From: <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: RE: Mass-Observers' writing records: please share your thoughts!
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 17:19:01 +0100
Thread-Topic: Mass-Observers' writing records: please share your thoughts!



You caught me Sandra, in the middle of trying to organise a database on
the 1990 and 2002 directives. So I was pleased to work out answers to
your various questions. I hope they're useful.
Bill






Mass-Observers Writing Records

Some answers to the questions posed.

Bill Bytheway
20 April 2004

In what ways have you used/will you be using M-O material?

(1) Currently I am analysing responses to the 1990 Celebrations directive
and the 2002 Birthdays directive; (2) I have identified the set of
respondents who replied to both these directives and am abstracting
material from their responses to these plus their responses to the 1992
Growing Older directive; (3) I plan to identify a small set of about ten
'telling cases' and scan their responses to all directives between 1990 and
2004.

What kinds of information (on the writers themselves) is most useful to
your own research?

At the moment date of birth and sex is sufficient. In time I will be keen
to collate information about who they live with, and their close family and
friends, but for most this is evident from responses. There is however a
problem with the use of initials and pseudonyms: is someone referred to as
'A' in 2002 the same 'A' in 1990). A (voluntary) annual update on key
changes in their lives might be helpful.

What kinds of demographical information do you think the Archive should
gather on M-O writers?  (e.g. social class/no of children/marital
status/formal educational qualifications/ethnic origin/sexual orientation)

Obviously it is important for the Archive to maintain a diverse panel of
writers and to have the evidence to 'prove' this. There is an obvious
danger that asking for bureaucratic information will alienate some writers,
in particular perhaps those from under-represented groups. Also that it
will engage the Archive and M-O researchers in unproductive data-bashing.
Perhaps an annual 'personal profile' is sufficient, allowing them to adopt
whatever social identity they choose.

If you were starting a collection of writing records, what information
would you collect, ideally?

I would collect basic information about when, where and how the writers
were writing. Like any written correspondence it would be a good discipline
if everything that was written was dated and located. It would be
interesting to know more about the origins of what was written: whether it
was 'dashed off' in the course of a busy life or was the much-revised
result of extensive, unhurried reflection.

In what ways might you want to analyse the information?  (e.g. being able
to find out which writers over the age of 30 living in the North West of
England responded to the Spring 1994 directive part 2)

My first priority would be to reduce the analysis to manageable proportions
and so filter mechanisms can be useful. But in addition to filters such as
age and where people live, I would like the option of using information
about the actual response, such as length of response or whether it was
word-processed. Once I have a manageable body of material, my inclination
is to photocopy it and then analyse it 'at my leisure'.

Have you any recommendations (or criticisms) of particular databases or
qualitative data analysis software?

No.

Further comments

1) As with any large body of written material, a simple index of the
Archive would be immensely useful. Most M-O writers appear to stick fairly
closely to the 'instructions' of directives, but occasionally they offer
lengthy asides or complex anecdotes relating to issues in addition to what
is in the directive. There is no way of tracing these pearls except by
'reading everything'.

2) I think a log of 'research use' would be valuable. There may be
occasions when one would want to avoid M-O writers who have been
'over-analysed' or, alternatively, other occasions when one would want to
compare uses, transcriptions or interpretations of the same material.

3) As with any source of social science material, non-response is crucial
to its analysis and interpretation. Given that response is purely
voluntary, it is important to know how many writers didn't reply to a
directive and, more particularly, the reasons they might offer. So, when
writers let the Archive know that they will not be responding to a
directive, it would be very helpful if, with their permission, a brief
explanation were to be 'lodged'.