For a text version of Chapter 3.

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY AND METHOD

As stated in chapter 1, this dissertation will test the implementation of the public access vision and, thus, the viability of the vision itself. The video empowerment chart (Figure 1) in chapter 1 provides the parameters of this vision: that empowerment is possible through video production training that results in media demystification and visual literacy.

The site of investigation is a public access facility; the study focuses on persons who have been trained in the technical operations of video equipment and have produced a video program for cablecasting. The site and the sample will be discussed in detail later in this chapter.

As discussed in chapter 1, the metaphor of the "road map" is appropriate to this study, and the formula expressing this vision is stated as

media literacy ---> media demystification = empowerment (awareness of self, others, and society; action to change relationships in these areas)

Within the literatures, the destination points of the public access vision and the connecting routes of media education require a key, or rule book, for interpreting this map. This key is provided by the critical pedagogy literature, which addresses the orientation and context of an educational theoretic within an experiential setting such as public access video training.

The public access literature provides the vision of empowerment through video production training. This advances the setting, context, and tone of the study: that of an individual and group process of discovery, where video production is not an end in itself but a means of correcting societal inequities. This implies that the methodology involved in this study needs to attend to the issues of context and empowerment, and ideally should itself help participants empower themselves by constructing a worldview from their particular vantage point.

The media education literature provides a closer look at the elements that constitute empowerment within a video production context. This literature also directs specific procedures that must be attended to in order to emphasize process-oriented learning over button-pushing instruction. This literature, too, implies that the context within which learning takes place should be studied from the viewpoint of the student/trainee rather than the institution.

As mentioned in chapter 1, it is the critical pedagogy literature that actually provides a framework that allows the specifics of empowerment to be oriented from the viewpoint of the student/learner, and to include the ever-changing range of student/learner experiences.

Specifically, the critical pedagogy literature directs that an investigation of empowerment through video training needs to attend to the following: (1) Education is broadly defined to include all lifelong learning situations. (2) A person takes control of his or her own education; learning is not imposed from the outside. (3) Learning is imbedded in the time/space/context of the person entering the educational experience. The person's personal context at the time influences the learning that takes place, which somehow fits into the person's life situation. (4) Testing outside of the personal context is not relevant because such testing does not show what persons actually are learning: the process.⁽¹⁾

Accordingly, critical pedagogy speaks to the necessity of a study that is theoretically and methodologically oriented from the point of view of the learner--the community producer. Thus, the literature mandates an actor-oriented, interpretive, qualitative approach.

Approaches to Data Collection and Analysis

The assumptions of the public access, media education, and critical pedagogy literatures as they intersect with one another and this study suggest a line of inquiry that focuses on an awareness of self, others, media operations, and societal conditions on the part of the community volunteer producer. Such a focus is appropriate to the interpretive paradigm of social science research. As described by Putnam,

interpretive approaches aim to explicate and, in some cases, to critique the subjective and consensual meanings that constitute social reality. . . . the interpretive approach is a generic category, one characterized by the centrality of meaning in social actions. (1983, 32)

As an amalgam of approaches, an interpretive perspective includes both naturalistic and critical traditions; the naturalistic is primarily descriptive, while the critical is focused on evaluation and emancipation, in part through self-reflection (Putnam 1983). This study represents a hybrid of the two approaches: it describes the experience of video production from the perspective of the producer, and encourages self-reflection and evaluation with an eye to individual and social empowerment.

As such, this study calls for an interpretive methodology that is congruent with the vision of public access, one that shares the public access view of information (in this case, video technology) as a means, not an end in itself, and also has in common the sense of self-growth and change that underlies the public access philosophy. The methodology must reflect the blend of naturalistic and critical approaches within the interpretive paradigm.

Such a methodology is provided by Dervin's Sense-Making, which allows for the application of a theoretic of personal empowerment within a self-directed learning experience and provides a means to follow the theoretic of change over time.⁽²⁾ The perspective of the experience is that constructed by, in the case of this study, the community producer.

Sense-Making
Sense-Making provides a theoretic, a methodology, and a set of data collection methods designed to study how people make sense of their worlds.⁽³⁾ According to Savolainen, "sense-making theory offers an inspiring user-centered approach" that "does in fact meet the minimum criteria of research paradigm" (1993, 26-27).

Sense-Making is consistent with the interpretive analytic, as well as the theoretic and methodological approaches directed by the public access, media education, and critical pedagogy literatures. As demanded by these literatures, Sense-Making provides the following for this study: (1) an actor-oriented approach; (2) an approach that views information seeking and use by humans as a means, not an end in itself; and (3) methods of data collection that attend to elements of evaluation and emancipation through self-reflection on the part of the informant.

Sense-Making privileges the perspective of the actor over that of the researcher; it also provides a set of self-reflective tools that the informant utilizes during the interview process. This self-analysis element encouraged by the Sense-Making process is analogous to aspects of empowerment described within the public access, media education, and critical pedagogy literatures. As such, in addition to Sense-Making's application in the field of information seeking and use, its theory and procedures make it ideal for this study. These theories, procedures, and applications are further discussed below.

Sense-Making: Theoretic and Methodological Overview. Sense-Making has been used for over 20 years in a wide variety of contexts. However, its primary application has been in the area of information seeking and use. Sense-Making's focus in the field of library and information science provides a context that is analogous to the public access setting applied in this study. Both settings involve people seeking information for reasons both purposive and nonpurposive; both circumstances involve the use of information seeking and use not as ends in themselves, but as means to other ends.

Sense-Making makes some ontological and epistemological assumptions that are useful as a template for looking at the manner in which humans make sense of their world. The ontological assumption is that reality is discontinuous, that reality is only in part patterned, and contains "gaps."

Epistemologically, Sense-Making assumes humans move through physical, cognitive, and emotional time/space based on the sense they make of the world. Humans are viewed as needing to make new sense at those times when they see themselves as facing internal (e.g., cognitive, emotional) and/or external (e.g., physical barriers, new situation) gaps. Then the individual construes information in such a manner as to create a new bridge or a revised sense--a bridge over the gap.

As a methodology, Sense-Making approaches this theoretic of the gap by circling attention among the key points portrayed in the metaphor in Figure 3: the situation involved, the gap encountered, the bridge constructed to traverse the gap, and the helps/utilities that resulted in bridging the gap. The situation is how the actor experiences self in time/space. The gap is the incompleteness for which the actor creates a bridge. The bridge consists of thoughts, feelings, ideas, and answers, as well as the criteria informants employ when utilizing these as materials with which to build the bridge. Helps include what is done with the thoughts, feeling, ideas and answers--how the actor sees himself or herself as facilitated by the bridge.⁽⁴⁾

Sense-Making: Data Collection. In the methods of data collection, Sense-Making builds on a core "time-line" interview, which is the method seen as most isomorphic tothe theoretic assumptions of Sense-Making. The time-line interview is a structured, open-ended interview that allows the informant to construct a perspective of information seeking and use relative to a self-constructed view of time and space. The informant describes in detail the events surrounding a particular situation. The responses are then triangulated in terms of the metaphor, focusing on the situation, gap, bridge, and helps, probing the manner in which the interviewee has constructed the event and the significance of this event to himself or herself.

The time-line interview is highly structured and relatively low in questions of specific topical content. The questions in a Sense-Making interview focus the informant's awareness on developing pictures in words of how he or she experienced the situation, gap, bridge, and helps. The informant supplies the content. The informant explicates a personal universe guided by the structure's attention to the informant's perception of a particular personal situation or experience, gaps he or she perceived and bridged, and the manner in which the informant was helped by his or her construction of this bridge.⁽⁵⁾

From these gaps, or questions and confusions, people and situations that helped or hindered a resolution to these gaps are probed. The context and significance into which the informant places these events are explored.

While the individual interview is the primary method of data collection within Sense-Making, group interviews have also been utilized that follow the Sense-Making theoretic.⁽⁶⁾

The rationale for utilizing both types of interviews in this study are articulated later in this chapter.

Sense-Making and This Study. As it applies to this study, the Sense-Making theoretic assumes that a person approaching the public access facility have encountered one or more discontinuities in his or her life, one or more gaps that he or she is seeking to bridge. Video production and training somehow, for this person, seems at least part of the bridge.

Such attempts by producers to make sense of their world links this study with those related to purposive information seeking and use. However, Sense-Making also allows for the exploration of nonpurposive attempts on the part of producers toward making sense. As suggested by the public access, media education, and critical pedagogy literatures, empowerment may arise from either purposive or nonpurposive actions. Sense-Making allows for consideration of both. At the same time, Sense-Making expands the context of the producer beyond the training experience by enabling the producer to articulate visions of empowerment that lie outside that defined by the video empowerment chart in chapter 1, as well as alternative visions of public access that are not related to empowerment.

Group and Individual Interviews
This study utilizes primarily the individual time-line interview as a method of data collection. However, group interviews are also employed, as they provide benefits that complement those of the solitary interview. As noted by Krueger, group interviews are "a particularly appropriate procedure to use when the goal is to explain how people regard an experience, idea, or event" (1988, 20); they also increase the sample size for qualitative research. Morgan (1988) agrees that group interviews are well suited "to topics of attitudes and cognitions." He recognizes that the strength of the group interview is in its ability to explore topics, and indicates that individual and group interviews complement each other within a research project (1988, 19).

In addition, the theoretic foundations of group interviews, as noted by Krueger (1988) and Morgan (1988, 1992), hold that attitudes are shaped in part by interaction, not solely in isolation.⁽⁷⁾ Given that the video creation process most often is conducted within a group context, group interviews are particularly appropriate. The group interview provides for data collection in a setting that is social in nature, permitting yet another circling of the responses provided by the informants in the group and individual interviews.⁽⁸⁾

In this study, the questions used in the group interviews arose from the video empowerment chart in chapter 1 as well as from Sense-Making theory. Responses by community producers provided an overview of the variety of perceptions toward empowerment and public access; these responses were used to refine the in-depth protocol and to select informants for individual interviews. The questions and selection processes for both group and individual interviews are described later in this chapter.

Research Site

The site of focus was the experiential setting of the public access arena. Specifically, Access Columbus TV (ACTV), in Columbus, Ohio, served as the test site, and the public access vision was tested as it relates to those active within the heart of the vision: community volunteer producers of public access programs. In 1992, ACTV received the Community Communications Award for Best Public Access Facility in the United States, as selected by the national community television organization, the Alliance for Community Media (ACM).

As a prototypical facility, ACTV (operated by Columbus Community Cable Access, Inc.) represents a site particularly suited to this test of the vision of public access. As stated by T. Andrew Lewis, Executive Director of the ACM,

This honor is reserved for the access operation which has consistently demonstrated outstanding achievements and promotion of access development over the course of time. The judges considered several aspects of your operation in reaching its decision, including overall performance, creative use of community resources, impact on the local community, contribution to national access development, ability to generate diverse programming and public participation and innovations in television production and applications. Columbus Community Cable Access' performance was truly outstanding in all of these areas. (ACTV 1992, 1)

Operations
ACTV is one of three cable channels operated in the Columbus area under a franchise agreement between the city of Columbus and local cable companies. ACTV offers programming created by the public at large; the other channels provide programs created by educational and governmental institutions. The educational access channel is under the supervision of an educational consortium; the City of Columbus operates the government access channel.

Columbus Community Cable Access, Inc. (CCCA) incorporated in 1980; the organization is governed by a community Board of Trustees.⁽⁹⁾ The current staff of ACTV numbers nine full-time and three part-time employees.⁽¹⁰⁾ Three of the full-time staff members are involved in training on a regular basis, while most staff members fill in as needed in training. All of the part-time employees have been hired exclusively as training instructors.

ACTV provides equipment for program production and for training in its use, schedules programs for cablecast on the public access channel, promotes channel programs and events, and maintains a corps of volunteers for production assistance. According to the ACTV 1991 Annual Report, the channel cablecast 16 hours a day, 7 days a week to a potential audience of 222,000 cable homes. Of this, 1,420.5 hours (2,173 programs) were first-run programming, with all but 260 hours produced locally. Attendees of technical workshops numbered 1,032; from 1984 to 1991, more than 5,500 persons were trained (3).

This study focuses on this group of trainees; in particular, on those who have become program producers and who submitted access programs in 1992 and 1993.

Trainees: Volunteers/Producers
At ACTV there are procedures for integrating newcomers into the production process. This orientation process is outlined in Figure 4. The process begins with the orientation meeting, at which the rules and operating procedures of the facility are explained. Following this meeting, a person is considered qualified to submit programs for cablecasting on the access channel.

In general, producers are persons who have taken responsibility for the production of a program and its submission to ACTV. These programs may have been created using equipment other than that of ACTV; the show may also have been created by others. In other words, producing a program does not necessarily involve becoming technically involved in a program. Such "armchair producers" might have no hands-on experience with the equipment, leaving the actual technical creation in the hands of others.

For persons interested in becoming more involved in the process of program production, a series of technical workshops provide training in equipment operation and program construction. Specific technical workshops are required for the use of each piece of equipment and, once completed, authorize the trainees to operate that equipment either for their own show or someone else's program. In the latter case, trainees act as volunteers, working primarily as part of the technical crew.

When a trainee completes one or more of the technical workshops and moves on to create his or her own program for submission to ACTV, he or she is considered a producer. These producers have accepted responsibility for a particular program; they may also volunteer to work as crew on other productions. Working as crew on another's program provides the volunteer producer with "volunteer hours"--a type of credit that may be applied to the cost of equipment rental.

It is this group of producers--who are also involved in the technical aspects of program production--that is at the heart of this inquiry. In particular, those producers who have been certified in one or more technical workshops, who are currently active at ACTV will be considered. For the purposes of this study, "active" is defined as having submitted one or more programs in the year starting July 1, 1992, and ending July 1, 1993.

This study will also involve those access producers who have "dropped out" of the "active" producer category. For the purposes of this study, "dropping out" is defined as having submitted one or more programs in the six months including January 1 and July 1, 1991, but not in the "active" time period between July 1, 1992 and July 1, 1993.

The inclusion of both those currently active in public access program production and those who have dropped out of program production is crucial. Over time, public access facilities experience a high dropout rate among community producers and volunteers. For the purposes of this study, those currently involved in program production are considered to be closest to the public access vision of empowerment as described in the video empowerment chart. Those who have dropped out of the process provide an interesting and important point of comparison with those who are currently participating in the creation of public access programs, and may shed significant insights on the viability of the public access vision of empowerment.

As discussed in chapter 1, it is possible to define empowerment from a variety of perspectives; the elements of a specific empowerment as represented in the video empowerment chart emerges from an interpretation of the literatures of public access, media education, and critical pedagogy. The focus of this study follows empowerment that is said to result from working with video equipment--previously seen to be "mystifying" in nature--and using this equipment in the Freirean sense of "speaking with one's own voice." Technical training is where this public access vision of empowerment is implemented; those assuming responsibility for programs have acted most concretely within the area of production. Hence, the "hands-on" producers--both active and dropout--constitute a more refined sample for this test of the public access vision than does a sample that includes the "armchair producers" and the volunteer crew.

Therefore, this dissertation focuses on producers who are also involved--or who have been involved in the past--in the technical aspects of program creation. Certainly "armchair producers," volunteer crew members, and additional groups ancillary to this study--including the viewing audience, the access staff members, and others--may be considered empowered in some ways by their contact with public access program production. However, they are not the focus of this study.

In focusing on technically trained active and inactive producers, the sample in this study draws from informants who meet the following criteria: (1) producers who have completed one or more of the technical workshops beyond the orientation session; and either (2) "active" producers who have submitted one or more programs during the time period July 1, 1992, to July 1, 1993; or (3) producers who submitted one or more programs during the time period of January 1, 1991, to July 1, 1991, but who have not submitted a program during the "active" period.

Details regarding the selection of the sample are discussed below.

Research Design

Data Collection
Collection of data took two forms: individual interviews and group interviews. Informants were offered a nominal monetary incentive for their participation in the group and individual interview processes.

Informant Selection
Theoretic. This study utilized purposive maximum variation sampling, characterized by Lincoln and Guba as "the sampling mode of choice" for naturalistic inquiry (1985, 201); purposive maximum variation sampling resembles the stratified sampling of quantitative research.

"Purposive" sampling (Lincoln and Guba 1985) and "theoretical" sampling (Glaser and Strauss 1970; Strauss and Corbin 1990) both refer to the desire to collect data with an eye to the emergence of theory grounded in the data. As such, dissimilar sources are sought out until the data compiled begins to repeat itself, achieving redundancy.

This study represents a cross between naturalistic and critical modes of interpretive research, as described by Putnam (1983). As such, it did not rigidly follow the characteristics of purposive sampling nor the naturalistic paradigm as set out by Lincoln and Guba (1985).⁽¹¹⁾

Sampling Formula. The sample for this study was ACTV active and dropout producers with technical training, as described above. Informants met one of the following criteria: (1) active producers who had recently submitted their first program(s); (2) active producers who had been producing shows for the longest period of time; (3) active producers who fell between the shortest and the longest time periods; and (4) dropout producers who had been producing for an unspecified length of time. See the group and individual sampling frames below (Figures 5 and 6).

An attempt was also made to ensure that respondents represented all three of the program categories established by ACTV: news and public affairs; arts, entertainment, and sports; and religious.⁽¹²⁾ Producers were grouped according to the category of their last program. Sample selection based primarily on program category was considered arbitrary, since community producers often create a variety of programs spanning several program classifications. Greater emphasis was placed on the length of time since technical training and the time since submission of the first program.

The use of time and program categories as factors in respondent selection were intended to expedite a maximum variation directed by theoretical and purposive sampling. The goal was to discern differences and similarities among producers with differing program interests. Utilizing the longest, shortest, and middle time periods from technical training as a factor in sample selection was intended to increase the possibility of divergent experiences.

A total of 28 community producers were interviewed for this study; 24 participated in the group interviews and an additional 4 were active only in the individual interviews. Of the 9 in-depth personal interviews, 5 had been group participants and 4 had not.

Qualitative research often operates with a smaller sample size compared to that of quantitative research. Patton observes: "What is crucial is that the sampling procedures and decisions be fully described, explained, and justified so that information users and peer reviewers have the appropriate context for judging the sample" (1990, 186). Accordingly, the method of selecting the sample is described below.

Sample Selection: Group Interviews. The sample was obtained by searching ACTV public records to create a list of producers who had submitted programs between July 1, 1992, and July 1, 1993--the "active" time period of this study. An additional list was culled of producers who had submitted programs between January 1 and July 1, 1991. Persons on the former list were considered active producers; those on the latter 1991 list, but not on the active list, were considered dropout producers. Persons known by the ACTV program director to have no ACTV technical training were dropped, resulting in 97 active and 37 dropout producers.

From these lists ACTV technical records were searched; persons were removed that were not listed as having technical training, as confirmed by the ACTV program director. Current or former employees of ACTV were also removed. The active list then totaled 89 producers. After eliminating persons know to be active as crew members but not active as producers, the dropout list totaled 19 producers.

An attempt was made to contact all persons on these lists to verify training status and dates, program submission dates and categories, and active or inactive status. Dropouts were asked if they considered themselves "inactive"; all contacted agreed with this categorization. In all, 55 active producers and 12 dropout producers were contacted; 51 of the active producers and 9 of the dropout producers agreed in principle to participate in the study.

At this point, names were ordered according to the date of first training as recalled by the producers.⁽¹³⁾ These were then divided according to length of time since first training, resulting in the following divisions: short (1990-1993), mid (1986-1989), long (1982-1985), and dropout (1985-1990).⁽¹⁴⁾

Repeated attempts were then made to contact all 51 active producers and 9 dropout producers and to invite them to group interviews. Of these, 33 active producers and 7 dropout producers agreed to participate in the group interviews; these were mailed confirmation letters with a modest monetary incentive to encourage attendance. Final attendance in the active producer group interviews numbered 19; attendance in the dropout producer group interview numbered 5 (see Figure 5).

Sample Selection: Individual Interviews. Producers were selected for individual interviews after group interviews were completed. Selection was made according to criteria described below; all producers contacted agreed to participate. Producers were paid a small honoraria for their efforts.

A total of 9 personal interviews were conducted; 5 informants were selected from among the group interview participants, and 4 informants did not participate in the group interviews. Again, selection was conducted in this manner to provide the widest possible variation in the sample.

Informants were chosen judgmentally according to the sampling frame in Figure 6. The following criteria were used: (1) representativeness of maximum variation, primarily as evaluated from responses during the group interview or telephone calls, but also involving demographic and situational factors; and (2) the producer's ability to articulate his or her thoughts, ideas, and feelings, as seen from participation within the group interviews or during telephone discussions. Judgmental sampling is in keeping with the structured/flexible approach possible within interpretive research.

Group Protocol
The protocol for the group interviews followed the Sense-Making theoretic by circling the situations, gaps, bridges, and helps sensed by the producer throughout the production experience. In addition, the interactive process provided a structure that allowed people to interpret and question their own experiences, as well as those of others.

Within the group interview process, four major rounds of the group were made, each addressing one of the four questions presented in the group protocol. In the rounds, each informant talked in turn, giving both dominant and less assertive participants a more equitable opportunity to speak.

The group protocol first explored the situation that brought the participant to public access, then moved to the most memorable experience with public access, most memorable training experience, and thoughts on the vision of public access.

The following is an outline of the procedure used by the facilitator in the group interviews:

1. Participants were received; the procedures were outlined. Self-introductions were made in turn around the table. At this point, the group was closed to additional participants.

2. Informants were asked to describe what brought them to public access television.

3. Informants were asked to describe their most significant experience with public access. Responses were probed and, if appropriate, respondents framed their experiences with an eye to how they helped or hindered the informant, the community, and society.

4. Informants were asked to describe moments during their technical training that stand out in their minds. Responses were probed and, again, helps and hindrances were explored.

5. Participants received a list of three positive statements and three countering statements of public access philosophy. Respondents provided their perceptions of the public access vision. Again, responses were probed and framed according to helps and hindrances to the informant, the community, and society.

6. A sheet requesting demographic data was distributed; respondents completed the forms and returned them to the group facilitator.

The group protocol used in this study is provided in Appendix A.

Based on the completed group interviews, revisions were made in the individual protocol; this was then pilot tested three times.⁽¹⁶⁾ Two of these tests were with focus group members; the final pilot test involved a group participant (Alfred) and is included in this study.

Individual Protocol
The protocol for the individual interviews observed the Sense-Making theoretic by providing for a triangulation of interviewee responses with a modicum of content-specific direction. As such, questions allowed for open-ended responses, with follow-up questions aimed at completing the Sense-Making triangle of situation-gap-bridge-help.

Although some interpretive researchers argue against the use of structured instruments within qualitative research, McCracken notes that a structured instrument is indispensable for a lengthy, in-depth qualitative interview and "does not preempt the `open-ended' nature of the qualitative interview" (1988, 24-25). He argues that structured instruments free the researcher to focus on the informant and allow for the orderly collection of data.

The protocol asked respondents to focus on a particular moment chosen by the respondent according to certain criteria. Questions then triangulated the responses as directed by the Sense-Making method.

The following is an outline of the questions in the individual protocol for public access program producers:

1. Overall. Informants were asked to describe in general their work with public access television, including the number of programs worked on as producer or crew.

2-7. Incidents. Producers were asked to identify a specific moment in their experience with public access according to criteria listed below. Each incident was then explored with a series of probes, also described below.

Producers were asked to think back to a moment during their involvement with public access that reflected:

2. Their best experience.

3. Their most difficult, hardest, and/or worst experience.

4. When they looked at the television industry, society as a whole, or television programs "differently"--more critically or analytically.

5. When their efforts were wasted energy.

6. When their personal vision of access was working well.

7. When the public access vision was not working well. (Respondents were responding to three statements related to the public access vision.)

8-10. Impacts. Producers were asked to evaluate their entire experience with public access and to focus on a moment that reflected their experience's impact on:

8. Their life.

9. Their community.

10. Columbus.

11. The society as a whole.

With a program or impact providing a temporal/spatial anchor, each response was then probed:

P1-P8. Probes. For each incident and impact listed above, informants were asked for the following:

P1. Ideas, thoughts and/or conclusions they had at that particular moment in time.

P2. Feelings and/or emotions at that moment.

P3. Questions and/or confusions they had at that particular point in time. These confusions may have related to things they thought or felt or to things people did or said to them.

P4. Helps: Informants were asked if they received helps at that point, including things people did or said, or anything else the informant considered helpful. Each help mentioned was then probed for its utility to the respondent, utilizing the Sense-Making "chain," where responses are probed repeatedly.

P5. Hindrances: Respondents were asked if anything stood in their way at that particular moment. Each hindrance was then "chained" to determine how it operated as a barrier to the respondent.

P6. Helps wanted: Informants were asked what might have helped them at that particular point in time. Each response was probed utilizing the "chain" to determine the manner in which each might have helped.

P7. Related to personal life: Responses to the incident or impact were recounted, and the respondent was asked if these related to the informant's life in some way.

P8. Other thoughts: The respondent was asked if there was any additional information he or she wished to add to the comments.

The following questions concluded the interview:

12. Demographic Data. Respondents were asked to provide information about their education, age, race, sex, work status, and parents' work.

13. Additional Comments. Respondents were asked if they wished to provide any additional comments or information.

The individual protocol used in this study is provided in Appendix B.

As with the group protocol, the individual protocol probed the question of empowerment deductively and inductively. It allowed a means of examining the video empowerment chart directly, and also used the Sense-Making analytic as a means of addressing the world as seen by the actor.

Field Operations
Group Interviews. Four group interviews were conducted with a total of 24 participants. The groups were constituted according to the shortest/middle/longest/ dropout columns in the sampling frame in Figure 5; each group contained producers that had roughly the same amount of experience producing video programs.

The group interviews took place on August 19, 23, 24, and 25, 1993, in the conference room of the Ohio Legal Center on the Ohio State University campus. Meetings were 2 hours in length and were recorded on audio and video tape; these recordings were then transcribed.⁽¹⁷⁾ Facilitators included a Professor of Communication at Ohio State University and the study's primary researcher, a doctoral candidate with the Department of Communication.

Group participants included 6 women and 18 men. Of these, 5 women and 10 men were primarily of European descent; 1 woman and 7 men were primarily of African descent; and 1 man reported having "5 different ethnic groups in my blood."

Individual Interviews. Nine respondents were interviewed for this study; 8 interviews were conducted throughout the fall of 1993; a final session took place in the spring of 1994. With one exception, interviews were conducted at various branches of the Columbus Metropolitan Library.

Interviews were conducted by the primary researcher; they ranged in length from 2 hours to 5.5 hours. The interviews were recorded on audiotape, and handwritten notes were taken during the interview; interviews were then transcribed.

Interview participants included 5 women and 4 men. Of these, 3 women and 1 man were primarily of European descent, and 2 women and 3 men were primarily of African descent.

With one exception, informants were selected from the previously compiled lists of active and dropout producers; the exception was Denise. While Denise had completed her first training workshop in 1991, her last training session was in 1993, and she had submitted her first program only weeks prior to the interview in December of 1993.

While other study participants also had attended training workshops in 1991, Denise became the most recent addition to the active list of producers, warranting a change in the sampling formula in an attempt to optimize maximum variation. Heretofore, the most recent producers participating in the group interviews had been trained in 1990 or 1991; they had submitted their first programs in 1991 or 1992. Producers trained in 1992 or 1993 and submitting their first program during these time periods had elected not to participate in this study.⁽¹⁸⁾

This modification of the sample is consistent with the principles of interpretive research, where the sample is often selected and adjusted as the process of data collection unfolds, in part to achieve saturation and redundancy (Glaser and Strauss 1970; Lincoln and Guba 1985; Strauss and Corbin 1990).

Interview Participants. Anecdotal evidence within the practitioner literature of public access has described a wide variety of backgrounds and experiences on the part of persons involved in public access. The people taking part in this study reflected a similar heterogeneity.

Participants included persons with high school educations and persons with university graduate degrees. The respondents were without jobs, and held positions in the mainstream media; they worked as bus drivers, legislative assistants, high school teachers, data entry operators, computer specialists, ministers, engineers, entrepreneurs, musicians, and letter carriers. Income levels varied, cultural backgrounds were mixed, parental work histories were widely diverse, and respondents spanned ages 20 to 63.

Analytic Guidelines
Analysis of the data in this study generally follows the guidelines of the interpretive, qualitative, naturalistic/critical inquiry described by J. Anderson (1987), Crabtree and Miller (1992), Lincoln and Guba (1985), Patton (1990), Putnam (1983), and Strauss and Corbin (1990).

As mentioned by and Glaser and Strauss (1970), Lincoln and Guba (1985), and Strauss and Corbin (1990), the primary thrust of interpretive inquiry is to develop grounded theory. Strauss and Corbin (1990) imply a dialectical process by which deductive and inductive analysis interact, which seems to be a part of the process of creating a theory that emerges from the data.

This study favors the positions of Strauss and Corbin (1990) and Patton (1990) regarding the necessity of both inductive and deductive analyses within an interpretive framework; this is in keeping with the "middle road" noted by Rogers (1982) and Beltran (1976) earlier in this chapter. As such, this study disagrees with Lincoln and Guba (1985), who argue that naturalistic inquiry must employ solely inductive analysis.

In addition, this study utilizes modest quantitative methods of reporting results; these are used merely as an indicator of activity within the cells of the video empowerment chart; they also help direct attention to more qualitative indicators provided in chapter 5 in the form of themes. This is also in keeping with the "middle road" advocated by Rogers (1982) and Beltran (1976).

Analytic Phases
Individual and group interviews for this study were transcribed, coded, and analyzed using deductive and inductive analyses that are primarily qualitative in nature. Chapter 4 focuses on the deductive analysis by quantitatively tracing the activity within the cells of the video empowerment chart presented in chapter 1. The findings from this activity are then utilized in chapter 5, which focuses primarily on an inductive analyses by investigating themes that arise from the interview data.

Deductive Phase. This study operates deductively by setting a priori categories established from an analysis of the media education and critical pedagogy literatures as described in the video empowerment chart in chapter 1. As a priori categories, they involve deductive analysis in that they evolved from the literatures, removed from the actual experience of the study participants.

Responses from informants are coded and analyzed in keeping with the parameters established by the deductive chart. Chapter 4 presents the results of coding and analysis primarily in numeric form, providing an overview of the amount of respondent talk from the perspective of the video empowerment chart.

Patton (1990, 406) notes that the discovery of patterns and themes within the data is a creative process involving the judgment of the qualitative researcher. The use of numeric indicators in this study provides a method of noting patterns within the data as they relate to the video empowerment chart. The findings then add to a discussion of inductive themes in chapter 5.

Inductive Phase. The patterns described in chapter 4 will be addressed in chapter 5 as part of a discussion of themes emerging from the data; the relationships within and among themes also will be examined.

The use of categories and themes to analyze qualitative data is discussed by Lincoln and Guba (1985), Patton (1990), and Strauss and Corbin (1990). This study follows the inductive analysis described by Strauss and Corbin (1990) and Patton (1990); these authors note that themes are not divorced from any a priori categories derived deductively, but emerge in relation to the focus of the study as directed in part by the research literature.

Patton notes that "sensitizing concepts"--concepts that have their origins in the research literature--allow for inductive application by examining the manner in which the concept is exhibited in a particular context (1990, 391).

Accordingly, the themes to be investigated in this study are directed by the research questions as outlined above. The focus in this chapter is on inductive themes related to the "sensitizing concepts" of media literacy, media demystification, and empowerment, the latter defined as an awareness of self, others, and society, and actions to implement these awarenesses--particularly actions to address inequities in society. As sensitizing concepts, this study operates inductively by investigating the manner in which these concepts are manifest within the context of the producer's world.

Strauss and Corbin agree that the research literature contributes to the development of the categories in the study, but warn that borrowed concepts from the literature carry with them standard definitions and meanings. These meanings may inhibit the comprehensive exploration of a theme by both the researcher and readers (1990, 69). These authors suggest methods for avoiding such conceptual blinders and for developing an analytic depth--a "theoretical sensitivity" (75-76); particularly notable are the strategies of constantly questioning the parameters of concepts and comparing themes.

Accordingly, while the themes explored in this chapter are related to the sensitizing concepts described above, they are defined more from the perspective of the data than the research literature.

The procedures suggested by Strauss and Corbin reverberate in the work of Lincoln and Guba (1985), who advance the use of "negative case analysis" as a check on analysis. This technique involves seeking out exceptions to the defined themes and categories in order to push the limits of analysis.⁽¹⁹⁾

As discussed earlier in this chapter, Sense-Making focuses on the gap-breaching activity engaged in by people as they move through their life path. As part of the analysis, Sense-Making also focuses on the gaps or struggles of the informants (Dervin 1983). As such, Sense-Making analytic techniques parallel those described above by Strauss and Corbin (1990) and Lincoln and Guba (1985).

The inductive analysis in this study utilizes the techniques of constant questioning (Strauss and Corbin 1990), "negative case analysis" (Lincoln and Guba 1985), and "circling the gap" (Dervin 1983).

Patton summarizes the focus of qualitative research as it relates to deductive and inductive analysis:

Theories about what is happening in a setting are grounded in direct program experience rather than imposed on the setting a priori through hypotheses or deductive constructions. (1990, 44)

This describes the focus of chapter 5: to center inductively on the experiences of the producers participating in this study, using deductive sensitizing concepts, and integrating the findings discovered through the quantitative overview of the data as presented in chapter 4.

Analytic Frames
The structure for the presentation of quantitative and qualitative data primarily involves two frames of reference: the public access "road map" to empowerment as outlined in the video empowerment chart, and the life path as conceptualized by Sense-Making. These were discussed previously in this chapter and in chapter 1; a synopsis of the essential elements of these two frames follows.

The Vision Road Map. In chapter 1 the metaphor of the "road map" was used to describe the video empowerment chart. The chart details the specifics of the public access vision of empowerment, where video training takes one on a journey leading through the map points of media literacy and demystification, with a final destination of empowerment. The formula used to describe this vision road map (and the chart) is:

media literacy ---> media demystification = empowerment (awareness of self, others, and society; action to change relationships in these areas)

Although the metaphor of the map is useful in describing the video empowerment chart, it is well to keep in mind that the map (and the chart) describe a dynamic process of movement on the part of the producer, rather than fixed points in time or space.

The vision road map is based on the video empowerment chart; as such, it reflects the aspirations and visions of the public access movement as a whole. Therefore, the road map is based on an institutional perspective, rather than a participant perspective.

The road map is encountered by producers in the form of the ACTV orientation process described earlier in this chapter. The orientation process reflects an attempt to implement the access vision at a specific facility.

The framework of the road map drives the research questions of this study and provides the sensitizing concepts of media literacy, media demystification, and empowerment around which the quantitative and qualitative results are organized in chapters 4 and 5.

The Sense-Making Life Path. Earlier in this chapter the Sense-Making epistemology was presented. Humans are assumed to be moving through a physical, cognitive, and emotional time and space (their "life path") based on the sense they make of the world. The Sense-Making model assumes both an ontological and an epistemological mandate to make sense in a world where neither reality nor human artifacts provide complete instruction. Thus, using the Sense-Making perspective, humans are seen to be needing to make new sense at those times when they see themselves as facing internal (e.g., cognitive, emotional) and external (e.g., physical barriers, new situations) gaps. At these moments, the individual construes information (defined broadly) in such a manner as to create a new bridge or a revised sense--a bridge over the gap. The Sense-Making triangle is presented in Figure 7.

Methodologically, Sense-Making circles attention to the situation involved, the gap encountered, the bridge constructed to span the gap, and the helps/uses that resulted in bridging the gap. This study focuses on the life path as it intersects the access experience.

As mentioned earlier in this chapter, this study adopts the Sense-Making theoretic and assumes that a person approaching the public access facility has encountered a discontinuity in his or her life and is seeking to bridge this gap. For this person, video production and training somehow seem to be at least a part of the bridge.

Sense-Making differs from the vision road map in that it is focused on the perspective of the individual rather than that of the institution.

Synthesis of Analytic Frameworks. The frameworks of the Sense-Making life path and the vision road map are interconnected. The life path provides a contextual placement of the access experience within the life of the producer. The producer's access experience includes an encounter with the vision road map (empowerment through video training as defined by the chart). Figure 8 illustrates the synthesis of these frameworks.

Figure 8 reflects the various dimensions of the frameworks of the access vision road map and the life path as they impact the deductive and inductive analyses of this study.

The access vision provides a focus on the research questions, sensitizing concepts from the research literature, and a framework by which to organize the findings. This frame is emphasized particularly in the deductive analysis in chapter 4.

The life path provides an orientation from the producer's context to the sensitizing concepts of media literacy, media demystification, and empowerment. This perspective is emphasized particularly in chapter 5.

The resultant frame privileges the perspective of the institution over that of the individual in the deductive analysis, and privileges the perspective of individual over that of the institution in the inductive analysis. Inductively, the frame positions the access experience as one of the producer's many gap-bridging activities on his or her life path. The access vision's path to empowerment through video training and participation is conceptualized here as an institutional structure that is experienced by the individual as part of his or her total access experience. The institutional frame--including definitions of media literacy, media demystification, and empowerment--may or may not hold relevance in the individual's world; the institutional structure is of use to the producer as it serves the producer's gap-bridging needs.

The frames presented here are not static; there is a constant interplay within and among the structures. The frames offer tools for analyzing the quantitative data and the themes emerging from this study. The application of these frames is as follows:

The life path offers an orientation from the point of view of the producer; his or her experiences form the basis of the themes explored in chapter 5.

The road map offers the framework by which quantitative and qualitative data will be presented: utilizing the sensitizing concepts of media literacy, media demystification, and empowerment.

The video empowerment chart provides a framework through which the data collected through interviews were evaluated. Responses were categorized following the framework provided by the chart definitions in Figure 2, which was described in chapter 1 and is reproduced below.

Areas of the chart served as the basis for categories through which interview data was analyzed deductively. Responses were coded, first according to the rows of the areas of focus, and then by the columns of the empowerment domains, with assignment within the subcells of cognition/reflection and action negotiated throughout the coding process.

Responses were included only if the respondent indicated that the experience was a result of access participation. Data was judged by one coder: the primary researcher of this study.⁽²⁰⁾

Subsequent to coding, the nine individual interview respondents were individually judged according to their amount of talk within each of the 30 subcells of the chart (cognition/reflection or action). Using an ordinal-level judgmental scale, responses were characterized as none, and represented by a zero (0); a few responses, represented by a one (1); a moderate amount of responses, represented by a two (2); many responses, represented by a three (3); and quite a few responses, represented by a four (4).

Amount of talk was defined by the coder (the author) as the number of different references the respondent made during the interview process that were judged as falling within a particular subcell of the chart. A reference was judged as different if it involved an entirely distinct situation or if the respondent circled back to the same situation but with a slightly different emphasis.

Coding and judging of responses were continuously adjusted by the author until intracoder agreement was reached on every judgment.⁽²¹⁾

The numeric results of the coding are presented in-depth in chapter 4; the section below will explore the initial results of coding and analysis and suggest methods of analysis that are pursued in chapters 4 and 5.

Figures 9, 10, and 11 represent examples of the responses as they were coded in relation to the video empowerment chart. The definitional chart (Figure 2) used in the coding operations described above has been expanded to include these examples. The figures present the examples according to the columns of the empowerment domains: Figure 9 displays the column of the production domain, Figure 10 indicates the column of the personal domain, and Figure 11 represents the column of the societal domain.

In the deductive analysis in chapter 4, the frequency of talk within the cells is analyzed. The numbers are based on responses similar to the examples in Figures 9, 10, and 11.

The examples in these figures also suggest the manner in which the chart relates to the inductive themes discussed in chapter 5. The inductive analysis focuses on the interplay within the cells and subcells, and their relationships with other cells and subcells.

For example, in Figure 9, the cell at the intersection of the row of the canon of production and the column of the production domain shows cognitions, reflections, and actions on the part of the respondents. This cell is considered an element within a discussion of media literacy--the "reading" and "writing" of television programs. Tom, a long-time producer, provides a typical response that exemplifies activity within the subcell of cognition/reflection, and the subcell of action:

Tom: ... Some things just scare people, and television is a scary thing if you don't look at it with an objective, you know, point to it. That objective point is getting to your viewing audience to give them something you think that they desire to see or hear. Because if you don't have that objective point they can cut you off. I've had people tell me that -- see my objective is not ACTV helping this church. That's not my objective. My objective on ACTV is just allowing people to see who Jesus Christ is and let them make their own choice, okay. Because I know that the Lord is the One that deals with this church, you know ... (b4P7A).

Here Tom not only is referring to the necessity of setting a goal for a video program, he also establishes that he sets such a goal for his own production: letting his audience come to know Jesus Christ. In so doing, Tom exhibits the cognitive, reflective, and action dimensions of the cell: he is aware of the necessity of establishing a program goal (cognitive), he connects this with his own situation (reflective), and he implements these awarenesses in his program (action).

In meeting the cognitive, reflective, and action dimensions of the cell, Tom would fit the qualifications of a moderate-level test for empowerment within a production context. Since he did not clearly state a relationship between his program and societal change, his response does not fit the more stringent test for empowerment described by Freire, as discussed in chapters 1 and 2.⁽²²⁾

In addition to the relationships within the cell described above, Tom's response above also connects to other cells of the chart. In this case, Tom's objective of reaching an audience is related to the cell at the intersection of the row of "others" and the column of the production domain.⁽²³⁾

This example suggests the benefits of exploring themes within the data as part of the inductive analysis, rather than proceeding cell by cell across the rows of the areas of focus or the column of the empowerment domains. Tom's response does fit neatly within the imposed institutional framework provided by the video empowerment chart; however, his comments take on additional relevance when they are placed within the context of recurring themes shared by other producers in this study. In Tom's case, themes related to media literacy and an awareness of a viewing audience are evident; these themes and others are described and explored in greater detail later in chapter 5.

Summary

The literatures of public access, media education, and critical pedagogy direct an actor-oriented, qualitative study within the interpretive paradigm of social science research.

This dissertation utilizes the theoretic and methodologies of Sense-Making in an investigation of empowerment as it related to community producers at a public access cable television facility in Columbus, Ohio. Data collection used in-depth, open-ended, structured group and individual interviews. Informants were selected through purposive maximum variation sampling techniques. Data analysis involves both deductive and inductive approaches, utilizing numeric indicators of frequency of talk (chapter 4) and an analysis of themes (chapter 5).

1. This is drawn primarily from Freire; it also includes contemporary critical scholars such as Giroux, McLaren, and Giroux and McLaren.

2. In fact, Freire, who is at the foundation of critical pedagogy as applied in this study, also informs Sense-Making, making this methodology particularly appropriate to this dissertation. See Dervin (1983, 1989a, 1992).

3. This discussion of Sense-Making is drawn from Atwood and Dervin (1982), Dervin (1983, 1989b, 1992); Dervin, Harlock, Atwood, and Garzona (1980); Dervin, Jacobson, and Nilan (1982); Dervin, Nilan, and Jacobson (1981); and Savolainen (1993). The above relate to the utilization of Sense-Making in the field of information science. This discussion also draws on the use of Sense-Making within a mass media context, as in Dervin (1989a).

4. Figure adapted from Dervin and Clark (1987a, 27)

5. As used in this dissertation, "perception" moves beyond simple visual sensation and refers to the construction of a perspective from which one experiences and defines the world. This is related to a concept of perception described by Merleau-Ponty (1962).

6. For the application of Sense-Making to group interviews, see Dervin (1991) and Dervin and Clark (1987a, 1987b). Krueger describes an approach to questioning within group interviews that is congruent with Sense-Making: participants are encouraged to establish a context for their answers by "thinking back" and anchoring themselves in a particular time/space situation while considering their responses (1988, 65).

7. I also note a similarity between certain aspects of the group interview process and Freire's "conscientizing groups."

8. In this study the group interviews are considered secondary to the individual interviews. Krueger (1988) notes that drawbacks to the group process include an inability to follow through on individual responses and check individual levels of awareness. Such weaknesses would miss the questions of individual empowerment that are vital to this study.

In addition, group interviews traditionally involve participants who do not know one another. For this study this is quite difficult given the relatively small pool of community producers, the even smaller number of ACTV trainers, and the social nature of the public access experience.

As such, the group process provides a valuable addendum to the basic data collected by individual interviews; it does not replace the solitary interviews.

9. Prior to CCCA's incorporation in 1980, individual cable companies in the Columbus area provided some public access to equipment and channels. Some of the respondents in this study were active producers during that time period.

10. The full-time positions include Executive Director, Operations Director, Executive Assistant, Program Coordinator, Training Coordinator, Production Coordinator, Video Specialist, Production Assistant, and Secretary/Receptionist.

11. Within interpretive inquiry, a variety of approaches are often utilized to circle the subject of investigation. Rogers (1982) notes varying approaches to communication research presented by the "empirical" and the "critical" schools, as well as the road between these, as established by Latin American scholars such as Freire and Beltran.

This study reflects this "middle road" in the amalgam of methods used in respondent selection.

12. A minor program category was not included in this study: public service announcements. Active producers within this category had also submitted programs in the other program categories, and were included in those categories.

13. ACTV records regarding training had recently been computerized, and were not judged to be entirely reliable prior to 1989. The dates provided by ACTV and the respondents did not differ significantly.

14. These also corresponded to initial groupings by the program director prior to telephone contact with the producers.

The years involving the dropouts are provided for information only; they were not a factor in deciding membership in this category.

15. A pilot individual interview was conducted with a participant from the group interview.

16. The individual protocol evolved through eight revisions and two pilot tests prior to the group interviews.

17. Other procedures related to the conduct of the group interviews generally followed those outlined by Dervin (1991); Dervin and Clark (1987a, 1987b); Greenbaum (1988); Krueger (1988); and Morgan (1988, 1992, 1993).

18. One producer who declined to participate said, "My show is too simple; I wouldn't have that much to say in a focus group." He also declined an individual interview.

Upon completion of one or more technical workshops, many people work as volunteer crew on other shows before producing their own program. During this time period, volunteers hone their production skills.

It may be that many new producers require a period of time before they feel comfortable talking about their experiences, or have a context in which to place these experiences.

19. Lincoln and Guba adapt the technique of negative case analysis from Kidder, and provide this warning:

The reader should be forewarned, however, that Kidder takes an avowedly conventional posture; one might regard her work as one those attempts at striking a compromise between the "qualitative and quantitative paradigms." Nevertheless her treatment is instructive, and we shall draw heavily upon it. (1985, 308)

As discussed in chapter 3, this study avowedly employs methodological practices that include an amalgam of perspectives in an attempt to circle the phenomenon under investigation.

20. As the single coder of the interview material, I am aware of the experiences and agendas the researcher brings to the coding process, and the manner in which these interests can unintentionally foreground certain aspects of the data. I consistently utilized this reflectivity when coding the data; it helped me adopt a rather conservative approach to coding.

21. For a discussion of intracoder and intercoder agreement within qualitative analysis, see Miles and Huberman (1984, 63).

22. In the interest of clarity, the cognition/reflection subcell will be referred to as the cognition subcell throughout the remainder of this study.

The composite term "cognition/reflection" was used in order to recognize the differing perspectives on awareness within the selected critical pedagogy literature: awareness as simple cognition, awareness as cognition and reflection, and the more stringent awareness linked with action.

The use of the term "cognition" includes a recognition of these contentions.

23. Tom is not listed in Figure 9 as an example within this cell.

Return to the top of this chapter. Chapter 3.
Return to the starting page. "Tracing the Vision."
Return to the full Cover Pages and Table of Contents.