Appendix 1: Data Collection & Analysis

Contents

1. Scope of the survey

1.1 Information requested

1.2 Distribution

1.3 Survey returns

2. Collation of the data

3. Analysis method

3.1 Sorting technique

3.2 Sorts carried out

3.3 Resulting sort categories from the Hot Topics Survey

1. Scope of the survey

1.1 Information requested

A survey sheet was produced titled “Hot Topics Needed For Parish Plan”. It asked for the views of the recipients in the form of “Hot Topics” about issues they saw as most important in terms of a Parish Plan. Short statements about the three most important issues were requested that told why they saw the issue as important. Although three statements were suggested, the replies were not limited and recipients were free to write as much or as little as they pleased.

1.2 Distribution

The Parish Plan Steering Group (PPSG) decided that 25% (87) of the households in the Parish should be surveyed. The sampling technique used was to select every 4th dwelling from the addresses in the electoral role of the Parish. The Parish was divided into 4 locality areas:

• Bishampton Village
• Bishampton Rural
• Throckmorton
• Tilesford

Where a particular household declined to complete the survey or was vacant, the next dwelling on the Electoral Role was visited instead.

Six members of the PPSG were assigned as contacts for specific areas or part thereof. These contacts distributed the survey sheets according to the distribution plan and collected them over the succeeding 2-week period.

In addition local organisations within the parish were contacted for their views. Replies from these recipients were classed as from a group designated:

• Organisations

1.3 Survey returns

In all, 88 survey sheets were returned as follows:

Table 1: Survey sheets returned by area

2. Collation of the data

The returned surveys were numbered and the statements thereon transcribed to an MS Access97 database using relational database techniques. The survey sheet number was recorded in the database but details of the authors were not. Also entered was the area each survey sheet originated from.

The statement text for each survey sheet was divided into “Comments” and stored in separate records. Each of these records was allocated a “Comment” identifier.

To further disassociate the original survey sheet from individual “Comments” for analysis, a random number generator was used to “shuffle” the “Comments” and allocate each one an identity called “Card No.”. Traceable links back to the original survey sheet number were maintained.

This method resulted in a set of cards each containing one comment, which are the cards referred to in ‘card sorts’.
Consultation meetings were held at Bishampton on 8 January 2004 and at Throckmorton on 9 January 2004. At these meetings, proposals for the airfield were displayed and visitors invited to express their views. Two mechanisms were used to collect visitors’ views:

• Write their views on Post-It slips and put them in pockets by the appropriate display
• Indicate their answer to specific questions/options by signing an appropriate sheet on the appropriate display

These data were also recorded in the database.

3. Analysis method

3.1 Sorting technique

Two sorting procedures were employed with the data.

1. The comment cards were sorted following the instruction to sort the comments into groups of alike comments, so producing emergent categories, Sorters were encouraged to use as few groupings as possible but as many as they felt they needed. No further instruction on criteria for the groups was given.
2. Sorters were presented with the previously identified groupings, and asked to assign the comment cards to one of those groupings. (In the analysis of the Airfield suggestions – see below – they were allowed to assign comments to more than one grouping.)

3.2 Sorts carried out

To date six “Sort” activities have been carried out on the Hot Topic Survey data.

In order to establish an initial impression of the important issues from the survey a first “Sort” was carried out on 7 September 2003 This resulted in the identification of the nine hot topics.

To date five further sorts have: all are detailed in Table 1. Four different sorters (in sort 1, this a pair working together) have sorted the comments, acting independently of each other.

Table 4: Sorting activities

To date no sorting activities have been carried out the Post-It views collected at the Consultation meetings held in January.

3.3 Resulting sort categories from the Hot Topics Survey – the ‘Nine Hot Topics’

The sorting activities yielded nine major categories ranked in the following priority order:

1. The future of the airfield
2. Village life
3. Roads
4. Housing
5. Young people
6. The landfill site
7. Public transport
8. Village health
9. The Parish Council

Figure 1 shows the sort results as a percentage of the total number of “Cards” and illustrates the level of agreement between the three topic sorts.

Figure 1: The nine hot topics

The sorting of the proposals for the airfield yielded 5 categories in the following priority order:

1. Nature conservation
2. Sport/recreation
3. Light industry
4. Housing
5. Wind farm
   

Figure 2 shows the results of the airfield proposal sorting activities. Since the last two sorts (IDs 5 & 6) used the same “Card” set those results have been grouped together while the result of the all three sort (IDs 3, 5 & 6) is illustrated separately.

Figure 2: Proposals for use of the airfield