Higgins: "Tracing the Vision," Chapter 4

Higgins, John W. 1994. "Tracing the Vision: A Study of Community Volunteer Producers, Public Access Cable Television, and Empowerment." Dissertation. Ohio State U. Ann Arbor: UMI. 9517017. Notes appear at the bottom of this chapter.

All pages of this site copyright John W. Higgins 1994. Permission is granted to use these materials for non-commercial, educational purposes, with proper citation.

For a text version of Chapter 4. Not yet available.

CHAPTER IV

DEDUCTIVE DATA ANALYSIS

Overview

As stated previously, the focus of this dissertation is to test the implementation and viability of the public access vision of empowerment through media demystification and visual literacy that is said to result from video production practice. It is this vision of empowerment that will be examined in this chapter, employing the video empowerment chart described in chapter 1 and utilizing primarily deductive, quantitative analysis.

Specifically, this study tests the public access vision of empowerment by asking the following questions: (1) Based on their public access experiences, do producers of public access programs have an awareness of the media's structure and operation, including a sense of the codes of television? (2) If such an awareness exists, does the awareness of media's structure, operation, and codes assist producers in defining a sense of self, others, and society? (3) If producers exhibit the awareness described above, do they take action to implement these awarenesses? (4) Does action to implement awarenesses include actions that address inequities, particularly within the societal realm?

As described in chapter 3, this chapter addresses these questions by analyzing the data deductively, employing primarily quantitative methods. The findings are then utilized in the qualitative analysis in chapter 5.

Presentation of Quantitative Results

Analytic Framework

As described in chapter 3, the access vision road map--as a metaphor for the video empowerment chart--provides the framework by which the data will be presented in this chapter. The formula used to describe the map (and the chart) is:

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

The data below are organized with an eye to the access map as represented by the video empowerment chart. As discussed in chapter 3, data will be presented as they relate to the chart within a simple quantitative context: a counting of the amount of talk by producers judged to be located within a specific cell of the chart.

The data are presented in three passes. The first looks at the average amount of talk ratings across the deductive chart. The second pass focuses on the percentage of respondents judged as having any talk in the cells of the chart. The final pass concentrates on the percentage of respondents judged as having a great deal of talk in the cells of the chart. Each of these passes illuminates slightly different, but interconnected, aspects of the data.

In each pass, tables provide numeric data according to the following: overall cells (both cognition and action subcells), cognition subcells alone, and action subcells alone. Figures then illustrate the numeric data and compare results within the tables.

Average Ratings

Method. Chapter 3 details the methods by which scores were obtained as a result of coding of individual informant responses. These scores are presented in Appendix E.⁽¹⁾ The scores within the cells were then summed and divided by 270 (30 subcells × 9 respondents) to provide an average amount of talk ratings across the deductive chart.

Average Ratings: Overall. Table 1 provides average ratings across all 15 chart cells (cognition and action), within the rows of the areas of focus and the columns of the empowerment domains. The table represents averages computed according to a maximum possible score of 8 (cognition = 4 + action = 4).An analysis of Table 1 indicates the following patterns:

The greatest amount of talk overall (cognition + action) is related to production. This takes place in of the canon of production (3.1), the production domain (2.4), and the intersection of these two (4.7).

The least amount of talk overall (cognition + action) is related to non-media institutional relationships (1.0), the societal domain (1.9), and the intersection of the non-media institutional relationships and the personal domain (0.4).

Figure 12 illustrates the interior of Table 1.

Average Ratings: Cognition. Table 2 provides average ratings across only the 15 cognition subcells of the chart, calculated according to a maximum possible score of 4. An analysis of Table 2 yields the following patterns:

The greatest amount of talk judged as cognition within an area of focus is in the category "others" (2.3). This is followed by the canon of production (1.9), media organization (1.7), self and self life (1.3), and non-media institutional relationships (0.8).

The greatest amount of talk judged as cognition among the empowerment domains is shared by the columns of the production and personal domains (1.7). The least amount of talk occurs within the societal domain (1.5).

The greatest amount of talk judged as cognition occurs (1) at the intersection of "others" and the personal domain (2.7); and (2) at the intersection of self and self life and the personal domain (2.7). These are followed closely by talk occurring at the intersection of the canon of production and the production domain (2.6).

The least amount of talk judged as cognition occurs at the intersection of the row of non-media institutional relationships and the column of the personal domain (0.2).

Figure 13 illustrates the interior of Table 2.

Average Ratings: Action. Table 3 provides average ratings across only the 15 action subcells of the chart, calculated according to a maximum possible score of 4. An analysis of Table 3 provides the following patterns:

The greatest amount of talk judged as action among the areas of focus is within the canon of production (1.7). This is followed by "others" (0.6), media organization (0.5), self and self life 0.3), and non-media institutional relationships (0.2).

The greatest amount of talk judged as action among the empowerment domains is the production domain (0.7). This is followed by the personal domain (0.5) and the societal domain (0.4).

The greatest amount of talk judged as action occurs at the intersection of the row of the canon of production and the column of the production domain (2.1).

The least amount of talk judged as action occurs at the intersection of the row of the canon of production and the column of the production domain (0.1).

Figure 14 illustrates the interior of Table 3.

Table 1:

Average Rating of Amount of Talk:

Overall (Cognition + Action)

Area

Production Personal Societal Average

Canon | 4.7 2.9 1.7 | 3.1

Media | 2.2 1.4 2.8 | 2.1

Non-Media | 0.7 0.4 1.9 | 1.0

Others | 3.0 3.2 2.4 | 2.9

Self | 1.2 3.1 0.6 | 1.6

__________________________________________________________

Domain Average 2.4 2.2 1.9 2.1

Table 2:

Average Rating of Amount of Talk:

Cognition Only

Area

Production Personal Societal Average

Canon | 2.6 1.9 1.3 | 1.9

Media | 1.8 1.0 2.2 | 1.7

Non-Media | 0.6 0.2 1.7 | 0.8

Others | 2.3 2.7 2.0 | 2.3

Self | 1.0 2.7 0.3 | 1.3

__________________________________________________________

Domain Average 1.7 1.7 1.5 1.6

Table 3:

Average Rating of Amount of Talk:

Action only

Area

Production Personal Societal Average

Canon | 2.1 1.0 0.4 | 1.2

Media | 0.4 0.4 0.6 | 0.5

Non-Media | 0.1 0.2 0.2 | 0.2

Others | 0.7 0.6 0.4 | 0.6

Self | 0.2 0.4 0.2 | 0.3

__________________________________________________________

Domain Average 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.5

-------------------

Insert Figure 12:

Average Rating: Overall (Cognition + Action)

-------------------

Insert Figure 13:

Average Rating: Cognition Only

-------------------

Insert Figure 14:

Average Rating: Action only

-------------------

Insert Figure 15:

Comparison of Average Ratings of Amount of Talk:

Domains of Empowerment

-------------------

Insert Figure 16:

Comparison of Average Ratings of Amount of Talk:

Areas of Focus

-------------------

Average Ratings: Comparisons. Figure 15 illustrates the comparison of the bottom margins of Tables 1, 2, and 3. This indicates the average ratings of the columns of the domains of empowerment.

Figure 16 illustrates the comparison of the right margins of Tables 1, 2, and 3. This indicates the average ratings of the rows of the areas of focus.

Percentage With Any Talk

Response scores described in chapter 3 were then studied to determine the percentage of respondents with a score judged 1 or greater in each of the 15 chart cells (cognition + action). This reflects respondents judged as placing any emphasis in each of the 15 chart cells.

Percentage With Any Talk: Overall. Table 4 provides the percentage of respondents judged as providing any talk across all 15 chart cells (cognition + action). An analysis of Table 4 indicates the following patterns:

With the exception of non-media institutional relationships, all of the rows of the areas of focus indicate 100% of any talk by producers.

The least percentage of any talk among the rows of the areas of focus occurs within non-media institutional relationships (77.8%).

All of the columns of the Empowerment Domains reported 100% of respondents were judged as providing any talk in the production, personal, and societal spheres.

The least percentage of talk within the subcells occurs at the intersection of the row of non-media institutional relationships and the column of the personal domain (33.3%).

Figure 17 illustrates the interior of Table 4.

Percentage With Any Talk: Cognition. Table 5 provides the percentage of respondents judged as placing any emphasis in only the 15 cognition subcells of the chart. An analysis of Table 5 indicates the following patterns:

With one exception (non-media institutional relationships), 100% of the producers were judged to have made any references to cognition within the rows of the areas of focus.

Non-media institutional relationships contained the least percentage of any talk judged as cognition among the rows of the areas of focus (77.8%).

All of the columns of the empowerment domains reported 100% of respondents were judged as providing any talk of cognition in the production, personal, and societal spheres.

The least percentage of any talk judged as cognition occurred at the intersection of the row of non-media institutional relationships and the column of the personal domain (22.2%).

Figure 18 illustrates the interior of Table 5.

Percentage With Any Talk: Action. Table 6 provides the percentage of respondents judged as placing any emphasis in only the 15 action subcells of the chart. An analysis of Table 6 provides the following patterns:

The greatest percentage of any talk judged as action among the rows of the areas of focus was within the canon of production (100%). The least was within non-media institutional relationships (44.4%).

The columns of the production and personal empowerment domains were equal in the percentage of any talk judged as action (100%). The societal domain was the least (88.9%).

The least percentage of any talk judged as action (11.1%) occurred at the intersection of the row of non-media institutional relationships and the column of the production domain.

Low percentages of any talk judged as action (22.2%) were registered in three subcells: the intersection of the row of non-media institutional relationships and both columns of the personal and societal domains; and the row of self and self life and the column of the societal domain.

Figure 19 illustrates the interior of Table 6.

Percentage With Any Talk: Comparisons. Figure 20 illustrates the comparison of the bottom margins of Tables 4, 5, and 6. This indicates the percentages of respondents judged as placing any emphasis in cells within the columns of the domains of empowerment.

Figure 21 illustrates the comparison of the right margins of Tables 4, 5, and 6. This indicates the percentages of respondents judged as placing any emphasis in cells within the rows of the areas of focus.

Percentage With Much Talk

Response scores in Appendix E were then studied to determine the percentage of respondents with a score judged

Table 4:

Percentage of Respondents With Any Talk:

Overall (Cognition + Action)

(N = 9)

Entire

Production Personal Societal Foci

Canon | 100.0 100.0 88.9 100.0

Media | 88.9 66.7 88.9 100.0

Non-Media | 44.4 33.3 66.7 77.8

Others | 100.0 100.0 88.9 100.0

Self | 77.8 100.0 55.6 100.0

Entire | 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Domains

Table 5:

Percentage of Respondents With Any Talk:

Cognition Only

(N = 9)

Entire

Production Personal Societal Foci

Canon | 100.0 100.0 88.9 100.0

Media | 88.9 66.7 88.9 100.0

Non-Media | 44.4 22.2 66.7 77.8

Others | 100.0 100.0 88.9 100.0

Self | 66.7 100.0 33.3 100.0

Entire | 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Domains

Table 6:

Percentage of Respondents With Any Talk:

Action Only

(N = 9)

Entire

Production Personal Societal Foci

Canon | 100.0 77.8 44.4 100.0

Media | 44.4 22.2 55.6 88.9

Non-Media | 11.1 22.2 22.2 44.4

Others | 44.4 55.6 44.4 77.8

Self | 22.2 44.4 22.2 88.9

Entire | 100.0 100.0 88.9 100.0

Domains

-------------------

Insert Figure 17:

Percentage of Respondents With Any Talk:

Overall (Cognition + Action)

-------------------

Insert Figure 18:

Percentage of Respondents With Any Talk:

Cognition Only

-------------------

Insert Figure 19:

Percentage of Respondents With Any Talk:

Action Only

-------------------

Insert Figure 20:

Comparison of Percentages of Respondents

With Any Talk: Domains of Empowerment

-------------------

Insert Figure 21:

Comparison of Percentages of Respondents

With Any Talk: Areas of Focus

-------------------

3 or greater in each of the 15 chart cells (cognition + action). This reflects respondents judged as placing more than a moderate amount of emphasis in each of the 15 chart cells.

Percentage With Much Talk: Overall. Table 7 provides the percentage of respondents judged to have placed more than a moderate amount of emphasis across all 15 chart cells (cognition + action). An analysis of Table 7 indicates the following patterns:

The greatest percentage of much talk among the areas of focus is within the canon of production (66.7%). This is followed by "others" (88.9%), media organization and self and self life (55.6%), and non-media institutional relationships (33.3%).

The greatest percentage of much talk among the empowerment domains is the production domain (88.9%). This is followed by the personal and societal domains (77.8%).

The greatest percentage of much talk (66.7%) occurs at two locations: the intersection of the row of the canon of production and the column of the production domain, and the intersection of the row of "others" and the column of the personal domain.

The least percentage of much talk (0.0%) occurs at four locations: the intersection of the row of the canon of production and the column of the societal domain, the row of non-media institutional relationships and the columns of the production and personal domains, and the row of self and self life and the column of the societal domain.

Figure 22 illustrates the interior of Table 7.

Percentage With Much Talk: Cognition. Table 8 provides the percentage of respondents judged as placing more than a moderate amount of emphasis in only the 15 cognition subcells (cognition) of the chart. An analysis of Table 8 indicates the following patterns:

The greatest percentage of much talk judged as cognition among the areas of focus is within "others" (77.8%). This is followed by the rows of canon of production and self and self life (55.6%), media organization (44.4%), and non-media institutional relationships (33.3%).

The greatest percentage of much talk judged as cognition among the empowerment domains are the production and personal domains (88.9%). This is followed by the societal domain (77.8%).

The greatest percentage of much talk judged as cognition (66.7%) occurs at the intersection of the row of "others" and the column of the personal domain.

The least percentage of much talk judged as cognition (0.0%) occurs at four locations: the intersection of the row of the canon of production and the column of the societal domain, the row of non-media institutional relationships and the columns of the production and personal domains, and the row of self and self life and the column of the societal domain.

Figure 23 illustrates the interior of Table 8.

Percentage With Much Talk: Action. Table 9 provides the percentage of respondents judged as placing more than a moderate amount of emphasis in only the 15 action subcells of the chart. An analysis of Table 9 indicates the following patterns:

The only location reporting much talk judged as action is the cell located at the intersection of the row of the canon of production and the column of the production domain (33.3%). All other areas of focus and empowerment domains indicate that 0.0% of respondents placed a large amount of emphasis judged as cognition in these locations.

Figure 24 illustrates the interior of Table 9.

Percentage With Much Talk: Comparisons. Figure 25 illustrates the comparison of the bottom margins of Tables 7, 8, and 9. This indicates the percentages of respondents judged as placing more than a moderate amount of emphasis in cells within the columns of the Domains of Empowerment.

Figure 26 illustrates the comparison of the right margins of Tables 7, 8, and 9. This indicates the percentages of respondents judged as placing more than a moderate amount of emphasis in cells within the rows of the areas of focus.

These tables and charts present an overall picture of the amount of talk within the video empowerment chart, as described by respondents during their interviews, and coded by the study's primary researcher. The significance of the results as they address this study's research questions are briefly explored below; they are discussed in greater depth in chapter 5.

Table 7:

Percentage of Respondents With Much Talk:

Overall (Cognition + Action)

(N = 9)

Entire

Production Personal Societal Foci

Canon | 66.7 33.3 0.0 66.7

Media | 33.3 11.1 44.4 55.6

Non-Media | 0.0 0.0 33.3 33.3

Others | 44.4 66.7 44.4 88.9

Self | 11.1 55.6 0.0 55.6

Entire | 88.9 77.8 77.8 100.0

Domains

Table 8:

Percentage of Respondents With Much Talk:

Cognition Only

(N = 9)

Entire

Production Personal Societal Foci

Canon | 44.4 33.3 0.0 55.6

Media | 33.3 11.1 44.4 44.4

Non-Media | 0.0 0.0 33.3 33.3

Others | 44.4 66.7 44.4 77.8

Self | 11.1 55.6 0.0 55.6

Entire | 88.9 88.9 77.8 100.0

Domains

Table 9:

Percentage of Respondents With Much Talk:

Action Only

(N = 9)

Entire

Production Personal Societal Foci

Canon | 33.3 0.0 0.0 33.3

Media | 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Non-Media | 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Others | 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Self | 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Entire | 33.3 0.0 0.0 33.3

Domains

-------------------

Insert Figure 22:

Percentage of Respondents With Much Talk:

Overall (Cognition + Action)

-------------------

Insert Figure 23:

Percentage of Respondents With Much Talk:

Cognition Only

-------------------

Insert Figure 24:

Percentage of Respondents With Much Talk:

Action Only

-------------------

Insert Figure 25:

Comparison of Percentages of Respondents

With Much Talk: Domains of Empowerment

-------------------

Insert Figure 26:

Comparison of Percentages of Respondents

With Much Talk: Areas of Focus

-------------------

Discussion of Quantitative Data

This study focuses on a multilevel test of empowerment. As discussed in chapters 1 and 2 and reiterated earlier in this chapter, it first examines whether producers provide any evidence of cognition or reflection regarding the specific elements within the rows of the areas of focus. These provide indicators of empowerment within the domains specified by the columns of the empowerment domains. Reflection is considered a more refined version of cognition. Second, the study tests for action, investigating whether the cognitions led to any behavior to integrate the new awareness. And third, this study tests for action related to societal change, considered to be the highest level of empowerment action, and indicated by the column of the societal domain.

In this way, this study tests the public access empowerment vision: video training that results in media literacy, media demystification, and empowerment. The study specifically investigates whether respondents experience a new awareness of self, others, and society, and acted upon these awarenesses. As described throughout this study, the following formula represents the access vision:

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

Accordingly, this section focuses on an overview of the quantitative coding results as they relate to the research questions discussed previously. The deductive results presented below are extracted at an abstraction level above the descriptive results in the preceding sections. Here, the purpose is to extract the patterns that link the quantitative data; these findings provide insights to patterns explored as inductive themes discussed in depth in chapter 5.

Listed below are findings based on the results of coding and analysis; a discussion of each follows.

1. Media literacy--"reading" and/or "writing" of media programs--is an outcome of the public access experience for all the producers taking part in this study.

2. Media demystification--awareness and/or utilization of media structure and influence--is an outcome of the public access experience for many of the producers taking part in this study.

3. A new awareness of self is an outcome of the public access experience for some of the respondents.

4. A new awareness of others--including members of the viewing audience, workmates, crewmates, and distant "others"--is an outcome of the public access experience for most of the study producers.

5. Talk judged as cognition occurs more often than talk judged as action.

6. The greatest talk judged as cognition across the entire chart occurs within two cells: (1) the intersection of the personal domain and the area of "others"; and (2) the intersection of the personal domain and the area of self and self life. These are followed closely by the talk related to production.

7. The greatest amount of talk about action is related to production.

8. The greatest amount of talk within the empowerment domains occurs in the column of the production domain; this is followed by the personal domain of empowerment and, finally, the societal domain of empowerment.

9. Talk about action is appreciably less than talk about cognition within the societal domain.

Media Literacy

The data indicate that media literacy--the "reading" and/or "writing" of television programs--is an outcome of the public access experience for all the producers taking part in this study. This is supported by the quantitative data discussed below.

Media Literacy Within the Canon of Production. The finding of media literacy is supported by the large amount of talk within the canon of production; this row represents the elements described by public access and media education as "media literacy."

The canon of production reflects the greatest amount of talk for both overall (cognition + action) cells (3.1, Table 1) and action subcells of any of the areas of focus (1.2, Table 3). The canon of production is second in ratings among the areas of focus across cognition subcells (1.9, Table 2). The average ratings for the areas of focus (Tables 1, 2, and 3) are compared in Figure 16.

In particular, the cell at the intersection of the row of the canon of production and the column of the production domain reflects the greatest amount of talk across the entire empowerment chart (4.7, Table 1; illustrated in Figure 12). The action subcell in this cell also contains the greatest amount of talk of any action subcell across the entire chart (2.1, Table 3; illustrated in Figure 14).

Within this cell, the action subcell adds significantly to the overall (cognition + action) average rating for the cell (4.7, Table 1); the cognition rating is a close third among cognition subcells (2.6, Table 2; illustrated in Figure 13).

This action subcell at the intersection of the row of the canon of production and the column of the production domain is the only action subcell on the entire chart to have been judged to contain a high number of actions by respondents (33%, Table 9 and accompanying Figure 24). These data indicate that the only area in which respondents described a high number of actions of any kind is within production.

Media Literacy Within the Production Domain. The column of the production domain reflects the greatest amount of talk overall (cognition + action) among the columns of the empowerment domain (2.4, Table 1).

The column of the production domain shares the greatest amount of talk judged as cognition (1.7, Table 2).

The greatest amount of talk judged as action among the empowerment domains is found in the production domain (0.7, Table 3).

The column of the production domain reflects the greatest amount of talk within overall (cognition + action) cells (2.4, Table 1) and action subcells (0.7, Table 3). The empowerment domains within Tables 1, 2, and 3 are compared in Figure 15.

Summary of Media Literacy. These quantitative indicators confirm that the respondents are aware of and, to a lesser degree, act upon elements of media literacy, and that this combined awareness and action is the strongest area to emerge numerically from the data. The implications of these findings are addressed later in this chapter; chapter 5 explores the subtleties of media literacy and its relationship with other patterns in the data.

Media Demystification

The data indicate that media demystification--awareness and/or utilization of media structure and influence--is an outcome of the public access experience for many of the producers taking part in this study. However, media demystification is not as strong an outcome as the media literacy described above; this is supported by the data presented below.

Media Demystification Within Media Organization and Non-media Institutional Relationships. The finding of media demystification is supported by the amount of talk within the rows of media organization and non-media institutional relationships. These rows of the areas of focus represent the elements of media demystification as set forth by media education and discussed in chapters 1 and 2.

The row of media organization is rated third in amount of overall (cognition + action) talk (2.1, Table 1), below the canon of production and "others." The row of non-media institutional relationships is the lowest of the areas of focus (1.0, Table 1).

The data indicate that media demystification is more of a cognitive awareness than an implemented action. Overall (cognition + action), the amount of talk judged as cognition within the rows of media organization (1.7, Table 2) and non-media institutional relationships (0.8, Table 2) is greater than the amount of talk judged as action (0.5 and 0.2, respectively, Table 3). A comparison of the average ratings of the cognition and subcells of the areas of focus (Tables 2 and 3) is illustrated in Figure 16.

Summary of Media Demystification. The figures above indicate that respondents are aware of and, to a lesser degree, act upon the elements of media demystification as presented by media education and reflected in the empowerment chart. The significance of these findings is addressed later in this chapter; a closer investigation of the element of media demystification is presented within the discussion of themes in chapter 5.

Awareness of Self

The data indicate that a new awareness of self, as discussed in chapters 1 and 2, is an outcome of the public access experience for some of the respondents. This is supported in part by the amount of talk overall (cognition + action) in the row of self and self fife (1.6, Table 1--the second lowest of the rows of the areas of focus), as well as the amount of talk overall (cognition + action) within the column of the personal domain (2.2, Table 1--a close second to the column of the production domain).

Evidence of a new awareness of self is also provided by data indicating that some of the greatest amount of talk judged as cognition occurs at the intersection of the row of self and the column of the personal domain (2.7, Table 2).⁽²⁾

Consistently, the greatest amount of talk within the row of self and self life was at the row's intersection with the column of the personal domain. This held true for talk overall (cognition + action) (3.1, Table 1), talk about cognition (2.7, Table 2), and talk about action (0.4, Table 3).

The preponderance of talk at this intersection point within self and self life was also true for the percentage of respondents judged as talking at all about matters overall (cognition + action) (100%, Table 4), talking at all about cognition (100%, Table 5), and talking at all about action (44%, Table 6).

This intersection point also dominated the row of self and self life when looking at the percentage of respondents with a great deal of talk overall (cognition + action) (55.6%, Table 7), and talking judged as cognition (55.6%, Table 8). There was no heavy emphasis on talk judged as action at this intersection (0.0%, Table 9).

Given the entire row of self and self life, awareness of self primarily takes the form of cognition (1.3, Table 2) rather than action (0.3, Table 3).

These data indicate that some respondents do experience and, to a lesser degree, act on a new awareness of themselves and those close to them as a result of their public access participation. The implications of these findings are addressed later in this chapter; a more detailed look is provided in chapter 5.

Awareness of Others

The data indicate that a new awareness of others--including members of the viewing audience, workmates, crewmates, and distant "others"--is an outcome of the public access experience for most of the study producers. This is supported by the large amount of talk overall (cognition + action) within the row of "others" (2.9, Table 1), the second highest row of the areas of focus.

This new awareness of others is also supported by the fact that the row of "others" contains the most amount of talk of the areas of focus among the cognitive subcells (2.3, Table 2). This awareness is primarily cognitive; the average amount of talk about action within the row of "others" is second among the areas of focus (0.6, Table 3).

However, the awareness of others indicated by the data also stands out in other ways. "Others" leads among the rows of the areas of focus when looking at the percentage of respondents judged to place a high emphasis on talk in both overall (cognition + action) cells (88.9%, Table 7; illustrated in Figure 22) and in cognition subcells (77.8%, Table 8; illustrated in Figure 23).

These data indicate that most respondents experience and, to a lesser degree act upon, a new awareness of others as a result of their public access experience. While the significance of these findings are addressed later in this chapter, a more detailed investigation is explored in chapter 5.

Cognition Versus Action

The data indicate that cognition occurs more often than action for the producers in this study. This is supported by the fact that the average ratings for cognition subcells (Table 2) are higher than the average ratings for action subcells (Table 3) within the same cell. The only exception to this is the cell at the intersection of the row of non-media and the column of the personal domain; here the amount of talk judged as action was the same as the amount of talk judged as cognition (0.2, Tables 2 and 3).⁽³⁾

The data above illustrate the greater emphasis placed by respondents on cognition over action throughout the chart. The significance of this is addressed later in this chapter and explored more fully in chapter 5.

Cognition's Preponderance

The data indicate that the greatest amount of talk related to cognition across the entire chart occurs within two cells of the chart: (1) the intersection of the personal domain and the area of "others," and (2) the intersection of the personal domain and the area of self and self life. These are followed closely by the talk related to production.

This finding is supported by the average ratings for the amount of talk within these cognition subcells. The greatest amount of talk judged as cognition occurs within the cognition subcells (1) at the intersection of the column of the personal domain and the row of self and self life (2.7, Table 2) and (2) at the intersection of the column of the personal domain and the row of "others" (2.7, Table 2).

The large amount of talk in these areas are followed closely by talk about production, as evidenced by the cognition subcell at the intersection of the row of the canon of production and the column of the production domain (2.6, Table 2).

Both the production domain and the personal domain were judged to contain the same amount of talk related to cognition (1.7, Table 2).

The specifics regarding these findings are reported above under "Awareness of Self," "Awareness of Others," and "Media Literacy."

Action's Preponderance

The data indicate that the greatest amount of talk judged as action is related to production. This is supported by the ratings and percentages found in the action subcell at the intersection of the row of the canon of production and the column of the production domain. This subcell consistently scored highest among all other action subcells in average ratings (2.1, Table 3), percentage of respondents with any talk related to action (100%, Table 6), and percentage of respondents with a great deal of talk (33.3%, Table 9).⁽⁴⁾

The specifics regarding this finding are reported above in the discussion regarding media literacy.

Amount of Talk Within Empowerment Domains

The data indicate that the greatest amount of talk within the empowerment domains occurs in the column of the production domain (2.4, Table 1), followed by the personal domain of empowerment (2.2, Table 1), and finally, the societal domain of empowerment (1.9, Table 1).

A comparison of the average ratings indicates that the column of the production domain reflects the greatest amount of talk within the overall (cognition + action) cells (2.4, Table 1) and the action subcells (0.7, Table 3); it matches the column of the personal domain in cognition subcells (1.7, Table 2).⁽⁵⁾

The column of the personal domain follows the production domain in both overall (cognition + action) cells (2.2) and action subcells (0.5).

The least amount of talk among the empowerment domains occurs within the societal domain. This is indicated by the average ratings within the overall (cognition + action) cells (1.9, Table 1), the cognition subcells (1.5, Table 2), and the action subcells (0.4, Table 3).

In fact, the column of the societal domain is lowest among the columns of the empowerment domains in almost every comparison: average ratings (Tables 1, 2, and 3), percentage of respondents judged as placing any talk judged as action (Table 6), and percentage of respondents judged as having a great deal of talk judged as cognition and action (Tables 8 and 9). In the comparisons not mentioned here, the societal domain tied the lowest score among the columns of the empowerment domains (Tables 4, 5, and 7).

The significance of these findings is addressed later in this chapter; the subtleties at play within the empowerment domains and their relationships with other patterns in the data are explored in chapter 5.

Action Less Than Cognition in Societal Domain

The data indicate that, for the respondents, talk about action is significantly less than talk about cognition within the societal domain.

This is supported by comparing the average ratings for the entire societal domain within the cognition subcells (higher with 1.5, Table 2) and the action subcells (lower with 0.4, Table 3).⁽⁶⁾

All of the respondents were judged as having some talk within the cognition subcells for the column of the societal domain (100%, Table 5). Slightly fewer respondents were judged as having some talk within the action subcells (88.9%, Table 6).⁽⁷⁾

Further, while 77.8% of the respondents were judged as having more than a great deal of talk within the cognition subcells of the column of the societal domain (Table 8), none were judged as having a great deal of talk related to action (0.0%, Table 9).⁽⁸⁾

These figures indicate that action is found less often than cognition within the societal domain of empowerment. The significance of this finding is addressed below; it is discussed in depth in chapter 5.

Summary of the Deductive Data Analysis

The quantitative findings presented above provide a useful overview of the data, particularly as they reflect the amount of talk within the video empowerment chart.

These findings address the research questions directing this study: (1) Do producers of public access programs have an awareness of the media's structure and operation, including a sense of the codes of television? (2) Does this awareness of media's structure, operation, and codes assist producers in defining a sense of self, others, and society? (3) Do producers take action to implement these awarenesses? and (4) Do producers identify and change relationships, particularly within the societal realm?

The deductive analysis throughout this chapter allows a picture of initial findings to emerge; the findings can be summarized as follows:

1. Media literacy is an outcome of the public access experience for all the producers taking part in this study. Media demystification is an outcome for many, but not all.

2. A new awareness of self is an outcome of the public access experience for some of the respondents; most also experience a new awareness of others. There is far less societal-related awareness, although there is some.

3. For the producers in this study, awareness in the form of cognition and/or reflection occurs more often than action. This is particularly the case within the societal realm.

4. Producers in this study operate more within the area of production than the personal realm; they operate within the societal realm least of all.

This chapter has analyzed the data deductively and extrapolated patterns emerging from the framework provided by the video empowerment chart. These patterns offer some insight into the inductive analysis provided in chapter 5.

1. It is important to note that these scores represent the amount of talk by respondents within a given area, as judged by one coder. The scores are useful primarily as a guide to activity within the chart, as judged by the amount of respondent talk.

2. The cognition subcell at the intersection of the row of "others" and the column of the personal domain shared this average rating of 2.7 (Table 1).

3. Figure 11 compares the cognition and action subcells of the domains of empowerment; Figure 12 compares the cognition and action subcells of the areas of focus. Both of these figures also include a comparison of overall (cognition + action) cells, found in Table 1.

4. The action subcells of Table 3 are illustrated in Figure 10; Table 6 in Figure 15; and Table 9 in Figure 20. The action subcells of Table 3 are compared with overall (cognition + action) cells and cognition subcells in Figures 11 and 12; the action subcells of Table 6 are compared with overall cells and cognition subcells in Figures 16 and 17; and the action subcells of Table 9 are compared with overall cells and cognition subcells in Figures 21 and 22.

5. The average ratings overall (cognition + action) for the empowerment domains are found in Table 1; these ratings are compared with the cognition (Table 2) and action (Table 3) ratings in Figure 11.

6. The average ratings for the entire societal domain within overall cells (Table 1), cognition subcells (Table 2), and action subcells (Table 3) are compared in Figure 11.

7. The percentages of respondents with any talk across the entire societal domain within overall cells (Table 4), cognition subcells (Table 5) and action subcells (Table 6) are compared in Figure 16.

8. The percentages of respondents with a great deal of talk across the entire societal domain within overall cells (Table 7), cognition subcells (Table 8) and action subcells (Table 9) are compared in Figure 16.