I've been thinking about doing this too. The two things that have been holding me back are: 1.the belief that something central is coming, and 2. what questions to ask?
Would it be worth pooling resources to get a good set of survey questions that could be asked, that anyone could then use locally? Then this could be used as frequently as individuals wanted to, and if a database comes down the road, no-doubt some volunteers will come forward to populate it with anything already gathered. — Jason Carter
Perhaps best done by visits to towers? I know some surveys have been done this way before. Perhaps anyone who has been involved in doing it this way could comment? — A J Barnfield
And of course the "tower band" is a bit of a vague concept given the amount of clustering and helping out that goes on. — A J Barnfield
Previous work also highlighted the need for more use of initial informal discussions face to face with a few people with different experiences, to understand how they would interpret the questions. This then needs to be followed by a small scale pilot survey to make sure that the responses can be analysed appropriately and will produce meaningful results, before going further. — Alison Hodge
Getting towers to respond is enough of a task in itself ... it needs to be strongly supported by local officials or 'big names' — Tristan Lockheart
1. I have a suspicion that the something central might end up being me, as I have recently been appointed to lead the Intelligence section of the Central Council Volunteer & Liaison workgroup. Certainly not a one-man job, though, so I should be grateful for volunteers to assist. — Tristan Lockheart
2. I imagine the main things we’ll want to find out are: the number of ringers, the skill level of ringers, their age profile, their geographical distribution, whether they ring in multiple towers, frequency of practice and service ringing, and additional teaching facilities (like simulators). — Tristan Lockheart
we have much better tools to use for surveys now than we did when previous surveys were undertaken. — Simon Linford
Getting towers to respond is enough of a task in itself, without trying to get individuals to respond. For any area, it needs to be comprehensive as Simon Linford says so we have an accurate picture of ringing in an area. Really, it needs to be strongly supported by local officials or 'big names' who have the clout with tower officials in their area to get responses out of them. — Tristan Lockheart
I think it's worth pointing out that towers can be "off the grid", for decades nobody at my home tower was in the association so we were unreachable. Even now there are only 3 of us. Without including those sorts of towers, any survey is going to be misleading - and sorry, no I don't know how you solve that problem! :grin: — John de Overa
Congratulations! I am not on the Central Council but I would be very happy to assist you. — Jason Carter
Not sure what 'tools' Simon is thinking about, however, I think excel could deliver on this with a small amount of manual intervention required... but if there is a more sophisticated way to collect the data then I'm very happy to embrace that instead. Either way, the next collection of data will be significantly easier to achieve than the 1988 exercise, which must have been a considerable challenge for those involved!! — Jason Carter
If you can then expand that by Territorial Association (60 odd...?) then you would have a complete picture. — Jason Carter
The 1988 survey asked five different groups: TC's, Incumbents, Individual ringers, branches and associations. I think this was too much and that TC's is all we need to approach. They just need to be honest and work with their band. Does anyone have a different opinion on this view? — Jason Carter
Can anyone think of different questions that need to be asked at the "macro" (big picture) level?
I can't. — Jason Carter
Returning to the method of collection, I think excel could cope with all of the data (and I still need to test this at a small level). And excel is "relatively" straightforward for most people to use. A more sophisticated system may require some assistance from a smaller group of people to gather the information that we are trying to collect. — Jason Carter
But surely those towers still belong to an association ** if only by geography ** somewhere...
So a channel of communication remains, even if membership is not "up to date"
Whoever is doing the review "on their patch" needs to find a way of talking to all of the towers in their area, whether that is via email, letter, or turning up to a local practice night. — Jason Carter
TCs would be more than sufficient — Tristan Lockheart
it would be good to contact each individual ringer. But we don't have any obvious workable system for that — A J Barnfield
I think that entirely depends on what you want to find out. There's inevitably going to be a degree of bias from TCs. No TC is going to say "I have no clue how to run things, my ringers are pissed off, many are going to quit and my tower is on its last legs". — John de Overa
I am inclined to agree with John that it would be good to contact each individual ringer. But we don't have any obvious workable system for that. Random sampling would be a possibility but obtaining a random sample, free of bias, would, I think, be difficult. — A J Barnfield
I also agree that the range of questions and those surveyed needs to be much narrower in scope than the 1988 survey. — A J Barnfield
I think we should also try to get a feel for levels of experience and capacity to provide continuing T&D. — A J Barnfield
Is the branch/district structure robust enough to achieve that these days?
Do we need to run some sort of stress test to see if the existing Guld/Association, district/branch set up would be able to collect the data? — A J Barnfield
I guess you would need to pick a small selection of branches with differing profiles - for example the N.Yorks branch of the YACR is largely rural and covers an area greater than the entire Kent ACR! Compare this with the districts based in large urban centres. Very different profiles and, I imagine, very different results. — Peter Sotheran
I think it would need help from the associations - as a rank & file ringer I get regular emails from three I ring in, but admittedly that route is only going to reach those of us that are members. The Facebook ringing groups are another route to individuals - both the "regular" ones, the association specific ones and the ones where the learners hang out. As you say it's going to be difficult to get a truly random sample, but perfect is the enemy of good, as they say :smile: — John de Overa
The CCCBR's strategic priorities are couched in terms of the needs and aspirations of individual ringers, which I think is right. If you want to find out what individual ringers think then you need to ask them. That should be possible for a reasonable subset via existing association contact mechanisms - email, Facebook etc, but I realise that's not easy. However a workplace employee survey that only asked managers how things are going would be unlikely to accurately reflect the views of employees. — John de Overa
Without having sight of the survey repor — Tristan Lockheart
I can't see a way to get to a good enough sample of individuals for quant. analysis without a bias towards prosperous towers and learners on ART, short of a firm being paid to take on the task. — Tristan Lockheart
articles by Steve Coleman called something like 'sifting through' or 'shuffling through' — John Harrison
I doubt there was a soft copy unless someone later scanned the original - theworldran on paper in those days. The easiest way is to get them from the RW DVD. Can't remember whether those years are online yet or whether you need the actual DVD. — John Harrison
But I suspect we need to recreate it, in a more modern age... — Jason Carter
You will only be able to post and/or comment once you have confirmed your email address and been approved by an Admin.