Abstract: Results of the survey
Dear Critters,
Many thanks to all for responding to the survey, for the two (or three weeks), I had 361 responses, which is great!
***SUMMARY***
(1) No to separating the list.
(2) no need for moderator, people need to self-censor or self-moderate.
(3) the list of very
beneficial because of the announcements, the discussions, and the ability of
the list to connect us to a like-minded community.
(4) There are concerns over
dominance of some posters, the need for perhaps a forum etiquette or guidelines on unacceptable
behaviour. Perhaps moderating when the need arises, such as when people act inappropriately.
(5) A small minority (I sound like a politician) expressed bullying and being "terrified" of posting.
(6) For detailed analysis, read on.
*** ANALYSIS***
Finally I had the chance to analyse some of the results from the survey. I know there were a lot of mistakes in the questionnaire (sorry about that), with some people unable to answer the ranking question – it might have been a browser problem. Also I do apologise for the questions on gender and age, which people argued to be irrelevant to the purposes of the survey. I am sorry for the ‘British-ness’ of the job type and the lack of some options, including for example the rank ‘Professor’, “Research in non-academic institution”, etc.
I was curious as to who posts on the forum and thought I might want to compare this to some generic demographic data, although mainly I would like to compare it to job position. For those who are interested, I can share these results by sending to their emails personally rather than the list as a whole (once I get R working, that is).
Also, the data (excel or CSV sheet) is available to whoever wants it, just let me know by sending me an email to [log in to unmask] and I will send it to your email.
The first question was an open-ended one, and
a content analysis of the answers shows the useful aspects of the forum pertain
to the announcements on the list (80% of the answers mentioning that), the
discussions and debates (28%), many answers cited ‘information’ and the
function of the forum in providing knowledge to what else is going on the field
regardless of the nature of the post (28%), others noted to the importance of
the posts in contributing to teaching material (7%), political activism (7%),
and a small minority of answers citing the ability to gain access to articles
online (5%).
The most interesting, however, was that I found around 26% of the answers appealed to a more, shall we say, tacit benefit that the forum provides, aptly captured in a reference to “the sense of an evolving community of Critical Geographers -- whatever that might mean”. Others mentioned that the forum serves to draw their attention to things they might not come across otherwise, and hence “feeling the pulse of the time through many different forms of communication”. The list, it should be mentioned, gives a sense of community to many of us, particularly to those who feel isolated in their working environments, whether that is because they work in a department that mostly does not link to their field, are geographically isolated, or have left academia and wish to remain attached in some way. This was strongly expressed in some cases, with a member stating “this forum changed my life. I have and continue to have a lack of support for my work [in my university]. However, I have found collegiality outside of [my state] and the United States”.
On whether the list should change/improve,
there was a remark that change does not always have to be for the better, but
hopefully the intentions of the respondents on the survey and the discussion on
the forum that prompted this would want that type of change. Results were
split, with 46% saying it should not change, 45% saying it should change, and
9% saying they ‘don’t know’ [338 answer, 23 skipped]. The comments on this question mirrored a lot of the
discussion we had earlier, with suggestions such as forum etiquette, or a list
of guidelines or a mission statement indicating what the forum is about and
what is expected of members and posters. Other suggestions called for more
incremental changes such as sign-posting in the subject heading or in the first
few lines to indicate what the post is about, thus allowing members to delete
it if it is outside their interest areas, self-censorship or self-moderating,
and the option of deleting emails that do not correspond to academic or
academic related interests.
Others suggested a limit on the number of posts a week (not really sure how workable is that as people might forget that they had posted, or whether a response counts as a post, etc.). I cannot ignore that quite a few statements implied the dominance of two particular members in posting and the general annoyance that has caused to them, and in their view many others too. These issues, as mentioned earlier, have been expressed in discussions on the forum last month. I’ll end on question 1 with a quote that pretty much sums it up: “Well it can always improve, but [the] issue is whether it needs technical improvements or just people should use it more thoughtfully. I tack latter view.”
For question 3, on whether the list should be moderated, the majority (65%) believe that it should not be moderated, compared to 23% who do, and 12% answered with ‘don’t know’. Comments on that matter related to what type of moderation, with a suggestion for a “light touch” style, a moderation of the discussion – but not announcements, or limited to when certain list members act (post, share) inappropriately. On the other hand, the majority commented that self-moderation should be key, with the option of deleting unwanted emails always there, and for that matter, not really requiring a moderator. Some comments touched on the practicality of the issue, with a moderators’ job being an impossible task, or very time-consuming. Interesting suggestions confirm that whilst the forum does not favour a moderator who would approve every post, a moderator (with a small m?) would ‘have a word’ (or an email, really) with those who abuse the list. A curve ball to these very good suggestions is of course, as one respondent put it, “who decides over the criteria the moderator will have to apply?”
On the matter of a separate list of announcements, jobs postings, etc., the overwhelming majority believe that no separation should be made [358 answered this question, 83% do not want to separate the list, 11% yes, and 6% don’t know] citing that the problem is not with these types of posts and that many people find them useful, in addition to the impractical aspect of being subscribed to an additional list.
Regarding the two questions that ask respondents to rank, I’m aware that they didn’t work and the cascading nature of the results seems to suggest that indeed this was the case with many of you. However, there is a majority who ranked a moderator to the list and a separate announcements list as the least favourable ways of changing the Forum, which mirror then answers to questions 2 and 3 discussed earlier, so on some level, the answers to the question on ranking different suggested solutions seem to work.
***Matters of Concern***
Many sentiments expressed in the survey referred to weariness and patience wearing thin with some types of posts and some posters, with a few expressing a reluctance to read anything or post their ideas or views, with a worry that it is only creating more posts and spam that people would find annoying. Others referred to ‘bullying’ types on the forum, with some early career geographers or PhDs being terrified of posting. Though very few (only 4) reported the latter, I still would like to voice this concern given the necessarily open nature of this forum.
So, from me, thanks again for answering the
questionnaire, and again, if you want the actual data, I’m happy to send it to
you personally (as attachment by email, of course).
Best wishes,
Dana (who is actually a qualitative researcher)