g g r o u p s s i n c e i t i s k n o w n t o e v o l v e d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e o f a g r o u p ' s h i s t o r y . C o n c l u s i o n s a b o u t t h e b e h a v i o u r o f a c a t e g o r y t h e r e f o r e c o u l d n o t h o l d o v e r t i m e s i n c e t h e a s s i g n m e n t o f s u b j e c t g r o u p s t o e a c h w o u l d n o t b e s t a b l e . S u b s t a n t i v e c o n c e r n a s a d i s t i n g u i s h i n g v a r i a b l e p o s e d t h e p r o b l e m o f e n c o u n t e r i n g s u b j e c t g r o u p s w i t h s e v e r a l c o n c u r r e n t a r e a s o f a c t i v i t y . H o w e v e r , s i n c e t h e r e w e r e many e x a m p l e s a v a i l a b l e o f g r o u p s f o c u s i n g t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s w i t h i n a s i n g l e a r e a o f s u b s t a n t i v e c o n c e r n a s d e f i n e d h e r e , t h i s v a r i a b l e was u s e d a s t h e d i s t i n g u i s h i n g f a c t o r . S u b j e c t g r o u p s w e r e t h e r e f o r e s e l e c t e d w h i c h w e r e a c t i v e i n o n e o f t h e f o l l o w i n g t h r e e a r e a s : 54 1. Economic iss u e s T h i s category i n c l u d e d any is s u e s d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d to income, t a x a t i o n , or expenditures on goods such as food, s h e l t e r , and e s s e n t i a l s e r v i c e s . Examples c o u l d i n c l u d e advocacy regarding s e n i o r s ' income, w e l f a r e , food p r i c e s or supplements, s e n i o r s housing, tenants' concerns about maintenance standards, daycare s e r v i c e s , p u b l i c t r a n s p o r t a t i o n , property assessments, and the l i k e . 2 . Environmental i s s u e s T h i s category i n c l u d e d i s s u e s r e l a t i n g to the maintenance of both man-made and n a t u r a l environments. Groups concerned with n a t u r a l environments might con c e n t r a t e on removing p o l l u t i o n from a i r , land, and waterways, or on pre v e n t i n g hydro p r o j e c t s from damaging e c o l o g i c a l p r e s e r v e s , or on land-use a l l o c a t i o n regarding green b e l t s around c i t i e s . Groups concerned with man-made environments might concentrate on minimizing a i r t r a f f i c and i n d u s t r i a l n o i s e, o b t a i n i n g compensation f o r i n d u s t r i a l d i s e a s e , encouraging urban farming, or p r e s e r v i n g h i s t o r i c b u i l d i n g s , and so on. 3 . Personal i s s u e s The p e r s o n a l advocacy category was designed to subsume iss u e s r e l a t e d to a person's i d e n t i t y , i n c o n t r a s t to t r a n s i t o r y p o l i c i e s i n the economy, or events which a f f e c t the environment. Examples c o u l d include i s s u e s r e l a t i n g to immigration s t a t u s , r e c o g n i t i o n of f o r e i g n s k i l l q u a l i f i c a t i o n s , e t h n i c i t y , c u l t u r a l p o l i c y , race r e l a t i o n s , employment o p p o r t u n i t y , e d u c a t i o n a l 55 o p p o r t u n i t y , a c c e s s i b i l i t y of p u b l i c p l a c e s and s e r v i c e s to the p h y s i c a l l y d i s a b l e d , and so on. Generic types of info r m a t i o n The p o i n t was made i n Chapter 3, that " i n f o r m a t i o n " i s not a term interchangable with "knowledge". But n e i t h e r can i t be t r e a t e d s t r i c t l y as "data". While "data" connotes e m p i r i c a l content of a q u a n t i t a t i v e or q u a l i t a t i v e kind, " i n f o r m a t i o n " can a l s o i n c l u d e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s and e v a l u a t i o n s of data. In t h i s sense, inf o r m a t i o n comprises any incoming message which i s news to the r e c e i v e r . I t c o u l d be a p o i n t of view which the r e c e i v e r had never heard be f o r e . I t co u l d be a f a m i l i a r o p i n i o n which i s news only because of the speaker who i s espousing i t . As t r e a t e d i n t h i s study i n f o r m a t i o n d i d not have to be, s t r i c t l y speaking, "data"; and i t d i d not have to be m a t e r i a l l y represented on a pie c e of paper or i n some other concrete form. As an obj e c t of s c i e n t i f i c o b s e r v a t i o n , i n f o r m a t i o n i s an e l u s i v e item. According to Rogers and K i n c a i d (1981) i t i s c r e a t e d at a p h y s i c a l l e v e l of r e a l i t y , i s p e r c e i v e d at a p h y s i o l o g i c a l l e v e l , i n t e r p r e t e d at a p s y c h o l o g i c a l l e v e l and responded to at a l e v e l of overt a c t i o n . They o f f e r e d an a l l i n c l u s i v e statement which would account f o r the p h y s i c a l , p s y c h o l o g i c a l and a c t i o n l e v e l s that d e f i n e d i n f o r m a t i o n as: a d i f f e r e n c e i n matter energy which a f f e c t s u n c e r t a i n t y i n a s i t u a t i o n where a ch o i c e e x i s t s among a set of a l t e r n a t i v e s (1981,p.347). S e l f - h e l p groups, as users of i n f o r m a t i o n , are by d e f i n i t i o n i n v o l v e d i n a complex, u n c e r t a i n s i t u a t i o n where many cho i c e s 56 e x i s t among a l t e r n a t i v e s . The depth of an i s s u e from i t s moral a b s t r a c t i o n s to i t s p r a c t i c a l d e t a i l s , and the breadth of p o l i t i c a l d i v e r s i t y i t can evoke, p r e d i c t that advocacy groups w i l l a c q u i r e i n the course of t h e i r d e l i b e r a t i o n s and a c t i o n s , a very mixed i n f o r m a t i o n base. In order to s u b d i v i d e such an inf o r m a t i o n pool f o r study, i n f o r m a t i o n v a r i a b l e s had to be chosen that would a c c u r a t e l y r e f l e c t the unique nature of what was being c o l l e c t e d by these user groups. F r i e n d and Jessop (1969) had i d e n t i f i e d three "sources of u n c e r t a i n t y " r e l a t e d to p u b l i c decision-making: i ) d e s c r i p t i v e d e t a i l of the s i t u a t i o n ; i i ) a value base from which to form a judgement or p o l i c y about i t ; and i i i ) knowledge about other decision-makers i m p l i c a t e d by the s i t u a t i o n with whom there would be s t r a t e g i c o v e r l a p . These three types of i n f o r m a t i o n r e q u i r e d f o r decision-making were based on t h e i r o p e r a t i o n s a n a l y s i s case study, d e s c r i b e d i n Chapter 4, and had a c e r t a i n face v a l i d i t y — but not an evident r a t i o n a l e as to why these should be exhaustive of the types of i n f o r m a t i o n with which p u b l i c decision-makers would have to d e a l . Thus i t became apparent that a s u i t a b l e typology of i n f o r m a t i o n types would have to be c r e a t e d to f i t the problem at hand. Judging from f i e l d o b s e r v a t i o n and the p r e l i m i n a r y study, the primary d i s t i n g u i s h i n g v a r i a b l e of the i n f o r m a t i o n pools of advocacy groups, whatever t h e i r i s s u e area, was "purpose to which in f o r m a t i o n was a p p l i e d " . The range of purposes reduced at i t s extremes to two t h i n g s . Information was used e i t h e r to e n r i c h understanding of an i s s u e i n order to form an o p i n i o n , or to plan d i r e c t a c t i o n that would change the problem s i t u a t i o n . 57 The former type of info r m a t i o n c o n t r i b u t e d to a grasp of the background context of an i s s u e , the l a t t e r to f o r m u l a t i o n of an a c t i o n s t r a t e g y . T h i s d i s t i n c t i o n i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n F i g u r e 3. ( a c t i o n - p l a n n i n g ) STRATEGIC (re:change) (opinion-forming) BACKGROUND ( r e r s t a t u s quo) F i g . 3 Purposes f o r which advocacy groups a c q u i r e information A second d i s t i n g u i s h i n g v a r i a b l e among items in t h e i r i n f o r m a t i o n p o o l s , and one which was p r e d i c t e d by the very nature of advocacy groups, was " p o l i t i c a l impact" — or the degree of i n s t a b i l i t y an item might have due to i n t e r p r e t a t i o n by contending p a r t i e s . U n l i k e s c i e n t i s t s who are s a i d to concern themselves with i n t e r e s t i n g problems having an i n t e r n a l l o g i c , members of advocacy groups deal i n problems which o f t e n became the subject of p a r t i s a n , p u b l i c debate. Members of advocacy groups as c i t i z e n s might want b e t t e r t r a n s p o r t a t i o n from t h e i r municipal government; as consumers might want s a f e r packaging from drug companies; as-cancer p a t i e n t s might want a wider v a r i e t y of 58 treatments sanctioned by the C o l l e g e of P h y s i c i a n s . Whatever p o s i t i o n a group took there would almost c e r t a i n l y be other c o n f l i c t i n g p o s i t i o n s taken. These v a r i o u s o p i n i o n s would then compete w i t h i n some forum e x t e r n a l to the group i t s e l f . At that p o i n t , the group would become only one of s e v e r a l p a r t i e s i n v o l v e d i n a conten t i o u s i s s u e . Each party would b e . s i m i l a r l y engaged in ga t h e r i n g background and s t r a t e g i c i n f o r m a t i o n . But i t was evident that contending p a r t i e s reach d i s s i m i l a r o p i n i o n s and press f o r competing s o l u t i o n s . T h i s phenomenon l e d to the search f o r some c h a r a c t e r i s t i c i n t h e i r i n f o r m a t i o n pools that would account f o r why groups forge d i s s i m i l a r knowledge, and r e s u l t e d i n the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of " p o l i t i c a l impact" as an important d e s c r i p t i v e dimension. While some inf o r m a t i o n items have a f a i r l y s t a b l e meaning to a l l p a r t i e s i n v o l v e d — such as: "the h a l f l i f e of plutonium", or "the i n s u l a t i n g f a c t o r of a b u i l d i n g m a t e r i a l " , other items have a h i g h l y v o l a t i l e meaning, at the same time supporting the p o s i t i o n of some p a r t i e s and damaging the p o s i t i o n of others — such as: "the c o n f l i c t of i n t e r e s t s f o r a government m i n i s t e r awarding c o n t r a c t s " , or "the r e l a t i o n of r i s i n g p r o f i t margin to lowered s a f e t y in c o n s t r u c t i o n of a l o c a l b r i d g e " . The former items of in f o r m a t i o n are r e l a t i v e l y impart i a l and considered to be common knowledge; the l a t t e r are h i g h l y p a r t i s a n and may be misrepresented or kept i n a c c e s s i b l e to contending p a r t i e s . The d i s t i n c t i o n i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n F i g u r e 4. 59 ( r e l a t i v e l y ( r e l a t i v e l y ^ s t a b l e ) v o l a t i l e ) COMMON PARTI SAN ITEMS ITEMS (agreed upon) (contentious) F i g . 4 " P o l i t i c a l impact" of items i n the i n f o r m a t i o n pools of advocacy groups The " p o l i t i c a l impact" dimension made an important d i s t i n c t i o n among the in f o r m a t i o n items with which advocacy groups were d e a l i n g . I t would not have been p o s s i b l e to a c c u r a t e l y d e s c r i b e the. in f o r m a t i o n g a t h e r i n g behaviours of these l e a r n e r s without d i s t i n g u i s h i n g between the a c q u i s i t i o n of common knowledge items and those which supported t h e i r s p e c i a l p o s i t i o n and change-oriented a c t i v i t i e s . The l i t e r a t u r e of infor m a t i o n science i d e n t i f i e s part of the in f o r m a t i o n environment as p o l i t i c i z e d . Uphoff (1972) designated p o l i t i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n as that which enhances p o l i t i c a l power, in the same way that t e c h n i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n serves p r i m a r i l y to improve p r o d u c t i v i t y . A r t a n d i r e i t e r a t e d the d i r e c t l i n k between inf o r m a t i o n and p o l i t i c s emphasizing that information i s " i n c r e a s i n g l y regarded as a resource c o n v e r t i b l e to p o l i t i c a l power" (1979,p.16). These two d i s t i n g u i s h i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of info r m a t i o n items (purpose and p o l i t i c a l impact) were used j o i n t l y to 60 c o n s t r u c t four generic types of infor m a t i o n which a p p l i e d to any advocacy group's inf o r m a t i o n base. When the two d e s c r i p t i v e axes were combined they d e l i m i t e d types as i l l u s t r a t e d i n Fi g u r e 5. COMMON STRATEGIC PARTISAN STRATEGIC COMMON BACKGROUND PARTI SAN BACKGROUND F i g . 5 Four generic types of information used by advocacy groups When the study reached the stage of development, i n January 1983, of d e f i n i n g g e n e r i c types of advocacy information from f i e l d o b s e r v a t i o n and the p r e l i m i n a r y study, the examples in Fig u r e 6 were o f f e r e d to the s u p e r v i s o r y committee to i l l u s t r a t e the v a r i e t y of items which c o u l d be subsumed under each of the four types, and would be l i k e l y to r e f l e c t the experience of respondents. 61 Common s t r a t e g i c P a r t i s a n s t r a t e g i c (formal or o f f i c i a l procedures) - procedures at shareholders' meetings - names and t i t l e s of corporate o f f i c e r s - committee s t r u c t u r e of c i t y h a l l - appeal procedures f o r U.I.C. or welfare - presenting b r i e f s to c i t y h a l l - procedures at school board meetings - the nature of s e l f - r e g u l a t i n g professions such as sadecine (informal means of s o c i a l action) - how. co get the a t t e n t i o n of c i t y h a l l - how to get more people involved - how co use che media - how co discover che pu b l i c s e n s i t i v i t y of a corporation - how co determine che biases of an o f f i c i a l - how co i d e n t i f y p o t e n t i a l a l l i e s Common background (general knowledge relevant to the problem) - t o x i c p r o p e r t i e s of i n s u l a t i o n , p e s t i c i d e s , and herbicides - l e v e l s of sound that damage human, hearing - health & safety by-laws f o r r e n t a l u n i t s - number of l i c e n s e d daycare f a c i l i t i e s i n a given area - human r i g h t s l e g i s l a t i o n i n Canada - c i t y designs chat reduce crime Pa r t i s a n background ( s o c i a l values and judgements) - "unacceptable" storage of nuclear waste - "environmental co s t s " of megaprojecfis - "inadequate" a v a i l a b l e housing - "discrepancies" i n unemployment s t a t i s t i c s - "adverse d i s c r i m i n a t i o n " on che basis of age - "unequal opportunity" f o r employment Fig. 6 : Examples of the four generic typas of advocacy information 62 Type of channel While v a r i a b l e s were being d e f i n e d a l i t e r a t u r e search was undertaken to determine what conventions e x i s t e d with regard to c a t e g o r i z i n g the channels through which i n f o r m a t i o n c i r c u l a t e s in s o c i e t y . Any c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of the s o c i a l environment i s conducted with r e f e r e n c e to the problem-at-hand. For example, P a i s l e y (1968) , i n c o n s i d e r i n g the i n f o r m a t i o n seeking of a working s c i e n t i s t , c o n j e c t u r e d a t h e o r e t i c a l r e g r e s s i o n of c o n c e n t r i c c i r c l e s where the s c i e n t i s t was viewed w i t h i n the context of h i s c u l t u r e , p o l i t i c a l system, p r o f e s s i o n , s p e c i a l i z e d r e f e r e n c e group,. i n v i s i b l e c o l l e g e , formal o r g a n i z a t i o n , work team, and f i n a l l y , w i t h i n h i s own mind. Parker and Paisley(1966) c o n t r a s t e d the information a c q u i s i t i o n behaviours e x h i b i t e d i n two d i f f e r i n g communities and d e s c r i b e d three b a s i c c a t e g o r i e s of channel, as f o l l o w s : Adult Education Mass Media I n t e r p e r s o n a l evening c l a s s e s T.V. - s e r i o u s f r i e n d s / f a m i l y l e c t u r e attendance r a d i o : i n f o r m a t i o n e x p e r t s / s t r a n g e r s correspondence radio:entertainment groups group d i s c u s s i o n s newspapers T.V. lessons magazines (6 types) on-the-job books (3 types) p r i v a t e teacher pamphlets, c i r c u l a r s , b u l l e t i n s s e l f - s t u d y o b s e r v a t i o n s of the environment Wood (1971), i n summarizing user s t u d i e s of the previous f i v e y ears, d i s t i n g u i s h e d between formal or w r i t t e n sources such 63 as j o u r n a l s , books, r e p o r t s , trade catalogues, or advertisements; and informal or o r a l sources such as customers, c o l l e a g u e s , conferences, s u p p l i e r s and c o n s u l t a n t s . Hardy (1982) conducted a study of 965 F o r e s t S e r v i c e agents and d e s c r i b e d eleven channel c a t e g o r i e s as d i v e r s e as " p u b l i c l i b r a r i e s " , "the F o r e s t S e r v i c e manual", "your personal f i l e s " , and " c o l l e a g u e s at your p l a c e of work". Macfarlane's examination (1984) of s o c i a l change o r g a n i z a t i o n s as users of i n f o r m a t i o n i d e n t i f i e d p r i n t " places used" such as l i b r a r i e s , bookstores and s u b s c r i p t i o n s , and s o c i a l "places used" such as other o r g a n i z a t i o n s , p e r s o n a l c o n t a c t s and conferences. In another context of the same study he i n c l u d e d r a d i o , t e l e v i s i o n and f i l m . Hudson and Danish (1980) prepared a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n scheme of "formal" sources, based on a content a n a l y s i s of i n f o r m a t i o n needs. T h e i r p a r t i c u l a r l i s t of i n f o r m a t i o n channels i s i n c l u d e d as Appendix B. The present study d i f f e r e d from the Hudson and Danish c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n of "sources" and " i n f o r m a t i o n " i n s e v e r a l ways. I t broadened the range of sources from s o c i a l agencies and government bureaus to a more r e p r e s e n t a t i v e d i v e r s i t y that i n c l u d e d mass media and i n d i v i d u a l persons. Secondly, i t c l a s s i f i e d sources i n t o c a t e g o r i e s , r a t h e r than l i s t i n g p a r t i c u l a r s , i n order to make g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s about i n f o r m a t i o n seeking not p o s s i b l e from concrete examples. T h i r d l y , i n c o n t r a s t to the content a n a l y s i s of problem-focused i n f o r m a t i o n , t h i s study developed a set of f u n c t i o n a l types of i n f o r m a t i o n which would be e q u a l l y a p p l i c a b l e to many problem areas, i n order to pool and compare 64 the information a c q u i s i t i o n behaviours of a wide range of u s e r s . The d i v e r s i t y of c a t e g o r i e s employed in the s i x s t u d i e s j u s t c i t e d i l l u s t r a t e the p r i n c i p l e that c l a s s i f i c a t i o n systems are c o n s t r u c t e d with r e f e r e n c e to the problem-at-hand. A c c o r d i n g l y , a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n system for i n f o r m a t i o n channels had to be planned that would be s u i t a b l e f o r the users and s e t t i n g being i n v e s t i g a t e d . Three c a t e g o r i e s were t r i e d f i r s t , d e f i n e d i n the f o l l o w i n g manner: 1. O f f i c i a l government channels In order f o r an item of i n f o r m a t i o n to be i n c l u d e d i n t h i s category the user had to have i n i t i a t e d contact with a m u n i c i p a l , p r o v i n c i a l , or f e d e r a l government o f f i c e v i a a phone c a l l , l e t t e r , or v i s i t . There c o u l d be cases where in f o r m a t i o n had i t s source i n a government department, but was not a c q u i r e d v i a a government channel. For example, a government pamphlet found by users in t h e i r d e n t i s t ' s w a i t i n g room would have been found v i a a mass p r i n t d i s t r i b u t i o n . A government r e p o r t r e c e i v e d by one a s s o c i a t i o n member from another would have a r r i v e d v i a t h i s s o c i a l channel with a degree of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n which would be absent had the document been mailed to the user d i r e c t l y from a government o u t l e t . 2 . Mass media channels In order f o r an item to be i n c l u d e d i n t h i s category i t had to have been acqui red d i r e c t l y by the user from mass media d i s t r i b u t o r s such as newsstands, bookstores, l i b r a r i e s , f i l m 65 d i s t r i b u t o r s , and r a d i o or t e l e v i s i o n b r o a d c a s t i n g s t a t i o n s . Although the item might have been recommended to the user by an i n d i v i d u a l c o n s u l t a n t i t was the seeker's own use of mass media which made the item a v a i l a b l e . For purposes of t h i s study N a t i o n a l F i l m Board of Canada pr o d u c t i o n s were subsumed under mass media. — the s u b t l e t i e s of government i n f l u e n c e being d e f e r r e d f o r some f u t u r e r e s e a r c h . Pamphlets, p o s t e r s , and h a n d b i l l s e t c . were c o n s i d e r e d mass media i f they were simply found i n a p u b l i c p l a c e . I f an i n f o r m a t i o n user was handed a t r a c t by the r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of some o r g a n i z a t i o n , i t would be c o n s i d e r e d to have come from a s o c i a l channel and not mass media. 3. S o c i a l channels T h i s category i n c l u d e d i n d i v i d u a l s and o r g a n i z a t i o n s i n s i t u a t i o n s where a degree of p e r s o n a l contact would o v e r r i d e c a t e g o r i z a t i o n under o f f i c i a l or mass channels. For example, i f an i n f o r m a t i o n user attended the r e g u l a r meeting of an a s s o c i a t i o n at which a government f i l m was shown, the item would be c o n s i d e r e d to have a r r i v e d to that user v i a a s o c i a l channel rather than a government one. I f a r a d i o broadcaster recounted h i s experiences i n person to an advocacy group, the items he provided would be c o n s i d e r e d to have come to the user group v i a an i n d i v i d u a l channel not mass media. I f , however, a government research chemist provided i n f o r m a t i o n while a c t i n g as the p u b l i c r e l a t i o n s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of h i s department, the items he provided would be c o n s i d e r e d to have come to the group v i a a government channel. 66 In the end, i n f o r m a t i o n channels were d i v i d e d i n t o f i v e c a t e g o r i e s on the b a s i s of f i v e dichotomous q u e s t i o n s as i l l u s t r a t e d i n F i g u r e 7 . Of an advocacy group's potential channels some are » GOVERNMENTAL The rest- are non-governmental. Of these, some are 1 DISTRIBUTORS OF PRE-PACKACED MATERIAL ( T r a d i t i o n a l l y c a l l e d "impersonal channels) MASS PRINT DISTRIBUTORS 1. Elected representatives 2. P o l i t i c a l party o f f i c e s 3. Municipal o f f i c e s A. P r o v i n c i a l o f f i c e s 5. Federal o f f i c e s 1. L i b r a r y stacks 2. Bookstores 3. Newsstands A, Subscriptions S. Pamphlets DISTRIBUTORS The r e s t are u 1. .Documentaries 2. Talk shows 3. Community-made programs A. Public service announcements 5. Films or s l i d e -•cape PROVIDERS OF USER — ADAPTED RESPONSES ( T r a d i t i o n a l l y c a l l e d " i n t e r p e r s o n a l " channels) SOCIAL ORGANIZATIONS 1. Local organizations 2. Province-wide groups 3. Vation-wide groups A. Interna t i o n a l organizations 5. Incer-organizacional events INDIVIDUAL PERSONS 1. Members of your group 2. Experts 3. Personal friends of yours A. Family members S. Neighbours F i g . 7: C a t e g o r i z a t i o n o f i n f o r m a t i o n c h a n n e l s f o r t h e s t u d y 67 These f i v e c a t e g o r i e s were adapted from the i n i t i a l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s of government, mass media, and s o c i a l c hannels. On f u r t h e r examination of the i n i t i a l three c a t e g o r i e s , i t had become e v i d e n t that while a l l l e v e l s of government were a c c e s s i b l e to the i n f o r m a t i o n seeker i n s i m i l a r ways, w i t h i n mass media, p r i n t and a u d i o - v i s u a l channels o f f e r e d the i n f o r m a t i o n user q u i t e d i f f e r e n t o p p o r t u n i t i e s ; and among s o c i a l c hannels, p e r s o n a l i n t e r a c t i o n s with i n d i v i d u a l s d i f f e r e d from c o n t a c t i n g o r g a n i z a t i o n s or a t t e n d i n g courses and workshops. The independent v a r i a b l e s were formed i n t o a f a c e t d e s i g n r e v e a l e d by the cube shown i n F i g u r e 8. Four Types of Information I II III IV Fig. 8: Facet design of three independent and two dependent variables 68 The design addressed the flow of four types of i n f o r m a t i o n through f i v e c a t e g o r i e s of channel to three kinds of user (as c l a s s i f i e d a c c o r d i n g to kind of advocacy i s s u e ) . The dependent v a r i a b l e s i n each c e l l were a) the q u a n t i t y , and b) the q u a l i t y , of a given type of i n f o r m a t i o n that has been a c q u i r e d by a given kind of user, v i a a given category of channel. The v a r i a b l e s were sometimes put i n terms of how much in f o r m a t i o n had been a c q u i r e d , and how u s e f u l i t subsequently proved to be. Reference was a l s o shortened at times to the "use" that had been made of a channel, and the p e r c e i v e d " u t i l i t y " of using i t . S p e c i f i c Research Questions and Hypotheses As a r e s u l t of o p e r a t i o n a l i z i n g the r e s e a r c h v a r i a b l e s , i t c o u l d now be s a i d that the purpose of the study was to i n v e s t i g a t e how i n f o r m a l l e a r n e r s i n three kinds of advocacy group use i n f o r m a t i o n channels. . T h e i r c o n t a c t with a channel would be r a t e d by them under the four c o n d i t i o n s of r e q u i r i n g four d i f f e r e n t types of i n f o r m a t i o n . T h i s purpose was formulated more s p e c i f i c a l l y i n t o a set of q u e s t i o n s to be answered, and hypotheses to be t e s t e d , as l i s t e d below under the p a r t i c u l a r o b j e c t i v e s of the study. The f i r s t o b j e c t i v e of the study was to gather d e s c r i p t i v e data on p a t t e r n s of i n f o r m a t i o n a c q u i s i t i o n by informal l e a r n e r s i n s e l f - h e l p advocacy groups. (Because of the focus on i n f o r m a t i o n a c q u i s i t i o n , r e f e r e n c e to groups was h e r e a f t e r 69 shortened to "user groups".) 1. For purposes of g a t h e r i n g each of the four types of information, which s i n g l e channels are used most, and which are the most u s e f u l ? 2. How much do the use scores vary by kind of user group? 3. Which group type a s c r i b e d the hig h e s t o v e r a l l use r a t i n g to each channel? 4. How i s each channel p e r c e i v e d f o r i t s u t i l i t y with respect to t r a n s m i t t i n g each of the four types of information? The second o b j e c t i v e was to t e s t the conceptual framework that had been imposed on the four key v a r i a b l e s , by a s s e s s i n g the degree to which the p a t t e r n of r a t i n g s accorded with the i n t e r n a l s t r u c t u r e of each' v a r i a b l e . Types of in f o r m a t i o n , c a t e g o r i e s of channel, kinds of advocacy group, and q u a n t i t a t i v e and e v a l u a t i v e aspects of con t a c t with channels, had been c r e a t e d s p e c i f i c a l l y to i n v e s t i g a t e the problem of i n t e r e s t . The terminology of science i s not unequivocal on the nature of concepts and c o n s t r u c t s , but based on the d e f i n i t i o n s of Kaplan (1964), the forego i n g l i s t of v a r i a b l e s c o n t a i n s both elements. The c a t e g o r i e s of information channels and kinds of advocacy group conform to Kaplan's d e f i n i t i o n of the f u n c t i o n of concepts. What makes a concept s i g n i f i c a n t i s that the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i t i n s t i t u t e s i s one i n t o which things f a l l , as i t were, of themselves. It carve s at the j o i n t s , P l a t o s a i d . Less m e t a p h o r i c a l l y , a s i g n i f i c a n t concept so groups or d i v i d e s i t s s u b j e c t -matter that i t can enter i n t o many and important true p r o p o s i t i o n s about the subj e c t matter other than those which s t a t e the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i t s e l f (1964,p.50). 7 0 However, the four types of i n f o r m a t i o n , and the two aspects of r a t i n g channels are more problematic i n that t h e i r r e l a t i o n to o b s e r v a t i o n s i s d e f i n i t i o n a l " (Kaplan,1964,p.58), and those d e f i n i t i o n s are determined not s t r i c t l y i n t e r n a l l y but with r e f e r e n c e to each other. C o n s t r u c t s , i n other words, have systemic as w e l l as o b s e r v a t i o n a l meaning, and i n p r a c t i c e may have t h e i r meaning s p e c i f i e d by h o r i z o n t a l r ather than v e r t i c a l o b s e r v a t i o n s ( i b i d ) . The four types of information were c o n s t r u c t e d to s u i t the present problem of i n t e r e s t (Becker,1968; McKinney,1966) and t h e i r meaning i s anchored w i t h i n the domain being i n v e s t i g a t e d . The use and u t i l i t y aspects of user i n t e r a c t i o n with channels were d e f i n e d with r e f e r e n c e to user p e r c e p t i o n s , and r e s u l t from how users estimate r e l a t i v e q u a n t i t y and evaluate r e l a t i v e u s e f u l n e s s . The i n f o r m a t i o n types and u s e / u t i l i t y r a t i n g s are d i s c u s s e d more e x t e n s i v e l y i n Chapter 6 under c o n s t r u c t v a l i d i t y where i t r e l a t e s s p e c i f i c a l l y to instrument development. The o v e r a l l framework of the study, comprised of both concepts and c o n s t r u c t s , had been based on p a r t i c i p a n t o b s e r v a t i o n , deductive reasoning, expert judgement, and f i e l d t e s t i n g , but the f u n c t i o n of o b j e c t i v e two was to determine whether the data c o l l e c t e d from s u b j e c t s v a r i e d s y s t e m a t i c a l l y with the i n t e r n a l s t r u c t u r e which had thus been imposed on each v a r i a b l e . Systematic v a r i a n c e of the l e v e l s of each f a c t o r ( i . e . , the i n t e r n a l s u b d i v i s i o n s of each " v a r i a b l e ) c o u l d be assessed by examining the main e f f e c t s of a m u l t i p l e a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e . A c c o r d i n g l y , a s p e c i f i c research q u e s t i o n was asked 71 about each of the main v a r i a b l e s . 1. Do information users r a t e the f i v e channel c a t e g o r i e s d i f f e r e n t l y ? 2. Do i n f o r m a t i o n users r a t e the four types of i n f o r m a t i o n d i f f e r e n t l y ? 3. Do the group types d i f f e r i n the reported rate of t h e i r i n f o r m a t i o n - g a t h e r i n g a c t i v i t y ? 4. Do the use- and u t i l i t y - o f - c h a n n e l r a t i n g s d i f f e r ? O b j e c t i v e three of the study, was to t e s t hypothesized r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the v a r i a b l e s . One of the foundation stones of o r d e r l i n e s s i n i n f o r m a t i o n s c i e n c e i s that d i f f e r e n t v a r i e t i e s of i n f o r m a t i o n move through s o c i e t y v i a d i f f e r i n g s o r t s of channels. T h i s i s evidenced i n the l i t e r a t u r e i n s t u d i e s such as that of Havelock (1971) where info r m a t i o n on a g r i c u l t u r e , education, medicine, and i n d u s t r y was r e l a t e d i n d i f f e r i n g ways to nine d i f f e r e n t " l i n k i n g r o l e s " of agents; or i n Parker and P a i s l e y ' s study (1966) where info r m a t i o n on n a t i o n a l a f f a i r s , l o c a l p u b l i c a f f a i r s , o ccupations, homemaking and l e i s u r e a c t i v i t i e s was examined f o r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c r e l a t i o n s h i p s with formal a d u l t education channels, mass media, and i n t e r p e r s o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n sources. The r e l a t i o n s h i p was a l s o evidenced i n the e a r l y stages of t h i s study where e x p l o r a t o r y questions of the s o r t "What c o n t a c t s do you use?" would b r i n g responses to the e f f e c t " f o r what purpose?", the s u b j e c t s thereby i n d i c a t i n g that i n t h e i r experience given channels were used fo r some purposes' and not o t h e r s . In order to apply the information/channel r e l a t i o n s h i p to t h i s context of study, and to i n i t i a t e more d e t a i l e d examination, i t was hypothesized t h a t : 72 Hypothesis I The r a t i n g of channel c a t e g o r i e s w i l l vary by i n f o r m a t i o n type. A second theme i n i n f o r m a t i o n science i s the d i s t i n c t i v e and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c use of channels by p a r t i c u l a r kinds of users. Sometimes c o n s t i t u e n c i e s of users are examined s e p a r a t e l y as were working s c i e n t i s t s ( P a i s l e y , 1 9 6 8 ) , F o r e s t r y S e r v i c e agents (Hardy, 1982), or a d u l t educators (Eisenberg,1983). Other s t u d i e s compare and c o n t r a s t the behaviours of user c o n s t i t u e n c i e s as Durrance (1980) d i d with i ) neighbourhood, i i ) s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t , and i i i ) p u b l i c a f f a i r s c i t i z e n s groups; as Hays, Shearer and Wison (1977) d i d with i ) r u r a l , i i ) small town, and i i i ) urban r e s i d e n t s ; or as H a l l (1981) d i d with the s o c i a l s e c t o r s of i ) government, i i ) i n d u s t r y , and i i i ) academia. T h i s study examined groups working w i t h i n the domain of s o c i a l advocacy, but d i v i d e d i n t o three issue areas. In order to t e s t the user/channel r e l a t i o n s h i p in t h i s context i t was hypothesized t h a t : Hypothesis II The r a t i n g of channel c a t e g o r i e s w i l l vary by group type. To determine whether or not any b i a s i n g i n f l u e n c e had been intr o d u c e d i n t o the data on these hypotheses by i n c i d e n t a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the respondents, the e f f e c t of s e v e r a l i n t e r v e n i n g v a r i a b l e s was t e s t e d . 73 Int e r v e n i n g V a r i a b l e s There were a number of v a r i a b l e s among s u b j e c t s which might have i n f l u e n c e d t h e i r use of i n f o r m a t i o n channels, other than the independent v a r i a b l e s of group type and i n f o r m a t i o n type. Int e r v e n i n g v a r i a b l e s were i d e n t i f i e d w i t h i n demographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the membership and ope r a t i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e i r groups. "Patterns of Adult Information Seeking" (Parker & P a i s l e y , 1 9 6 6 ) examined age, sex, education, occupation, income and l e n g t h of community residence as user v a r i a b l e s to e x p l a i n v a r i a n c e i n the use of impersonal media ( p r i n t and broadcast) and i n t e r p e r s o n a l media (organized groups and f r i e n d s ) . They found that age and l e n g t h of residence were the l e a s t potent demographic i n d i c a t o r s of media use. Gender was the best p r e d i c t o r of content i n t e r e s t , but not kind of media used. Use of both impersonal and i n t e r p e r s o n a l media i n c r e a s e d with income and occupation l e v e l . F i n a l l y , they found that the s i n g l e most powerful p r e d i c t o r of media use was l e v e l of e d u c a t i o n . Over a l l s u bject areas, e d u c a t i o n a l l e v e l was not only the st r o n g e s t c o r r e l a t e of information seeking, i t s p e c i f i e d the source. A d u l t s at lower education l e v e l s depended on broadcast media, while those with c o l l e g e t r a i n i n g sought i n f o r m a t i o n i n p r i n t . In a m u l t i v a r i a t e r e - a n a l y s i s of the data presented i n the Parker and P a i s l e y study (1966), Rees and P a i s l e y (1967) revealed "number of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l memberships" to be a p r e d i c t o r of frequent s i g n i f i c a n c e . As a r e s u l t of the l i t e r a t u r e review, data was c o l l e c t e d on 74 the f o l l o w i n g i n t e r v e n i n g v a r i a b l e s : Respondent v a r i a b l e s - gender - age - education l e v e l - income l e v e l - number of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l memberships Group ope r a t i o n v a r i a b l e s - membership s i z e - years of o p e r a t i o n - use of own o f f i c e s - p a i d s t a f f Some d e c i s i o n s had to be made about c o n s t r u c t s f o r the demographic v a r i a b l e s . The f i n a l treatment of each can be seen on the l a s t page of the instrument which i s i n c l u d e d as Appendix E. The e i g h t options f o r r e p o r t i n g l e v e l of education were chosen to r e f l e c t major d i s t i n c t i o n s i n e d u c a t i o n a l q u a l i f i c a t i o n s i n B r i t i s h Columbia, Canada. "Income" was t r e a t e d as t o t a l household income in r e c o g n i t i o n that the respondents' domestic economic environment would be determined on the b a s i s of t h e i r own and p a r e n t a l , spouses', or i n some cases c h i l d r e n ' s income, unemployment insurance, welfare, pension and so on. In order to determine the t o t a l of memberships respondents h e l d i n organized groups, they were asked to r e p o r t both the number of o r g a n i z a t i o n s , of any kind, in which they were a paid-up member, and the number of other 75 groups or o r g a n i z a t i o n s i n which they p a r t i c i p a t e d . Group o p e r a t i o n v a r i a b l e s (years of o p e r a t i o n , use of own o f f i c e s and use of p a i d s t a f f ) are s e l f - e x p l a n a t o r y . Membership, f o r comparative purposes was taken as the unseen, t o t a l membership - the m a i l i n g l i s t - r a ther than the core of a c t i v e members, most of whom would be p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the study. The manner in which the channel, i n f o r m a t i o n , and r a t i n g v a r i a b l e s were i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o an instrument i s r e p o r t e d i n Chapter 6. 76 Chapter 6 INSTRUMENT DEVELOPMENT The main instrument of the study contained r a t i n g s c a l e s which respondents used to r e c o r d i ) how much i n f o r m a t i o n of a p a r t i c u l a r type they acquired from each of the channels l i s t e d ; and i i ) how u s e f u l they found that i n f o r m a t i o n to be with respect to the i n t e r e s t s of t h e i r group. Instrument development i n v o l v e d three separate t a s k s . Information types had to be def i n e d so as to be d i s t i n c t from each other, and r e a d i l y recognized by respondents. A l i s t of channels had to be assembled that was r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the s o c i a l i n f r a s t r u c t u r e with which respondents i n t e r a c t e d , but was a l s o compact enough to be rated under four c o n d i t i o n s w i t h i n reasonable time l i m i t s . F i n a l l y , s c a l e s had to be d e v i s e d that would be readable, w e l l graduated, and communicate to respondents that they were being asked f o r q u a n t i t a t i v e and e v a l u a t i v e measures r e s p e c t i v e l y . , Content V a l i d i t y According to Nunnally (I970,p.136) the qu e s t i o n of content v a l i d i t y i s p r i n c i p a l l y one of the "adequacy with which a s p e c i f i c domain of content i s sampled". T h i s i s not demonstrable i n t'le behaviour of items a f t e r c o n s t r u c t i o n . Rather, the resear c h e r endeavours to ensure content v a l i d i t y by f i r s t developing a plan f o r sampling the domain which w i l l produce a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e c o l l e c t i o n of items, and then by u s i n g 77 " s e n s i b l e " methods of t e s t c o n s t r u c t i o n to c a s t the content i n t e s t a b l e form. Content v a l i d i t y was the primary c o n s i d e r a t i o n in developing an inventory of i n f o r m a t i o n channels. The channel types The plan f o r sampling i n c l u d e d a review of the conventions in i n f o r m a t i o n s c i e n c e f o r s p e c i f y i n g i n f o r m a t i o n channels, e a r l y c r i t i q u e by e x p e r t s , f i e l d t e s t , and s t a t i s t i c a l examination of the item l i s t . There were two l e v e l s of aggregation at which the d e f i n i n g of channels had to be conducted: the category l e v e l and the item l e v e l . These corresponded with what Nunnally (1970) r e f e r r e d to as the "domain" and the "sampling u n i t " , which he maintained needed to be w e l l s p e c i f i e d as a p r e - c o n d i t i o n to making a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e sample. A review of the c o n v e n t i o n a l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s of i n f o r m a t i o n channels d i d not produce a set of c a t e g o r i e s that r e f l e c t e d the whole "domain" i n which advocacy groups operate. S e v e r a l examples were repo r t e d in Chapter 5 to e s t a b l i s h the p r i n c i p l e that c l a s s i f i c a t i o n systems are c o n s t r u c t e d with r e f e r e n c e to the problem-at-hand. With r e f e r e n c e to the experience of advocacy groups an i n i t i a l three c a t e g o r i e s were proposed: i ) government channels, i i ) mass media, and i i i ) s o c i a l channels. While these three e f f e c t i v e l y spanned the domain, t h e i r boundaries with each other were not c l e a r . In order to s p e c i f y e x p l i c i t l y the b a s i s on which c a t e g o r i e s would be d i s t i n g u i s h e d from each other, a s e r i e s of dichotomous q u e s t i o n s were asked that produced the f i v e 78 c a t e g o r i e s i ) government, i i ) mass p r i n t , i i i ) mass audio-v i s u a l , i v ) organized s o c i a l c o n t a c t s , and v) i n d i v i d u a l persons, as i l l u s t r a t e d by F i g u r e 7 in Chapter 5. The second problem of d e f i n i n g the "sampling u n i t " or the item l e v e l , was again something which could not be solved simply by r e s o r t i n g to convention. Nunnally (op. c i t . ) makes i t c l e a r that the s e l e c t i o n of'items i n v o l v e s making i n t e n t i o n a l c h o i c e s based on some c r i t e r i o n which should be made e x p l i c i t by the r e s e a r c h e r . In t h i s case the main c r i t e r i o n f o r item s e l e c t i o n was that each should s p e c i f y a p o i n t of c o n t a c t f o r the i n f o r m a t i o n user. For example, "magazines" may be an adequate item f o r s p e c i f y i n g modes of i n f o r m a t i o n d i s s e m i n a t i o n ; but f o r d e p i c t i n g user behaviour i t makes a d i f f e r e n c e whether i s s u e s of the magazine are picked up only o c c a s i o n a l l y or are r e c e i v e d on a c o n t i n u i n g , r e g u l a r b a s i s . For t h i s reason two items, "newsstands" and " s u b s c r i p t i o n s " were p r e f e r r e d . An i n i t i a l l i s t of 25 items was assembled and t e s t e d i n February 1983. The s u b j e c t s were members of the board of a s e l f - h e l p group working in the area of medical advocacy. The way i n which they were int r o d u c e d to the study, engaged in a d i s c u s s i o n of group h i s t o r y , and l e d i n t o the i n d i v i d u a l task of r a t i n g items was a t r i a l - r u n of the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n procedure d e t a i l e d i n the next chapter. Each stage of the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n was timed. The e x e r c i s e p r o v i d e d feedback on p a r t i c u l a r items, format and phrasing of the instrument i n s t r u c t i o n s , and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n procedures. T h i s f i r s t p r e s e n t a t i o n of the domain as a set of t e s t a b l e items i s i l l u s t r a t e d by F i g u r e 8. 79 Now you are going to be asked to think back on how you came to know what you do about FORMAL, or OFFICIAL PROCEDURES. Again, i i doesn't latter whether you intentionally contacted an information channel or Just picked up eoaothing in passing. If you think an important channel has been omitted please write i t in on one of the blank lines. Of tbe information you now MUCH did you acquire how USEFUL was that gathered In the last from each of the following information to you ? year on FORMAL, or channels 7 OFFICIAL PROCEDURES.. . A A MOT NOT VEHT MODERATE GREAT AT ALL VERY MODERATELY VERY NOTHING LITTLE AMOUNT DEAL USEFUL USEFUL USEFUL USEFUL Elected representatives 1 2 3 1 2 3 if Political party offices 1 2 3 1 2 3 U Municipal offices 1 2 3 if 1 2. 3 If Provincial offices 1 2 3 if 1 2 3 k Federal offices 1 2 3 if 1 2 3 if 1 2 3 if 1 2 3 4 Library bookshelves 1 2 3 if 1 2 3 Bookstores 1 2 3 If 1 2 3 if Newsstands 1 2 3 if 1 2 3 if Mail-order subscriptions 1 2 3 if 1 2 3 if 1 2 3 if 1 2 3 if Radio documentaries 1 2 3 if 1 2 3 k T.V. documentaries 1 2 3 if 1 2 3 if Tali shows 1 2 3 if 1 2 3 U Community-made programs 1 2 . 3 if 1 2 3 Film distributors 1 2 3 if 1 2 3 1 2 3 if 1 2 3 4 Local organizations 1 2 3 if 1 2 3 k Province-wide groups 1 2 3 if 1 2 3 k Nation-wide groups 1 2 3 if 1 2 3 1* International institutions 1 2 3 if 1 2 3 ii Inter-gxoap forums 1 2 3 if 1 2 3 1* Coalitions 1 2 3 if .1 2 3 if 1 2 3 if 1 2 3 1* Members of your group 1 2 3 if 1 2 3 k • Experts 1 2 3 if 1 2 . 3 u Personal friends of yours 1 2 3 i» 1 2 3 k Family members i 2 3' if 1 2 3 u Neighbours 1 2 3 if 1 . 2 3 k 1 2 3 If 1 2 3 F i g . 9: T r i a l v e r s i o n of the instrument items 80 As a r e s u l t of comments gathered, s e v e r a l items were added, d e l e t e d or renamed, l e a v i n g a t o t a l of 32. The s e c t i o n on "organized s o c i a l c o n t a c t s " was r e c a s t completely to r e f l e c t long and short-term forms of s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n that serve d i f f e r e n t f u n c t i o n s , rather than v a r y i n g s i z e of j u r i s d i c t i o n ( l o c a l , p r o v i n c i a l , n a t i o n a l ) as o r i g i n a l l y d e f i n e d . The channel c a t e g o r i e s were t i t l e d on the instrument. The instrument format was changed to i n c l u d e two l i n e s at the top of each r a t i n g page on which the respondent c o u l d l i s t p r e f e r r e d examples of the kind of info r m a t i o n being gathered. Phrasing of the i n s t r u c t i o n s to r a t e items were a l t e r e d s l i g h t l y on the b a s i s of f i e l d t e s t comments. A d m i n i s t r a t i o n procedures proved to be s a t i s f a c t o r y f o r both respondent comprehension of the task and length of time r e q u i r e d to complete. The instrument was r e v i s e d and t e s t e d again with an a d d i t i o n a l r a t i n g task i n c l u d e d . That r a t i n g task i s d e s c r i b e d l a t e r i n t h i s chapter under the s e c t i o n on face v a l i d i t y . Mean scores f o r use and u t i l i t y of each channel i n gathering each of the four kinds of i n f o r m a t i o n were c a l c u l a t e d from the f i e l d t e s t data using the " C o n d e s c r i p t i v e " procedure of SPSS. T h i s a n a l y s i s e s t a b l i s h e d that while an i n d i v i d u a l respondent might report that no i n f o r m a t i o n at a l l was gathered from a given channel, no channel item r e c e i v e d t h i s r a t i n g from a l l respondents. Determining i n t h i s way that there were no non-response items c o n s t i t u t e d " c i r c u m s t a n t i a l " evidence of content v a l i d i t y . According to Nunnally, the assessment of content v a l i d i t y i s p r i n c i p a l l y an appeal to the p r o p r i e t y of content and the way i t i s presented, and t h i s appeal had been 81 duly made to a p p r o p r i a t e judges. Construct V a l i d i t y A l l s c i e n c e i s concerned with e s t a b l i s h i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s between v a r i a b l e s . V a r i a b l e s of i n t e r e s t must be measured before they can be r e l a t e d , and each measure must i n some sense be a v a l i d index of what i t p u r p o r t s to be measuring. The degree to which i t i s d i f f i c u l t to v a l i d a t e measures i s p r o p o r t i o n a l to the degree to which the v a r i a b l e i s concrete or a b s t r a c t . C o n s t r u c t s employed in t h i s study, four kinds of information and two kinds of r a t i n g v a r i a b l e , would c l a s s i f y at some mid-point i n the concrete to a b s t r a c t continuum — n e i t h e r as concrete as "number of v i s i t s to the l o c a l l i b r a r y " , nor as a b s t r a c t as " i d e o l o g i c a l l y pure" communications. A c o n s t r u c t i s always to some extent an a b s t r a c t e d e n t i t y represented by one or more concrete observables, and having some explanatory power with regard to more complex phenomena. Consequently, c o n s t r u c t v a l i d a t i o n i s a v i t a l p art of a l l s c i e n c e . The l i n e of argumentation a p p l i e d to the c o n s t r u c t s f o r in f o r m a t i o n types i n the f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n , i s paraphrased from Nunnally (1970,pp.138-147). He summarized the process of v a l i d a t i n g measurement of a c o n s t r u c t i n t o three major a s p e c t s : i ) s p e c i f y the domain of observables of the c o n s t r u c t i i ) develop measures of the c o n s t r u c t that c o r r e l a t e w e l l with each other i i i ) r e l a t e those measures to other v a r i a b l e s of i n t e r e s t . 82 The i n f o r m a t i o n types The f i r s t step of v a l i d a t i o n i n v o l v e s s p e c i f y i n g the domain of observables of a c o n s t r u c t . I t amounts to a semantic problem of e s t a b l i s h i n g the meaning of terms (Type I i n f o r m a t i o n , Type II i n f o r m a t i o n ) with regard to e m p i r i c a l events. E s s e n t i a l l y an o u t l i n e of the domain c o n s t i t u t e s a theory of how v a r i a b l e s w i l l r e l a t e to one another. In t h i s case the two d e s c r i p t i v e v a r i a b l e s were "purpose" to which the info r m a t i o n would be put, and i t s " p o l i t i c a l impact". The f i r s t v a r i a b l e emerged even p r i o r to the p r e l i m i n a r y study d e s c r i b e d i n Chapter 3, when the researcher conducted a y e a r - l o n g i n v e s t i g a t i o n of an environmental advocacy group as p a r t i c i p a n t observer. T h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n l e d to the d i s c o v e r y of a d i s t i n c t i o n between infor m a t i o n that d e s c r i b e d the nature of an issue and that which enabled a c t i o n f o r change. The two c a t e g o r i e s came to be r e f e r r e d to as "background" and " s t r a t e g i c " i n f o r m a t i o n , r e s p e c t i v e l y . The b a s i c d i s t i n c t i o n between them was explo r e d in the p r e l i m i n a r y study with three s e l f - h e l p advocacy groups and found to be r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of t h e i r experience. The second d e s c r i p t i v e v a r i a b l e of p o l i t i c a l impact, which d i s t i n g u i s h e d between p o l i t i c a l l y s t a b l e and p o l i t i c a l l y v o l a t i l e i n f o r m a t i o n , was d e d u c t i v e l y d e r i v e d from the assumption that knowledge i s a s o c i a l c r e a t i o n . If knowledge i s a product of s o c i a l consensus, then inherent w i t h i n i t i s a dimension of s t a b i l i t y i n which those " b i t s " which d e r i v e from the broadest base are most s t a b l e , and those which d e r i v e from p o l i t i c a l l y d i s p e r s e d , f r a c t i o n a l c o n s t i t u e n c i e s are l e a s t sjtable. The two v a r i a b l e s of purpose and p o l i t i c a l impact were 8 3 by d e f i n i t i o n independent of each other and c o u l d be used, as d e s c r i b e d i n Chapter 5, to d e l i n e a t e four c o n s t r u c t e d types of in f o r m a t i o n . The four types were congruent with the res e a r c h e r ' s past o b s e r v a t i o n s but were taken f o r f u r t h e r v e r i f i c a t i o n to an advocacy agent i d e n t i f i e d as an expert. The expert was an exe c u t i v e member of a s e l f - h e l p group which was i t s e l f c o n s i d e r e d to be a community leader i n advocacy a c t i v i t i e s . The expert was given an open-ended prompt to d e s c r i b e the kinds of information which she had observed advocacy groups to gather. Over a two-hour p e r i o d the interviewee d e s c r i b e d c a t e g o r i e s compatible with the four c o n s t r u c t e d types. Thus, the domain of observable items i n each subtype of inform a t i o n was d e f i n e d from p a r t i c i p a n t o b s e r v a t i o n , a p r e l i m i n a r y study, deductive reasoning, and c r i t i c a l review by an expert. T h i s c o n s t i t u t e d the completion of step one of the v a l i d a t i o n of the c o n s t r u c t s f o r info r m a t i o n types. Step two c o n s i s t s of determining the extent to which each of the concrete observables c o r r e l a t e with each other. Nunnally emphasized that because c o n s t r u c t s concern domains of observables, l o g i c a l l y a b e t t e r measure of any c o n s t r u c t would be obtained by combining the r e s u l t s from a number of measures of such observables than by t a k i n g any one of them i n d i v i d u a l l y (1970,p.143). Thus, c o n s i d e r a b l e e f f o r t was made to go beyond the three concrete examples of each kind of info r m a t i o n o f f e r e d on the instrument. The whole purpose of the d i s c u s s i o n of group h i s t o r y i n c l u d e d i n every a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the instrument was 84 to e l i c i t from respondents t h e i r own concrete "observables", examples of each kind of i n f o r m a t i o n . Since they were requested to r e c o r d two examples of each, there were p o t e n t i a l l y 210 observables (2 x 105 respondents) r e f e r e n c e d f o r each of the four kinds of i n f o r m a t i o n — 420 observables i n a l l . The a c t u a l number of "observables" i s of t r i v i a l concern, and was c e r t a i n l y s m a l l e r than the h y p o t h e t i c a l number because of o v e r l a p in the examples chosen by respondents. It nonetheless posed a c o n s i d e r a b l e c h a l l e n g e to the second stage of c o n s t r u c t v a l i d a t i o n , — e s t a b l i s h i n g a degree of homogeneity among the e m p i r i c a l r e f e r e n t s of each c o n s t r u c t . Because the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n procedure i n v o l v e d a c o n v e r s a t i o n reviewing group h i s t o r y i n the l i g h t of p r e v i o u s l y d e f i n e d i n f o r m a t i o n domains, the respondents were able to d i s c u s s the d e f i n i t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the kinds of information and the s u i t a b i l i t y of v a r i o u s examples. T h i s amounted to an i n f o r m a l judgement by a l l d i s c u s s a n t s of the s i m i l a r i t y of the "observables" proposed, and helped to ensure that a good number of comparable examples were found f o r each generic type of i n f o r m a t i o n . A formal t e s t of how s i m i l a r l y the r e f e r e n t s behaved was p r o v i d e d by the a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e which i s r e p o r t e d with other f i n d i n g s i n Chapter 8. In t h i s s i t u a t i o n , the very power of a repeated measures design to f i n d s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i f they e x i s t would have worked ag a i n s t the s u c c e s s f u l determination of a homogeneity among observables w i t h i n a type, and d i f f e r e n c e between types, f o r the f o l l o w i n g reason. Each respondent rep o r t e d on the q u a n t i t y and q u a l i t y of a given kind of i n f o r m a t i o n as acquired v i a 32 channels -- a t o t a l of 64 85 r e p o r t s on that kind of i n f o r m a t i o n . If the respondents had used observable r e f e r e n t s that behave very d i f f e r e n t l y , the o v e r a l l mean scores f o r the in f o r m a t i o n types would have so resembled each other as to become i n d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e . That d i d not happen. The r e f o r e , i t c o u l d be concluded that respondents were choosing concrete examples from t h e i r experience that showed a degree of coherence w i t h i n the defin'ed i n f o r m a t i o n types. The t h i r d stage of c o n s t r u c t v a l i d a t i o n i n v o l v e s determining whether the observable i n d i c a t o r s of the c o n s t r u c t (examples of each type of information) c o r r e l a t e i n expected ways with other c o n s t r u c t s (the c a t e g o r i e s of in f o r m a t i o n channel). T h i s i s important because the c o m p a t a b i l i t y or c o n s i s t e n c y of i n d i c a t o r s i s a necessary but not s u f f i c i e n t c o n d i t i o n f o r c o n s t r u c t v a l i d i t y . S u f f i c i e n t evidence f o r c o n s t r u c t v a l i d i t y i s the f a c t that i n d i c a t o r s of the c o n s t r u c t behave as expected, i . e . , meet the fundamental assumptions about the nature of the c o n s t r u c t being i n v e s t i g a t e d . In t h i s case, the general hypothesis about info r m a t i o n types was that users would not gather them v i a the same kinds of channels. T h i s r e q u i r e d a t e s t of the s t r e n g t h of i n t e r a c t i o n between four l e v e l s of the info r m a t i o n v a r i a b l e and f i v e l e v e l s of the channel v a r i a b l e . D e t a i l s of the p o s i t i v e f i n d i n g s i n t h i s regard are repo r t e d i n Chapter 8. I t serves here to c i t e Nunnally (1970,p.145). When a v a r i e t y . of [ i n d i c a t o r s ] behave s i m i l a r l y . . . over a v a r i e t y of ...treatments i t becomes meaningful to speak of them as measuring a c o n s t r u c t . 8 6 The r a t i n g v a r i a b l e s The c o n s t r u c t s f o r "amount" of information and " u t i l i t y " of i n f o r m a t i o n , although much l e s s complex than the i n f o r m a t i o n c o n s t r u c t s , were v a l i d a t e d i n a p a r a l l e l manner. The domain of observables f o r each was more vaguely bounded and more a b s t r a c t than with the i n f o r m a t i o n c o n s t r u c t s . "Amount" was not bounded by concrete i n d i c a t o r s such as f i l e c a b i n e t s f u l l , but by the e s t i m a t i o n of the respondents. " U t i l i t y " was s i m i l a r l y the respondents' judgement made with refere n c e to what they p e r c e i v e d group purposes to be. In the second stage of v a l i d a t i o n "use" and " u t i l i t y " s cores were t r e a t e d as two l e v e l s of a r a t i n g v a r i a b l e i n c l u d e d i n the m u l t i p l e a n a l y s i s that i s reported i n d e t a i l i n Chapter 8. R e s u l t s of the a n a l y s i s estimated that although the two o v e r a l l means were very c l o s e , they were s y s t e m a t i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t from each other ( p < . 0 0 0 1 ) . Face V a l i d i t y Face v a l i d i t y was a p a r t i c u l a r l y important issue i n t h i s study because of r e s i s t a n c e to q u a n t i t a t i v e research manifested by groups such as those s t u d i e d here. Two aspects of the instrument h i g h l i g h t e d face v a l i d i t y : the logos used to cue respondents to think about d i f f e r e n t kinds of i n f o r m a t i o n ; and the p o s s i b l e use of a t h i r d r a t i n g option ,which would be used only i f the respondent had NEVER used a given channel for ANY purpose whatsoever. In the case of the logos, f i e l d - t e s t i n g l e d to the d e c i s i o n 87 to r e t a i n them. I t was important to one of the theory-based hypotheses being t e s t e d ( i n f o r m a t i o n types are a c q u i r e d v i a p a r t i c u l a r channel c a t e g o r i e s ) that respondents keep i n mind one kind of i n f o r m a t i o n , and one kind only, as they r a t e d the l i s t of channels. So a d i s t i n c t i v e logo was used d u r i n g the r e s e a r c h e r ' s p r e s e n t a t i o n to subject groups when • i n t r o d u c i n g each of the four kinds of i n f o r m a t i o n . Each logo was seen again by respondents as they recorded, on the f i r s t page of the instrument, examples of information gathered by t h e i r group. And the logo was seen a t h i r d time, at the top of the page where respondents were asked to r a t e channels f o r t h e i r past use and u t i l i t y i n g a t h e r i n g each of the kinds of i n f o r m a t i o n i n t u r n . Two groups were used f o r t e s t i n g the instrument, f o r a t o t a l of 26 respondents, and s i n c e no comments i n d i c a t e d a confounding e f f e c t from the logos i t was decided to r e t a i n them on the e x p e c t a t i o n that they would improve the respondents' a b i l i t y to d i s c r i m i n a t e between types of i n f o r m a t i o n . The logos appear on the f i n a l instrument which i s i n c l u d e d as Appendix C. The opposite c o n c l u s i o n was reached with regard to the use of a t h i r d r a t i n g task. The low end of the use and u t i l i t y s c a l e s gave respondents the o p p o r t u n i t y to say t h a t , regarding a given kind of information from a given channel, they gathered "NONE AT ALL" and/or that what they got was "NOT USEFUL AT ALL". It was p o i n t e d out that i f these options were chosen by a respondent i n four cases out of four with regard to a given channel, there was no way of knowing whether i t was the r e s u l t of the channel never having been co n t a c t e d at a l l , or of the contact having proved f r u i t l e s s . On the chance that t h i s 88 a d d i t i o n a l d a t a m i g h t e a s i l y b e i n c l u d e d i n t h e s u r v e y , i t was d e c i d e d t o t r y a v e r s i o n o f t h e i n s t r u m e n t w i t h a c o l u m n a d d e d b e t w e e n t h e l i s t o f c h a n n e l s a n d t h e t w o r a t i n g s c a l e s . T h e c o l u m n was h e a d e d "NO C O N T A C T AT A L L " . An i l l u s t r a t i o n o f t h e i n s t r u m e n t w i t h t h i s c o l u m n i n s e r t e d i s i n c l u d e d a s F i g u r e 9. I f t h e o p t i o n h a d b e e n c o r r e c t l y i n t e r p r e t e d by r e s p o n d e n t s , t h e n a t a l l s u b s e q u e n t r e c u r r e n c e s i n t h e i n s t r u m e n t o f a n i t e m m a r k e d "NO CONTACT A T A L L " t h e r e w o u l d e i t h e r b e n o f u r t h e r r a t i n g a t a l l , o r a l l n e g a t i v e r a t i n g s . I n f a c t , o v e r 90 p e r c e n t o f r e s p o n d e n t s i n t h e s e c o n d f i e l d t e s t g r o u p , w h e r e t h e new c o l u m n was t r i e d , w e n t o n t o a t t r i b u t e some u s e f u l n e s s t o t h o s e c h a n n e l s f o r some p u r p o s e . T h i s a m o u n t e d t o s e l f - c o n t r a d i c t o r y d a t a . G u i d i n g r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s o f t h e s t u d y w e r e d e s i g n e d t o d e t e r m i n e w h a t s o r t o f p a t t e r n , i f a n y , t h e r e was t o t h e " s t r o n g " n e t w o r k i n t e r a c t i o n s o f a d v o c a c y g r o u p s , n o t t o e x p l a i n t h e weak o n e s . C o n s e q u e n t l y , t h e "NO C O N T A C T A T A L L " c o l u m n was d e l e t e d f r o m t h e f i n a l i n s t r u m e n t . A p h o t o r e d u c e d c o p y o f t h e f i n a l i n s t r u m e n t i s i n c l u d e d a s A p p e n d i x C. PRACTICAL n»U-ROW ABOUT SOCIAL ACTION Apart from formal procedures chare la a kind of pragmatic knowledge of how things actually work, or don't work. In practice. Sow having heard what everyone elaa had to say, give what you think are the two beat examples of practical know-how tour group haa had to learn; then complete the rest of the sage. , 2. Rata the following channels baaed on your contact with them over che laae year. I I i Row MUCH practical information about social action did you acquire from chem ? , / / ? i § i t 3 * I j 8 S . 5 Row USEFUL was ic 3 3 £ 3 3 * 3 •et c s if ' S-8 i I to you ? « J s  g 2 S 5 GOVERHHEHXAL CONTACTS federal departsenta Z i 2 3 * 3 l 2 4 3 Provincial alulatries Z i 2 3 4 3 1 2 4 3 Municipal departments z l 2 3 A 3 ! 2 4 3 Offices of elected representatives z l 2 3 4 3 I 2 4 3 Political PASTY offices z 1 2 3 4 3 I * 4 3 BOH-PERSOHAL CHANNELS ( m m ) Libraries z • i 2 3 4 3 1 2 4 3 Bookstores z l 2 3 4 3 1 2 4 3 newsstands z l 2 3 4 3 I 2 4 3 Hall-order .inscriptions z 1 2 3 4 3 I 2 4 3 KOR-POSOKAL CHANNELS (AUDIO/VISUAL) T.V. dOCTmantirtos z l 2 3 4 3 1 2 4 3 Radio documentaries z l 2 3 4 3 1 2 4 3 Interviewing talk shams z 1 2 3 4 3 1 2 4 3 f*ii—in H j sails media programs z l 2 3 4 3 I 2 4 3 Film distributors z 1 2 3 4 3 » i 4 3 ORGANIZED SOCIAL CONTACTS Groups comparable to your own z i 2 3 4 3 t j 4 3 A provincial affiliation of your group z i 2 3 4 3 ! 2 4 3 A national affiliation of your group z i 2 3 4 3 X 2 4 3 An International affiliation of your group z l 2 3 4 3 1 2 4 3 Professional associations z i 2 3 4 3 x j 4 3 Community service organizations z i 2 3 4 3 ! 2 4 3 Religious groups z i 2 3 4 3 ! 2 4 3 Coalitions z i 2 3 4 3 1 2 4 3 Conferences/courses/workshops z 1 2 3 4 3 I * 4 3 IBDIVTDOAL PERSONAL CONTACTS members of this group I i 2 3 4 3 ! 2 4 3 close friends outside this group z i 2 3 4 3 I 2 4 3 acqualntancea outside this group z i 2 3 4 3 ! 2 4 3 family members z i 2 3 4 3 I j 4 3 neighbours X ' i 2 3 4 5 I 2 4 3 scientific experts z i 2 3 4 3 t 2 4 3 financial experts z i 2 3 4 5 ! 2 4 3 legal experts z i 2 3 4 3 I 2 4 3 community development experta X 1 2 3 4 3 1 2 4 3 F i g . 10: T r i a l instrument format with, extra r a t i n g task 90 R e l i a b i l i t y In psychology and education, i n v e s t i g a t o r s have been concerned with how much confidence they c o u l d p l a c e in t h e i r data when two a d m i n i s t r a t i o n s of a given t e s t to a given person were l i k e l y to produce scores that d i f f e r . Cronbach r e f e r r e d to a "mountain of l i t e r a t u r e on r e l i a b i l i t y of measures" i n which the observed score was n e a r l y always d e s c r i b e d as the sum of a "true score" and a pu r e l y random " e r r o r " , where the e r r o r was cons i d e r e d to have been sampled from an u n d i f f e r e n t i a t e d , s i n g l e d i s t r i b u t i o n (Cronbach, et a l . , I972,p.1). The c l a s s i c a l procedure f o r determining r e l i a b i l i t y was to estimate the standard d e v i a t i o n of t h i s hypothesized d i s t r i b u t i o n of e r r o r values, (the standard e r r o r of measurement) and the r a t i o of the var i a n c e of true scores to the v a r i a n c e of observed s c o r e s ( t h e r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t ) . Four major experimental and s t a t i s t i c a l procedures f o r o b t a i n i n g estimates of r e l i a b i l i t y are d e s c r i b e d i n Thorndike's work on e d u c a t i o n a l measurement (1971,p.370): 1. A d m i n i s t r a t i o n of two p a r a l l e l forms... and c o r r e l a t i o n of the r e s u l t i n g scores 2. Repeated a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the same t e s t form... and c o r r e l a t i o n of the r e s u l t i n g scores 3. S u b d i v i s i o n of a s i n g l e t e s t i n t o two presumably p a r a l l e l groups of items...and c o r r e l a t i o n of the r e s u l t i n g two scores 4. A n a l y s i s of the covar i a n c e among i n d i v i d u a l items, and 91 determination of the true score and e r r o r v a r i a n c e therefrom. There are two fundamental reasons why c l a s s i c a l measurement theory as a p p l i e d to problems of t e s t c o n s t r u c t i o n was unsuited to determining the r e l i a b i l i t y of measures i n t h i s study. The f i r s t was the nature of the v a r i a b l e s being measured; the second, the nature of the instrument items. The two v a r i a b l e s being measured in t h i s study were n e i t h e r p e r s o n a l t r a i t s of the s o r t measured by p s y c h o l o g i c a l t e s t i n g , nor a c q u i r e d knowledge, s k i l l s or a t t i t u d e s as measured by e d u c a t i o n a l t e s t i n g . Furthermore, the v a r i a b l e s were not a s o c i o l o g i c a l measuring of human behaviours at e i t h e r an i n d i v i d u a l or group l e v e l , such as would have been captured i n a measure of "frequency of i n t e r a c t i o n with c o n t a c t s i n a network", or other simple r e p o r t s of a c t i v i t y undertaken by the respondent or the respondent's group. What the v a r i a b l e s d i d represent were the pe r c e i v e d amount and q u a l i t y of a commodity of human behaviour, that being i n f o r m a t i o n a l resources. The commodity that people were r e p o r t i n g on was the product of three f a c t o r s : i ) a c t i v i t y undertaken from the respondents' s i d e ; i i ) p r e d i s p o s i t i o n of the cont a c t with which they were i n t e r a c t i n g ; and i i i ) the mutual i n f l u e n c e of t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n . The mutual i n f l u e n c e p r e d i c t s with some c e r t a i n t y that the products of i n t e r a c t i o n between a given agent and two. co n t a c t s w i l l vary, as w i l l those between two agents and a given c o n t a c t . So the " t r u t h " about i n f o r m a t i o n forthcoming from a given- c o n t a c t would vary with 92 whomever i s r e p o r t i n g i t . In e f f e c t , the in f o r m a t i o n the group had obtained was the j o i n t p ossession of i t s members. No group c o u l d have documented e v e r y t h i n g i t s members knew, nor c o u l d any one member have monitored i t a l l . What t h i s meant was that there d i d not e x i s t on paper or i n any one's mind a singular., u n i f i e d e n t i t y f o r which a "true score" c o u l d be obtained. Any two group members r e p o r t i n g at the same moment would be r e p o r t i n g on d i f f e r e n t e n t i t i e s . So an i n t e r - r a t e r c o r r e l a t i o n would not e s t a b l i s h the attainment of a r e l i a b l e measure. At any two times of measurement, the v a r i a b l e being observed, u n l i k e p e r s i s t e n t p s y c h o l o g i c a l t r a i t s , would be expected to d i f f e r . So a t e s t - r e t e s t c o r r e l a t i o n would not e s t a b l i s h the attainment of a r e l i a b l e measure, unless i t co u l d be conducted w i t h i n a s h o r t e r i n t e r v a l than change would be expected — say, w i t h i n a week. T h i s was u t t e r l y i m p r a c t i c a l because of the r e s i s t a n c e to q u a n t i t a t i v e research mentioned e a r l i e r . Items i n the instrument were not amenable to the s o r t of e r r o r estimates developed under c l a s s i c a l measurement theory. No two items i n the instrument were measuring the same t h i n g under the same c o n d i t i o n s , so a s p l i t - h a l f c o r r e l a t i o n of item scores would not e s t a b l i s h the attainment of a r e l i a b l e measure. The items were an inventory of p o t e n t i a l contact p o i n t s i n the s o c i a l environment of the subject groups. The content v a l i d i t y of the item l i s t depended upon i t s being f u l l y r e p r e s e n t a i v e of the s o c i a l i n f r a s t r u c t u r e as d e p i c t e d at a 93 c e r t a i n l e v e l of a b s t r a c t i o n . Other items c o u l d be c o n s t r u c t e d at l e v e l s more s p e c i f i c or more g e n e r a l , but not e q u i v a l e n t items that c o u l d serve as a p a r a l l e l i n v e n t o r y . So p a r a l l e l forms were not an o p t i o n . To summarize: the design of the study was c o n t r a r y s t r u c t u r a l l y to many of the assumptions of c o n v e n t i o n a l psychometric theory and d i d not lend i t s e l f to c l a s s i c a l r e l i a b i l i t y e s t i m a t e s . 94 Chapter 7 METHODOLOGY Thi s chapter e x p l a i n s the a c t i v i t i e s that were r e q u i r e d to i d e n t i f y , screen, and gain access to s u i t a b l e groups. I t then d e s c r i b e s the three stage data c o l l e c t i o n procedure, and ends by r e p o r t i n g on return r a t e s and data h a n d l i n g . Subject S e l e c t i o n Step 1; I d e n t i f y i n g a c t i v e groups In the f i r s t phase of subj e c t s e l e c t i o n i t was necessary to i d e n t i f y a pool of p o t e n t i a l s u b j e c t groups p u b l i c l y a c t i v e at the community l e v e l with economic, environmental or p e r s o n a l i s s u e s . The l a t t e r category subsumed i s s u e s r e l a t e d to immigration, e t h n i c i t y or needs of the d i s a b l e d . Many i s s u e - o r i e n t e d groups form and disband without being l i s t e d i n the telephone book or with any c e n t r a l agency. Even an annually-updated d i r e c t o r y such as that maintained by the Greater Vancouver Information and R e f e r r a l S e r v i c e c o u l d not be expected to c o n t a i n the names of many new groups or the c u r r e n t s t a t u s of a l l o l d e r ones. A s t r a t e g y was adopted f o r f i n d i n g a c t i v e groups which began with the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of a few people immersed i n advocacy a c t i v i t y e i t h e r as p r o f e s s i o n a l s o c i a l workers, or as v o l u n t e e r s . The search spread outward through t h e i r p e r s o n a l networks. The short l i s t was thus the s t a r t i n g p o i n t f o r a 95 three week p e r i o d of telephone i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n v o l v i n g f i v e to seven hours a day of c a l l s , or approximately 125 hours. Telephone c a l l s were i n t e r s p e r s e d l a t e r with f i e l d v i s i t s to umbrella agencies which c o u l d e i t h e r provide names of p o t e n t i a l subject groups or f a c i l i t a t e d i r e c t contact with some of them. A t a l l y sheet was kept during the p e r i o d of i n t e n s i v e telephone i n v e s t i g a t i o n . I t showed that i n the beginning, an average of three phone e x p l o r a t o r y c a l l s were made f o r each one that produced e f f e c t i v e c o n t a c t with a group. A c o n v e r s a t i o n was c o n s i d e r e d an e f f e c t i v e c o n t a c t i f i t enabled the researcher to e x p l a i n the p r o j e c t and begin the s c r e e n i n g p r o c e s s . The next 51 c a l l s y i e l d e d 29 e f f e c t i v e c o n t a c t s , f o r a r a t i o of b e t t e r than 2:1. T h i s improvement i n the c a l l s - t o - c o n t a c t r a t i o developed a f t e r a p e r i o d of i n d i s c r i m i n a t e l y f o l l o w i n g up every l e a d . I t became p o s s i b l e to s t a r t l i m i t i n g the i n v e s t i g a t i o n to groups which people r e p e a t e d l y i d e n t i f i e d as exemplars of advocacy in one of the i s s u e areas of the study. A f t e r 154 c a l l s had been made, the t a l l y sheet was d i s c o n t i n u e d . In a l l , 26 economic, 25 environmental, and 39 personal issue advocacy groups were found to be o p e r a t i n g i n the Greater Vancouver area. Step 2: Screening groups f o r s u i t a b i l i t y The second phase of subject s e l e c t i o n i n v o l v e d screening v i r t u a l l y a l l of the groups from the pool f o r t h e i r s u i t a b i l i t y as s u b j e c t groups. The main c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n screening was to f i n d groups in which advocacy or promotion of p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t s with the l a r g e r community was a c e n t r a l f u n c t i o n of the group, even i f other f u n c t i o n s such as s o c i a l and emotional 96 support or the p r o v i s i o n of d i r e c t s e r v i c e s , were a l s o present. I t was f e l t that only a concern with advocacy would motivate groups to gather the " s t r a t e g i c i n f o r m a t i o n " on which part of the study was p r e d i c a t e d . Two group management c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were i n c l u d e d as screening c r i t e r i a . I t was assumed that groups which had been in o p e r a t i o n fewer than three years would not have had s u f f i c i e n t time to s t a b i l i z e t h e i r g o als and a c t i v i t i e s , or to e s t a b l i s h an i n f o r m a t i o n g a t h e r i n g system, however i n f o r m a l , to support the group's o b j e c t i v e s . I t was a l s o c o n s i d e r e d e s s e n t i a l to screen out groups which were in any way extensions of f e d e r a l or p r o v i n c i a l programs. De s p i t e r e c o g n i z a b l e degrees of autonomy or community involvement, such groups operate o u t s i d e the p r e v i o u s l y e s t a b l i s h e d d e f i n i t i o n of s e l f - h e l p groups. The Subject Group Data Sheet p r o v i d e d a r e c o r d of the s i z e , l o c a t i o n , years of o p e r a t i o n , i n t e r e s t s and a c t i v i t i e s of a group, and other r e l e v a n t b i t s of the group's h i s t o r y gathered during i n i t i a l c o n v e r s a t i o n s with a member of the executive or s t a f f . An example of the data sheet i s i n c l u d e d as Appendix D. Step 3: Gaining access The t h i r d phase of subject s e l e c t i o n i n v o l v e d g a i n i n g access to the groups that were s u i t a b l e . T h i s r e q u i r e d i n t u r n , i ) e s t a b l i s h i n g the r e s e a r c h e r ' s c r e d i b i l i t y ; i i ) r a i s i n g the-i n t e r e s t of groups in the proposed d a t a - c o l l e c t i o n a c t i v i t y ; and i i i ) s e c u r i n g a time and place f o r meeting with each group. The f i r s t o b j e c t i v e was accomplished d u r i n g the screening i n t e r v i e w 97 by i n c l u d i n g q u e s t i o n s and comments which demonstrated the rese a r c h e r ' s previous experience i n and f a m i l i a r i t y with s e l f -managed advocacy groups. The second o b j e c t i v e was accomplished by i n t r o d u c i n g i n t o the co n v e r s a t i o n a suggestion that the group has an e s s e n t i a l need f o r d i f f e r e n t kinds of info r m a t i o n to f u l f i l i t s purposes, and then by asking the group member how they p e r c e i v e d i n f o r m a t i o n flowing i n t o and through the group. The d a t a - c o l l e c t i o n a c t i v i t y (seeking to d i s c o v e r from each group where i t had obtained i t s most u s e f u l information) was presented as acknowledging the group's accomplishments, and as having the p o t e n t i a l to b e n e f i t other groups i n a s i m i l a r p o s i t i o n . The d a t a - c o l l e c t i o n a c t i v i t y i t s e l f was o f t e n p e r c e i v e d by groups as a way to r e f l e c t on and analyze t h e i r o p e r a t i o n , an e s p e c i a l l y u s e f u l a c t i v i t y f o r the year-end meetings which most groups were plann i n g d u r i n g the June 1983 p e r i o d . A c t u a l l y s e c u r i n g a time and place f o r meeting with each group, l i k e c l o s i n g a s a l e , was the most d i f f i c u l t stage of ga i n i n g access. Often at the end of a p r o d u c t i v e c o n v e r s a t i o n with the group r e p r e s e n t a t i v e , i t would be necessary to allow f u r t h e r time to present the idea to the r e s t of the executive for a p p r o v a l . Groups i n t h i s stage were marked "MAYBE"; those who set a date were marked "DEFINITE"; those cases where a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e provided enough in f o r m a t i o n to e s t a b l i s h the s u i t a b i l i t y of a group, but was not i n a p o s i t i o n to give even pers o n a l approval were marked "POSSIBLE". At the end of 154 phone c a l l s , the search for subject groups y i e l d e d a t o t a l of 15 " d e f i n i t e s " , 21 "maybes", and 20 " p o s s i b l e s " . F i n a l data 98 c o l l e c t i o n dates were booked over a seven-month p e r i o d , from June to December 1983. I t was r e q u i r e d by the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia B e h a v i o u r a l Sciences Review Committee f o r Research and Other S t u d i e s I n v o l v i n g Human Subjects that a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of each group acknowledge t h e i r awareness that the a c t i v i t y they were undertaking was part of a resea r c h p r o j e c t , and give w r i t t e n consent to p a r t i c i p a t e on behalf of the group. A copy of t h i s consent form i s i n c l u d e d as Appendix E. A d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the Instrument Step 1: E x p l a n a t i o n of the task The researcher met with groups as pre-arranged e i t h e r an hour before t h e i r r e g u l a r meeting, or as the main a c t i v i t y of t h e i r r e g u l a r meeting. In l e s s than f i v e minutes the v i s i t was ex p l a i n e d to the group as a formal academic e x e r c i s e , but one intended to b e n e f i t the advocacy a c t i v i t y of others by drawing on the experience of the present group. They were t o l d that the d i s c u s s i o n would probably be i n t e r e s t i n g and provide them some i n s i g h t i n t o t h e i r own a c t i v i t y ; and they were promised a w r i t t e n summary of the pooled responses of other p a r t i c i p a t i n g groups, presented i n a f a s h i o n that p r o t e c t e d the anonymity of a l l groups. The next f i v e minutes were spent i n t r o d u c i n g the inf o r m a t i o n types. T h i s was presented i n a h e u r i s t i c f a s h ion so that observers were drawn i n t o a s e r i e s of qu e s t i o n s about what the group needed to do, and consequently what i t needed to know. 99 At t h i s p o i n t respondents were shown the logos f o r each information type, e i t h e r on p o s t e r s or drawn on a blackboard, depending on the f a c i l i t i e s . Step 2: D i s c u s s i o n of group h i s t o r y During the next 15-20 minutes group members were engaged i n a d i s c u s s i o n of i t s recent h i s t o r y . They were asked to r e c a l l a c t i v i t i e s of the l a s t year that had r e q u i r e d them to o b t a i n i n f o r m a t i o n . These concrete examples were then r e l a t e d to the generic types of inf o r m a t i o n that had j u s t been d e s c r i b e d to them. F i r s t l y , they were asked to i d e n t i f y the group's c e n t r a l i n t e r e s t s or concerns and to c o n s i d e r how i t was they had developed t h e i r e x p e r t i s e with these i s s u e s . General f a m i l i a r i t y with an issue corresponded to the common background type of i n f o r m a t i o n . They were encouraged to re c o r d examples on the second page of the instrument where each type i s given a c o n c i s e d e f i n i t i o n and room had been l e f t f o r examples. Secondly, they were asked what t h e i r p o s i t i o n was on some of the i s s u e s and how they had come to take that stand. As i n f l u e n c e s were d i s c o v e r e d these were l a b e l e d as examples of the second type of background item — the value-laden kind. T h i r d l y , they were asked about formal or o f f i c i a l procedures they had been r e q u i r e d to l e a r n about, and those examples were recorded. F i n a l l y , they were asked about t h e i r knowledge of p r a c t i c a l i n f ormal s k i l l s of s o c i a l a c t i o n , and the c o n t a c t s which had helped them to develop i t . 100 Step 3: I n d i v i d u a l completion of p r o t o c o l s When a s u f f i c i e n t number of examples had been r a i s e d f o r every respondent to have at l e a s t two which they c o u l d use as r e f e r e n c e p o i n t s f o r each type of i n f o r m a t i o n , we moved on to the r a t i n g of channels f o r a c q u i r i n g the i n f o r m a t i o n types. Respondents t r a n s f e r r e d t h e i r p r e f e r r e d examples to the top of a r a t i n g page and proceeded to evaluate the use and u t i l i t y of i n f o r m a t i o n channels f o r that purpose. O c c a s i o n a l l y , there would be some d i s c u s s i o n on the d e f i n i t i o n of a channel — such as p r o v i n c i a l or n a t i o n a l a f f i l i a t e s of a group, or who would q u a l i f y f o r them as "groups s i m i l a r to your own". Once these d e f i n i t i o n s had been agreed upon respondents would r e t u r n to t h e i r p e r s o n a l r e c o l l e c t i o n and e v a l u a t i o n of channels. Return r a t e s On the whole, r e t u r n r a t e s from p a r t i c i p a t i n g groups were very high. For the most part p r o t o c o l s were completed and returned while the researcher was present. In r a r e cases, such as with a group of p h y s i c a l l y d i s a b l e d persons, i t was important that t h e i r meeting time together be spent as much as p o s s i b l e on t h e i r own agenda. So a f t e r the group d i s c u s s i o n , the researcher withdrew, l e a v i n g behind a supply of stamped, s e l f - a d d r e s s e d envelopes, and an instrument fo r each member to complete. Every one of the p r o t o c o l s from that group was mailed i n completed. In a l l , 132 instruments were d i s t r i b u t e d . Of these, 87 were completed dur i n g the one-hour a d m i n i s t r a t i o n p e r i o d , and 18 were subsequently returned by m a i l completed, for a t o t a l of 105. 1 0 1 Another e i g h t were only p a r t i a l l y completed and so were unusable, while 19 instruments d i s t r i b u t e d were not returned at a l l , f o r a t o t a l of 27 instruments " l o s t " , and an o v e r a l l r e t u r n rate of 80 percent. Two data c o l l e c t i o n s i t u a t i o n s proved to be pr o b l e m a t i c . The f i r s t was with repeated attempts to in c l u d e s e n i o r s groups among those engaged with economic problems. V i s i t s to three l a r g e groups produced r e t u r n r a t e s of only one in every four p a r t i c i p a n t s who had been at the meeting. T h i s was due, not to t h e i r advanced age, but to the i n c l u s i o n i n these meetings of a broader membership than j u s t the executive or core group. In each case the group had had some notable success with advocacy r e g a r d i n g housing or pensions. But t h i s had been achieved by a m i l i t a n t m i n o r i t y while most members were p r i m a r i l y engaged i n s o c i a l a c t i v i t i e s or d i r e c t s e r v i c e s . The ques t i o n s being asked by t h i s study about i n f o r m a t i o n c o u l d only be answered by the a c t i v e , inner c i r c l e of members, but they made themselves a v a i l a b l e only in these l a r g e r groups. In two of the three cases a c t i v i s t members t o l d the researcher that they wanted the others to see how they t h i n k . The second problem occurred with two cases of double-booking of data c o l l e c t i o n dates. In both cases the choice was made to send a delegate rather than t r y to rebook with groups that had been d i f f i c u l t to gain access to i n the f i r s t p l a c e , and who were about to d i s c o n t i n u e meeting f o r the summer. T h i s was an unfortunate choice s i n c e s u c c e s s f u l a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the survey instrument r e q u i r e d engaging the group's i n t e r e s t and p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n a d i s c u s s i o n of t h e i r past experience. F a i l u r e 102 on the p a r t of the researcher to meet d i r e c t l y with these groups r e s u l t e d i n no useable data. In the end, 105 respondents p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the study, from a t o t a l of 19 groups. The data c o l l e c t i o n design had c a l l e d f o r 90 respondents p a r t i t i o n e d i n t o three c a t e g o r i e s , and i t had been expected that 30 p a r t i c i p a n t s c o u l d be found by c o n t a c t i n g o n l y - t h r e e groups. T h i s simply d i d not r e f l e c t the r e a l i t i e s of group management s i n c e the core group tends to be c l o s e r to seven than 15. Taking i n t o account absences from the data c o l l e c t i o n s e s s i o n , t h i s meant that the instrument was t y p i c a l l y a d m inistered to f i v e respondents at a time rather than t e n . Data Handling The r a t i n g s c a l e s used by each respondent y i e l d e d a data block as shown i n F i g u r e 11. T h i r t y - t w o p o t e n t i a l channels were given a use and u t i l i t y r a t i n g , under four c o n d i t i o n s — the respondent's experience with them i n g a t h e r i n g four kinds of i n f o r m a t i o n . Responses were t r a n s f e r r e d onto a f o r t r a n coding sheet y i e l d i n g f i v e l i n e s of data per case, where the A-v a r i a b l e s are "use" r a t i n g s , and the B - v a r i a b l e s are " u t i l i t y " r a t i n g s . 1/ Demographic data 2/ V a r i a b l e s A1 to A32, A33 to A64, 3/ V a r i a b l e s A65 to A96, A97 to A128 4/ V a r i a b l e s B1 to B32, B33 to B64, 5/ V a r i a b l e s B65 to B96, B97 to B128 These were then input f o r computer storage. 103 CHANNELS TYPE OF ADVOCACY GROUP A B c SUBJECT . GROUPS (7) (6) (6) PERSONS 38 32 35 TYPE OF INFORMATION Category Item Rating I II III IV I II III IV i i i I I I rv 1 1 2 3 4 5 a,b a,b a,b 2 6 7 8 9 3 10 11 12 13 14 4 15 16 17 18 11 20 21 22 23 5 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Fig . 11: S t a t i s t i c a l design: data block 1 04 S t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s was undertaken using SPSS:9 for i t s "Frequencies", " C o n d e s c r i p t i v e " , "Recode", "Crosstab", "Breakdown", and "Regression" procedures; and SPSS:X for i t s "Compute" procedure. BMD-P8V was used for mixed model m u l t i p l e a n a l y s i s of variance with repeated measures. T h i s provided estimates on the f o l l o w i n g e f f e c t s : Between persons: Group type (economic, environmental, personal i s s u e s ) Persons w i t h i n groups Within persons: Information types (general background, formal procedures, i n f o r m a l s o c i a l a c t i o n , s o c i a l values for forming o p i n i o n s ) Channel types (government, mass p r i n t , mass audio-v i s u a l , o rganized s o c i a l c o n t a c t s , i n d i v i d u a l persons) S c a l e s c h a r a c t e r i z i n g usage behaviours, and e v a l u a t i o n s of u t i l i t y . Because the repeated measures a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e r e q u i r e d equal numbers per group type some cases were d e l e t e d at random, using the Table of Random Numbers from S o c i a l S t a t i s t i c s , second e d i t i o n , by B l a l o c k (1972), as witnessed by a c o n s u l t a n t from the E d u c a t i o n a l S e r v i c e s Research Centre. R e s u l t s of the data a n a l y s i s are reported i n Chapter 8. 1 0 5 Chapter 8 RESULTS Th i s chapter presents f i n d i n g s of the study in f i v e s e c t i o n s , beginning with a d e s c r i p t i o n of the i n d i v i d u a l p a r t i c i p a n t s and the groups to which they belonged. The second s e c t i o n d i s p l a y s d e s c r i p t i v e data on p a t t e r n s of i n f o r m a t i o n a c q u i s i t i o n : f i r s t , with a focus on the f u n c t i o n a l l y d i f f e r e n t types of i n f o r m a t i o n ; second to h i g h l i g h t behaviours of the d i f f e r e n t kinds of user groups; and f i n a l l y , to explore the nature of the channels themselves. The next s e c t i o n s report i n f e r e n t i a l s t a t i s t i c s t e s t i n g the s i g n i f i c a n c e of f a c t o r l e v e l s and t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n i n a f o u r -way repeated measures a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e . In t h i s design, person-within-grpups was the random e f f e c t and the other four f a c t o r s ( i n f o r m a t i o n types, i n f o r m a t i o n channels, groups and r a t i n g s ) were f i x e d . T h i s enabled s i g n i f i c a n c e t e s t s f o r main e f f e c t s of the four f i x e d - e f f e c t s f a c t o r s , as w e l l as f o r s i x two-factor i n t e r a c t i o n s , four t h r e e - f a c t o r i n t e r a c t i o n s , and one f o u r - f a c t o r i n t e r a c t i o n . The t e s t s of i n t e r v e n i n g p e r s o n a l and group v a r i a b l e s found t h e i r i n f l u e n c e on use and u t i l i t y r a t i n g s to be s l i g h t . The l a s t s e c t i o n of t h i s chapter d e t a i l s the r e s u l t s of those t e s t s . C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of P a r t i c i p a n t s T h i s s e c t i o n provides a d e s c r i p t i o n of the groups s e l e c t e d f o r i n c l u s i o n i n the study, and of the i n d i v i d u a l members who 106 took p a r t . Groups are d e s c r i b e d in terms of the i s s u e s with which they were i n v o l v e d , and i n terms of t h e i r o p e r a t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . I n d i v i d u a l respondents are d e s c r i b e d in terms of f i v e demographic v a r i a b l e s . Data of t h i s nature was c o l l e c t e d not j u s t to d e s c r i b e the p o p u l a t i o n of the study, but to t e s t f o r any p o s s i b l e i n f l u e n c e from personal or group v a r i a b l e s that might bi a s f i n d i n g s on the research questions and hypotheses. D e s c r i p t i o n of groups in each category The study encompassed a s e l e c t i o n of advocacy groups that were i n v o l v e d with economic, environmental or personal i s s u e s . A t o t a l of 105 respondents p a r t i c i p a t e d , from 19 groups. Economic i s s u e advocates i n c l u d e d pensioners, those on w e l f a r e , s i n g l e mothers, and others with p r e s s i n g economic concerns. They were i n v o l v e d with i s s u e s of income, housing, daycare s e r v i c e s and the q u a l i t y of p u b l i c t r a n s p o r t a t i o n . Environmental i s s u e advocates were concerned with i n d u s t r i a l waste in r i v e r systems, the t r a n s p o r t a t i o n of hazardous products through r e s i d e n t i a l areas, p e s t i c i d e s , renewable sources of energy, and the s a f e t y of i n s u l a t i n g m a t e r i a l s . Personal i s s u e advocates were concerned with aspects of immigration and resettlement; e t h n i c i t y ; and o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r education, employment and independence f o r those with mental or p h y s i c a l d i s a b i l i t i e s . A l i s t of p a r t i c i p a t i n g groups i s i n c l u d e d as Appendix F. During the screening process a small amount of d e s c r i p t i v e data was c o l l e c t e d on groups p e r t a i n i n g to the s i z e of t h e i r 107 nominal membership, the number of years they had been i n o p e r a t i o n , and whether or not they had t h e i r own o f f i c e s and the s e r v i c e s of p a i d s t a f f . Many groups d i d not have acc u r a t e , up-to-date records of t h e i r nominal membership — people on t h e i r m a i l i n g l i s t s who p a i d dues, or voted at the annual general meeting, or who j u s t wanted to be kept informed. So the boundary on membership had to be estimated, and was found to extend from a low range of 25 to 100 members, through 100 to 750 members, to an upper l i m i t of 800 to 1200 members. Groups had been in o p e r a t i o n an average of seven years, with a low of three years, and a high of 50 y e a r s . Of the 19 groups, e i g h t had p a i d s t a f f and every one of those a l s o had i t s own o f f i c e . These o p e r a t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were of i n t e r e s t only to the extent that they might have introduced a b i a s i n g e f f e c t on the i n f o r m a t i o n a c q u i s i t i o n behaviours which groups reported. A t e s t of t h e i r i n f l u e n c e i s reported i n the l a s t s e c t i o n of t h i s c hapter. Demographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of respondents Tables 1 to 3 present the sex, age, l e v e l s of education and household income, and number of memberships h e l d by respondents. Because p a r t i c i p a n t s i n the study o c c a s i o n a l l y d e c l i n e d to answer a demographic q u e s t i o n , the p r e c i s e number who responded i s noted i n each case. The nominal v a r i a b l e s , l e v e l of education and sex of respondents, are r e p o r t e d as f r e q u e n c i e s and percentages over the whole p o p u l a t i o n and by the kind of group to which respondents belonged. These were c a l c u l a t e d using the "Crosstabs" procedure 'of SPSS. Table 1 shows the 108 d i s t r i b u t i o n of men and women respondents. Table 1 DISTRIBUTION OF MEN AND WOMEN RESPONDENTS IN THREE TYPES OF ADVOCACY GROUP Type of Advocacy Group Men Women No Row % No. Row % 11 28 27 71 Environmental . . . . 18 56 14- 44 14 40 21 60 Total . . . 43 41 62 59 (n-105) Row p e r c e n t s of Table 1 show a predominance of women i n the p o p u l a t i o n of the study (59%), i n economic advocacy (71%) and p e r s o n a l i s s u e advocacy (60%). Men comprised the m a j o r i t y (56%) of p a r t i c i p a n t s i n environmental advocacy. Tab l e 2 shows the d i s t r i b u t i o n of respondents over e i g h t l e v e l s of formal e d u c a t i o n . Table 2 DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY LEVEL OF EDUCATION IN THREE TYPES OF ADVOCACY GROUP Type of Advocacy Group No Formal Qualif. Completed Elementary School Completed High School Post-Secondary School Some University Credits University Degree Some Graduate Credits Graduate Degree No. Row Z No. Row Z No. Row Z No. Row I No. Row Z No. Row Z No. Row Z No. Row Z Environmental . . . . 2 5 1 3 0 0 4 11 0 0 0 0 8 22 3 9 2 6 7 19 5 16 6 17 6 16 6 19 10 29 3 8 3 9 10 29 0 0 3 9 3 9 7 19 7 22 4 11 3 3 4 4 13 12 18 17 22 22 16 18 6 6 18 17 (n-104) Row pe r c e n t s of Table 2 i n d i c a t e that the m a j o r i t y of respondents (63%) had at l e a s t some u n i v e r s i t y c r e d i t s . The hi g h e s t c o n c e n t r a t i o n of economic advocates(41 %) had e i t h e r completed h i g h s c h o o l or had some post secondary trade 109 q u a l i f i c a t i o n . The highest c o n c e n t r a t i o n of environmental advocates (41%) had some u n i v e r s i t y c r e d i t or had completed an undergraduate degree, as d i d a higher p r o p o r t i o n (58%) of pers o n a l i s s u e advocates. According to a one-way a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e c a l c u l a t e d using the "Breakdown" procedure of SPSS, the d i s t r i b u t i o n of men and women d i d not vary s i g n i f i c a n t l y by group type (F=2.75, p<.07), but education d i d (F=15.27, p<.01). The membership of economic i s s u e groups (X=4.4, S.D.=2.2) had an average of some post secondary or trade q u a l i f i c a t i o n , while the membership of environmental(X=5.5, S.D.=1.8) and personal issue advocacy groups (X=5.5, S.D.=1.4) averaged between some u n i v e r s i t y c r e d i t s and a completed degree. Table 3 r e p o r t s the lower and upper l i m i t s of the d i s t r i b u t i o n of three c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s (age, income, and number of memberships held) as c a l c u l a t e d using SPSS "Frequencies". I t d i s p l a y s the mean and standard d e v i a t i o n of the three c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , over a l l respondents in the p o p u l a t i o n of the study, and by the kind of group to which they belonged, as c a l c u l a t e d by the "Breakdown" procedure of SPSS. I t a l s o p r o v i d e s the p r o b a b i l i t y estimate f o r systematic v a r i a n c e of these three c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s by kind of group. 110 Table 3 Age, Income and Memberships Held by Respondents, Reported by Group Type Characteristic by Type of Group Low X S.D. High F. Prob. Age (in years) Economic Environmental Personal Total (n-103) 18 49.9 37.9 31.9 40.3 17.0 13.2 10.5 14.0 15.26 84 .0001 Income (in thousands) Economic Environmental Personal Total (n-93) 3. 22.08 27.00 31.38 26.52 21.83 22.17 25.03 22.97 1.30 9.9. .28 Memberships held Economic Environmental Personal Total (n-102) 1 7.8 5.0 4.3 5.8 8.5 4.1 3.1 5.9 3.53 25 .03 Table 3 i n d i c a t e s t h a t the age O f respondents ranged 18 to 84 y e a r s , and v a r i e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y by group type (p<.000l). Members of the economic advocacy groups (X=50 y e a r s , S.D.=17 y e a r s ) were o l d e r than the p o p u l a t i o n average (X=40, S.D.=14); w h i l e environmental (X=38, S.D.=13) and p e r s o n a l i s s u e advocates (X=32, S.D.=10) were younger. Age v a r i e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y by group type ( p < . 0 0 0 O . Reported household incomes ranged from $3,000 per year to over $99,000 w i t h a mean of $26,000. The upper l i m i t was accounted f o r by s i t u a t i o n s where two or more p r o f e s s i o n a l people, or grown c h i l d r e n c o n t r i b u t e d to household income. Household income d i d not vary s i g n i f i c a n t l y by group type. The number of memberships h e l d by respondents ranged from a low of one to a high of 25, and v a r i e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y by group type ( p < . 0 3 ) . Economic advocates tended to j o i n more groups 111 (X=8 memberships) than the average (X=6) f o r the p o p u l a t i o n of the study; while environmental (X=5) and pers o n a l issue advocates (X=4) tended to j o i n fewer groups. A t e s t f o r the i n f l u e n c e of demographic v a r i a b l e s on the responses of p a r t i c i p a n t s i s included i n the l a s t s e c t i o n of t h i s c h a pter. Patterns of Information A c q u i s i t i o n T h i s s e c t i o n r e p o r t s f i n d i n g s on the f i r s t o b j e c t i v e of the study, which was s t a t i s t i c a l d e s c r i p t i o n of i n f o r m a t i o n a c q u i s i t i o n as reported by 19 advocacy groups. A c q u i s i t i o n of the four types of i n f o r m a t i o n Recognizing that what most people want to know i s where to f i n d t h i n g s , c a l c u l a t i o n s began with a search f o r the channels which advocacy groups had ra t e d h i g h e s t f o r a c q u i s i t i o n of each kind of i n f o r m a t i o n . The formal q u e s t i o n asked: For purposes of g a t h e r i n g each of the four types of i n f o r m a t i o n , which s i n g l e channels were r e p o r t e d l y used most, and which were p e r c e i v e d to be most u s e f u l ? The answer was found by c a l c u l a t i n g the mean use of each channel for each i n f o r m a t i o n type ( a l l 128 "use" scores, items A1 to A128 s e p a r a t e l y ) , and the mean u t i l i t y r a t i n g of each ( a l l 128 " u t i l i t y " s c o r e s , items B1 to B128 s e p a r a t e l y ) — those means computed over the r a t i n g s given by a l l 105 respondents. The complete r e s u l t s are shown as Table 4. Table H 1 ] 2 MEAN USE AND UTILITY RATINGS OF ALL 32 CHANNELS FOR EACH INFORMATION TYPE Information Channels Types of Information General Background Formal Procedures Informal Social Action Social Values and Judgements Rating Use U t i l i t y Use U t i l i t y Use U t i l i t y Use U t i l i t y Federal departments Provincial ministries Municipal departments Elected representatives P o l i t i c a l party offices 2.62 2.55 2.43 2.48 2.45 2.46 2.30 2.23 1.67 1.70 2.24 2.28 2.25 2.34 2.34 2.35 2.05 2.14 1.63 1.66 1.87 1.95 1.91 1.95 1.87 2.03 1.79 1.79 1.44 1.57 2.02 2.16 2.05 2.18 1.92 2.04 1.84 1.91 1.54 1.60 Libraries Bookstores Newsstands Subscriptions 2.78 3.04 1.98 2.04 2.22 2.24 2.51 2.59 2.00 2.12 1.57 1.64 2.26 2.31 1.68 1.72 1.83 1.89 2.08 2.11 1.88 2.05 2.04 2.17 2.87 2.88 2.50 2.63 2.35 2.34 2.05 2.17 T.V. documentaries Radio documentaries Interviewing talk shows Community-made programs Film distributors 2.56 2.74 1.96 2.22 2.20 2.36 2.26 2.38 1.96 2.07 1.82 1.95 1.78 1.80 1.89 2.03 1.95 2.04 1.50 1.57 2.12 2.20 1.84 1.86 2.15 2 .16 2.09 2.13 1.49 1.56 2.64 2.84 2.25 2.44 2.34 2.41 2.17 2.42 1.80 2.03 Groups comparable to your own A provincial a f f i l i a t e of yours A national a f f i l i a t e of yours An international a f f i l i a t e Professional associations Community service organizations Religious groups Coalitions Workshops/courses/conferences 3.19 3.31 3.11 3.17 3.17 3.34 ii|(of;i||*3^i9| 2.08 2.01 2.20 2.17 1.74 1.80 2.53 2.34 1.81 1.80 2.02 2.06 1.43 1.50 2.07 2.26 1.87 1.97 2.01 2.01 1.52 1.67 2.01 2.05 1.94 1.88 2.04 2.07 1.62 1.67 1.91 1.97 2.28 2.35 1.96 2.02 1.99 2.08 2.83 2.84 2.62 2.63 2.57 2.71 1.80 1.93 2.28 2.19 1.62 1.67 2.04 2.07 1.64 1.64 1.99 2.06 3.18 3.23 2.76 2.97 2.85 2.96 '2.91 3.09 Members of this group Close friends outside the group Acquaintances outside the group Family members S c i e n t i f i c experts Financial e x p e r t s Legal e x p e r t s Community development e x p e r t s 3.97 4.03 '3.69 3.77 ' 3.67 3.84 3.70 3.78 2.92 2.99 2.53 2.73 2.57 2.61 2.96 .3.02 2.66 2.66 2.34 2.44 '2.51 2.55 ' 2.67 2.75 2.24 2.32 2.21 2.26 1.82 1.96 2.50 2.69 2.23 2.30 1.70 1.79 1.70 1.74 1.70 1.74 2.50 2.77 1.71 1.73 1.48 1.49 1.40 1.43 2.00 2.11 2.35 2.42 1.91 1.85 1.66 1.63 1.92 2.08 2.07 2.11 2.21 2.35 2.29 2.32 (n=105) NOTE: Darkened areas emphasize the e i g h t t o p - r a t e d channels, showing those which y i e l d e d the l a r g e s t volume, and those which were judged by respondents t o have d e l i v e r e d the most u s e f u l i n f o r m a t i o n of each k i n d . 1 13 Since the item scores of Table 4 have been averaged over a l l 105 respondents the upper and lower l i m i t s are l o s t , so none of the 5.0 or 1.0 scores appear. The mean r a t i n g of amount of in f o r m a t i o n r e c e i v e d from each of the 32 channels ranged from a low of 1.67, which i n d i c a t e s almost "none at a l l " , to a high of 3.97, " q u i t e a l o t " . . The u t i l i t y scores ranged from 1.43 "not at a l l u s e f u l " , to 4.03, " q u i t e u s e f u l " . The general impression given by Table 4 i s of a r e c u r r i n g preference f o r some channels over o t h e r s . Only 12 of the 32 channels ever appeared i n the t o p - r a t e d q u a r t i l e of channels r e g a r d l e s s of the type of i n f o r m a t i o n being c o n s i d e r e d . In e f f e c t , these i n f o r m a l l e a r n e r s r e p o r t e d that approximately two-t h i r d s of the channels they were asked about had simply not been used c o n s i s t e n t l y enough to rank h i g h l y f o r any purpose. Furthermore, f o r any given type of i n f o r m a t i o n , both the top "use" and " u t i l i t y " scores were even more conc e n t r a t e d — the top q u a r t i l e f o r both r a t i n g s c o n t a i n e d the same e i g h t channels. There was no previous r e s e a r c h to e s t a b l i s h that users d i s c r i m i n a t e between q u a n t i t y and q u a l i t y of i n f o r m a t i o n . But even i f they d i d , there was no d e f i n i t e way to a n t i c i p a t e how the scores would behave with a given channel — whether or not they would d i f f e r , and i f so, i n which d i r e c t i o n . Examining the p a i r s of scores more c l o s e l y , raw u t i l i t y r a t i n g s were u s u a l l y higher than use, and i n s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t rank o r d e r . When use and u t i l i t y r a t i n g s d i f f e r e d i t tended to be by only one p o s i t i o n in rank o r d e r i n g . However, r e v e r s a l s i n rank o r d e r i n g c o u l d be i n e i t h e r d i r e c t i o n : lower q u a n t i t y with a higher q u a l i t y r a t i n g ; or higher q u a n t i t y with a subsequently lower 1 1 4 q u a l i t y r a t i n g . O v e r a l l , the two scores tended to be c l o s e l y l i n k e d , but there were a few cases where the d i f f e r e n c e s i n rank of use and u t i l i t y scores were l a r g e r than one p o s i t i o n p l a c e . For example, under background i n f o r m a t i o n , l i b r a r i e s ranked seventh i n the amount they y i e l d e d , but had a higher, f o u r t h p l a c e , r a t i n g f o r the u t i l i t y of that i n f o r m a t i o n . Under formal procedures, l e g a l experts were r a t e d s i x t h f o r the amount of information they s u p p l i e d , but more h i g h l y (fourth) f o r i t s u s e f u l n e s s . Conversely, (while the raw means are almost the same) the r a t i n g of community s e r v i c e o r g a n i z a t i o n s ranked f o u r t h f o r amount of in f o r m a t i o n r e c e i v e d about formal procedures, but only s i x t h f o r i t s u s e f u l n e s s . The p r i n c i p a l f i n d i n g s from Table 4, rank o r d e r i n g of the eigh t channels top- r a t e d f o r each purpose, are g r a p h i c a l l y d i s p l a y e d i n F i g u r e 12 as s t a r p l o t s . In t h i s form i t i s p o s s i b l e to see at a glance the r e l a t i v e importance of channels fo r each kind of i n f o r m a t i o n . The s t a r p l o t s i l l u s t r a t e the recurrence of the same top three channels i n a l l cases. Without exception, the mean score of items shows that respondents c r e d i t e d the other members of t h e i r group with g i v i n g them the l a r g e s t amount and most u s e f u l information of each kind. The second choice f o r a l l types of information was other groups s i m i l a r to t h e i r own. T h e i r t h i r d c hoice i n almost a l l cases was organized workshops, courses or conferences, — with the exception that personal f r i e n d s were i d e n t i f i e d as p r o v i d e r s of the t h i r d l a r g e s t amount of information r e l a t e d to s o c i a l values and judgements. 1 15 i General Background II Formal ox Official Procedures 7. 1. Members of chla group 3.97 2. Groups comparable eo your cm 3.19 3. Woxksbopa/coursaa/confarancaa 3.18 4. Closa fxlanda outside Ehe group 2.92 5. newsstands 2.87 6. Community service organization* 2.82 7. Ubrarlaa 2.78 8. Acquaintances oucalde ehe group 2.66 1. Members of chla group 3.69 2. Croup* comparable Co your own 3.11 3. Workshop*/couraaa/conferences 2.76 4. CoiBsunlcy service organizations 2.62 5. Cloaa friends outside che group 2.53 6. Legal experts 2.50 7. Acquaintances oucslde the group 2.34 8. Municipal departments 2.34 U l IV Informal Means of Social Action Social Valuea and Judgements 1. Members of chla group 2. Croups comparable to your own 3. Workshops/courses/conferences 4. Community service organizations 5. Cloaa friends outside the group 6. Acquaintances oucslde toe group 7. Libraries 8. Community development experts 3.67 3.17 2.85 2.57 2.57 2.51 2.22 2.21 8. 1. Members of this group 2. Groups comparable to your own 3. Cloaa friends outside the group 4. Uorkahops/courses/conferences 5. Acquaintances outside the group 6. T.V. documentaries 7. Libraries 3. Nevastands 3.70 3.04 2.96 2.91 2.67 2.64 2.51 2.50 Note: Channels arc l i s t e d i n rank order with t h e i r use scores. - - - - - - - - use score — — — — — — u t i l i t y score F i g . 12: Starplot of eight channels used most to acquire each type of information 1 .16 Respondents thus r a t e d members of t h e i r own group, comparable groups, and the events which b r i n g groups together as the most u s e f u l contacts f o r every kind of i n f o r m a t i o n . T h i s f i n d i n g i s e s p e c i a l l y important to note because of the r e l a t i v e l y low r a t i n g and d i s p e r s i o n of channels subsequently ranked f o u r t h to e i g h t h f o r each kind of i n f o r m a t i o n . Respondents repo r t e d that they gathered "a moderate amount" of general background information from c l o s e f r i e n d s o u t s i d e the group, newsstands, community s e r v i c e o r g a n i z a t i o n s , l i b r a r i e s and acquaintances o u t s i d e the group. They learned "a l i t t l e " about formal procedures from community s e r v i c e o r g a n i z a t i o n s , c l o s e f r i e n d s and acquaintances o u t s i d e the group, from mu n i c i p a l departments and l e g a l e x p e r t s . .They a c q u i r e d "a l i t t l e " to "a moderate amount" of information on informal means of s o c i a l a c t i o n from community s e r v i c e o r g a n i z a t i o n s , workshops and conferences, acquaintances o u t s i d e the group, l i b r a r i e s and newsstands. F i n a l l y they a t t r i b u t e d t h e i r a c q u i s i t i o n of "a l i t t l e " to "a moderate amount" of i n f o r m a t i o n on s o c i a l values and judgements to workshops, acquaintances, T.V. documentaries, l i b r a r i e s and newsstands. O v e r a l l , the s p e c i a l i z e d channels were p r o v i d i n g only a l i t t l e to a moderate amount of each type of i n f o r m a t i o n resource. I t can be concluded that the a c q u i s i t i o n of information from s p e c i a l i z e d sources i s t h i n l y spread, and t h i s i m plies c o n s i d e r a b l e e f f o r t and i n i t i a t i v e on the p a r t of i n f o r m a l l e a r n e r s to accumulate an adequate amount of each. Having examined the p a t t e r n of r a t i n g s when averaged over a l l advocacy groups p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the study, the next stage 1 17 of the a n a l y s i s was to p a r t i t i o n responses according to the kind of advocacy group to determine whether or not opini o n s v a r i e d between them. The second r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n asked: How much do the use scores reported vary by kind of user group? The answer was determined by t a k i n g a mean f o r each item as was done with the f i r s t a n a l y s i s , but c a l c u l a t i n g that mean s e p a r a t e l y f o r the respondents from each of the group types. The top e i g h t channels f o r a c q u i r i n g each of the four kinds of information are l i s t e d again i n F i g u r e 13, but t h i s time with histograms to show t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e use by each of the group types. Although these were d e s c r i p t i v e s t a t i s t i c s only, a p a t t e r n of preferences began to emerge. These were not p r o f e s s e d p r e f e r e n c e s as would be reported on an a t t i t u d e survey, but beh a v i o u r a l p r e f e r e n c e s evidenced by the reported use of channels. Environmental groups c o n s i s t e n t l y l e d i n the amount of information r e p o r t e d to be r e c e i v e d from i ) t h e i r own members and i i ) comparable groups — the top two channels as r a t e d by a l l respondents. Environmental groups a l s o predominated i n t h e i r reported use of channels which have at l e a s t face v a l i d i t y as being e s p e c i a l l y w e l l s u i t e d f o r p a r t i c u l a r kinds of in f o r m a t i o n : they l e d i n the use of p r i n t sources f o r background in f o r m a t i o n , m u n i c i p a l departments and l e g a l experts f o r information on formal procedures, community development experts f o r help with s o c i a l a c t i o n , and l i b r a r i e s and f r i e n d s to help determine t h e i r v a l u e s . i i a G E N E R A L B A C K G R O U N D 1. Members of t h i s group 3.97 2. Groups comparab le to your own 3.19 ] 3.11 3. Workshops/Courses/Conferences 3.18 4. Close f r i ends outs ide the group 2.92 | 3 . 3 T 6. C o m m u n i t y s e r v i ce organ iza t ions 2.83 13 J 3 . 1 T 7. L i b r a r i e s #4 for ut i l i ty 2.78 1 i.a 8. Acqua in t ance s outs ide the group 2.66 F O R M A L OR OFFICIAL P R O C E D U R E S 1. Members of th i s group 3.69 3CC0OOC^0CCO0COOCCQC<0COCOC<>C<000CCCOC3CC^^ 3 . 3 3 ooooooexxxxxxxx>3ocy>&<yy^^ 2. Groups comparab le to your own 3.11 3. Workshops/Courses/Conferences 2.76 4. C o m m u n i t y s e r v i ce organ iza t ions 2.62 J 1.73 jj 2.73 5. Close f r i ends outs ide the group 2.S3 I 3.31 6. Lega l e x p e r t s #4 for u t i l i t y 2.30 1 3.03 7. A c q u a i n t a n c e s out s ide the group 2.34 QQOQQOOOQQOOQOOOQQOOQQOOCOQQC* 3.43 8. M u n i c i p e i d e p a r t m e n t s 2.34 I N F O R M A L M E A N S OF SOCIAL ACTION 1. Members of th i s group 3.67 SOCIAL VALUES A N D J U D G E M E N T S 1. Members of th i s group 3.70 2. Groups comparab le to your own 3.04 I 3 . 7 3 3. Workshops/Courses/Conferences 2.85 4. C o m m u n i t y se rv i ce o rgan iza t ions 2.57 5. Close f r iends outs ide t h i s g roup 2.57 \it&i&b&6K&&itttt&i66tetiit&itttiiti&& 3.33 4. Workshops/Courses/Conferences 2.91 S. A c q u a i n t a n c e s outs ide the group 2.67 I 3.14 6. Acqua in tances outside the group 2.51 7. C o m m u n i t y development exper t s 2.22 8. L i b ra r i e s 2.21 6. T.V. d o c u m e n t a r i e s 2.64 7. L i b r a r i e s 2.5-1 W W W W W W W J 3 .7 3. Newsstands 2.50 Fig. 13: Respective use of top channels by user groups Legend 8 S Economic Issues • E n v i r o n m e n t a l Issues 2 9 Personal Issues 1 19 Personal issue advocates l e d every time i n the reported use of workshops and conferences — the t h i r d most favored channel by a l l respondents f o r a l l purposes. They a l s o r e l i e d more than other users on community s e r v i c e o r g a n i z a t i o n s . Economic advocates l e d three times out of four i n t h e i r r e l i a n c e on c l o s e f r i e n d s and twice out of four i n t h e i r use of acquaintances. I t c o u l d be concluded that n e i t h e r p e r s o n a l nor economic advocates use channels as s p e c i a l i z e d as the e n v i r o n m e n t a l i s t s . Personal issue advocates r e l i e d more h e a v i l y than other users on organized s o c i a l c o n t a c t s such as workshops, conferences, and s e r v i c e o r g a n i z a t i o n s ; economic issue advocates r e l i e d more h e a v i l y than other users on i n d i v i d u a l persons such as t h e i r f r i e n d s and acquaintances. Preferences of the user groups The previous s e c t i o n looked at only the top e i g h t channels for each purpose s e p a r a t e l y , and asked about t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e use by each kind of group. F i g u r e 13 contained data on how each group was doing (according to t h e i r s e l f - r e p o r t s ) with the best channels f o r each purpose. In a f u r t h e r attempt to p r o f i l e the information a c q u i s i t i o n of economic, environmental and personal issue groups, t h e i r o v e r a l l use of every channel was examined. The q u e s t i o n asked: Which group type a s c r i b e d the highest o v e r a l l use r a t i n g to each channel? The q u e s t i o n was t r y i n g to determine simply which group used each channel most, without regard to p a r t i c u l a r purposes or to whether a channel was a major or minor one. The _answer was 1 20 found by c a l c u l a t i n g a composite mean f o r each channel a c r o s s a l l i t s uses, (once f o r each respondent); and then aggregating those responses by group type. The r e s u l t s of t h i s a n a l y s i s are d i s p l a y e d i n Table 5. Each channel's h i g h e s t r a t i n g i s marked with an a s t e r i s k to the l e f t of the score i n d i c a t i n g which group type r e p o r t e d l y used i t most. Conversely, each group type's most h i g h l y rated channels are i n d i c a t e d with a rank order number to the r i g h t of the score. Without exception, respondents r e p o r t e d that they gathered more in f o r m a t i o n from other members of t h e i r own group than any other s i n g l e c o n t a c t . The second choice of economic advocates was c l o s e f r i e n d s , and of personal issue advocates was workshops .and conferences. Environmental advocates ranked groups comparable to t h e i r own second, .while the others ranked comparable groups t h i r d . For environmental groups, the t h i r d most important contact f o r the bulk of t h e i r i nformation base was l e g a l e x p e r t s . In subsequently ranked channels, r e g a r d l e s s of the kind of information a c q u i r e d , groups o f t e n l e d i n the use of channels one would a s s o c i a t e with t h e i r i s s u e s , thereby l e n d i n g i n d i r e c t c o n f i r m a t i o n to the c r e d i b i l i t y of t h e i r responses. For example, economic groups, which sometimes r e f e r to themselves as a n t i - p o v e r t y groups, l e d i n the use of p o l i t i c a l p arty o f f i c e s , r e l i g i o u s groups, c l o s e f r i e n d s , f a m i l y members, neighbours, f i n a n c i a l and community development e x p e r t s . Table 5 OVERALL MEAN (JSE OF SACK CHANNEL 3Y EACH GROUP TYPE Type of Advocacy Group Economic Environment Personal Issues Issues Issues (n-33) (n-32) (n»34) Federal departments 2.15 2.17 *2.23 Pr o v i n c i a l ministries 2.11 2.05 *2.36 Municipal departments 2.08 *2.42 2.02 Elected representatives 1.89 *2.49 1.76 P o l i t i c a l party o f f i c e s *1.78 1.53 1.42 Li b r a r i e s 2.14 *2.46 2.4S Bookstores 1.72 *1.95 1.38 Newsstands 2.41 * 2.53 2.31 Subscriptions 1.74 1.98 *2.07 T.V. documentaries 2.13 2.02. *2.63 Radio docnnmantarlaa 1.81 1.91 *2.10 Interviewing talk show* 2.13 1.31 *2.38 Community-<nada programs 2.08 1.60 *2.61 Film d i s t r i b u t o r s 1.45 • 1.S8 *1.0S Groups comparable to your own 2.96 *3 •3.32 • 2 3.03 *3 A p r o v i n c i a l a f f i c i a t e of yours 1.65 *2.14 1.91 A national a f f i l i a t e of yours 1.67 2.17 .*2.42 An int e r n a t i o n a l a f f i l i a t e 1.16 1.S6 *2.01 Professional associations 1.94 1.96 *2.20 Community service organizations 2.72 2.22 *2.76 Religious groups *2.00 1.31 1.82 Coal i t i o n s 2.09 *2.23 1.76 worJcshops/courses/conf erences 2.57 2.63 *3 .32 12 Members of this group 3.48 *1 *4 .04 • 1 3.71 *1 Close friends outside the group *2.99 *2 2.57 2.35 Accruaintances outside the group 2.60 *2.68 2.20 Family members *2.23 1.80 1.91 Neighbours *1.66 1.35 1. 45 S c i e n t i f i c experts 1.45 • 2.54 1.60 Financial experts *1.77 1.53 1.64 Legal experts 1.81 *2.81 *3 2.18 Community development experts *2.33 2.06 2.12 The highest rating of each channel. Highest rated contacts for the group type. 122 Environmental issue advocates l e d i n o v e r a l l use of municipal departments and e l e c t e d o f f i c i a l s , l i b r a r i e s , bookstores, and newsstands, comparable groups, p r o v i n c i a l a f f i l i a t i o n s and c o a l i t i o n s , t h e i r own members, acquaintances, s c i e n t i f i c and l e g a l e x p e r t s . Personal issue advocates l e d i n t h e i r use of f e d e r a l m i n i s t r i e s and p r o v i n c i a l departments, s p e c i a l s u b s c r i p t i o n s and a l l f i v e forms of broadcast media l i s t e d , n a t i o n a l and i n t e r n a t i o n a l a f f i l i a t i o n s , p r o f e s s i o n a l a s s o c i a t i o n s and community s e r v i c e o r g a n i z a t i o n s , and above a l l workshops and conferences. User p e r c e p t i o n s of the 32 channels There was one other q u e s t i o n answered by t h i s i n i t i a l stage of a n a l y s i s that provided i n s i g h t i n t o the nature of the 32 channels. I t was of i n t e r e s t to d i s c o v e r how each channel was pe r c e i v e d by advocacy groups even i f i t was only a minor contact f o r them. T h e i r p e r c e p t i o n of each channel was i n f e r r e d from the purpose f o r which they gave each channel i t s highest u t i l i t y r a t i n g . The q u e s t i o n asked: How i s each channel p e r c e i v e d f o r i t s u t i l i t y with respect to t r a n s m i t t i n g each of the four types of information? The answer was found by c a l c u l a t i n g a mean f o r each channel on the u t i l i t y scores only (items B1 to B128 s e p a r a t e l y ) . The r e s u l t s are d i s p l a y e d in Table 6, with the highest score f o r each channel i n d i c a t e d by shading and the second highest a l s o , i f i t v a r i e d by l e s s than a score of .05, or approximately one percent d i f f e r e n c e in the p o s s i b l e range of sc o r e s . Table 6 MEAN UTILITY RATING OF CHANNELS FOR EACH TYPE OF INFORMATION Types of Information Information Channels General Background Formal Procedures Informal Social Action Values for Forming Opinions Federal departments 2.55 2. 28 1. 95 2.16 Provincial ministries 2.48 2 34 1.95 2.18 Municipal departments 2.46 2. 35 2 03 2.04 Elected representatives 2.23 2. 14 1. 79 1.91 P o l i t i c a l party offices X.70 1.66 1. 57 1.60 Libraries 3.04 2. 04 2 24 2.S3 Bookstores 2.12 1. 64 1. 89 2.17 Newsstands 2.88 2.31 2 11 2.63 Subscriptions 2.34 1. 72 1 88 2.17 T.V. documentaries 2.74 1. 95 2.20 2.84 Radio documentaries 2.22 1. 80 1. 86 2.44 Interviewing talk shows 2.36 2.38 2.03 2. 16 2.41 Community-made programs 2 04 2 13 2.42 Film distributors 2.07 1. 57 1 56 2.03 Groups comparable to your own 3.31 3. 17 3. 34 3.19 A provincial a f f i l i a t e of yours 2.01 •' 1 80 1 97 1.88 A national a f f i l i a t e of yours 2.17 2. 06 2 01 2.07 An international a f f i l i a t e 1.80 1. 50 1 67 1.67 Professional associations 2.34 2. 26 2. 05 1.97 Community service organizations 2.84 2 63 2 71 2.36 Religious groups 1.93 1. 67 1 64 2.02 Coalitions 2.19 2. 07 2 06 2.08 Workshops/courses/conferences 3.23 2. 97 2. 96 3.09 Members of this group 4.03 3 77 3 84 3.78 Close friends outside the group 2.90 2 73 2 61 3.02 Acquaintances outside the group 2.66 2. 44 2 55 2.75 Family members 2.32 1. 79 1 73 2.42 Neighbours 1.56 1 45 1 42 1.69 S c i e n t i f i c experts 2.26 1 74 1 49 1.85 Financial experts • 1.96 1 74 1 43 1.63 Legal experts 2.69 2 2 11 2.08 Community development experts 2.30 2 i i 2 35 2.32 (n-105) Note: Darkened areas Indicate the type of information for which each channel was given i t s n i c e st u t i l i t y rating. The second highest score Is also shaded i f i t differed by .05 or less. 1 24 The m a j o r i t y of channels (23 of the 32) were considered most u s e f u l f o r general background i n f o r m a t i o n . Only p o l i t i c a l party o f f i c e s and lawyers were i d e n t i f i e d as being p r i m a r i l y u s e f u l f o r information on formal, or o f f i c i a l procedures. Community development experts, comparable groups and p r o v i n c i a l a f f i l i a t e s were considered to be b e t t e r s u i t e d f o r d e l i v e r i n g i n formation on informal means of s o c i a l a c t i o n (although a l l three were almost e q u a l l y r a t e d f o r general background as w e l l ) . The most i n t e r e s t i n g c o l l e c t i o n of channels were the ones p e r c e i v e d as being s u i t e d more f o r i n f l u e n c i n g values than f o r other purposes. They were: a l l f i v e kinds of broadcast channels, personal f r i e n d s , acquaintances, f a m i l y members and neighbours, bookstores, r e l i g i o u s groups and community development experts. The d e s c r i p t i v e data j u s t presented r e p o r t e d on how people gather d i f f e r e n t types of in f o r m a t i o n , how they use the r a t i n g s c a l e s , how much t h e i r kind of group resembles or d i f f e r s from others and how they viewed each channel. The next stage of the a n a l y s i s assessed the degree to which the p a t t e r n of r a t i n g s accorded with the c o n c e p t u a l i z e d s t r u c t u r e of each v a r i a b l e . 125 T e s t i n g the Conceptual Framework T h i s s e c t i o n r e p o r t s on the second o b j e c t i v e of the study where a repeated measures a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e was used to answer four r e s e a r c h questions d e r i v i n g from the conceptual framework f o r channels, i n f o r m a t i o n , user groups and r a t i n g s c a l e s . The complete m u l t i f a c t o r a n a l y s i s i s represented i n a summary t a b l e i n c l u d e d as Appendix G. A n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e main e f f e c t s Main e f f e c t s estimates t e s t e d the " l e v e l s " or i n t e r n a l s t r u c t u r e a t t r i b u t e d to each of the v a r i a b l e s . E a r l y i n the study c o n s t r u c t s had been proposed that c l a s s i f i e d i n f o r m a t i o n channels i n t o c a t e g o r i e s , information items i n t o types, advocacy groups i n t o kinds of i s s u e , and r a t i n g of channels i n t o q u a n t i t a t i v e and e v a l u a t i v e measures. The framework had been developed from p a r t i c i p a n t o b s e r v a t i o n , deductive reasoning, expert judgement, and f i e l d t e s t i n g . The f u n c t i o n of o b j e c t i v e two was to determine whether the data c o l l e c t e d from s u b j e c t s v a r i e d s y s t e m a t i c a l l y with the i n t e r n a l s t r u c t u r e that had been imposed on each v a r i a b l e . The a n a l y s i s of main e f f e c t s p rovided a f i r s t s t a t i s t i c a l t e s t of whether or not the r a t i n g s of concepts or c o n s t r u c t s w i t h i n each v a r i a b l e were d i f f e r e n t . R e s u l t s of the main e f f e c t s a n a l y s i s are shown in Table 7. 1 26 • Table 7 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE: MAIN EFFECTS OF THE FOUR FIXED EFFECTS FACTORS Sou r c e o f V a r i a n c e D.F. F. P r o b a b i l i t y G Group Types 2 1.01 0.3675 0 U s e / U t i l i t y r a t i n g 1 23.92 0.0 00 1 1 I n f o r m a t i o n t y p e s 3 28.20 0.0 001 C C h a n n e l c a t e g o r y 4 5.20 0.0005 (n-84) Group type was the f i r s t v a r i a b l e to be t e s t e d by the main e f f e c t s e s t i m a t e s . Economic, environmental and p e r s o n a l i s s u e advocacy groups e v i d e n t l y d i f f e r e d i n the substance of t h e i r concerns, but the q u e s t i o n remained: Di d the group types d i f f e r i n the r e p o r t e d r a t e of t h e i r i n f o r m a t i o n - g a t h e r i n g a c t i v i t y ? A grand mean f o r each group i s averaged over i t s use and u t i l i t y r a t i n g s of a l l channels, f o r a l l purposes. Such a mean c o u l d only d e s c r i b e i n the most g e n e r a l of terms how the behaviours compared between group t y p e s . The means f o r each l e v e l of the "groups" f a c t o r were as f o l l o w s : economic (2=2.11, S.D.=.11), environmental (X"=2.24, S.D. = .01), and p e r s o n a l (X=2.31, S.D.=.09). These d i d not d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y (F=1.01, p<.37). Over a l l channels, purposes, and s c a l e s , the behaviour of economic, environmental and p e r s o n a l i s s u e advocacy groups ( i n d i c a t e d by 7,168 scores per group type) were more s i m i l a r than d i v e r g e n t . D e s p i t e the v a r i e t y of t h e i r concerns, the commonality of t h e i r being advocacy groups was evidenced to the extent t h a t no one of them r e p o r t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r use of i n f o r m a t i o n than the o t h e r s . 127 The a s s i g n i n g of "amount of use" and " u t i l i t y of use" r a t i n g s was the second main e f f e c t to be t e s t e d . The research q u e s t i o n asked: Do the use-of channel and u t i l i t y - o f - c h a n n e l r a t i n g s d i f f e r ? The means f o r the two l e v e l s of the " r a t i n g " f a c t o r (each c a l c u l a t e d over 10,752 scores) were: use (X=2.18, S.D.=.04) and u t i l i t y (X=2.26, S.D.=.04), and t h e r e f o r e d i f f e r by only two percent of the p o s s i b l e range of scores, although the e f f e c t i s s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t (F=23.92, p<.000l). Readers used to i n t e r p r e t i n g c o n v e n t i o n a l ANOVA s t a t i s t i c s should note that with repeated measures approaches there i s a r a p i d accumulation of degrees of freedom as responses are summed over c e l l s . The BMD:P8V r o u t i n e , as used here, can y i e l d high p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l s even when the d i f f e r e n c e s between mean scores are s m a l l . The r e s u l t s of t h i s a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e that respondents were c o n s i s t e n t i n a s s i g n i n g use and u t i l i t y r a t i n g s that d i f f e r e d , but the average d i f f e r e n c e was only two percent. The t h i r d question concerned the assignment of i n f o r m a t i o n channels to f i v e c a t e g o r i e s on the b a s i s of a r a t i o n a l s i m i l a r i t y in t h e i r a t t r i b u t e s . Those c a t e g o r i e s were: i ) government, i i ) mass p r i n t , i i i ) mass a u d i o - v i s u a l , iv) organized s o c i a l c o n t a c t s , and v) i n d i v i d u a l persons. The q u e s t i o n was asked: 128 Did i n f o r m a t i o n users r a t e the f i v e channel c a t e g o r i e s d i f f e r e n t l y ? The a n a l y s i s provided evidence that there was a systematic v a r i a n c e i n the r a t i n g of channel c a t e g o r i e s (F=5.20, p<.0005). I t should be remembered that whenever m u l t i - l e v e l f a c e t s of a f a c t o r are summed over as the i n f o r m a t i o n , user and r a t i n g f a c e t s of the channel f a c t o r were summed over, then the range of scores i s l o s t . The r e s u l t i n g means f o r each l e v e l of the f a c t o r under examination regress toward the mean. In t h i s case, means f o r each category of the "channels" f a c t o r regressed to the lower s i d e of the mid-score (3.0) simply because there were always r e l a t i v e l y few channel items h i g h l y r a t e d . Category means were as f o l l o w s : government (X=2.07, S.D.=.15), mass p r i n t (X=2.26, S.D.=.04), mass a u d i o - v i s u a l (X=2.13, S.D.=.09), organized s o c i a l c o n t a c t s (X=2.30, S.D.=.07) and i n d i v i d u a l persons (X=2.35, S.D.=.12). The range of these means was q u i t e small — only 7.0 percent. Due to the repeated measures design, each category mean was the product of approximately 4,300 item scores, the a c t u a l number of scores v a r y i n g with number of items i n each category. A t e s t of these d i f f e r e n c e s i s r e p o r t e d i n the next s e c t i o n . The f o u r t h v a r i a b l e of the conceptual framework to be t e s t e d was in f o r m a t i o n types. The resea r c h q u e s t i o n asked: Do info r m a t i o n users r a t e the four types of info r m a t i o n d i f f e r e n t l y ? There was a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t (F=28.20, p<.000l) i n the a c q u i s i t i o n scores which respondents r e p o r t e d f o r each of the four types of i n f o r m a t i o n . The means f o r each l e v e l of the 129 " i n f o r m a t i o n " f a c t o r , each c a l c u l a t e d over 5,376 item scores, were as f o l l o w s : general background (X=2.45, S.D.=.22), formal procedures (X=2.11, S.D.=.10), informal means of s o c i a l a c t i o n (X=2.07, S.D.=.15), s o c i a l values and judgements (X=2.26, S.D.=.04). The range of l e v e l means fo r t h i s f a c t o r was a l s o q u i t e small — .38 (or 9.5 p e r c e n t ) , but on the same b a s i s as the channel f a c t o r , was t e s t e d f u r t h e r f o r systematic d i f f e r e n c e s between the l e v e l s . M u l t i p l e comparison of main e f f e c t means In the a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e , both the " i n f o r m a t i o n " f a c t o r and the "channel" f a c t o r had s e v e r a l l e v e l s . While the F - r a t i o e s t a b l i s h e d that there was a high p r o b a b i l i t y of systematic v a r i a n c e somewhere w i t h i n the l e v e l s of each f a c t o r , i t alone c o u l d not i d e n t i f y where those d i f f e r e n c e s were. So a comparison of l e v e l means f o r each f a c t o r was conducted using the Sheffe formula (Marascuilo,1971). C a l c u l a t i o n s of t h i s t e s t are i n c l u d e d as Appendix H. Of the four mean scores f o r info r m a t i o n types, the sm a l l e s t d i f f e r e n c e between them (2.11 - 2.07 = 0.04) represented two percent of the p o s s i b l e range of scor e s ; but the c o n s i s t e n c y of the d i f f e r e n c e was s u f f i c i e n t to a f f i r m (p<.0l) that i t contained a " r e a l " d i f f e r e n c e i n the universe of items being r a t e d , as p e r c e i v e d by the respondents. T h i s being the case, i t c o u l d be concluded that a l l the l a r g e r d i f f e r e n c e s between means of i n f o r m a t i o n types i n d i c a t e d that i n f o r m a t i o n c o n s t r u c t s were s u f f i c i e n t l y meaningful f o r respondents to r e p o r t d i s c r e t e r a t e s f o r t h e i r a c q u i s i t i o n . In d e c l i n i n g order, they reported 130 r e l a t i v e l y l e s s "success" (as a composite of the amount and u t i l i t y r a t i n g s ) i n o b t a i n i n g background inf o r m a t i o n to t h e i r i s s u e s , values information about those i s s u e s , formal procedures s u i t e d to the i s s u e s , and l e a s t of a l l i n f o r m a t i o n about in f o r m a l means of s o c i a l a c t i o n that might r e s o l v e t h e i r i s s u e . A s i m i l a r comparison of l e v e l means conducted f o r the "channel" f a c t o r a l s o confirmed (p<.0l) that the s m a l l e s t d i f f e r e n c e between means (2.26 - 2.30 = 0.04) i n d i c a t e d a " r e a l " d i f f e r e n c e as p e r c e i v e d by the respondents. The r e f o r e a l l l a r g e r d i f f e r e n c e s between category means would have a s i m i l a r p r o b a b i l i t y of r e p r e s e n t i n g c o n s t r u c t s p e r c e i v e d as d i s c r e t e by respondents. In d e c l i n i n g order, respondents were r e p o r t i n g r e l a t i v e l y l e s s " p r o d u c t i v i t y " (as a composite of the amount and u t i l i t y r a t i n g s ) in c o n t a c t i n g i n d i v i d u a l s , organized s o c i a l channels, p r i n t , mass broadcast, and l e a s t of a l l , government channels. The degree of importance of the main e f f e c t s r e s u l t s does not d e r i v e from the amount of d i f f e r e n c e in l e v e l means — which are a c t u a l l y q u i t e s m a l l . The channel main e f f e c t s t e l l us that 84 people i n r e c o r d i n g 256 scores each, i n a d v e r t e n t l y d e s c r i b e d c o n s i s t e n t l y d i f f e r e n t rates of c o n t a c t f o r f i v e c a t e g o r i e s of i n f o r m a t i o n channel t r a d i t i o n a l l y i d e n t i f i e d as d i f f e r e n t by communications and information s c i e n t i s t s ; and at the same time d e s c r i b e d c o n s i s t e n t l y d i f f e r e n t r a t e s of a c q u i s i t i o n f o r four types of information c r e a t e d to represent the i n f o r m a t i o n environment i n which they were o p e r a t i n g . The purpose of d e f i n i n g concepts and c o n s t r u c t s i s to b r i n g order to domains of human experience, and to some l i m i t e d extent (p<.0l) these 131 c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s served to e l i c i t d i f f e r e n t i a l r e p o r t s of i n f o r m a t i o n a c q u i s i t i o n behaviour on the pa r t of c e r t a i n i n f o r m a l l e a r n e r s . T e s t i n g the Hypothesized R e l a t i o n s h i p s I t was hy p o t h e s i z e d that the r a t i n g of channel c a t e g o r i e s would vary by i n f o r m a t i o n type, and by group type. To t e s t these hypotheses the channel c a t e g o r i e s , along with i n f o r m a t i o n types, group types, and r a t i n g types, were e n t e r e d i n t o a f o u r -way a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e . A n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s As i n d i c a t e d e a r l i e r , s i g n i f i c a n c e t e s t s were conducted f o r s i x two-factor, four t h r e e - f a c t o r , and one f o u r - f a c t o r i n t e r a c t i o n . Two of the two-way i n t e r a c t i o n s , but no higher order i n t e r a c t i o n s were s i g n i f i c a n t . A l l of the two-way i n t e r a c t i o n s t e s t e d by t h i s a n a l y s i s are d i s p l a y e d i n Table 8 , which shows t h a t four of them were not s i g n i f i c a n t . Table 8 TWO-WAY INTERACTIONS IN THE MULTIPLE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE V a r i a b l e s D.F. F. P r o b a b i l i t y G r o u p s / u s e - u t i l i t y 2 0. 50 0 .60 G r o u p s / i n f o r m a t i o n 6 1. 84 0 .09 U s e - u t i l i t y / i n f o r m a t i o n 3 1. 26 0 .28 G r o u p s / c h a n n e l s 8 4 . 28 0 .0001 U s e - u t i l i t y / c h a n n e l s 4 1. 87 0 .11 I n f o r m a t i o n / c h a n n e l s 12 7. 97 0 .0001 (n-84) 1 32 The f i r s t hypothesis had proposed that there would be a systematic i n f l u e n c e of info r m a t i o n types on the r a t i n g of channel c a t e g o r i e s . I t s t a t e d t h a t : Hypothesis I The r a t i n g of channel c a t e g o r i e s w i l l vary by in f o r m a t i o n type. Because of the o r i g i n a l d e f i n i t i o n s , c r e a t e d f o r t h i s study to d e p i c t the - in f o r m a t i o n pools of advocacy groups, there was no pre v i o u s r e s e a r c h upon which to base more s p e c i f i c hypotheses. The unique c h a r a c t e r of the four i n f o r m a t i o n types themselves, having been c r e a t e d as mutually e x c l u s i v e quadrants of a domain suggested that they might be a v a i l a b l e to users only through s u i t a b l y d i f f e r i n g channels. According to the a n a l y s i s of va r i a n c e which t e s t e d the s t a t i s t i c a l i n t e r a c t i o n of the two v a r i a b l e s , the r a t i n g of channel c a t e g o r i e s d i d vary s i g n i f i c a n t l y (p<.000l) by inf o r m a t i o n type. A m u l t i p l e comparison of c e l l means t e s t e d f o r p a r t i c u l a r r e l a t i o n s h i p s through a s e r i e s of c o n t r a s t s that are r e p o r t e d i n the next s e c t i o n . At t h i s stage of the a n a l y s i s i t was a l s o p o s s i b l e t e s t the second h y p o t h e s i s : 1 3 3 Hypothesis II The r a t i n g of channel c a t e g o r i e s w i l l vary by group type. Both the spectrum of i s s u e s across group types, and the p o s s i b i l i t y that groups might have d i f f e r i n g p r e f e r e n c e s i n t h e i r s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n s , suggested that they would rate channels i n d i s t i n c t i v e ways. According to the a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e , the r a t i n g of channel c a t e g o r i e s d i d vary s i g n i f i c a n t l y (p<.000l) by group type. Once again, while the i n i t i a l t e s t r e v e a l e d a strong i n t e r a c t i o n between channel c a t e g o r i e s and group types, the exact nature of t h e i r systematic i n t e r a c t i o n c o u l d only be r e v e a l e d by a m u l t i p l e comparison of c e l l means. M u l t i p l e comparison of i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t means Table 9 r e p o r t s c e l l means f o r the i n t e r a c t i o n of f i v e channel c a t e g o r i e s with four i n f o r m a t i o n types. In order to breakdown the r e l a t i o n s h i p s among c e l l means for channel c a t e g o r i e s by information types, a t o t a l of e i g h t c o n t r a s t s were evaluated. 1 34 Table 9 CELL MEANS FOR INTERACTION OF CHANNEL CATEGORIES WITH INFORMATION TYPES General Formal Informal Social Channel Categories Background Procedures Social Action Values and Judgements X S.D. X S.D. X S.D. X S.D. Government 2.32 .02 2.16 .20 1.85 .06 1.95 .16 Mass print 2.62 .13 1.98 .17 2.05 .06 2.if 1 .10 Mass audio—visual 2.28 .07 1.90 .12 1.99 .01 2.35 . 17 Organized so c i a l contacts 2.46 .05 2.54 .06 2.26 K i l l 2.23 .11 Individual persons 2.54 .02 2.27 .02 2.19 60- .00 Note: Shaded areas indicate the two categories most highly rated by each group type. actual values: *=.005 * x=.003 Using Dunn's procedure, elsewhere r e f e r r e d to as Bonferoni t s t a t i s t i c s (Kirk,1968), two c o n t r a s t s were t e s t e d f o r each type of i n f o r m a t i o n . The most h i g h l y rated category fo r each type of i n f o r m a t i o n was t e s t e d a g a i n s t the other f o u r , and the mean of the higher two c a t e g o r i e s was t e s t e d a g a i n s t that of the lower three, a t o t a l of e i g h t c o n t r a s t s i n a l l . C a l c u l a t i o n s f o r t h i s t e s t are i n c l u d e d as Appendix J . For each type of i n f o r m a t i o n , the f i r s t c o n t r a s t was not s i g n i f i c a n t . Although mass p r i n t was most h i g h l y r a t e d f o r both types of background i n f o r m a t i o n , and organized s o c i a l c o n t a c t s were most h i g h l y r a t e d f o r both types of s t r a t e g i c i n f o r m a t i o n , no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e was found between each l e a d i n g category and the lower f o u r . When the category of i n d i v i d u a l persons (r a t e d second highest i n each case) was added, the mean r a t i n g obtained from the top two c a t e g o r i e s d i d prove to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t (p <.01) from the mean of the remaining 135 three, l e a d i n g to the f o l l o w i n g c o n c l u s i o n s : General background information was acq u i r e d more s u c c e s s f u l l y v i a p r i n t channels, in combination with i n d i v i d u a l persons; formal procedures information was acq u i r e d more s u c c e s s f u l l y v i a organized s o c i a l c o n t a c t s , i n combination with i n d i v i d u a l persons; in f o r m a t i o n concerning i n f o r m a l means of s o c i a l a c t i o n was a l s o b e t t e r a c q u i r e d v i a c o n t a c t with other organized s o c i a l c o n t a c t s , with a u x i l i a r y resources i n i n d i v i d u a l persons;and s o c i a l v a l u e s and judgements were more i n f l u e n c e d by p r i n t e d i n f o r m a t i o n and i n d i v i d u a l persons — than by any other category of channel. Table 10 r e p o r t s c e l l means f o r the i n t e r a c t i o n of f i v e c a t e g o r i e s of channels with three kinds of advocacy group. Table 10 . CELL MEANS FOR INTERACTION OF CHANNEL CATEGORIES WITH GROUP TYPES Channel Categories Group Types Economic Environmental Personal X S.D. X S.D. X S.D. Government Mass print Mass audio-visual Organized s o c i a l contacts Individual persons 2.01 .05 2.09 .05 1.99 .03 2.21 .12 1.99 .17 2.33 .02 1.89 .25 2.29 .02 2.52 .29 2.48 .08 2.13 ...06 2.33 .10 2.27 .17 Note: Shaded areas Indicate the two categories used most successfully by each group type. Again, using the Dunn procedure, two t e s t s were conducted f o r each kind of group. The channel category most h i g h l y r a t e d by each group type was t e s t e d a g a i n s t the other f o u r , and then the mean of the top two c a t e g o r i e s was t e s t e d a g a i n s t the lower 1 36 three. C a l c u l a t i o n s f o r t h i s t e s t are in c l u d e d as Appendix K. For a l l three types of group, the f i r s t c o n t r a s t was not s i g n i f i c a n t while the second one was ( p < . 0 l ) , which l e d to the f o l l o w i n g c o n c l u s i o n s : Economic groups r a t e d i n d i v i d u a l persons and organized s o c i a l c o n t a c t s more h i g h l y than other c a t e g o r i e s . Environmental issue groups r a t e d i n d i v i d u a l s and p r i n t sources of a l l kinds more h i g h l y than other channel c a t e g o r i e s . Personal issue advocacy groups r a t e d mass broadcast and organized s o c i a l c o n t a c t s more h i g h l y than other i n f o r m a t i o n channels. I t would r e q u i r e f u r t h e r stages of r e s e a r c h to e l i c i t e x p l a n a t i o n s f o r these r e l a t i o n s h i p s , but i t i s p o s s i b l e to speculate that economic and environmental advocates e x h i b i t e d t h e i r most pronounced i n t e r a c t i o n with the category of i n d i v i d u a l s because they had b u i l t up networks of supporters and expert c o n s u l t a n t s . P o s s i b l y economic groups rep o r t e d a supplementary r e l i a n c e on organized c o n t a c t s because they are i n t e r e s t e d i n e x e r c i s i n g i n f l u e n c e — they p r i m a r i l y want to m o b i l i z e change. P o s s i b l y environmental groups rep o r t e d p r i n t sources as t h e i r second category because they are r e q u i r e d to " b u i l d a case" through l e g a l and s c i e n t i f i c i n f o r m a t i o n , both of which are conveyed b e t t e r through p r i n t channnels than through ephemeral c o n t a c t s at workshops or other s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n s . The n o t i c e a b l y d i f f e r e n t category was per s o n a l i s s u e groups, where i n d i v i d u a l c o n t a c t s ( r e l a t i v e l y important f o r each type of inf o r m a t i o n and to the other kinds of users) were not among the t o p - r a t e d . c a t e g o r i e s . Perhaps personal issue groups d i f f e r e d because by d e f i n i t i o n , p ersonal issues a f f e c t s p e c i a l 1 37 c o n s t i t u e n c i e s of people, while economic and environmental issues a f f e c t v i r t u a l l y everyone. Perhaps members of personal issue advocacy groups have f e l t themselves set apart i n a way that prevented them from b u i l d i n g up co n t a c t s with i n d i v i d u a l s as the other groups reported doing. For whatever reasons, members of personal i s s u e groups reported t h e i r s t r o n g e s t r e l i a n c e to be on broadcast media, followed by organized s o c i a l c o n t a c t s . The m u l t i p l e a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e r e p o r t s many examples of low v a r i a n c e i n mean sc o r e s . For example, main e f f e c t s means for each l e v e l of the f i x e d e f f e c t s f a c t o r s (group types, r a t i n g s c a l e s , i n f o r m a t i o n types and channel c a t e g o r i e s ) showed almost a t h i r d had standard d e v i a t i o n s of l e s s than one percent — the highest being j u s t over f i v e . percent. S i m i l a r l y , the i n t e r a c t i o n means reported i n Tables 9 and 10 show standard d e v i a t i o n s under seven percent. These low v a r i a n c e s r e v e a l a high degree of c o n s i s t e n c y i n the response p a t t e r n s r e p o r t e d . This i n t r o d u c e s the p o s s i b i l i t y that the s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e found in apparently small d i f f e r e n c e s between means i s not j u s t an a r t i f a c t of the degrees of freedom a s s o c i a t e d with repeated measures desi g n . C e l l means of the i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t between groups and channels (Table 10) range over 15.7 percent of the p o s s i b l e l i m i t ; those of the information and channel i n t e r a c t i o n range over 19.2 percent. The low v a r i a t i o n a s s o c i a t e d with these reported means lends credence to the p o s s i b i l i t y that they r e f l e c t a c t u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n the pe r c e p t i o n s and behaviour of respondents. 138 T e s t i n g the Influence of Interv e n i n g V a r i a b l e s Two se t s of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s intervened between the information type and kind of advocacy issue i n f l u e n c e s on channel r a t i n g s . Those i n t e r v e n i n g v a r i a b l e s were personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the respondents, and op e r a t i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the groups to which they belonged. In c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the p o s s i b i l i t y that these c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s might b i a s r e s u l t s on the r e l a t i o n s h i p s of i n t e r e s t , r e g r e s s i o n analyses were run to determine t h e i r i n f l u e n c e . Personal o v e r a l l mean scores, and group o v e r a l l mean scores were the r e s p e c t i v e dependent v a r i a b l e s . Regression on demographic v a r i a b l e s A p e r s o n a l mean score was produced by the m u l t i p l e a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e encompassing a l l of a respondent's information a c q u i s i t i o n over a l l channels as reported by a l l "use" (volume) and " u t i l i t y " ( e v a l u a t i v e ) measures. T h i s p e r s o n a l o v e r a l l mean was i n t e r p r e t e d as a measure of the respondent's i n f o r m a t i o n -r e l a t e d a c t i v i t i e s , i n d i c a t i n g simultaneously how much inform a t i o n they a c q u i r e d and with what e f f e c t i v e n e s s , a c c o r d i n g to t h e i r own judgement. The personal mean score was i n s e r t e d as the dependent v a r i a b l e i n a m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s to determine which combination of the f i v e independent v a r i a b l e s were i t s best p r e d i c t o r s . The independent v a r i a b l e s were: sex, age, education l e v e l , income l e v e l , and membership l e v e l . Sex 1 3 9 and age were entered together i n the f i r s t s t e p of the r e g r e s s i o n as the most s a l i e n t p e r s o n a l d e s c r i p t o r s . E d u c a t i o n and income l e v e l were entered together i n the second step of the r e g r e s s i o n as c l o s e l y l i n k e d , b i o g r a p h i c a l l y secondary c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Membership l e v e l was entered alone i n the t h i r d s t e p of the r e g r e s s i o n as the most i d i o s y n c r a t i c of the p e r s o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Table 11 REGRESSION ON DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES AS PREDICTORS OF PERSONAL OVERALL MEAN SCORE Multiple 7 Simple Beta R R R Sex .01 .00 -.01 -.00 Age .12 .01 -.12 -.16 Education Level .15 .02 .13 .00 Income Level .17 .03 .10 .07 Membership Level .23 .05 .14 .17 Table 11 summarizes the r e g r e s s i o n equation f o r p r e d i c t i o n of a p e r s o n a l o v e r a l l mean s c o r e . For p r a c t i c a l purposes the most s i g n i f i c a n t f i n d i n g was t h a t a l l f i v e independent v a r i a b l e s together o n l y accounted f o r f i v e p ercent of the v a r i a n c e i n p e r s o n a l mean s c o r e s . W i t h i n t h a t l i m i t e d range, the most powerful p r e d i c t o r of p e r s o n a l mean scores was number of memberships the respondents h e l d (Beta=.l7), f o l l o w e d by age (Beta=-.16). People who j o i n e d a l a r g e number of groups tended to r e p o r t higher o v e r a l l s c o r e s , and o l d e r people tended to r e p o r t lower s c o r e s . Thus the respondents most l i k e l y to r e p o r t high p e r s o n a l o v e r a l l s c o r e s were young, " j o i n e r s " . Remembering that demographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o n l y accounted f o r f i v e percent of the v a r i a n c e i n p e r s o n a l mean s c o r e s , there remain some i n t e r e s t i n g r e l a t i o n s between p e r s o n a l 140 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and each kind of advocacy group. Personal advocacy had the youngest members (X=31 y e a r s ) , and age was the second best (negative) p r e d i c t o r of high personal scores on information usage. Environmental advocacy groups had the best educated members with the average l e v e l being at l e a s t some u n i v e r s i t y c r e d i t s . Economic advocacy groups, l a c k i n g i n education and income, and having the o l d e s t members (X=50 years) n e v e r t h e l e s s had the " j o i n i n g e s t " members. T h e i r average membership l e v e l was more than seven memberships each. Each group type, then, had some unique q u a l i t y which i t might use to advantage i n f u l f i l i n g i t s in f o r m a t i o n requirements. Regression on group operation v a r i a b l e s A s i m i l a r t e s t was conducted on group o p e r a t i o n v a r i a b l e s . A group o v e r a l l mean score was c a l c u l a t e d from the p e r s o n a l mean scores of i t s members. The o v e r a l l mean for each group was i n s e r t e d as a dependent v a r i a b l e i n a m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s to determine which combination of four independent v a r i a b l e s were i t s best p r e d i c t o r s . The independent v a r i a b l e s were: the group's possession or lack of o f f i c e s , the group's use or non-use of p a i d s t a f f , the number of years i t had been i n o p e r a t i o n , and the s i z e of i t s membership. But the small sample of only 17 groups precluded drawing any r e l i a b l e c o n c l u s i o n s from the r e g r e s s i o n , s i n c e the r e s u l t s were too s u s c e p t i b l e themselves to b i a s from i n c i d e n t a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of groups i n the sample. The most powerful p r e d i c t o r of the o v e r a l l group mean scores was years i n operation (Beta=-.35), followed by the possession of o f f i c e s (Beta=.29). However, the negative 141 r e l a t i o n of years of op e r a t i o n to the group o v e r a l l mean score was probably not due so much to the s k i l l f u l a c t i v i t i e s of more r e c e n t l y formed groups, as to the presence in the sample of one group which had been i n oper a t i o n 51 years and a l s o had a low group mean. The possession of o f f i c e s may have been masking the i n f l u e n c e of pa i d s t a f f , or some other v a r i a b l e having to do with group s t a b i l i t y or commitment to t h e i r cause, and so cannot be c o n c l u s i v e l y l i n k e d i n a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n to group mean scores, on the b a s i s of t h i s sample. T h i s chapter began by p r o v i d i n g a p r o f i l e of groups acc o r d i n g to t h e i r i n t e r e s t s and o p e r a t i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , and by p r e s e n t i n g demographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the p o p u l a t i o n of the study. Members of economic advocacy groups tended to be older than the average, l e s s w e l l educated, u s u a l l y women rather than men, and p r o l i f i c " j o i n e r s " of o r g a n i z a t i o n s . Environmental advocates tended to be younger, q u i t e w e l l educated, more than h a l f of whom were men, and not j o i n e r s of many o r g a n i z a t i o n s . Personal issue advocates tended to be the youngest of a l l , more l i k e l y women than men, q u i t e w e l l educated and a l s o not j o i n e r s of many o r g a n i z a t i o n s . The r a t i n g of i n d i v i d u a l channels revealed the ex i s t e n c e of a core of multipurpose channels which i n c l u d e d members of one's group, other groups comparable to one's own, workshops and conferences. Other more s p e c i a l i z e d channels were very s p a r s e l y used, suggesting that c o n s i d e r a b l e e f f o r t and i n i t i a t i v e was re q u i r e d on the part of informal l e a r n e r s to accumulate widely d i s p e r s e d i n f o r m a t i o n . Focusing on the top e i g h t channels for each type of info r m a t i o n , the three group types evidenced 1 42 d i f f e r e n t p a t t e r n s of use, with e n v i r o n m e n t a l i s t s r e p o r t i n g higher amounts of information r e c e i v e d from more s p e c i a l i z e d channels, economic advocates r e p o r t i n g higher use of i n d i v i d u a l s and p e r s o n a l advocates r e p o r t i n g higher use of workshops and conferences. An assessment of how w e l l the p a t t e r n of r a t i n g s accorded with the s t r u c t u r e of each v a r i a b l e , revealed that the two r a t i n g v a r i a b l e s of use and u t i l i t y d i f f e r e d o v e r a l l by only two percent, but the r e l a t i o n s h i p was extremely s t a b l e (p<.0001); o v e r a l l means f o r group types d i d not d i f f e r from each other; r a t i n g s of the f i v e channel c a t e g o r i e s ranged over only 5.7 percent, but were each s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from the r e s t (p<.0l); and r a t i n g s of i n f o r m a t i o n types ranged over 9.5 percent and were a l s o each s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from the r e s t (p<.0l). I t was concluded that the s t r u c t u r e of v a r i a b l e s presented to respondents was u s e f u l i n e n a b l i n g them to report d i f f e r e n t i a l p a t t e r n s of i n f o r m a t i o n a c q u i s i t i o n . Information resources e x h i b i t e d a s t a b l e p a t t e r n of i n t e r a c t i o n s with the the channel c a t e g o r i e s . C e l l mean scores ranged from 2.62 to 1.95, over 18 percent of the p o s s i b l e range. A l l i n f o r m a t i o n types were s e c o n d a r i l y a s s o c i a t e d with the category of i n d i v i d u a l persons, but background was p r i m a r i l y a s s o c i a t e d with p r i n t sources, while s t r a t e g i c was p r i m a r i l y a s s o c i a t e d with organized s o c i a l c o n t a c t s . Groups reported a s t a b l e p a t t e r n of i n t e r a c t i o n s with channel c a t e g o r i e s . C e l l means ranged from 2.52 to 1.89, over 16 percent of the p o s s i b l e range. Economic advocates r e l i e d ' more on the c a t e g o r i e s of i n d i v i d u a l persons and organized 1 43 s o c i a l c o n t a c t s . Environmental advocates a l s o used i n d i v i d u a l s , but with an a u x i l i a r y recourse to p r i n t channels. Personal issue advocates drew most h e a v i l y on broadcast channels followed by organized s o c i a l c o n t a c t s . While economic and environmental groups both use i n d i v i d u a l s , the former tended to contact t h e i r immediate c i r c l e , while the l a t t e r used expert s p e c i a l i s t s . While both p e r s o n a l issue and economic advocates used organized s o c i a l c o n t a c t s , the former d i d not j o i n many, while the l a t t e r j o i n e d an average of seven upwards to 25. Personal i n t e r v e n i n g v a r i a b l e s had only a s l i g h t (r 2=.05) i n f l u e n c e , while the i n f l u e n c e of group o p e r a t i o n v a r i a b l e s was indeterminate because of i n c i d e n t a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n a small sample. 1 44 Chapter 9 Conclusions T h i s chapter r e s t a t e s the context i n which the study was designed; summarizes the f i n d i n g s ; notes the l i m i t a t i o n s ; and with an eye to future r e s e a r c h , r e t u r n s from the p a r t i c u l a r case of advocacy groups to the general case of informal l e a r n e r s i n the l e a r n i n g s o c i e t y . Regaining the Long P e r s p e c t i v e The study was introduced by r e c a l l i n g a t r a d i t i o n i n a d u l t education whose theme was the development of c i t i z e n s h i p s k i l l s the p r e p a r a t i o n of people fo r s o c i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , empowering them to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the decision-making processes which shape t h e i r economy and c u l t u r e . P a r t i c u l a r a t t e n t i o n was drawn to the precedents of peer group l e a r n i n g a s s o c i a t e d with the A n t i g o n i s h movement and C i t i z e n s Forum. C o n s i d e r a t i o n of the p r o j e c t moved from e t h i c a l t r a d i t i o n s toward the present r e s e a r c h a b l e world by examining some fe a t u r e s of the contemporary f i e l d of a d u l t education. The f e a t u r e s were: i ) l i f e l o n g d u r a t i o n , i i ) s e l f - c o n d u c t e d a c t i v i t i e s , i i i ) peer group s e t t i n g s , iv) a n t i c i p a t o r y stances toward p u b l i c events, and v) a " l e a r n i n g ^society" context. None of the f i v e f e a t u r e s i s u n i v e r s a l l y present i n a l l examples of a d u l t e d u c a t i o n , and combinations of a l l f i v e are even l e s s common. 1 45 S e l f - h e l p advocacy groups o f f e r e d a rare o p p o r t u n i t y to observe e d u c a t i o n a l a c t i v i t y that embodied a l l the s e l e c t e d f e a t u r e s . Having taken s e l f - h e l p advocacy groups as the research s e t t i n g , f u r t h e r c h o i c e s were made concerning what to observe w i t h i n them. C o g n i t i v e change was s e l e c t e d over a f f e c t i v e or b e h a v i o u r a l ; and i s s u e s and systems e x t e r n a l to the group were chosen over those i n t e r n a l to the group as the o b j e c t s of l e a r n i n g to be c o n s i d e r e d . A bridge was e s t a b l i s h e d between the development of a knowledge base and the management of i n f o r m a t i o n , v i a Weiss's model (Kochen,1967) which shows the former (knowledge) developing out of the l a t t e r ( i n f o r m a t i o n ) through a four stage process. On the b a s i s of a p r e l i m i n a r y i n v e s t i g a t i o n which took the form of a comparative case study, a f i n a l c h o i c e was made to c o n c e n t r a t e e x c l u s i v e l y on the f i r s t stage of the management of i n f o r m a t i o n . The a c q u i s i t i o n of i n f o r m a t i o n thus became the focus of o b s e r v a t i o n of the study through a s e r i e s of c h o i c e s . Summary of the F i n d i n g s The purpose of the study was to i n v e s t i g a t e how informal l e a r n e r s i n s e v e r a l kinds of advocacy group use i n f o r m a t i o n o u t l e t s i n s o c i e t y : to d e s c r i b e t h e i r p a t t e r n s of information a c q u i s i t i o n , to assess the degree of accord between the s t r u c t u r e of key v a r i a b l e s and the p a t t e r n of user r e p o r t s , and to t e s t hypothesized r e l a t i o n s h i p s between channel, information and group v a r i a b l e s . 146 The f i r s t o b j e c t i v e of the study was to i n v e s t i g a t e general d e s c r i p t i v e p a t t e r n s of information a c q u i s i t i o n . The d e s c r i p t i o n began simply with the q u e s t i o n of which channels got the highest r a t i n g s f o r each type of information (Table 4). Even though they had been averaged over a l l respondents, "use" scores v a r i e d ( i n amount of information a t t r i b u t e d to each channel) over 57.5 percent of the p o s s i b l e range — from almost "none at a l l " (X=1.67) to " q u i t e a l o t " (X=3.97). " U t i l i t y " scores v a r i e d ( i n p e r c e i v e d u s e f u l n e s s of i n f o r m a t i o n acquired) over 65 percent of the p o s s i b l e range — from "not at a l l u s e f u l " (X=1.43) to " q u i t e u s e f u l " (1=4.03). E v i d e n t l y , respondents d i d not use channels e q u a l l y , but tended to concentrate on one t h i r d of those they were asked about. The other two-thirds of the. channels were q u i t e s p a r s e l y used. Within the favoured t h i r d there seemed to e x i s t a core of multipurpose channels that were r e l i e d upon f o r a l l the d i f f e r e n t types of i n f o r m a t i o n (Figure 12). These multipurpose channels i n c l u d e d other members of the group, other groups, workshops and conferences, f r i e n d s and acquaintances. S p e c i a l i z e d c o n t a c t s such as municipal departments, l e g a l experts, T.V. documentaries, and community development experts were used only a l i t t l e . I t was concluded that the a c q u i s i t i o n of i n f o r m a t i o n .from s p e c i a l i z e d sources was t h i n l y spread, implying c o n s i d e r a b l e e f f o r t and i n i t i a t i v e on the part of i n f o r m a l l e a r n e r s to accumulate an adequate amount of each. Respondents c o n s i s t e n t l y gave higher r a t i n g s f o r the u s e f u l n e s s or value of i n f o r m a t i o n a c q u i r e d than they d i d f o r the volume of i t . P o s s i b l y the e f f o r t r e q u i r e d to f i n d 1 47 d i s p a r a t e types of i n f o r m a t i o n i s so great that people are a p p r e c i a t i v e whenever they come across anything they can use. The very c o n s i s t e n c y of the p a t t e r n adds i n t e r e s t to the few channels where u t i l i t y r a t i n g s were lower than use ( f e d e r a l departments, o f f i c e s of e l e c t e d r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , p r o v i n c i a l a f f i l i a t e s of the respondent's group, c o a l i t i o n s , and s c i e n t i f i c e x p e r t s ) . The second part of r e p o r t i n g p a t t e r n s of information a c q u i s i t i o n focused on d i f f e r e n c e s between user groups. When the top q u a r t i l e of channels f o r each i n f o r m a t i o n type was co n s i d e r e d , (Figure 13), e n v i r o n m e n t a l i s t s r e p o r t e d higher use of more s p e c i a l i z e d channels and a higher volume of information r e c e i v e d from t h e i r own members and other s i m i l a r groups. Personal i s s u e advocates reported a heavier use of organized s o c i a l c o n t a c t s such as workshops, conferences and s e r v i c e o r g a n i z a t i o n s than other respondents. Economic i s s u e advocates rep o r t e d a h e a v i e r r e l i a n c e on i n d i v i d u a l persons such as t h e i r f r i e n d s and acquaintances than d i d other respondents. D i f f e r e n c e s between user groups were a l s o revealed i n r a t i n g a l l 32 channels, not j u s t the top q u a r t i l e , averaged over a l l a c q u i s i t i o n purposes (Table 5). The d i f f e r e n t kinds of users tended to r a t e most h i g h l y information o u t l e t s that one would a s s o c i a t e with t h e i r i s s u e s . For example, economic issue advocates l e d i n t h e i r r a t i n g of p o l i t i c a l p arty o f f i c e s , r e l i g i o u s groups, c l o s e f r i e n d s , family members, neighbours, f i n a n c i a l and community development e x p e r t s . Environmental issue advocates l e d i n t h e i r r a t i n g of e l e c t e d o f f i c i a l s , l i b r a r i e s , bookstores, comparable groups, c o a l i t i o n s , and 148 s c i e n t i f i c and l e g a l e x p e r t s . Personal issue advocates l e d i n t h e i r r a t i n g of f e d e r a l m i n i s t r i e s and p r o v i n c i a l departments, s p e c i a l s u b s c r i p t i o n s and a l l f i v e forms of broadcast media l i s t e d , n a t i o n a l and i n t e r n a t i o n a l a f f i l i a t i o n s , p r o f e s s i o n a l a s s o c i a t i o n s , community s e r v i c e o r g a n i z a t i o n s , and above a l l workshops and conferences. One p o i n t to consid e r i n the personal i s s u e category i s how the dimension of language and et h n i c background c o u l d be an i n f l u e n c e with some of the p a r t i c i p a t i n g groups. While preference f o r a language other than E n g l i s h or French would i n f l u e n c e the whole p a t t e r n of responses, i t would i n p a r t i c u l a r tend to r a i s e the reported use of s p e c i a l s u b s c r i p t i o n s and broadcast media. The t h i r d part of r e p o r t i n g d e s c r i p t i v e p a t t e r n s of inf o r m a t i o n a c q u i s i t i o n was designed to d i s c o v e r how each channel was p e r c e i v e d by a l l the users even i f i t was only a minor co n t a c t f o r them (Table 6). The m a j o r i t y of channels (24 of the 32) were con s i d e r e d most u s e f u l f o r general background i n f o r m a t i o n . Only p o l i t i c a l p a r t y o f f i c e s and lawyers were i d e n t i f i e d as being p r i m a r i l y u s e f u l f o r information on formal, or o f f i c i a l procedures. Community development experts, comparable groups and p r o v i n c i a l a f f i l i a t e s were con s i d e r e d to be b e t t e r s u i t e d f o r d e l i v e r i n g i n f o r m a t i o n on inf o r m a l means of s o c i a l a c t i o n . The channels most a s s o c i a t e d with i n f o r m a t i o n i n f l u e n c i n g s o c i a l values and judgements were a l l f i v e . k i n d s of broadcast media, int i m a t e s such as f r i e n d s , f a m i l y and neighbours, bookstores, r e l i g i o u s groups and community development e x p e r t s . I t should be noted that when l i b r a r i e s were l i s t e d with 149 non-personal p r i n t channels, respondents rated them only as bookstacks. I n t e r a c t i v e contact with l i b r a r i a n s was i m p l i c i t l y recognized as use of expert i n d i v i d u a l s . In order to e x p l i c i t l y acknowledge the contact that respondents have with l i b r a r i a n s and others i n s i m i l a r i n f o r m a t i o n and r e f e r r a l r o l e s , an item such as " i n f o r m a t i o n s p e c i a l i s t s " c o u l d be i n c l u d e d i n the category of expert i n d i v i d u a l s . The second o b j e c t i v e of the study was to asses how w e l l the p a t t e r n of user r e p o r t s accorded with the s t r u c t u r e of key v a r i a b l e s . The main e f f e c t s of the m u l t i p l e a n a l y s i s provided the f i r s t estimates of systematic v a r i a n c e (Table 7) . These were followed where necessary by m u l t i p l e comparisons (Appendix H). In r i s i n g order of importance, the f i n d i n g s were as f o l l o w s : i ) No one kind of group r e p o r t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r use of i n f o r m a t i o n than the o t h e r s , suggesting that they behaved s i m i l a r l y as advocacy groups, at l e a s t i n t h e i r s e l f - r e p o r t s as " i n f o r m a t i o n a c t i v i s t s " . i i ) The d i f f e r e n c e between the o v e r a l l means of use and u t i l i t y r a t i n g s was only two percent, but c o n s i s t e n t enough to e s t a b l i s h (p<.00C)1) that people were t r e a t i n g these as separate measures. i i i ) The o v e r a l l means f o r channel c a t e g o r i e s d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n d i c a t i n g that the channel c o n s t r u c t s were meaningful to the respondents in such a way that each category was a s c r i b e d (p<.0l) a d i f f e r e n t r a t e of "productive c o n t a c t " — "productive c o n t a c t " being an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the composite score i n which amount i s tempered by the u t i l i t y of information 1 50 g a t h e r e d f r o m a c h a n n e l c a t e g o r y . i v ) T h e o v e r a l l m e a n s f o r i n f o r m a t i o n t y p e s d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e i n f o r m a t i o n c o n s t r u c t s w e r e s i m i l a r l y m e a n i n g f u l t o t h e r e s p o n d e n t s - i n s u c h a way t h a t e a c h t y p e o f i n f o r m a t i o n was a s c r i b e d (p< . 0 l ) a d i s t i n c t i v e r a t e o f " s u c c e s s f u l a c q u i s i t i o n " — " s u c c e s s f u l a c q u i s i t i o n " b e i n g a n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e c o m p o s i t e s c o r e o f a m o u n t a n d u t i l i t y o f i n f o r m a t i o n a c c u m u l a t e d . T h e t h i r d o b j e c t i v e was t o t e s t f o r s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n s b e t w e e n c h a n n e l c a t e g o r i e s a n d t w o o t h e r v a r i a b l e s , i n f o r m a t i o n t y p e s , a n d k i n d s o f u s e r g r o u p . S i n c e t h e m u l t i p l e a n a l y s i s p r o v i d e d e s t i m a t e s t h a t t h e r e was s y s t e m a t i c v a r i a n c e i n t h e s e r e l a t i o n s h i p s ( T a b l e 8), m u l t i p l e c o m p a r i s o n s w e r e c o n d u c t e d t o d e t e r m i n e t h e p a r t i c u l a r n a t u r e o f t h e i n t e r a c t i o n s ( A p p e n d i c e s J a n d K ) . T h e f i n d i n g s w e r e : i ) G e n e r a l b a c k g r o u n d i n f o r m a t i o n was a c q u i r e d m o r e s u c c e s s f u l l y v i a p r i n t c h a n n e l s , i n c o m b i n a t i o n w i t h i n d i v i d u a l p e r s o n s ; f o r m a l p r o c e d u r e s i n f o r m a t i o n was a c q u i r e d m o r e s u c c e s s f u l l y v i a o r g a n i z e d s o c i a l c o n t a c t s , i n c o m b i n a t i o n w i t h i n d i v i d u a l p e r s o n s ; i n f o r m a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g i n f o r m a l m e a n s o f s o c i a l a c t i o n was a l s o b e t t e r a c q u i r e d v i a o r g a n i z e d s o c i a l c o n t a c t s w i t h a u x i l i a r y r e s o u r c e s i n i n d i v i d u a l p e r s o n s ; a n d s o c i a l v a l u e s a n d j u d g e m e n t s w e r e m o r e i n f l u e n c e d b y p r i n t e d i n f o r m a t i o n a n d i n d i v i d u a l p e r s o n s — t h a n b y o t h e r c a t e g o r i e s ( T a b l e 9). i i ) E c o n o m i c g r o u p s r a t e d i n d i v i d u a l p e r s o n s a n d o r g a n i z e d s o c i a l c o n t a c t s h i g h e r t h a n o t h e r c a t e g o r i e s o f i n f o r m a t i o n c h a n n e l . E n v i r o n m e n t a l i s s u e g r o u p s r a t e d 151 i n d i v i d u a l and p r i n t sources higher than other channel c a t e g o r i e s . Personal issue advocacy groups r a t e d mass broadcast and organized s o c i a l c o n t a c t s higher than other c a t e g o r i e s of information channel (Table 10). L i m i t a t i o n s of the Study -Every s c i e n t i f i c report should take i n t o account what ex i g e n c i e s of design or implementation might have prevented important o b s e r v a t i o n s being made, or made with an optimal degree of confidence. Here f o l l o w s a b r i e f account of t h i s study's shortcomings. F i r s t l y , throughout the study the reader has been reminded that scores were r e p o r t s of user experience, respondent p e r c e p t i o n s of amount and u t i l i t y of information a c q u i r e d . T h i s leaves open to question the degree of correspondence between how s u b j e c t s r eport t h e i r own experience and what an e x t e r n a l measure might r e p o r t . However, "user s t u d i e s " l i k e t h i s one, are by nature s e l f - r e p o r t s , with c o n c r e t e measures such as a mechanical t a l l y of o n - l i n e searches being the t o o l s of channel "use s t u d i e s " . Secondly, a cost was exacted f o r doubly n e s t i n g the respondent v a r i a b l e f i r s t i n t o groups, then i n t o group types. The range of i n d i v i d u a l p e r c e p t i o n s which might have v a r i e d c o n s i d e r a b l y with a person's i n i t i a t i v e , experience, and s k i l l , was l o s t when scores were summed i n t o group means; and the i n f l u e n c e of group op e r a t i o n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s was l o s t when group scores were summed i n t o means f o r each kind of group — although 1 5 2 what t h i s i n f l u e n c e might have been i s a matter of c o n j e c t u r e . Furthermore, some operations r e q u i r e d summing over kinds of user group, and t h i s would have masked d i f f e r e n c e s expected from segments of the research p o p u l a t i o n . Yet a l l of these " c o s t s " were the p r i c e f o r o b t a i n i n g o v e r a l l o p i n i o n s from t h i s group of advocacy a c t i v i s t s . T h i r d l y , a s i m i l a r cost was exacted f o r n e s t i n g channel items i n t o c a t e g o r i e s . Again, the c o s t i n range of scores was the p r i c e to be p a i d f o r t e s t i n g c a t e g o r i e s whose d i s t i n c t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are of c o n t i n u i n g i n t e r e s t to researchers i n infor m a t i o n s c i e n c e , communications, and s o c i a l networks. The o v e r a l l means f o r channel c a t e g o r i e s ranged over seven percent; f o r the i n t e r a c t i o n of channel c a t e g o r i e s with groups ranged over 15.7 percent; and f o r the i n t e r a c t i o n of channel c a t e g o r i e s with i n f o r m a t i o n types ranged over 19.2 percent. Two a l t e r n a t i v e approaches f o r ha n d l i n g i n d i v i d u a l channel items are proposed i n the f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n on suggestions f o r fut u r e r e s e a r c h . One l i m i t a t i o n on o b t a i n i n g unequivocal r e s u l t s was the problem of determining whether responses should be r e p o r t i n g on i n d i v i d u a l phenomenology or p e r c e p t i o n s of group ethos. Some s t u d i e s have used only one r e p o r t e r per group (Macfarlane, 1984), and the p r e l i m i n a r y study to t h i s p r o j e c t used that method. But groups as information users are c o l l e c t i v e e n t i t i e s that b e n e f i t from the pooled resources of t h e i r members each of whom p e r c e i v e s the group d i f f e r e n t l y . So i t was concluded that a more complete image of each groups' information a c q u i s i t i o n 1 5 3 c o u l d be developed through the composite responses of s e v e r a l of i t s most a c t i v e , experienced members, rather than v i a a s i n g l e r e p o r t e r . The d e c i s i o n to use s e v e r a l respondents per group introduced a methodological problem a r i s i n g from the f a c t that respondents are users of information both throughout t h e i r l i v e s g e n e r a l l y , and s p e c i f i c a l l y i n t h e i r r o l e as members of the group being s t u d i e d . Furthermore, respondents' " o u t s i d e " use of infor m a t i o n may be as members of other groups. In order to e l i c i t an e x c l u s i v e image of the group under study, p a r t i c i p a n t s were asked to respond to items not out of the f u l l range of t h e i r experience but on the bas.is of t h e i r experience i n the sub j e c t group. T h i s task was not too d i f f i c u l t with regard to general background i n f o r m a t i o n , formal procedures and informal means of s o c i a l a c t i o n — s p e c i f i c to the s u b j e c t groups. But respondents i n the f i e l d t e s t p o p u l a t i o n s p o i n t e d out that t h e i r s o c i a l values had been formed as much by i n f l u e n c e s o u t s i d e the group as by experiences r e s u l t i n g from t h e i r membership w i t h i n the group. Consequently, the wording of the f o u r t h task i n the instrument — r a t i n g channels f o r t h e i r i n f l u e n c e on s o c i a l values — was s t a t e d in terms of personal not p e r c e i v e d group experience. Why then were a l l tasks not reworded i n terms of i n d i v i d u a l phenomenology i n s t e a d of pe r c e p t i o n s of group ethos? Under the i n s t r u c t i o n s given, i t ib p o s s i b l e that respondents excluded some resources of which they were aware but which had not been made known to the group. Such resources would yet be l a t e n t l y a v a i l a b l e to the group by v i r t u e of being known to a member. 1 54 The answer to the question r e s i d e s i n the purpose of t h i s study which was to i d e n t i f y i n f o r m a t i o n channels that had been a c t i v a t e d by the group. The goal was to measure the amount and the u t i l i t y of those c o n t a c t s — not to e x p l a i n why the balance of channels had not been used, or to estimate what p o t e n t i a l the group had to expand i t s a c t i v e i n f o r m a t i o n a c q u i s i t i o n network by tapping l a t e n t resources. Such q u e s t i o n s are i n t e r e s t i n g and belong to subsequent, cumulative programmatic research i n t o how informal l e a r n e r s use the educative s o c i e t y . One f i n a l comment about the methodology employed: Q u a n t i t a t i v e s t u d i e s are d i f f i c u l t to implement being l e s s welcome in the community than q u a l i t a t i v e . They are more i n t r u s i v e , and g e n e r a l l y r e q u i r e more accomodation from s u b j e c t s to f i t t h e i r responses i n t o those o p t i o n s that the study a l l o w s . Yet, d e s p i t e t h e i r r e l i a n c e on p r e l i m i n a r y q u a l i t a t i v e groundwork, and d e s p i t e d i f f i c u l t i e s of implementation, q u a n t i t a t i v e methods such as those used in t h i s study do l e a d to d i s c o v e r y of general p a t t e r n s of human experience. In sum, there were c o s t s to employing the methodology, but a vantage point a t t a i n e d that could not have been gained by q u a l i t a t i v e methods alone. Suggestions f o r Future Research Research options excluded by the design of t h i s study c o u l d form the b a s i s of some future s t u d i e s . For example, research on other stages of the information management process such as a n a l y s i s , or r e f o r m u l a t i o n c o u l d c o n t r i b u t e s i g n i f i c a n t l y to our 155 understanding of competence in the use of i n f o r m a t i o n . These stages of i n f o r m a t i o n management might be more s e n s i t i v e to the i n f l u e n c e of p e r s o n a l and • group v a r i a b l e s than a c q u i s i t i o n seemed to be. Consequently rese a r c h i n these areas might r e q u i r e c o n s i d e r a b l e e x p l o r a t i o n p r i o r to using q u a n t i t a t i v e techniques. Further examples of design o p t i o n s for f u t u r e research are found with re s p e c t to the treatment of i n d i v i d u a l i n f o r m a t i o n channels. In t h i s study channels were aggregated i n t o t h e i r d i s t i n c t i v e c a t e g o r i e s . T h i s approach enables an even d i s t r i b u t i o n of items w i t h i n c a t e g o r i e s , but l i m i t e d the c o n t r a s t between c a t e g o r i e s because the mix of high and low s c o r i n g items r e s u l t e d i n a convergence of category means. A second approach and one that would • accentuate the c o n t r a s t between c a t e g o r i e s , would be to conduct a subsequent study f o c u s i n g on only the high-use items from each category, using a frequencey t a b l e such as that i n c l u d e d as Appendix L to i d e n t i f y items whose median r a t i n g was " 3 " or more. Exemplary items from each category would h i g h l i g h t the unique c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of, f o r example, p r i n t as opposed to v i s u a l media, and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l networks as opposed to personal ones. T h i s approach would accomplish a higher r e s o l u t i o n of c o n t r a s t between c a t e g o r i e s , but p o t e n t i a l l y represent them unevenly. A t h i r d o ption would be to r e t a i n a l l channel items, even the low-use ones, and c l u s t e r them v i a a f a c t o r a n a l y s i s . P o t e n t i a l l y t h i s approach might r e v e a l c a t e g o r i e s of user a c t i v i t y as opposed to inherent channel q u a l i t i e s , but i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the r e s u l t s would be hampered by items with s p l i t f a c t o r l o a d i n g s , and f a c t o r s with 1 56 heterogenous items. Furthermore s i n c e the data base of f a c t o r a n a l y s i s i s e s s e n t i a l l y two dimensional the a r t i c u l a t i o n of higher order i n t e r a c t i o n s such as the four-way i n t e r a c t i o n of the present study would be l o s t . Some i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r f u t u r e research that f o l l o w d i r e c t l y from f i n d i n g s of the present study are l i s t e d below: Since e n v i r o n m e n t a l i s t s dominated the r e p o r t e d use of d i s p e r s e d , s p e c i a l i z e d sources, i t would be probably worthwhile to focus some research on t h e i r methods and experience. They may be more s k i l f u l because of longer experience i n advocacy or they may have j u s t been more ag g r e s s i v e r e s e a r c h e r s and advocates. On the other hand, t h e i r s u p e r i o r s k i l l may be more apparent than r e a l . In any case, t h e i r h i g h l y t e c h n i c a l area should c a u t i o n researchers to look f o r l i m i t a t i o n s on what i s t r a n s f e r a b l e to other kinds of advocacy. Apart from i n t i m a t e s ( f r i e n d s , f a m i l y , neighbours, r e l i g i o u s groups) the channels most s t r o n g l y i d e n t i f i e d with i n f l u e n c i n g values were a l l f i v e kinds of broadcast channels, bookstores, and community development e x p e r t s . When are the media i n f l u e n c e s important and when the personal? Which i s stronger when personal and non-personal channels c o n f l i c t — does the p r i n t e d word predominate, the f e l l o w human being, or the e l e c t r o n i c image? • Since use and u t i l i t y were d i s t i n g u i s h e d , however narrowly, what would users base that u t i l i t y r a t i n g on? What would c h a r a c t e r i z e the most u s e f u l or "usable" information? How c o u l d 157 information "consumers" ever persuade "producers" to provide more usable information? Since economic, environmental and personal issue groups d i d not seem to d i f f e r o v e r a l l i n t h e i r l e v e l of information r e l a t e d a c t i v i t y , how widely c o u l d the domain be drawn to i n c l u d e a l l " i n f o r m a t i o n a c t i v i s t s " ? Since the channel c a t e g o r i e s were pe r c e i v e d as d i f f e r e n t from each other, how would u s e r / l e a r n e r s c h a r a c t e r i z e them? What q u a l i t i e s would t y p i f y each category of channels? What s k i l l s would be necessary to" s u c c e s s f u l l y "harvest" information from each one? What s p e c i a l s k i l l s are r e q u i r e d to use broadcast resources i n a more d e l i b e r a t e and s e l e c t i v e way? The most i n t r a n s i g e n t problem of a l l seems to be how to gain usable information from a l l l e v e l s of government. Why d i d the category of i n d i v i d u a l persons as information channels recur- as the second most important f o r a c q u i s i t i o n of a l l the i n f o r m a t i o n types? I f p a r t i c u l a r kinds of people were t r u l y important to the a c q u i s i t i o n of each kind of i n f o r m a t i o n , then i t would be p a r t i c u l a r l y important to d i s c o v e r and develop the s k i l l s f o r f i n d i n g those rare persons. If on the other hand, i n d i v i d u a l s are important only as a consequence of t h e i r being a c c e s s i b l e , then i t becomes important to develop the s k i l l s f o r h a r v e s t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n from other channel c a t e g o r i e s . F i n a l l y , why d i d economic advocates r e l y most on i n d i v i d u a l s and organized s o c i a l c o n t a c t s , e n v i r o n m e n t a l i s t s on i n d i v i d u a l s and p r i n t , and personal issue advocates on mass 158 broadcast and organized s o c i a l c o n t a c t s ? Could economic advocates be p a r t i c u l a r l y d i s e n f r a n c h i s e d from p r i n t sources? Why d i d the new immigrant groups, e t h n i c groups and others i n the p e r s o n a l issue category r e l y most upon mass broadcast? Could t h i s i n d i c a t e a s p e c i a l a d a p t a t i o n of the media to t h e i r needs, or imply a b s o r p t i o n of these people i n t o one-way channels of information? I t should be remembered that a l l of the p a r t i c i p a n t s i n t h i s study were s e l f - s e l e c t e d , a c t i v i s t l e a r n e r s . I n s i g h t s gained from the s e l f - e d u c a t i o n methods of advocacy group members may t h e r e f o r e have a wider a p p l i c a t i o n to other i n f o r m a l l e a r n e r s . In p a r t i c u l a r , p e r c e p t i o n s reported here on the a v a i l a b i l i t y or s c a r c i t y of i n f o r m a t i o n resources has i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r everyone i n t e r e s t e d i n a l i f e of s e l f - i n i t i a t e d a c t i v i t y i n the l e a r n i n g s o c i e t y . As a p o s t s c r i p t we might c o n s i d e r t h i s : The " l e a r n i n g s o c i e t y " i s not a figment of our imagination, nor i s i t j u s t w i s h f u l t h i n k i n g . I t i s an image, perhaps a window, on the l i f e and death s t r u g g l e of s o c i e t i e s to adapt. I t s v i t a l i t y does not r e s i d e i n a c t i v i t i e s that are c a s u a l pastimes. Consequently, the l e a r n i n g s o c i e t y i s not to be found i n every and any example of a d u l t l e a r n i n g . The "educative s o c i e t y " where i n s t i t u t i o n s are h o r i z o n t a l l y i n t e g r a t e d i n t h e i r d e d i c a t i o n to s e r v i n g the growing consciousness of the people i s not here, and i s not going to a r r i v e unprompted by us. In the f i r s t chapter, i t was proposed that whatever 159 l e a r n i n g s o c i e t y there i s today in 1984 i s p r e d i c a t e d on the e x i s t e n c e of p r o a c t i v e , autonomous l e a r n e r s , i n the same way that democracy i t s e l f i s r e l i a n t upon s e l f - m o t i v a t e d , r e s p o n s i b l e c i t i z e n s . There i s a c l o s e r e l a t i o n s h i p between f u l l y f u n c t i o n i n g l e a r n e r s and f u l l y f u n c t i o n i n g c i t i z e n s . The former draw from the s o c i e t y of t h e i r peers, the l a t t e r are empowered to give to the s o c i e t y of t h e i r peers'. >.! McClintock (1979) emphasized c o l l a b o r a t i o n and c r e a t i v i t y of l e a r n e r s and c i t i z e n s i n h i s r e f l e c t i o n s on the c l a s s i c a l Greek p o l i t i e s . He s a i d that the aim of t h e i r paedeia was "the p u r s u i t of e x c e l l e n c e i n autonomous a c t i o n , i n the p o l i t y of one's peers" (p.637), and to be a c i t i z e n was... to be a p a r t i c i p a n t i n the p o l i s , a common e n t e r p r i s e that e x i s t e d only i n , by, and through the a c t i o n s of those who p a r t i c i p a t e d i n i t . . . F i r s t and foremost [ c i t i z e n s h i p meant] involvement in which the b a s i c q u a l i t y of l i f e was f e l t to be c o n t i n u o u s l y at stake ( i b i d ) . McClintock underscored one p o i n t i n p a r t i c u l a r about the nature of a c i t i z e n ' s involvement — such people make a thoroughly u n s p e c i a l i z e d , but h i g h l y engaged, commitment. The autonomy of the autonomous c i t i z e n , he s a i d , arose from independent involvement in the o v e r a l l e n t e r p r i s e . For the Greeks t h i s task of s e l f - d e f i n i t i o n with respect to the whole was the freedom of fr e e people. The n o n c i t i z e n had no task of s e l f - d e f i n i t i o n . The c i t i z e n s who v o l u n t a r i l y take r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the emerging f u t u r e of t h e i r s o c i e t y , those people are p r o a c t i v e l e a r n e r s , and only one of t h e i r q u a l i t i e s has been seen in t h i s study of t h e i r i n f o r m a t i o n a c t i v i s m . If we love l e a r n i n g , we should study those people. T h e i r s o c i e t y i s l e a r n i n g to c r e a t e better world. 161 APPENDIX A Preamble to the Learning Networks Interview This study i s an in v e s t i g a t i o n of how groups learn; that i s , how groups of adults help t h e i r membership get the information they need. It appears that adults use informal means of fi n d i n g out the things they want to know, at least as much as they do formal courses and programs. And while a good deal i s known about how i n d i v i d u a l s pursue a hobby, or get the background information they need to make a purchase, very l i t t l e i s known about how groups with a s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t develop an understanding of the issue they're interested i n . I f we think of a l l the contacts and sources that a group uses as i t s "learning network" then we would expect some to have more complete or more e f f e c t i v e networks than others. But probably a l l would l i k e to improve t h e i r learning network i n some way. This study i s intended to f i n d out how groups organize for learning, by exploring the things that work f o r you, and the things that continue to be stumbling blocks so that (hopefully) groups w i l l be able to learn from each other how to do the things they want to do, more  e f f e c t i v e l y . We want to explore the problems you have in getting information, and how smaller groups l i k e yours can deal with those problems without the resources of corporations, governments, or very large advocacy groups. I f you don't mind I'm going to t r y taping the conversation so I can concentrate on what you're saying. 162 I Group Description 1. Name of Group: Central l o c a t i o n : Telephone: Contact Person 1: Address: Telephone: Contact Person 2: Address: Telephone: 2. Membership: Can you estimate the number of people on your mailing l i s t ? • - How many pepple form the active core? - What c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s q u a l i f y people as members of the group? (e.g. a l l are single parents; a l l are residents of an area) 3. Formation: When did the group form? - How did t h i s come about? 4. Goals and Values: Has the group any written statement of i t s goals? - What would you say are the main goals of \he group? - What values or b e l i e f s do you think people i n the group share? 5. Group A c t i v i t i e s : - What has the group been doing i n the l a s t 3 or 4 months? - What other a c t i v i t i e s of importance have you been engaged i n that you haven't mentioned yet? 6. Group leadership and decision-making: - Does the group have formal leadership? (e.g. chairperson, steering committee, etc.) 163 - Do some people have s p e c i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s ? * F i r s t Incident Recall - When was the l a s t time the group had to make an important decision? - How did that decision get made? II Information Gathering 7. Very generally, what have been the most useful sources of information for you? Background Information Sources: GOVERNMENT FEDERAL PROVINCIAL MUNICIPAL 8. Which depts. or elected reps. ' do you receive publications from on a regular basis? 9. Which depts. or elected reps, have you corresponded with? 10.. Which depts. or elected reps, have you telephoned or v i s i t e d i n person? 11. Which government contacts would recognize your name? 12. Which have been the most h e l p f u l to you? 13. What d i f f i c u l t i e s have you had using government as a source of information? 14. What else can you t e l l me about using government services? 164 Background Information Sources: PUBLIC MEDIA 15. Which books have been of s i g n i f i c a n c e to t h i s group and i t s a c t i v i t i e s ? 16. Which magazines are generally useful? 17. Do you receive or c i r c u l a t e newspaper clippings? 18. Are there any learned p e r i o d i c a l s which publish material that i s of inte r e s t to you? 19. Are there any t e l e v i s i o n programs which your membership watch or correspond with? 20. Are there any radio programs which your membership l i s t e n to, correspond with, or phone-in to? 21. How do you f i n d out about books that may i n t e r e s t you? 22. How do you f i n d out about T.V., or radio broadcasts that may in t e r e s t you? 23. What other associations does your group keep i n contact with? 24. Does your group use Telidon, l i b r a r y searches, S t a t i s t i c s Canada, or other data banks? Background Information Sources: INDIVIDUAL PERSONS 25. How many members of the group have shared personal experiences which r e l a t e to the goals and a c t i v i t i e s of the group? 26. Are t h e i r experiences written down to be shared with members at another time? 27. How are these experiences shared? (one-to-one or with the group as a whole?) 28. What i n d i v i d u a l s have been introduced to the group because or t h e i r expertise? 165 Strategic Information Sources: 29. Have you ever discovered that someone was going to make a decision or take action which would a f f e c t your group? 30. How did you f i n d out that t h i s was going to happen? 31. How d i d you f i n d out s p e c i f i c a l l y where, by whom and at what l o c a t i o n the decision/action would be taken? 32. How did you f i n d out about the steps, or procedures by which the decision/ action would be taken? 33. Did you f i n d a way to express your group's point of view during the decision-making process? 34. Did you get any i n d i c a t i o n l a t e r of how much that input affected the decision/action taken? 35. How often do you f i n d that events relevant to your group have already happened (decisions/actions) before your group finds out about i t ? I l l Information Selection, V e r i f i c a t i o n , Analysis 36. Who does the information c o l l e c t i o n i n your group? 37. How do people decide what to keep? 38. How do people determine whether something i s r e l i a b l e or hearsay? 39. Has your perception of "adversaries" changed as a r e s u l t of receiving information? 40. Are the people i n your group concerned about consensus? 166 IV Information Storage 41. Physically, how is information collected? on cards, on notepaper which i s f i l e d , on audio-tape, by photographs/slides, on videotape? 42. How i s information sorted for storage: by issue? by chronology? by region? by agency? by person/contact? V Information Dissemination 43. How many of the following methods does your membership use to keep in touch with new developments? - newsletters - centralized resource collection - teach—in workshops - social networks (phone calls, personal v i s i t s ) - regular small group meetings - modules on special topics - slide-tape - directory 167 44. Which of these have been the most important? VI Personal S a t i s f a c t i o n 45. How w e l l have your expectations been f u l f i l l e d during your involvement with the group? 46. Have you found out what you o r i g i n a l l y wanted to? 47. Do you now f e e l more i n touch or les s i n touch than ever with the issue you are interested in? 48. Do you now f e e l more e f f e c t i v e l y or les s e f f e c t i v e to influence the issue you are interested in? 168 Appendix B Major Categories in the Information-Needs Content Analysis Scheme Major Category Brirf Dcfcriptton Possible "formal" Source of Information Neighborhood C o n s u m e r H o u s i n g Housekeeping and household maintenance Employment Education a n d schooling Health Transportation Recreation and culture Public matters or assistance Public assistance and social security Discrimination and race relations Child care and family relationships Family planning and birth control Legal Crime and safety Problems with neighbors, children, pets. rats, dry . services, traffic and parking, vacant lots, abandoned cars, et cetera Problems with product quality, product availability, best product information, service quality, service availability, where to get service information, prices, consumer protection, et cetera Problems with loans and mortgages, finding a place to live, landlord), public housing, housing insur- , ance, selling a house, et cetera Problems with regulations on home improvement, utility service, making rrpairs, do-it-yourself pro-jects, car repair and operation, et cetera Problems with getting or keeping a job, changing jobs, on-the-job complaints, job training, unions, et cetera Problems with financial aid. adult education service, cost of educabon, the educational system, parent-teacher relationships, et cetera Problems with mental health, health insurance, cost of health care, getting health care, et cetera Problems with inadequate bus service, auto insur-ance, auto financing, road maintenance Problems with finding recreational opportunities, lack of supervision at playgrounds, high costs of recreation, et cetera Problems with taaes. petting credit or loans, retire-ment, investments, handling money, life insurance, et cetera Problems with unemployment compensanon. social security, food sumps. Medicare, et cetera Problems with rabal tensions, discrimtnahon based on race. se». age. rt cetera Problems of need for day care, high cost of day care, child behavior, personal and family problems Problems with family planning, birth conrrol, et cet-Problems with legal aspects of marriages, contracts, need for legal services, documents, interpretaoon of law, et cetera Problems with law enforcement, enme. drugs, et cetera Local government offices, police department Better Business Bureau, public library, chamber of commerce, consumer protection agency Local government offices, public library, banks, real es-, tate and insurance, chamber of commerce Public lib ran*, local government offices, adult educa-bon programs Public library, state employment sen-ice, federal agen-cies (use public libraries for access to these) Local school system, adult education program, public library County or local health and mental health depts. and associaoons (e.g.. Amencan Cancer Society, American Heart Association) local hospitals Local I transit authority, banks and insurance agents, {auto financing & insurance), adult education (car maintenance), local government (road maintenance, etc.) Local parks commission, chamber of commerce. local colleges, public library, local newspaper Adult educabon programs, public library, banks, in-surance agents Social Secunry Administration, dept. of public welfare, local issuance agencies, family counseling agencies, home economics extension service American Civil Liberties Union, local human relations commission. Bureau of Labor Standards Family counseling services, county mental health agency, public library Family planning agencies! public library (to guide you to them) American Civil Liberties Union, local law library at the county courthouse, legal aid. public defender Local police. American Civil Liberties Union, local al-cohol and drug abuse agencies. Notr. Oiegonrs and thnr d«-mr*nnn« ada-Mrd from Orrvin (197o|. Miurees of inforrrunpn tuprltrd bv thr tuthnri "The Acquisition of Information: An Important L i f e S k i l l " , Hudson, J. & Danish, S. J., 7 V P E R S O N ' S ' E L A \ D G U I D A N C E J O U R N A L November, 1980 (164-167) 169 UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, FACULTY OF EDUCATION, DIVISION OF ADULT EDUCATION INFORMATION CHANNEL RATINGS To you the reader: We would l i k e your impression of how facts and ideas are gathered by your group. No names are required to i d e n t i f y you, this group, or any contacts i n p a r t i c u l a r . A l l questions are about general kinds of information channels• You don't have to participate in this survey, but we hope you w i l l i n order to shed some l i g h t on how groups l i k e yours can most e f f e c t i v e l y acquire the information they need. If the questionnaire i s completed we w i l l assume your consent i s given. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS ? The next page asks about the kinds of information that your group has been gathering. GENERAL KNOWLEDGE OF USE TO YOUR GROUP 9 • T h i s r e f e r s to a l l d e t a i l s d e s c r i b i n g s i t u a t i o n s the group i s concerned about. I t i s f a c t u a l knowledge that enhances a grasp of the s i t u a t i o n . e.g. 1. e c o l o g i c a l needs of an endangered s p e c i e s 2. h e a l t h standards f o r r e n t a l housing 3. human r i g h t s guaranteed i n Canada Can you t h i n k of two examples of gener a l knowledge used by your group ? P l e a s e w r i t e them i n below. 170 FORMAL, OR OFFICIAL PROCEDURES 0<& T h i s r e f e r s to any decisio n - m a k i n g process that e i t h e r s e t s a new p u b l i c p o l i c y , or enforces an al r e a d y e x i s t i n g p o l i c y , e.g. 1. g e t t i n g a drug company to repackage a product 2. g e t t i n g the c i t y to lower t r a n s p o r t a t i o n f a r e s f o r s e n i o r s 3. g e t t i n g f e d e r a l i m m i g r a t i o n to ease i t s appeal procedures Can you t h i n k of two examples of procedures your group has been i n v o l v e d i n ? Plea s e w r i t e them i n . i . i i . Apart from formal procedures there i s a k i n d of pragmatic knowledge of how t h i n g s a c t u a l l y work, or don't work, i n p r a c t i c e , e.g. 1. how to get the a t t e n t i o n of c i t y h a l l 2. how to get more people i n v o l v e d 3. how to use the media Can you t h i n k of two examples of p r a c t i c a l know-how your group has had to l e a r n . P l e a s e w r i t e them i n . i i . SOCIAL VALUES OF GROUP MEMBERS Th i s r e f e r s to what people c o n s i d e r r i g h t or wrong, t r i v i a l or important to do. Such judgements r e s u l t from comparing a c t u a l s i t u a t i o n s to d e s i r e d ones. e.g. 1. "unacceptable s t o r a g e " of n u c l e a r waste 2. "inadequate a v a i l a b l e " housing 3. "adverse d i s c r i m i n a t i o n " on the b a s i s of age Can you t h i n k of two th i n g s i n the l a s t year that have i n f l u e n c e d the o p i n i o n s you hold today as a member of t h i s group ? Please w r i t e them i n below. i i . WE WILL DISCUSS SOME EXAMPLES BEFORE PROCEEDING FURTHER 171 This r e f e r s to a l l d e t a i l s d e s c r i b i n g s i t u a t i o n s the group i s concerned about. I t i s f a c t u a l knowledge that enhances a grasp of the s i t u a t i o n Now that you've heard what everyone e l s e had to say, give what you think are the two best examples of f a c t u a l , g eneral knowledge of use to your group; then complete the page i n d i c a t i n g how t h i s k i n d of inf o r m a t i o n i s a c q u i r e d . 1. 2. GENERAL KNOWLEDGE OF USE TO YOUR GROUP HOW HAVE YOU BEEN GATHERING GENERAL, FACTUAL INFORMATION YOU NEEDED ? RATE the f o l l o w i n g channels based on your estimate of the group's contact with them over the l a s t year. How MUCH inf o r m a t i o n of a gener a l , f a c t u a l nature d i d you a c q u i r e from them ? c a o oi e _ •7 oi o tg ~r w * " a •8 * $ 5 i H ic o c a c o tr ©• <0 How USEFUL was It to you ? , 3 °> , 3 ^ HI V ^ Oj i CO <i C O ~* -c ^ oc ~* v to >y 3J to ~* ^ O OJ (0 C OJ <J ~ ? T7 *-r ^ 0 C 0 3 * c o £ e> <u GOVERNMENTAL CONTACTS F e d e r a l departments 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 . 4 5 P r o v i n c i a l m i n i s t r i e s 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Mu n i c i p a l departments 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 O f f i c e s of e l e c t e d r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 P o l i t i c a l PARTY o f f i c e s 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 NON-PERSONAL CHANNELS (PRINT) L i b r a r i e s 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Bookstores 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Newsstands 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 M a i l - o r d e r s u b s c r i p t i o n s 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 NON-PERSONAL CHANNELS (AUDIO/VISUAL) T.V. documentaries 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Radio documentaries 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 ' Inte r v i e w i n g t a l k shows ' 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Community-made media programs 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 F i l m d i s t r i b u t o r s 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 ORGANIZED SOCIAL CONTACTS Groups comparable to your own 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 A p r o v i n c i a l a f f i l i a t e of your group 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 A n a t i o n a l a f f i l i a t e of your group 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 An i n t e r n a t i o n a l a f f i l i a t e of your group 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 . 3 4 5 P r o f e s s i o n a l a s s o c i a t i o n s 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Community s e r v i c e o r g a n i z a t i o n s 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 R e l i g i o u s groups 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 C o a l i t i o n s 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4' 5 Conferences/couraes/workshops 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 INDIVIDUAL PERSONAL CONTACTS Members of t h i s group 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Clo s e f r i e n d s o u t s i d e t h i s group 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Acquaintances o u t s i d e t h i s group 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Family members 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Neighbours 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 S c i e n t i f i c experts 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 F i n a n c i a l experts 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 L e g a l experts 1 2 3 4 . 5 ' 1 2 3 4 5 Community development experts 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 T h i s r e f e r s to any decision-making process that e i t h e r s e t s . a new p u b l i c p o l i c y , or enforces an a l r e a d y e x i s t i n g p o l i c y . Now that you've heard what everyone e l s e had to say, gi v e what you thin k are the two best examples of formal, or o f f i c i a l procedures that your group has been i n v o l v e d i n ; then i n d i c a t e how t h i s k i nd of i n f o r m a t i o n i s a c q u i r e d . 1. 2. FORMAL, OR OFFICIAL PROCEDURES HOW HAVE YOU FOUND OUT ABOUT POLICY SETTING OR ENFORCING PROCEDURES ? 1 RATE the f o l l o w i n g channels based on your How MUCH info r m a t i o n about How USEFUL was i t to you ? estimate of the group's contact with them formal, or o f f i c i a l proce dures over the l a s t year. d i d you a c q u i r e from them ? QJ c >£ c p *-* to <i QJ o ~* 17 ro *j ro -c 4 ° to 2 ro <u (77 !° <n i j w 6 OJ A. QJ c e° W 0 c c o ro o- ro c 0 &• GOVERNMENTAL CONTACTS Fe d e r a l departments 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 P r o v i n c i a l m i n i s t r i e s 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Mu n i c i p a l departments 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 O f f i c e s of e l e c t e d r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 P o l i t i c a l PARTY o f f i c e s 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 NON-PERSONAL CHANNELS (PRINT) L i b r a r i e s 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Bookstores 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Newsstands 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Ma i l - o r d e r s u b s c r i p t i o n s 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 NON-PERSONAL CHANNELS (AUDIO/VISUAL) T.V. documentaries 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Radio documentaries 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Interviewing t a l k shows 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Community-made media programs 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 F i l m d i s t r i b u t o r s 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 ORGANIZED SOCIAL CONTACTS Groups comparable to your own 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 A p r o v i n c i a l a f f i l i a t e of your group 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 A n a t i o n a l a f f i l i a t e of your group 2 3 4 5 1 . 2 3 4 5 An i n t e r n a t i o n a l a f f i l i a t e of your group 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 P r o f e s s i o n a l a s s o c i a t i o n s 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 . 3 4 5 Community s e r v i c e o r g a n i z a t i o n s 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 R e l i g i o u s groups 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 C o a l i t i o n s 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Conferences/courses/workshops 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 INDIVIDUAL PERSONAL CONTACTS Members of t h i s group 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Close f r i e n d s o u t s i d e t h i s group 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Acquaintances outside t h i s group 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Family members 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Neighbours 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 S c i e n t i f i c experts 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 F i n a n c i a l experts 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Leg a l experts 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Community development experts 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 173 PRACTICAL KNOW-HOW ABOUT SOCIAL ACTION Apart from formal procedures, there i s a kind of pragmatic knowledge of how things a c t u a l l y work, or don't work, i n p r a c t i c e . Now that you've heard what everyone e l s e had to say, gi v e what you think are the two best examples of p r a c t i c a l know-how your group has had to l e a r n ; then complete the page i n d i c a t i n g how t h i s k i nd of in f o r m a t i o n i s a c q u i r e d . HOW DID YOU GET TO KNOW PRACTICAL THINGS ABOUT SOCIAL ACTION ? RATE the f o l l o w i n g channels based on your estimate of the group's contact with them over the l a s t year. Row MUCH p r a c t i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n about s o c i a l a c t i o n d i d you ac q u i r e from them ? <i c 2 <D e _ <B ^ -7 * J <v o * If v, <| *>i T> * * « 3 QJ P **> & O C -5 C 0 <f &• iff How USEFUL was i t to you ? ~* a o> a <<, a <** ,~ 03 ^ 0) U ~< ^ ^ fU W QJ « ~* -/ ^ 3 CJ *j Co cff c? frj i* cy CD OJ 4J iv ~y tr *t * J O C P O * c o £ o cy GOVERNMENTAL CONTACTS F e d e r a l departments l 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 P r o v i n c i a l m i n i s t r i e s l 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 M u n i c i p a l departments i 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 O f f i c e s of e l e c t e d r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s i 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 P o l i t i c a l PARTY o f f i c e s 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 NON-PERSONAL CHANNELS (PRINT) L i b r a r i e s l 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Bookstores i 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Newsstands l 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Ma i l - o r d e r s u b s c r i p t i o n s 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 NON-PERSONAL CHANNELS (AUDIO/VISUAL) T.V. documentaries l 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Radio documentaries l 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Interviewing t a l k shows i 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Community-made media programs i 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 F i l m d i s t r i b u t o r s 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 ORGANIZED SOCIAL CONTACTS Groups comparable to your own i 2 3 4 5 . 1 2 3 4 5 A p r o v i n c i a l a f f i l i a t e of your group l 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 A n a t i o n a l a f f i l i a t e of your group i 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 An i n t e r n a t i o n a l a f f i l i a t e of your group l 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 P r o f e s s i o n a l a s s o c i a t i o n s i 2 3 4 5 1 2 . 3 4 5 Community s e r v i c e o r g a n i z a t i o n s l 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 R e l i g i o u s groups i 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 C o a l i t i o n s I 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Conferences/courses/workshops 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 INDIVIDUAL PERSONAL CONTACTS Members of t h i s group l 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Clos e f r i e n d s o u t s i d e t h i s group l 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Acquaintances o u t s i d e t h i s group i 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Family members i 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Neighbours l 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 S c i e n t i f i c experts l 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 F i n a n c i a l experts i 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Leg a l experts i 2 3 4 5 . 1 2 3 4 5 Community development experts 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 This r e f e r s co what people consider r i g h t or wrong, t r i v i a l or important to do. Such judgements r e s u l t from comparing a c t u a l s i t u a t i o n s to d e s i r e d ones. Now that you've heard what everyone e l s e had to say, give what you thin k are the two best examples of f a c t s or ideas that have i n f l u e n c e d the opinions you hold today as a member of t h i s group; then please complete the r e s t of the page. 1. _ 2. HOW DID THE FACTS OR IDEAS COME TO YOU THAT INFLUENCED YOUR OPINIONS ? RATE the f o l l o w i n g channels based on How MUCH inf o r m a t i o n on the How USEFUL was t h i s to you your contact with them. v a r i o u s s i d e s of an i s s u e i n forming your own o p i n i o n ? d i d you acq u i r e from Chem 9 —i c t S 3 0J »-* QJ o 0 OJ ~* -c -f oo tf *•* ~* <T7 e x. <i TJ V TJ tl oo Tj A, m t> <J 11 c 0 c o SF t> TJ c o o- oj GOVERNMENTAL CONTACTS Fe d e r a l departments 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 P r o v i n c i a l m i n i s t r i e s 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 M u n i c i p a l departments 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 O f f i c e s of e l e c t e d r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 P o l i t i c a l PARTY o f f i c e s 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 NON-PERSONAL CHANNELS (PRINT) L i b r a r i e s 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Bookstores 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Newsstands 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 M a i l - o r d e r s u b s c r i p t i o n s 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 NON-PERSONAL CHANNELS (AUDIO/VISUAL) T.V. documentaries 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Radio documentaries 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Interviewing t a l k shows 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Community-made media programs 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 F i l m d i s t r i b u t o r s 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 ORGANIZED SOCIAL CONTACTS Groups comparable to your own 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 A p r o v i n c i a l a f f i l i a t e of your group 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 A n a t i o n a l a f f i l i a t e of your group 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 An i n t e r n a t i o n a l a f f i l i a t e of your group 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 . 5 P r o f e s s i o n a l a s s o c i a t i o n s 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 . 3 4 5 Community s e r v i c e o r g a n i z a t i o n s 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 R e l i g i o u s groups 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 C o a l i t i o n s 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Conferences/courses/workshops 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 INDIVIDUAL PERSONAL CONTACTS Members of t h i s group 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Clo s e f r i e n d s o u t s i d e t h i s group 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Acquaintances o u t s i d e t h i s group 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Family members 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Neighbours 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 S c i e n t i f i c experts 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 F i n a n c i a l experts 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Leg a l experts 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Community development experts 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 SOCIAL VALUES OF GROUP MEMBERS PLEASE ANSWER THESE BACKGROUND QUESTIONS. Your responses are co n f i d e n t i a l . No names are required. Are you a man or a woman ? Man I I Woman . n 2. What i s your age ? What i s the highest educational q u a l i f i c a t i o n you hold ? (Check only one box) No formal q u a l i f i c a t i o n I I Completed elementary . . . • Completed high school I 1 Post secondary or trade q u a l i f i c a t i o n I | Credit toward a university degree . . • University degree completed . . . • Credit toward a graduate degree . . . • Graduate degree completed To the nearest $5,000 what i s your annual household income ? Apart from today's group: In how many organizations, of any kind, are you a paid-up member ? . . . . In how many other groups or organizations do you participate ? 176 A p p e n d i x D SUBJECT GROUP DATA SHEET Group name i Y e a r began: E s t i m a t e o f membershipi E s t i m a t e of a c t i v e core: M e e t i n g place(s)» M e e t i n g t i m e ( s ) J I n t e r e s t s / i s s u e s i A c t i v i t i e s i (Exec.) ( S t a f f ) C o n t a c t s : 177 Appendix E CONSENT FORM FOR SUBJECT CROUPS Address* Date: To: Dr. R. D. Spratley, U.B.C. Screening Committee for Research i n Behavioural Sciences We understand that Ms. McCreaxy Hill v i s i t our group once to hear about our experience with information seeking, and to get our evaluation o f information channels. We agree to participate i n this one-time v i s i t only. Signed: for: 178 Appendix p List of Organizations with Members Participating in the Study Economic interests 1. Citizens' Action Planning for B.C. Place (C.A.P. - B.C.) 2. West End Single Mothers' Group — Y.W.C.A. I ; 3. "Live Wires" — L i t t l e Mountain Neighbourhood House seniors group 4. B.C. Old Age Pensioners Organization (B.CO.A.P.O.) 5. Kent Street Seniors — White Rock 6. Transport 2000 — North Vancouver 7. "Self-Aid Never Ends" —- (S.A.N.E.) New Westminster Environmental interests 1. B r i t i s h Columbia Public Interest Research Group (B.C. - P.I.R.G.) 2. Maple Ridge Society for the Promotion of Environmental Conservation (S.P.E.C.) 3. Chemical Hazards Alert Committee — (C.H.A.C.) North Vancouver 4. Vancouver Society for the Promotion of Environmental Conservation (S.P.E.C.) 5. Ureaformaldihyde Foam Insulation — (U.F.F.I.)homeowners group 6. Community Forum on Airport Development Personal interests 1. India Mahila Organization 2. B.C. Association for Children and Adults with Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s 3. Surrey "Access For A l l " 4. Society of United Chinese Community Enrichment and Social Services (S.U.C.C.E.S.S.) 5. Coast Foundation 6. Ukrainian Student Association 179 Appendix G Analysis of Variance Summary Table urce of Variance Sum of Squares D. F. Mean Square F_ I'robabil Mean 16604.16069 1 16604. 1389 .75 0.0000 Group type 24.21627 2 12.108 1 .01 0.3675 U s e / u t i l i t y r a t i n g 6.11072 1 6.1107 23 .92 0.0000 Information type 72.91039 3 24.303 28 .20 0.0 Channel category 36.76843 4 9.1921 5 .20 0.0005 Person within group 967.75774 81 11.948 Group x U-rating 0.25518 2 0.12759 0 .50 0.6087 Group x infotypes 9.50158 6 1.5836 1 .84 0.0925 U-rating x infotypes 0.23091 3 0.76971E--01 1 .26 0.2873 Group x channel cat. 60.45973 8 7.5575 4 .28 0.0001 U-rating x channel cat. 0.48231 4 0.12058 1 .87 0.1148 Infotype x channel cat.37.15039 12 3.0959 7 .97 0.0 U-rating x person(G) 20.68856 81 0.25541 Infotype x person(G) 209.43929 243 0.86189 Channel category x person(G) 572.67494 324 1.7675 Group x u-rating x infotype 0.71802 6 0.11967 1 .97 0.0713 Group x u-rating x channel cat. 0.39859 8 0.498241'--01 0 .77 0.6259 Group x infotype x channel cat. 12.65789 24 0.52741 1 .36 0.1168 U-rating x infotype -x channel cat. 0.94180 12 0.78483K-•01 1 .75 0.0518 Person(G) x u-rating x infotype 14.79674 24 3 0. r>08<)2R-•01 Person(G) x u-rating x channel cat. 20.85507 324 0.64368E-•01 Person(G) x infotype x channel cat. 377.43581 9 72 0.38831 Group x u-rating x infotype x channel cat. 1.22508 24 0. 51045FC-•01 1. 14 0.2919 Person(G) x u-rating x infotype x channel cat. 43.54447 972 ().44 7yyK-•01 180 Appendix H Multiple Comparison of Level Means i n Two Significant Main Effects Infonnation Types I I I I I I i v x = 2.44514 x = 2.11363 x = 2.06881 x = 2.26440 i> = u 2 - u 3 = 0.04 S = / (k-l)F crit/a where: (k-1) i s df for levels of the indep. var. = 3 d P c r i t Is tabled • 3,243 8 .01 = 3-95 / 3 x 3.95 3.442 and value for df/df(error) @ a I|I error — — T n n 840 840 .86643 ( 1 ) - .00206 "520 * + S(SE ) = 0.04 + 3.442C00206) = 0.04,+ .0071 =» c(0.0329 < * < .0471) = .99 Channel Types 1 2 3 4 5 x » 2.07068 x => 2.26320 x = 2.13214 x = 2.30192 x = 2.34722 * = U 2 " U4 3 - 0 3 8 9 0 S = / (k-l)F c r i t / a wheri: (k-1) i s df for levels of the indep. var. = 4 d F ... i s tabled c n t 4,324 i .01 = 3-48 = / 4 x 3.48 = 3.73 and tabled value for df/df( error) @ a eric ^ = t e r r o r ( i + i } n n 672 672 = 1.7675 ( 1 ) = .0052 336" <\> + S(SE ) = .03890 + 3.73(.0052) = .03890 + .019 = c(.0199 < i> < .0579) = .99 181 Appendix J Mu l t i p l e Comparison of I n t e r a c t i o n Means f o r Channel Categories by Information Type Information Type Means Being Compared Value of the Comparison Coeff. D i f f . Decision Type #1 • l = u l - ( V 2 + U 3 !"2.61554 - 2.40254 = .21300 .00762 +.26824 N.S.D. *2 s ( " l + U4 + U 5 ) 2.57851 - 2.35623 = .22228 .00508 +.21898 .99 Type #2 *3 s " ( y 2 + W 3 + % + V 2.26726 - 2.07522 = .19204 .00762 +.26824 N.S.D. •it s < w l + u 2 ) - ( u 3 + % + V 2.26066 - 2.01561 = .24505 .00508 +.21898 .99 Type #3 *5 = u l - ( P 2 + W 3 + % + v 2.26274 - 2.02032 = .24242 .00762 +.26824 N.S.D. \ er ( l l l + P 2 ) - ( U3 + y4 2.22530 - 1,96448 s .26082 .00508 +.21898 .99 Type #4 V s u l " ( V 2 + W 3 + % 2.40577 - 2.22906 = .17671 .00762 +.26824 N.S.D. *8 SS' <"l + w 2 ) - ( u 3 + v4 2.39901 - 2.17466 = .22435 .00508 +.21898 • 99 d - f D ^ C . v / c 2 c 2 er r o r — + — n l "2 where: <* = .01 C = coeff. f o r no. of comparisons among i n t e r a c t i o n means = 4 x 2 = 8 v = df f o r experiment e r r o r i . e . PI(G) = 243 t'8,243 = 3 * 3 1 = MS p i ( G ) = .86189 182 Appendix K Multiple Comparison of Interaction Means for Channel Categories by Group Type Group Type Means Being Compared Value of the Comparison Coeff. Diff. Decision Group #1 + 1 - ul ~ ( u2 + U 3 + u4 + 2.33795 - 2.05602 = .28194 • .0056 +.3197 N.S.D. *2 = (u 1 + u 2) - ( u 3 + u 4 + *5 } 2.23460 - 2.03093 = .20367 .0037 +.1474 .99 Group #2 • 3 - u l " ( u2 + w3 + u4 + 2.43567 - 2.18837 - »24730 .0056 +.3197 N.S.D. ^ w l 81 w2^ ~ ^ 3 + u4 + 2.39940 - 2.13010 = .26930 .0037 +.1474 .99 Group #3 *5 = u-j_ - (u 2 + + + 2.51964 - 2.26854 = .25110 .0056 +.3197 N.S.D. *6 = 0'1 + U 2) - (Ug + U 4 + Mj) • 2.50147 - 2.19695 •• .30452 .0037 +.1474 .99 d = f D a / 2;C,v /" MS c 2 _,_ c 2 error — + r-n l "2 where: a = .01 C = coeff. for no. of comparisons among interaction means = 3 x 2 = 6 v = df for experiment error i.e. 'PC(G) = 324 f 6,324 MS error 3.22 MS PC(G) = 1.7675 c = coeff. for the contrast = 12+ (-1/42- 1/42- 1/42- 1/42) or (V2 2+ l/2 2)+ (-1/32- V 3 2 - V 3 2 ) n = no. of observations 183 A p p e n d i x L Frequency of Responses to Each Point on the Rating Scales for A l l 32 Channels for each Type of Information Channels Rating Scale for Amount of Use Rated for: General Background Information 1 2 1 L \ c 9 ABS ABS % ABS % ABS % ABS % ABS % Federal Departments 23 21.9 31 29.5 21 20.0 " 13 12* .4 13 12.4 4 3.8 Provincial Ministries 25 23.8 33 31.4 22 21.0 19 18 1 • 1 3 2.9 3 2.9 Municipal Departments 32 30.5 19 18.1 22 21.0 21 20 .0 4 3.8 7 6.7 Offices of Elected Reps. 43 41.0 14 13.3 20 19.0 16 15 .2 7 6.7 5 4.8 P o l i t i c a l Party Offices 58 55.2 26 24.8 5 4.8 6. 5 .7 3 2.9 7 6.7 Libraries 23 21.9 23 21.9 22 21.0 17 16 .2 15 14.3 5 4.8 Bookstores 44 41.9 23 21.9 17 16.2 12 11 .4 1 1.0 8 7.6 Newstands 23 21.9 17 16.2 23 21.9 22 21 .0 14 13.3 6 5.7 Mail-order Subscriptions 44 41.9 14 13.3 16 15.2 18 17 .1 9 8.6 4 3.8 T.V. Documentaries 24 22.9 27 25.7 30 28.6 9 8 .6 11 10.5 4 3.8 Radio Documentaries 44 41.9 30 28.6 16 15.2 6 5 .7 4 3.8 5 4.8 Interviewing Talk Shows 34 32.4 36 34.3 15 14.3 12 11 .4 5 4.8 3 2.9 Community-made Media Prog. 35 33.3 26 24.8 22 21.0 9 8 .6 7 6.7 6 5.7 Film Distributor 45 42.9 23 21.9 23 21.9 6 5 7 2 1.9 6 5.7 Groups Comparable to Own 18 17.1 13 12.4 19 18.1 36 34 .3 16 15.2 3 2.S Provincial A f f i l i a t e . 52 49.5 12 11.4 14 13.3 14 13 .3 6 5.7 7 6.7 National A f f i l i a t e 46 43.8 21 20.0 13 12.4 7 6 7 13 12.4 5 4.8 International A f f i l i a t e . 65 61.9 15 14.3 9 8.6 3 2 9 8 7.6 5 4.8 Professional Assoc. 34 32.4 25 23.8 26 24.8 9 8 6 5 4.8 6 5.7 Community Service Org. 26 24.8 14 13.3 29 27.6 22 21 0 13 12.4 1 1.0 Religious Group 55 52.4 23 21.9 16 15.2 5 4. 8 3 2.9 3 2.9 Coalitions 42 40.0 16 15.2 17 16.2 14 13. 3 8 7.6 8 7.6 Conferences/Courses/Workshop 19 18.1 14 13.3 21 20.0 24 22. 9 23 21.9 4 3.8 Members of this Group 6 5.7 4 3.8 18 17.1 35 33. 3 41 39.0 1 1.0 Close Friends Outside Group 21 20.0 18 17.1 26 24.8 20 19. 0 16 15.2 4 3.8 Acquaintance Outside Group 22 21.0 33 31.4 14 13.3 21 20. 0 11 10.5 4 3.8 Family Member 40 38.1 22 21.0 21 20.0 8 7. 6 9 8.6 5 4.8 Neighbours 66 62.9 19 18.1 10 9.5 4 3. 8 2 1.9 4 3.8 S c i e n t i f i c Experts 47 44.8 15 14.3 19 18.1 8 7. 6 11 10.5 5 4.8 Financial Experts 54 51.4 23 21.9 14 13.3 8 7. 6 2 1.9 4 3.8 Legal Experts 35 33.3 17 16.2 26 24.8 15 14. 3 10 9.5 2 1.9 Community Development Expert 45 42.9 15 14.3 20 19.0 15 14. 3 6 5.7 4 3.8 184 F requency o f Responses t o Each P o i n t on t he R a t i n g S c a l e s f o r A l l 32 Channe l s f o r each Type o f I n f o r m a t i o n C h a n n e l s R a t i n g S c a l e f o r Amount o f Use Rated f o r : Formal o r O f f i c i a l P r o cedu re 1 > i 4 5 9 ABS % ABS % ABS % ABS of a ABS % ABS Of 4» F e d e r a l Depa r tment s 38 36 .2 25 23 .8 20 19.0 9 8.6 8 I 7. 6 5 4 . 8 P r o v i n c i a l M i n i s t r i e s 37 35 .2 26 ' 2 4 .8 22 21 . 0 13 12.4 f 5 4. 8 2 1.9 M u n i c i p a l Depa r tment s 36 34 .3 25 23 .8 17 16.2 18 17.1 6 5. 7 3 2 . 9 O f f i c e s o f E l e c t e d Reps . 52 49 .5 15 14 .3 11 10.5 14 13.3 6 5. 7 7 6 . 7 P o l i t i c a l P a r t y O f f i c e s 67 63 .8 13 12 .4 I T 10.5 5 4 . 8 3 2. 9 6 5.7 L i b r a r i e s 47 44 .8 25 23 .8 17 16.2 6 5.7 5 4 . 8 5 4 . 8 B o o k s t o r e s 66 62 .9 18 17 .1 9 8.6 4 3.8 2 1. 9 6 5.7 Newstands 47 44 .8 11 10 .5 18 17.1 19 18.1 6 5. 7 4 3 .8 M a i l - o r d e r S u b s c r i p t i o n s 67 63 .8 10 9 .5 8 7.6 7 6.7 5 4 . 8 8 7 .6 T.V. D o c u m e n t a r i e s 51 48 .6 27 25 .7 12 11.4 5 4 . 8 5 4 . 8 5. 4 . 8 Rad i o Documen ta r i e s 57 54 .3 20 19 .0 15 14.3 7 6.7 2 1. 9 4 3 .8 I n t e r v i e w i n g T a l k Shows 52 49 .5 20 19 .0 19 18.1 5 4 . 8 4 3. 8 5 4 . 8 Community-made Med i a P r o g . 49 46 .7 20 19 .0 19 18.1 11 10.5 1 .1. 0 5 4 . 8 F i l m D i s t r i b u t o r 74 70 .5 12 11 .4 8 7.6 1. 1.0 5 4 . 8 ' 5 4 . 8 Groups C o m p a r a b l e . t o Own . 17 16 .2 16 15 .2 21 20 .0 25 23 .8 20 19. 0 6 5c 7 P r o v i n c i a l A f f i l i a t e 58 55 .2 17 • 16 .2 11 10.5 8 7.6 3 2 . 9 8 7 .6 N a t i o n a l A f f i l i a t e 53 50 .5 14 13 .3 10 9.5 11 10 .5 9 8 . 6 8 7 . 6 I n t e r n a t i o n a l A f f i l i a t e 73 69 .5 14 13 .3 4 3.8 — 4 3. 8 10 9 . 5 P r o f e s s i o n a l A s s o c . 43 41 .0 25 23 .8 13 12.4 11 10.5 6 5. 7 .7 6 . 7 Community S e r v i c e O r g . 29 27 .6 18 17 .1 20 19.0 22 21 .0 8 7. 6 8 7 .6 R e l i g i o u s Group 62 59 .0 21 20 .0 6 5.7 4 3.8 4 ' 3 . 8 8 7 .6 C o a l i t i o n s 54 51 .4 13 12 .4 12 11.4 12 11.4 6 5. 7 8 7 .6 Con fe rence s/Cou r se s/Work shop 28 26 .7 15 14 .3 25 23 .8 12 11.4 20 19. 0 5 4 . 8 Members o f t h i s Group 8 7 .6 8 7 .6 22 21 .0 30 28.6 32 30. 5 5 4 . 8 C l o s e F r i e n d s O u t s i d e Group 28 26 .7 23 21 .9 23 21 .9 18 17.1 8 7. 6 5 4 . 8 A c q u a i n t a n c e O u t s i d e Group 34 32 .4 24 22 .9 23 21.9 11 10.5 8 7. 6 5 4 . 8 F a m i l y Member 65 61 .9 15 14 .3 8 7.6 9 • 8.6 3 2 . 9 5 4 . 8 N e i g h b o u r s 73 69 .5 15 14 .3 8 7.6 1 1.0 1 1. 0 7 6 .7 S c i e n t i f i c E x p e r t s 64 61 .0 16 15 .2 8 7.6 9 8.6 2 1. 9 6 5.7 F i n a n c i a l E x p e r t s 62 59 .0 14 13-.3 17 16.2 5 4 . 8 1 1. 0 6 5.7 L e g a l E x p e r t s 33 31 .4 20 19 .0 18 17.1 16 15.2 12 1 1 . 4 6 5.7 Community Deve lopment E x p e r t 48 45 .7 19 18 .1 13 12.4 8 7.6 9 8 . 6 8 7.6 185 F requency o f Responses t o Each P o i n t on t he R a t i n g S c a l e s f o r A l l 32 Channe l s f o r each Type o f I n f o r m a t i o n C h a n n e l s R a t i n g . S c a l e f o r Amount o f Use Rated f o r : I n f o rma l Means 1 2 3 1 4 5 9 o f S o c i a l A c t i o n ABS % ABS % ABS % ABS % ABS Of to ABS I F e d e r a l Depa r tment s 52 49 .5 21 20 .0 17 16.2 8 7.6 2 1.9 5 4 . 8 P r o v i n c i a l M i n i s t r i e s 49 46 . 7 21 20 . 0 18 17.1 8 7.6 2 1.9 7 6 . 7 M u n i c i p a l Depa r tment s 54 51.4 14 13.3 24 22.9 7 6.7 1 1.0 5 4 . 8 O f f i c e s o f E l e c t e d Reps . 56 53 .3 21 20 . 0 9 8.6 10 9 .5 2 1.9 7 6 .7 P o l i t i c a l P a r t y O f f i c e s 71 67.6 17 16.2 8 7.6 1 1.0 2 1.9 . 6 5.7 L i b r a r i e s 44 41 .9 19 18.1 18 17.1 12 11.4 8 ' 7.6 4 3 .8 B o o k s t o r e s 57 54 .3 19 18.1 13 12.4 6 5.7 5 4 . 8 5 4 . 8 Newstands 48 4 5 . 7 18 17.1 14 13.3 15 14.3 4 3.8 6 5.7 M a i l - o r d e r S u b s c r i p t i o n s 60 57.1 19 18.1 8 7.6 8 7.6 3 2.9 7 6 . 7 T .Y . D o c u m e n t a r i e s 39 37.1 28 26 . 7 18 17.1 • 9 8.6 5 4 . 8 6 5.7 Rad i o D o c u m e n t a r i e s 52 49 .5 21 2 0 . 0 18 17.1 6 5.7 2 1.9 6 5.7 I n t e r v i e w i n g T a l k Shows 47 4 4 . 8 13 12.4 22 21 .0 14 13.3 4 3.8 5 4 . S Community-made Med i a P r o g . 46 4 3 . 8 20 19 .0 22 21 .0 9 8.6 5 4 . 8 3 2 . § F i l m D i s t r i b u t o r 68 64 .8 21 20 . 0 6 5.7 4 3.8 1 1.0 5 4 . 8 Groups Comparab le t o Own 14 13.3 16 15.2 31 29 .5 21 20 .0 20 19.0 3 2.S P r o v i n c i a l A f f i l i a t e 53 50.5 23 21 .9 9 8.6 5 4 . 8 7 6.7 8 7.& N a t i o n a l A f f i l i a t e 51 48 .6 18 17.1 13 12.4 9 8.6 7 6.7 7 6 .7 I n t e r n a t i o n a l A f f i l i a t e 69 65 .7 15 14 .3 7 6.7 3 2 .9 3 2.9 8 7 . 6 P r o f e s s i o n a l A s s o c . 51 4 8 . 6 21 2 0 . 0 11 10.5 7 6 .7 9 8.6 6 5 .7 Community S e r v i c e O r g . 26 2 4 . 8 24 22 .9 26 24 .8 13 12.4 10 9 .5 6 5.7 R e l i g i o u s Group 67 63 .8 15 14.3 6 5.7 4 3.8 6 5.7 7 6 . 7 C o a l i t i o n s 53 50.5 17 16.2 11 10.5 7 6.7 9 8.6 8 7 .6 Con fe rence s/Cou r se s/Work shop 29 27 .6 15 14.3 19 18.1 16 15.2 21 20 .0 5 4 . 8 Members o f t h i s Group 8 7.6 8 7.6 26 24 .8 28 26.7 32 30.5 3 2 . 9 C l o s e F r i e n d s O u t s i d e Group 28 26 . 7 23 21.9 27 25 .7 10 9.5 13 12.4 4 3 .8 A c q u a i n t a n c e O u t s i d e Group 30 28 .6 25 23 .8 23 21.9 8 7.6 14 13.3 5 4 . 8 F a m i l y Member 61 58.1 23 21.9 8 7.6 3 2.9 6 5:7 4 3.8 Ne i ghbou r s 73 69 .5 20 19.0 5 4 . 8 2 1.9 1 1.0 4 3.8 S c i e n t i f i c E x p e r t s 74 70.5 12 11.4 7 6.7 6 5.7 1 1.0 5 4 . 8 F i n a n c i a l E x p e r t s 77 73 .3 13 12.4 7 6.7 3 2.9 1 1.0 4 3 .8 L e g a l E x p e r t s 52 49 :5 17 16.2 19 18.1 6 5.7 7 6.7 4 3 .8 Community D e v e l o p m e n t . E x p e r t 49 46 . 7 12 11.4 16 15.2 15 14.3 8 7.6 5 4 . 8 186 F requency o f Responses t o Each P o i n t on t he R a t i n g S c a l e s f o r A l l 32 Channe l s f o r each Type o f I n f o r m a t i o n C h a n n e l s R a t i n g S c a l e f o r Amount o f Use Ra tad fnr • a 1 Va 1 1 2 3 4 5 9 r\Q CCU Iwla JUL lu 1 IQ IUC9 and Judgements ABS % ABS % ABS % ABS % ABS % ABS n F e d e r a l Depa r tment s 47 4 4 . 8 24 22 .9 12 11 .4 8 7 .6 7 6 .7 7 6 .7 P r o v i n c i a l M i n i s t r i e s 43 4 1 . 0 22 21 .0 24 22 .9 6 5 .7 4 3 .8 6 5.7 M u n i c i p a l Depa r tment s 49 4 6 . 7 20 19 .0 22 21 .0 5 . 4 .8 3 2 .9 6 5.7 O f f i c e s o f E l e c t e d Reps . 62 59 .0 12 11 .4 13 12 .4 6 5 .7 7 6 7 5 4 . 8 P o l i t i c a l P a r t y O f f i c e s 71 67.6 11 10 .5 12 11 .4 2 1 .9 3 2 .9 6 5.7 L i b r a r i e s 39 3 7 . 1 . 12 11 .4 21 20 .0 13 12 .4 14 13 3 5 5.7 B o o k s t o r e s 48 45 . 7 20 19 .0 12 11 .4 11 10 .5 6 5 7 8 7 .6 Newstands 37 35.2 17 16 .2 15 14 .3 14 13 .3 14 13. 3 8 7.6 M a i l - o r d e r S u b s c r i p t i o n s 54 51 .4 12 11 .4 11 10 .5 6 5 .7 12 11. 4 10 9 . 5 T .V . D o c u m e n t a r i e s 27 25 . 7 15 14 .3 29 27 .6 13 12 .4 11 10. 5 10 9.5 Rad i o D o c u m e n t a r i e s 37 35.2 23 21 .9 19 18 .1 ? 8 .6 8 7 6 9 8.6 I n t e r v i e w i n g T a l k Shows 38 36.2 18 17 .1 18 17 .1 11 10 .5 10 9. 5 10 9.5 Community-made Med i a P r o g . 36 34 .3 25 23 .8 20 19 .0 13 12 .4 2 1. 9 9 8.6 F i l m D i s t r i b u t o r 56 53 .3 14 13 .3 13 12 .4 8 7 .6 3 2. 9 11 10.5 Groups Comparab le t o Own 19 18.1 14 13 .3 29 27 .6 22 21 .0 17 16. 2 4 3.8 P r o v i n c i a l A f f i l i a t e 55 52.4 12 11 .4 13 12 .4 9 8 .6 6 5. 7 10 9.5 N a t i o n a l A f f i l i a t e 50 47 .6 20 19 .0 9 8 .6 6 5 .7 11 10. 5 9 8 .6 I n t e r n a t i o n a l A f f i l i a t e 66 62 .9 14 13 .3 6 5 .7 3 2 .9 6 5. 7 10 9 . 5 P r o f e s s i o n a l A s s o c . 50 47 .6 16 15 .2 20 19 .0 9 8 .6 1 1. 0 9 8 . 6 Community S e r v i c e O r g . 36 34 .3 20 19 .0 26 24 .8 13 12 .4 4 3. 8 6 5.7 R e l i g i o u s Group 53 50.5 16 15 .2 10 9 .5 9 8 .6 7 6. 7 10 9 . 5 C o a l i t i o n s 54 51.4 11 10 .5 15 14 .3 . 7 6 7 8 7. 6 10 9 . 5 Con fe rence s/Cou r se s/Work shop 30 28 .6 13 12 .4 17 16 .2 14 13 .3 25 23 . 8 6 5.7 Members o f t h i s Group 7 6 .7 10 9 .5 21 20 .0 29 27 6 32 30. 5 6 5.7 C l o s e F r i e n d s O u t s i d e Group 22 21 .0 14 13 .3 25 23 .8 20 19 0 17 16. 2 7 6 .7 A c q u a i n t a n c e O u t s i d e Group 26 24 .8 23 21 .9 18 17 .1 18 17 .1 11 10. 5 9 8.6 F a m i l y Member 43 41 .0 11 10 .5 19 18 .1 11 10 5 13 12. 4 8 7.6 Ne i ghbou r s 58 55 .2 24 22 .9 15 14 .3 2 1. 9 6 5.7 S c i e n t i f i c E x p e r t s 57 54 .3 12 11 .4 13 12 .4 12 11 4 4 3. 8 7 6 .7 F i n a n c i a l E x p e r t s 63 60 .0 16 15 .2 7 6 .7 9 8 6 1 1. 0 9 8.6 L e g a l E x p e r t s 51 48 .6 20 19 .0 13 12 .4 10 9 5 4 3. 8 7 6.7 Community Deve lopment E x p e r t 39 37.1 22 21 .0 15 14 .3 13 12 4 9 8. 6 7 6 .7 187 F r equency o f Responses t o Each P o i n t on t h e R a t i n g S c a l e s f o r A l l 32 Channe l s f o r each Type o f I n f o r m a t i o n C h a n n e l s R a t i n g S c a l e f o r U t i l i t y o f Use Rated f o r : G e n e r a l Background I n f o r m a t i o n 1 2 • 3 4 5 9 ABS % ABS % ABS % ABS % ABS % ABS of tO F e d e r a l Depa r tment s 27 25 .7 25 23 .8 20 19 .0 22 21 .0 6 5 .7 5 4 . 8 P r o v i n c i a l M i n i s t r i e s 28 26 . 7 25 23 .8 24 22 .9 22 21 .0 3 2 .9 3 2 .9 M u n i c i p a l Depa r tment s 36 34.3 16 15 .2 15 14 .3 27 25 .7 4 3 .8 7 6 . 7 O f f i c e s o f E l e c t e d Reps . 46 4 3 . 8 17 16.2 8 7 .6 21 20 .0 6 5 .7 7 6 .7 P o l i t i c a l P a r t y O f f i c e s 60 57.1 19 18.1 9 8 .6 5 4 .8 4 3 .8 8 7.6 L i b r a r i e s 23 21 .9 14 13.3 17 16 .2 24 22 .9 20 19 .0 7 6 .7 B o o k s t o r e s 49 46 . 7 12 11.4 18 17 .1 14 13 .3 5 4 .8 7 6 .7 Newstands 24 22 .9 16 15.2 19 18 .1 26 24 .8 13 12 .4 7 6 .7 M a i l - o r d e r S u b s c r i p t i o n s 45 42 . 9 12 11.4 17 16 .2 16 15 .2 10 9 5 5 4 . 8 T.V. D o c u m e n t a r i e s 23 21 .9 20 19.0 27 25 .7 20 19 .0 10 9 .5 5 4 . 8 Rad i o Documentar ie s - 42 4 0 . 0 18 17.1 20 19 .6 13 12 .4 6 5 7 6 5.7 I n t e r v i e w i n g T a l k Shows 37 35.2 21 20 .0 21 20 .0 14 13 .3 8 7 6 4 3.8 Community-made M e d i a P r o g . 37 35.2 16 15.2 23 21 .9 15 14 .3 7 6 7 7 6 . 7 F i l m D i s t r i b u t o r 49 4 6 . 7 14 13.3 19 18 .1 11 10 .5 5 4 8 7 6 .7 Groups Comparab le t o Own 17 16.2 11 10.5 20 19 .0 28 26 .7 24 22 9 5 4 . 8 P r o v i n c i a l A f f i l i a t e 52 49 .5 16 15.2 12 11 .4 13 12 .4 5 4 8 7 6.7 N a t i o n a l A f f i l i a t e 48 4 5 . 7 16 15.2 16 15 .2 5 4 .8 13 12. 4 7 6.7 I n t e r n a t i o n a l A f f i l i a t e 62 59 . 0 9 8.6 15 14 .3 2 1 .9 8 7. 6 9 8 .6 P r o f e s s i o n a l A s s o c . 36 34 .3 19 18.1 23 21 .9 11 10 .5 8 7. 6 8 7.6 Community S e r v i c e O r g . 25 2 3 . 8 16 15.2 25 23 .8 22 21 .0 14 13. 3 3 2 . 9 R e l i g i o u s Group 52 49 . 5 22 21 .0 13 12 .4 7 6 .7 6 5. 7 5 4 . 8 C o a l i t i o n s 43 41 . 0 19 18.1 ! 2 11 .4 11 10 .5 9 8. 6 11 10.5 Con fe rence s/Cou r se s/Work shop 19 18.1 9 8.6 23 21 .9 28 26 .7 21 20. 0 5 4 . 8 Members o f t h i s Group 8 7.6 3 2.9 16 15 .2 26 24 .8 49 46. 7 3 2 .9 C l o s e F r i e n d s O u t s i d e Group 23 21.9 12 11.4 24 22 .9 21 20 .0 18 17. 1 7 6 .7 A c q u a i n t a n c e O u t s i d e Group 24 22.9 28 26 .7 16 15 .2 17 16 .2 13 12. 4 7 6 .7 F a m i l y Member 41 39.0 20 19.0 16 15 .2 9 8 .6 13 12. 4 6 5.7 Ne i ghbou r s 66 62.9 17 16.2 9 8 .6 4 3 .8 2 1. 9 7 6 .7 S c i e n t i f i c E x p e r t s 45 42 .9 15 14.3 15 14 .3 11 10 .5 11 10. 5 8 7.6 F i n a n c i a l E x p e r t s 53 50.5 15 14.3 16 15 .2 9 8 .6 5 4 . 8 7 6 .7 L e g a l E x p e r t s 37 35.2 13 12.4 18 17 .1 13 12 .4 21 20 . 0 3 2.9 Community Deve lopment E x p e r t 45 42 .9 12 11.4 24 22 .9 9 8 .6 11 10. 5 • 4 3.8 188 F requency o f Responses t o Each P o i n t on t he R a t i n g S c a l e s f o r A l l 32 Channe l s f o r each Type o f I n f o r m a t i o n C h a n n e l s R a t i n g S c a l e f o r U t i l i t y o f Use Rated f o r : Formal o r O f f i c i a l P r o cedu re 1 2 3 4 5 9 ABS % ABS * JO ABS % ABS % ABS % ABS % F e d e r a l Depa r tment s 40 38 .1 23 21 .9 14 13 3 15 14 3 8 7 6 5 4 . 8 P r o v i n c i a l M i n i s t r i e s 35 33 .3 22 21 .0 20 19 0 15 14. 3 5 5. 7 7 6 .7 M u n i c i p a l Depa r tment s 40 38 .1 20 19 .0 15 14. 3 12 11. 4 12 11. 4 6 5.7 O f f i c e s o f E l e c t e d Reps . 52 49 .5 10 9 .5 14 13. 3 14 13. 3 8 7. 6 7 6 .7 P o l i t i c a l P a r t y O f f i c e s 66 62 .? 12 11 .4 12 11 4 3 2 9 5 4. 8 7 6 .7 L i b r a r i e s 48 45 .7 21 20 .0 15 14. 3 8 7. 6 7 6. 7 6 5.7 B o o k s t o r e s 64 61 .0 17 16 .2 9 8. 6 4 3. 8 4 3. 8 7 6 .7 Newstands 46 43 .8 15 14 .3 11 10. 5 15 14. 3 12 11. 4 6 5.7 M a i l - o r d e r S u b s c r i p t i o n s 68 64 .8 6 5 .7 10 9. 5 5 4. 8 7 6. 7 9 8 .6 T . Y . D o c u m e n t a r i e s 53 50 .5 20 19 .0 12 11. 4 6 5. 7 8 7. 6 6 5.7 Rad i o D o c u m e n t a r i e s 57 54 .3 20 19 .0 11 10. 5 7 6. 7 4 3. 8 6 5.7 I n t e r v i e w i n g T a l k Shows 51 48 .6 15 14 .3 17 16. 2 11 10. 5 5 4 . 8 6 5.7 Community-made Med i a P r o g . 49 46 .7 16 15 .2 19 18. 1 11 10. 5 4 3. 8 6 5.7 F i l m D i s t r i b u t o r 74 70 .5 9 8 .6 8 7. 6 1 1. 0 7 6. 7 6 . 5.7 Groups Comparab le t o Own 18 17 .1 12 11 .4 23 2 1 . 9 20 19. 0 22 2 1 . 0 10 9 . 5 P r o v i n c i a l A f f i l i a t e 58 55 .2 1 5 . 14 .3 7 6. 7 7 6. 7 6 5. 7 12 11 .4 N a t i o n a l A f f i l i a t e 55 52 .4 8 7 .6 11 10. 5 10 9. 5 10 9. 5 11 10 .5 I n t e r n a t i o n a l A f f i l i a t e 71 67 .6 9 8 .6 8 7. 6 2 1. 9 4 3. 8 11 10 .5 P r o f e s s i o n a l A s s o c . 43 41 .0 14 13 .3 19 18. 1 11 10. 5 9 8. 6 9 8 .6 Community S e r v i c e O r g . 31 29 .5 14 13 .3 21 20 . 0 17 16. 2 12 1 1 . 4 10 9 . 5 R e l i g i o u s Group 64 61 .0 13 12 .4 10 9. 5 5 4. 8 4 3. 8 9 8 .6 C o a l i t i o n s 53 50 .5 10 9 5 14 13. 3 11 10. 5 8 7. 6 9 8 .6 Con fe rence s/Cou r se s/Work shop 28 26 .7 7 6 .7 25 23 . 8 16 15 . 2 22 2 1 . 0 7 6 .7 Members o f t h i s Group 9 8 .6 7 6 .7 18 17. 1 28 26 . 7 36 34. 3 7 6 .7 C l o s e F r i e n d s O u t s i d e Group 29 27 .6 16 15 2 20 19. 0 19 18. 1 14 13. 3 7 6 .7 A c q u a i n t a n c e O u t s i d e Group 38 36 .2 15 14 .3 19 18. 1 18 17. 1 9 8. 6 6 5.7 F a m i l y Member 63 60 .0 11 10 5 14 13. 3 8 7. 6 4 3. 8 5 . 4 . 8 N e i g h b o u r s 74 70 .5 9 8 6 11 10. 5 3 2 . 9 1 1. 0 7 6.7 S c i e n t i f i c E x p e r t s 65 61 .9 12 11 4 7 6. 7 10 9 . 5 4 3. 8 7 6.7 F i n a n c i a l E x p e r t s 65 61 .9 9 8 •6 14 13. 3 8 7. 6 3 2 . 9 6 5.7 L e g a l E x p e r t s 35 33 .3 11 10 5 16 15. 2 16 15. 2 21 20 . 0 6 5.7 Community Deve lopment E x p e r t 52 49 .5 13 12 4 11 10. 5 11 10. 5 10 9. 5 8 7.6 189 F r e q u e n c y o f Responses t o Each P o i n t on t h e R a t i n g S c a l e s f o r A l l 32 Channe l s f o r each Type o f I n f o r m a t i o n C h a n n e l s R a t i n g S c a l e f o r U t i l i t y o f Use Rated f o r : I n f o r m a l Means 1 2 3 4 5 9 o f S o c i a l A c t i o n ABS % ABS % ABS % ABS ABS % ABS % F e d e r a l Depa r tment s 5 5 ' . 52 .4 17 16.2 10 9.5 14 13.3 4 3.8 5 4 . 8 P r o v i n c i a l M i n i s t r i e s 54 51.4 12 11.4 18 17.1 11 10.5 3 2.9 7. 6 .7 M u n i c i p a l Depa r tment s 55 52.4 11 10.5 14 13.3 13 12.4 6 5.7 6 5.7 O f f i c e s o f E l e c t e d Reps . 58 55.2 15 14 .3 10 9 .5 11 10.5 2 1.9 9 8 . 6 P o l i t i c a l P a r t y O f f i c e s 69 65 .7 15 14 .3 7 6 .7 5 4.8" 3 2.9 6 5.7 L i b r a r i e s 44 41 . 9 16 15.2 18 17.1 13 12.4 8 7.6 6 5 .7 B o o k s t o r e s 56 53 .3 16 15.2 17 16.2 5 4 . 8 6 5.7 5 4 . 8 Newstands 50 47 .6 15 14.3 11 10.5 16 15.2 . 6 5.7 7 6 . 7 M a l l - o r d e r S u b s c r i p t i o n s 59 56.2 14 13 .3 10 9 .5 8 7.6 7 6.7 7 6 . 7 T.V. D o c u m e n t a r i e s 40 38.1 • 21 20 . 0 18 17.1 10 9 .5 7 6.7 9 8 . 6 R a d i o D o c u m e n t a r i e s 56 53 .3 16 15.2 14 13 .3 8 7.6 4 3.8 7 6 . 7 I n t e r v i e w i n g T a l k Shows 49 46 . 7 13 12.4 16 15.2 11 10.5 9 8 . 6 ' 7 6 . 7 Community-made M e d i a P r o g . 49 46 . 7 15 14 .3 15 14.3 16 15.2 5 4 . 8 5 4 . 8 F i l m D i s t r i b u t o r 68 64 .8 13 12.4 11 10.5 4 3.8 2 1.9 7 6 . 7 Groups Comparab le t o Own 15 14 .3 13 12.4 24 22 .9 19 18.1 29 27.6 5 4 . 8 P r o v i n c i a l A f f i l i a t e 52 4 9 . 5 18 17.1 12 11.4 8 7.6 7 6.7 8 7 .6 N a t i o n a l A f f i l i a t e 55 52.4 13 12.4 11 10.5 9 8.6 9 8.6 8 7 . 6 I n t e r n a t i o n a l A f f i l i a t e 66 62 .9 8 7.6 8 T. 6 6 5.7 5 4 .8 12 11 .4 • P r o f e s s i o n a l A s s o c . 50 47 .6 16 15.2 15 14 .3 8 7.6 8 7.6 8 7 .6 Community S e r v i c e O r g . 27 25 . 7 13 12.4 30 28 .6 13 12.4 13 12.4 9 8 . 6 R e l i g i o u s Group 68 64 .8 14 13.3 5 4 . 8 5 4 .8 6 5.7 7 6 . 7 C o a l i t i o n s 53 50.5 11 10.5 17 16.2 6 5.7 10 9.5 8 7 .6 Con fe rence s/Cou r se s/Work shop 30 28.6 13 12.4 "9 8.6 23 21.9 23 21 .9 7 6 . 7 Members o f t h i s Group 8 7.6 4 3.8 20 19.0 32 30.5 36 34.3 5 4 . 8 C l o s e F r i e n d s O u t s i d e Group 30 28.6 20 19.0 27 25 .7 5 4 .8 18 17.1 5 4 . 8 A c q u a i n t a n c e O u t s i d e Group 31 29 .5 23 21.9 22 21 .0 6 5.7 17 16.2 6 5.7 F a m i l y Member 61 58.1 21 20 .0 8 7.6 4 3.8 6 5.7 5 4 . 8 N e i g h b o u r s 75 71.4 16 15.2 7 6.7 3 2.9 1 1.0 3 2 . 9 S c i e n t i f i c E x p e r t s 74 70.5 7 6.7 10 9 .5 7 6.7 7 6 . 7 F i n a n c i a l E x p e r t s 76 72.4 10 9 .5 9 8.6 5 4 .8 5 4 . 8 L e g a l E x p e r t s 52 49 .5 12 11.4 16 15.2 13 12.4 7 6.-7 5 4 . 8 Community Deve lopment E x p e r t 46 43 .8 12 11.4 14 13.3 14 13.3 13 12.4 6 5.7 190 F r e q u e n c y o f Responses t o Each P o i n t on t h e R a t i n g S c a l e s f o r A l l 32 Channe l s f o r each Type o f I n f o r m a t i o n C h a n n e l s R a t i n g S c a l e f o r U t i l i t y o f Use Rated f o r : S o c i a l Va l ue s and Judgements 1 > 3 4 5 9 ABS % ABS o> JO ABS % ABS a A f 9 ABS al Ja ABS t F e d e r a l Depa r tment s 47 44 .8 20 19.0 9 8 .6 10 9 .5 11 10 .5 8. 7.6 P r o v i n c i a l M i n i s t r i e s 42 40 .0 20 19.0 18 17 .1 12 11 .4 6 5 .7 7 6.7 M u n i c i p a l Depa r tment s 47 44 .8 18 17.1 21 20 .0 6 5 .7 6 5 .7 7 6.7 O f f i c e s o f E l e c t e d Reps . 61 58 .1 11 10.5 11 10 .5 7 6 .7 9 8 .6 6 5.7 P o l i t i c a l P a r t y O f f i c e s 69 65 .7 14 13.3 8- 7 .6 3 2 .9 5 4 .8 6. 5.7 L i b r a r i e s 40 38 .1 9 8.6. 15 14 .3 14 13 .3 18 17 .1 9 8.6 B o o k s t o r e s 48 45 .7 14 13.3 14 13 .3 13 12 .4 8 7 .6 8 7.6 Newstands 36 34 .3 11 10.5 17 16 .2 17 16 .2 15 14 .3 9 8.6 M a i l - o r d e r S u b s c r i p t i o n s 54 51 .4 8 7.6 12 •11 .4 5 4 .8 16 15 2 10 9.5 T . Y . D o c u m e n t a r i e s 27 25 .7 11 10.5 21 20 .0 22 21 .0 14 .13 3 10 9.5 R a d i o Documen ta r i e s 36 34 .3 14 13.3 22 21 .0 11 10 .5 11 10 5 11 10.5 I n t e r v i e w i n g T a l k Shows 38 36 .2 14 13.3 18 17 .1 11 10 .5 12 11 4 12 11.4 Community-made M e d i a P r o g . 35 33 .3 15 14.3 25 23 .8 13 12 .4 8 7 6 9 8.6 F i l m D i s t r i b u t o r 53 50 .5 12 11.4 12 11 .4 10 9 .5 8 7 6 10 9.5 Groups Comparab le t o Own 16 15 .2 16 15.2 21 20 .0 22 21 .0 22 21. 0 8 7.6 P r o v i n c i a l A f f i l i a t e 55 52 .4 13 .12.4 10 9 .5 11 10 .5 4 3. 8 12 11.4 N a t i o n a l A f f i l i a t e 50 47 .6 is 14.3 10 9 .5 10 9 .5 9 8. 6 11 10.5 I n t e r n a t i o n a l A f f i l i a t e 65 61 .9 12 11.4 3 2 .9 8 7 .6 5 4. 8 12 11.4 P r o f e s s i o n a l A s s o c . 49 46 .7 15 14.3 17 16 .2 7 6 .7 5 4. 8 12 11.4 Community S e r v i c e O r g . 35 33 .3 19 18.1 22 21 .0 15 14 .3 6 5. 7 8 7.6 R e l i g i o u s Group 56 53 .3 9 8.6 13 12 .4 9 . 8 .6 9 8. 6 9 8.6 C o a l i t i o n s 53 50 .5 9 8.6 14 13 .3 10 9 .5 9 8. 6 10 9.5 Con fe rence s/Cou r se s/Work shop 29 27 6 8 7.6 16 15 .2 13 12 .4 31 29. 5 8 7.6 Members o f t h i s Group 7 6 .7 9 8.6 15 14 .3 33 31 .4 33 31. 4 8 7.6 C l o s e F r i e n d s O u t s i d e Group 23 21 9 11 10.5 23 21 .9 19 18 .1 20 19. 0 9 8.6 A c q u a i n t a n c e O u t s i d e Group 27 25 7 17 16.2 15 14 .3 23 21 .9 12 11. 4 11 10.5 F a m i l y Member 42 40 0 11 10.5 17 16 .2 13 12 .4 13 12. 4 9 8.6 N e i g h b o u r s 57 54 3 22 21.0 16 15 .2 2 1 .9 2 1. 9 6 5.7 S c i e n t i f i c E x p e r t s 59 56 2 13 12.4 9 8 •6 9 8 .6 6 5. 7 9 8.6 F i n a n c i a l E x p e r t s 65 61 .9 13 12.4 7 6 .7 7 6 .7 3 2. 9 10 9.5 L e g a l E x p e r t s 50 47 6 11 10.5 19 18 .1 9 8 .6 7 6. 7 9 8.6 Community Deve lopment E x p e r t 39 37 1 21 20.0 13 12 .4 15 14 .3 9 8. 6 8 7.6 191 REFERENCES Acland, John. A Plan f o r Rendering the Poor Independent of  P u b l i c C o n t r i b u t i o n s , Founded on the Bas i s of the F r i e n d l y S o c i e t i e s , Commonly C a l l e d C l u b s , E x e t e r , 1786. C i t e d by P. Gosden, S e l f - h e l p ; V o l u n t a r y A s s o c i a t i o n s i n the 19th  Century, p. 5. New York: Barnes & Noble, 1974. Alcock, T. Observations on the D e f e c t s of the Poor Laws and on  the Causes and Consequences of the Great Increase and  Burden of the Poor, 1752. C i t e d by P. Gosden, S e l f - h e l p :  V o l u n t a r y A s s o c i a t i o n s i n the 19th Century, p. 5. New York: Barnes & Noble, 1974. Apt, Pat H. and Hiemstra, Roger. "A Model f o r Le a r n i n g Resource Networks f o r S e n i o r A d u l t s . " E d u c a t i o n a l  Gerontology 5 (1980):163-173. A r t a n d i , Susan. "Man, In f o r m a t i o n , and S o c i e t y : New P a t t e r n s of I n t e r a c t i o n . " J o u r n a l of the American S o c i e t y f o r  Information S c i e n c e , January (1979):15—18. Ash, Roberta. S o c i a l Movements i n America. Chicago: Markham P u b l i s h i n g Co., 1972. Becker, Howard. Through Values to S o c i a l I n t e r p r e t a t i o n : Essays  on S o c i a l Contexts, A c t i o n s , Types and P r o s p e c t s . New York: Greenwood Pr e s s , 1968.. B e r e l s o n , Bernard and S t e i n e r , Gary A. Human Beha v i o r : An Inventory of S c i e n t i f i c F i n d i n g s . New York: Ha r c o u r t , Brace & World, 1964. Berger, Peter L. F a c i n g Up To Mod e r n i t y : E x c u r s i o n s i n S o c i e t y ,  P o l i t i c s , and R e l i g i o n . New York: Bas i c Books, 1977. Berger, Peter L.; Berger, B r i g i t t e ; and K e l l n e r , H a n s f r i e d . The  Homeless Mind: M o d e r n i z a t i o n and Consciousness. New York: Random House, 1973. Blalock., Hubert M. j r . S o c i a l S t a t i s t i c s . New York: McGraw-H i l l , 1972. Bosh i e r , Roger. Towards a L e a r n i n g S o c i e t y . Vancouver: L e a r n i n g p r e s s , 1980. Bot k i n , James W.; Elmandjra, Mahdi; and M a l i t z a , M i r c e a . No  L i m i t s To- L e a r n i n g . A Report to the Club of Rome. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1979. B r i t t a i n , John M i c h a e l . I n f o r m a t i o n and I t s Users. Bath, England: Bath U n i v e r s i t y Press and O r i e l Press, 1970. Coady, Moses M. Masters of T h e i r Own D e s t i n y . New York: Harper, 1939. 1 92 Coleman, James Samuel. Community C o n f l i c t . Glencoe, 111.: Free • Press, 1957. Coleman, James Samuel; E t z i o n i , A m i t a i ; and P o r t e r , John. Macrosoc i o l o q y : Research and Theory. Boston: A l l y n & Bacon, 1970. Cronbach, Lee J . ; G l e s e r , Goldine C ; Nanda, Harinder; and Rajaratnam, Nageswari^ The D e p e n d a b i l i t y of B e h a v i o r a l  Measurements. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1972. (Dafoe, D a n i e l . Essays on P r o j e c t s , 1687. C i t e d by P. Gosden, S e l f - h e l p : V oluntary A s s o c i a t i o n s i n the 1.9th Century, p. 4. New York: Barnes & Noble, 1974. Dave, Ravindra H. L i f e l o n g Education and School Curriculum . Hamburg: Unesco I n s t i t u t e f o r Education, 1973. Davis, L. "The Cost of Realism: Contemporary Restatements of Democracy." Western P o l i t i c a l Q u a r t e r l y 17 (1964):37-46. Durrance, Joan C. " C i t i z e n Groups and the T r a n s f e r of P u b l i c P o l i c y Information i n a Community." Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of Michigan, 1980. Eiseriberg, Diane U. "Adult Education O r g a n i z a t i o n s C o l l a b o r a t e To Study Extended Uses For TV and Radio P r o d u c t i o n s . " RQ 23 (Winter 1983):253. Encyclopedia of S o c i a l Work, 1971 ed. S.v. " S e l f - h e l p Groups," by H. B a r i s h . Ferguson, M a r i l y n . The Aquarian Conspiracy: Personal and S o c i a l  Transformation i n the 1980's. Los Angeles: J . P. Tarcher, 1980. F r i e n d , John K. and Jessop, W. N. Lo c a l Government and  S t r a t e g i c Choice. London: T a v i s t o c k P u b l i c a t i o n s , 1969. F r i e n d , John K.; Wedgewood-Oppenheim; and Eddison. The Logimp  Experiment: A C o l l a b o r a t i v e Experiment in the A p p l i c a t i o n  of a New Approach to L o c a l Planning Problems. Conference Papers. London: Centre f o r Environmental S t u d i e s , I m p e r i a l C o l l e g e , 1970. Gal a s k i e w i c z , Joseph. Exchange Networks and Community P o l i t i c s . Beverley H i l l s : Sage L i b r a r y of S o c i a l Research, Sage P u b l i c a t i o n s , 1979. Gamson, W i l l i a m A. The Strategy of S o c i a l P r o t e s t . Homewood, 111.: Dorsey Press, 1975. Gartner, Alan and Riessman, Frank. S e l f - h e l p i n the Human  S e r v i c e s . San F r a n c i s c o : Jossey-Bass, 1977. Gorey, Hays. Nader and the Power of Everyman. New York: 193 Grosset & Dunlap, 1975. Gosden, P. S e l f - h e l p ; V o l u n t a r y A s s o c i a t i o n s i n the 19th  Century. New York: Barnes & Noble, 1974. Gross, Ronald. The L i f e l o n g Learner. New York: Touchstone and Simon & Schuster, 1977. Guba, Egon G., and L i n c o l n , Yvonna S. E f f e c t i v e E v a l u a t i o n . San F r a n c i s c o : Jossey-Bass, 1981. H a l l , Homer J . "Patterns i n the Use of Information: The Right to be D i f f e r e n t . " J o u r n a l of the American S o c i e t y f o r  Information Science, March (198TT:103-112. Hardy, Andrew P. "The S e l e c t i o n of Channels When Seeking Information: C o s t / B e n e f i t vs. Least E f f o r t . " Information  P r o c e s s i n g and Management 18 (1982):289-293. Havelock, Ronald G. Planning f o r Innovation Through  Dissemination and U t i l i z a t i o n of Knowledge. .Ann Arbor, Mich.: Center f o r Research on U t i l i z a t i o n of S c i e n t i f i c Knowledge, I n s t i t u t e f o r S o c i a l Research, U n i v e r s i t y of Michigan, 1969. Hays, Timothy; Shearer, Kenneth D.; Wilson, Concepcion. "The Patron Is Not The P u b l i c . " L i b r a r y J o u r n a l , September 15 (1977): 1813-1818. Henderson, Hazel. C r e a t i n g A l t e r n a t i v e F u t u r e s : The End of  Economics. New York: Berkley P u b l i s h i n g Corp., 1978 Holyoake, George Jacob. S e l f - h e l p a Hundred Years Ago. London: S. Sonnenschein & Co., 1888. Hudson, J u d i t h and Danish, Steven J . "The A c q u i s i t i o n of Information: An Important L i f e S k i l l . " The Personnel and  Guidance J o u r n a l , November (1980):164-167. H u r v i t z , N. "The O r i g i n s of the Peer S e l f - h e l p Psychotherapy Group Movement." J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d B e h a v i o r a l Sciences 12 (1 976):283-294. I l l i c h , Ivan D. Medical Nemesis: The E x p r o p r i a t ion of H e a l t h . New York: Pantheon Books, 1976. . Tools f o r C o n v i v i a l i t y . New York: Harper & Row, 1 973. . "Schooling: The R i t u a l of Progress." New York Review of Books 15 (December 1970:20-25. . "Why We Must A b o l i s h S c h o o l i n g . " New York Review of Books 15 (July 1970):9-15. Jessup, Frank. W., ed. L i f e l o n g L e a r n i n g : A Symposium on 1 94 Continuing Education. Oxford and New York: Pergamon Press, 1969. Kaplan, Abraham. The Conduct of I n q u i r y . New York: Chandler P u b l i s h i n g , 1964. • Katz, A l f r e d H. and Bender, Eugene I. The Strength In Us:  S e l f - h e l p i n the Modern World. New York: New Viewpoints, 1 976. Kidd, J . Robbins, ed. Learning and S o c i e t y . Toronto: Canadian A s s o c i a t i o n f o r Adult Education, 1963. K i r k , Roger E. Experimental Design: Procedures f o r the  B e h a v i o r a l S c i e n c e s . Belmont, Ca.: Brooks-Cole, 1968. Kochen, Manfred, ed. Information f o r A c t i o n : From Knowledge to  Wisdom. New York: Academic Press, 1975. Kochen, Manfred, comp. The Growth of Knowledge: Readings on  O r g a n i z a t i o n and R e t r i e v a l of Information. New York: Wiley, 1967. Kochen, Manfred and Donohue, Joseph C , eds. Information f o r  the Community. Chicago: American L i b r a r y A s s o c i a t i o n , 1 976. Kropotkin, Petr A l e k s i e v i c h . Mutual A i d : A F a c t o r of E v o l u t i o n . [1866]; r e p r i n t ed., New York: Garland P u b l i s h e r s , 1972. Kunz, Werner; R i t t e l , Horst W. J . ; and Schwuchow, Werner. Methods of A n a l y s i s and E v a l u a t i o n of Information Needs. Munich: V e r l a g Dokumentaion, 1977. L a i , C a l v i n . U.B.C. S t a t i s t i c a l Package f o r the S o c i a l  Sciences V e r s i o n 9.00. Vancouver, B.C.: Computing Centre, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1983. Laidlaw, Alex, ed. The Man From Margaree: W r i t i n g s and Speeches o_f M_;_ M^ Coady; Educator, Reformer, P r i e s t . Toronto: M c C l e l l a n d & Stewart, 1971. L e i c h t e r , Hope Jensen. The Family as Educator. New York: Teachers C o l l e g e Press, 1975. Linowes, David F. S t r a t e g i e s f o r S u r v i v a l : Using Business  Knowhow to Make Our Soc i a l System Work. New York: Amacom, American Management A s s o c i a t i o n s , 1973. L u i k a r t , C l a r k . S o c i a l Networks and S e l f - P l a n n e d Adult Learning O c c a s i o n a l Paper no. 2. Chapel H i l l , N.C.: U n i v e r s i t y of North C a r o l i n a at Chapel H i l l , E xtension D i v i s i o n , 1977. 195 McClintock, Robert. "The Dynamics of D e c l i n e - Why Education Can No Longer Be L i b e r a l . " Phi D e l t a Kappan, May (1969): 636-640. Macfarlane, Ronald G. "A Case Study of Information T r a n s f e r by S o c i a l Change O r g a n i z a t i o n s . " Canadian L i b r a r y J o u r n a l 41 June (1984)s151-154. McKinney, John C. C o n s t r u c t i v e Typology and S o c i a l Theory. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1966. M a r a s c u i l o , Leonard A. t S t a t i s t i c a l Methods f o r B e h a v i o r a l  Science Research. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971. M a r t i n d a l e , Don A l b e r t . I n s t i t u t i o n s , O r g a n i z a t i o n s and Mass  S o c i e t y . Boston: Houghton M i f f l i n , 1966. M i t c h e l l , James Clyde. "The Concept of Use of S o c i a l Networks." In S o c i a l Networks in Urban S i t u a t i o n s , E d i t e d by J . C. M i t c h e l l . Manchester: Manchester U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1969. Myrdahl, Gunnar. An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and  Modern Democracy. New York: Harper & Bros., 1944. Nader, Ralph, ed. The Consumer and Corporate A c c o u n t a b i l i t y . New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1973. Nader, Ralph and Ross, Donald. A c t i o n For a Change: A Student's  Manua1 for P u b l i c I n t e r e s t O r g a n i z i n g . New York: Grossman P u b l i c a t i o n s , 1971. Nunnally, Jum C. j r . I n t r o d u c t i o n To P s y c h o l o g i c a l Measurement New York: McGraw H i l l Book Co., 1970. O h l i g e r , John. L i f e l o n g Learning or L i f e l o n g Schooling? . Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse U n i v e r s i t y P u b l i c a t i o n s i n Continuing Education, 1971. O r g a n i z a t i o n f o r Economic Cooperation and Development. Education and Working L i f e i n Modern Soc i e t y . P a r i s : O r g a n i z a t i o n f o r Economic Cooperation and Development, 1975. O r g a n i z a t i o n f o r S o c i a l and T e c h n i c a l Innovation. S e l f - h e l p  Housing i n the U.S.A. . P r e l i m i n a r y Report to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Cambridge, Mass.: O r g a n i z a t i o n f o r S o c i a l and T e c h n i c a l Innovation, 1969. P a i s l e y , W i l l i a m J . "Information Needs and Uses." Annual  Review of Information Sc ience and Technology 3 (1968):1 —30. Parker, Edwin B. and P a i s l e y , W i l l i a m J . P a t t e r n s of Adult  Information Seeking. Palo A l t o , Ca.: S t a n f o r d U n i v e r s i t y I n s t i t u t e f o r Communications Research, 1966. 196 Pateman, C a r o l e . P a r t i c i p a t i o n and Democratic Theory. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1970. Paulston, R o l l a n d . Folk Schools in S o c i a l Change. P i t t s b u r g h , Pa.: U n i v e r s i t y Center fo r I n t e r n a t i o n a l S t u d i e s , U n i v e r s i t y of P i t t s b u r g h , 1974. P i l i s u k , Marc and Hayden, Thomas. "Is There a M i l i t a r y I n d u s t r i a l Complex Which Prevents Peace?" J o u r n a l of  S o c i a l Issues 21 ( J u l y 1965):67-117. Press, Howard. C_^  Wright M i l l s . Boston: Twayne P u b l i s h e r s , 1978. Rees, M a t i l d a and P a i s l e y , W i l l i a m J . S o c i a l and P s y c h o l o g i c a l  P r e d i c t o r s of Information Seeking and Media Use: A M u l t i v a r i a t e R e - a n a l y s i s . Palo A l t o , Ca.: S t a n f o r d U n i v e r s i t y I n s t i t u t e f o r Communications Research, 1967. R i z v i , Amjad A l i Bahadur. S e l f - h e l p Housing. Vancouver, B.C.: U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1966. L Roberts, Ron E. and K l o s s , Robert M. S o c i a l Movements: Between  the Balcony and the B a r r i c a d e . S t . L o u i s : Mosby, 1974. Robertson, James. The Sane A l t e r n a t i v e : A Choice of F u t u r e s . St. Paul, Minn.: River Basin P u b l i s h i n g Co., 1978. Rogers, E v e r e t t and K i n c a i d , D. L. Communications Networks. New York: The Free Press, 1981. S a t i n , Mark. New Age P o l i t i c s . New York: D e l l P u b l i s h i n g Co., 1978. Schon, Donald. Beyond The S t a b l e S t a t e . New York: Random House, 1971. Schumacher, E r n s t . F. Small Is B e a u t i f u l . London: Blond & B r i g g s , 1973. Schumpeter, Joseph. C a p i t a l i s m , S o c i a l i s m and Democracy. London: George A l l e n & Unwin, 1943. Scimecca, Joseph. The S o c i o l o g i c a l Theory of C. Wright M i l l s . Washington, N.Y.: Kennikat Press, 1977. S c o t t , L e s l i e F r e d e r i c . S e l f - h e l p f o r Farmers• London: S o c i e t y for Promoting C h r i s t i a n Knowledge, 1919. Seligman, M. E. P. "Learned H e l p l e s s n e s s . " Annual Review of  Medicine,'no. 23 (1972):407-412. Selman, Gordon R. I n t r o d u c t i o n to Coming of Age, by J . Robbins Kidd and Gordon R. Selman, eds. Toronto: Canadian A s s o c i a t i o n f o r Adult Education, 1978. 1 97 Smiles, Samuel. S e l f - h e l p , 1859. C i t e d by P. Gosden, S e l f - h e l p : Voluntary A s s o c i a t i o n s i n the 19th Century, p. 1. New York: Barnes & Noble, 1974. Stokes, Bruce. Helping Ourselves: L o c a l S o l u t i o n s to G l o b a l Problems. New York: Norton, 1981. Sztompka, P i o t r . System and Funct i o n : Toward a Theory of  S o c i e t y . New York: Academic Press, 1974. Thapar, Romesh. The Waste and The Want: Thoughts on the Future. New D e h l i : O r i e n t Longman, 1978. Thompson, R o l l i e . People Do I t A l l The Time. Toronto: Macmillan Co. of Canada f o r the M i n i s t r y of State f o r Urban A f f a i r s , 1976. Thorndike, Robert L., ed. E d u c a t i o n a l Measurement. 2nd ed. Washington, D.C.: American C o u n c i l on Education, 1971. T i e t j e n , Anne Marie. " S o c i a l Networks as Informal Support Systems for Urban F a m i l i e s i n Sweden." Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , C o r n e l l U n i v e r s i t y , 1978. T o f f l e r , A l v i n . Future Shock. New York: Random House, 1970. Tough, A l l e n . Learning Without a Teacher. Toronto: O n t a r i o I n s t i t u t e f o r Studies i n Education, 1967. . The A d u l t ' s Learning P r o j e c t s . Toronto: O n t a r i o I n s t i t u t e f o r S t u d i e s i n Education, 1971. T r i s t , E r i c . "Planning i n an Era of Change and U n c e r t a i n t y . " In Adult Education i n the Context of L i f e l o n g L e a r n i n g . P a r i s : Unesco, 1974. UNESCO. Adu l t Educat ion i n the Context of L i f e l o n g Education. P a r i s : UNESCO, 1972. Uphoff, T. "Information as a P o l i t i c a l Resource." In Humanization of Knowledge in the Soc i a l Sc i e n c e s . E d i t e d by P. Atherton. Syracuse, N.Y.: School of L i b r a r y Science, Syracuse U n i v e r s i t y , 1972. Van Riper, P a u l . " O r g a n i z a t i o n s : Basic Issues and a Proposed Typology." In Studies on Behavior i n O r g a n i z a t i o n s : A Research Symposium. E d i t e d by Raymond V. Bowers. Athens: U n i v e r s i t y of Georgia Press, 1966. Vanier I n s t i t u t e of the Family. E x p l o r i n g Work.and Income  O p p o r t u n i t i e s i n the 1980's. Proceedings of a Seminar Held at F o r t Qu'Appelle, Sask., Oct. 23-29, 1979. Ottawa: Vanier I n s t i t u t e of the Family, 1979. Warren,. Roland L e s l i e . S o c i a l Change and Human Purpose: Toward  Understanding and Act i o n . Chicago: Rand McNally C o l l e g e 198 P u b l i s h i n g Co., 1977. Washington C o n s u l t i n g Group. U p l i f t : What People Themselves Can  Do. S a l t Lake C i t y : Olympus P u b l i s h i n g Co., 1974. Weiss, Paul "The Growth of Knowledge" i n Kochen, Manfred, comp. The Growth of Knowledge: Readings i n O r g a n i z a t i o n and  R e t r i e v a l of Information. New York: Wiley, 1967. Wellman, Barry. Strategy and T a c t i c s f o r P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n  i n T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Planning In North America... Toronto: U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto and York U n i v e r s i t y J o i n t program i n T r a n s p o r t a t i o n , 1974. Wilson, P a t r i c k . P u b l i c Knowledge, P r i v a t e Ignorance: Toward a L i b r a r y and Information P o l i c y . Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1977. Wilson, P a u l i n e . "Information Seeking A c t i v i t y of S e l e c t e d Members of Community Groups Seeking S o c i a l Change." Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of Michigan, 1972. Wismer, Susan and P e l l , David. Community Prof i t : Community  Based Economic Development in Canada. Toronto: Is F i v e Press, 1981. Wood, D. N. "User S t u d i e s : A Review of the L i t e r a t u r e from 1966 to 1970." ASLIB Proceedings 23 January (1971):11-23. Yeaxlee, B a s i l A l f r e d . L i f e l o n g E d u c a t i o n . London: C a s s e l l , 1929. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0055806/manifest

Comment

Related Items