May I suggest that one of you who has access to staff or executive
assistants (or whatever) could give them the task to take the
results we received last week from Marie Juliano, and prepare one
Excel sheet per multiple choice question, with the sheet having as
column labels the possible answers to the question, as row label the
category of the respondent, and as entry in the cells the number of
That way, we should be able to easily produce some nice pie charts
for Ghana, with one chart by category of respondent, and one chart
totalling them (i.e., the column sums).
Also, it would be rather easy to discern, from that set of data,
where we have some strong common trends, and where categories of
The questions which could reasonably be covered and evaluated that
way are 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10 (the yes-no parts), 11, 12, 13, 14, 16,
17, 18, 19.
I do believe that we could produce a preliminary report on these
questions until Accra, when we really start off with the pie charts,
ask (and discuss!) what conclusions can be drawn from these, and
then go on hunting for gems among the "others" (which is faster than
actually classifying them, because you can hunt for gems by more
sloppy reading of answers).
We could then base the decision whether or not we investigate the
"other" answers in detail on the the set of 300 we have all looked
through: If some of us believe that there is information hidden in
these answers which can't be derived from the statistical answers to
the questions mentioned above, or if there are new answers showing
up which are as frequent as choices given on the questionnaire, then
we may have to look at them in a more complete manner - either by
attacking the statistical 300 more systematically, or by attacking
the entire set of answers received. However, we should really make a
cost-benefit decision in that case. ;-)
Questions 15 and the cost part of question 10 are special, since
they should probably have offered the same kind of choices:
- users of search service
- other (actually, this answer doesn't really make sense except if
you believe in tax payers or charities bearing the cost of such
(Registrars (or rather: registrars' shareholders), for instance, are
not going to pay for anything. They want to get money back from
their investment, so that particular answer actually means
Fortunately, question 15 allows for an easy mapping (with 4%
answering "other", which can safely be moved to the "other" category
above without further inspection). Unfortunately, the cost part of
question 10 is free-form, and indeed one of the questions where we
need to assign each answer to one of the above classes.
Question 8.2 is also a multiple-choice question gone wrong, where
the baskets we can use are obviously any combination of points A-I
Depending on how people work it may be reasonable to defer this
stuff until after Ghana. However, this should certainly be in the
8.1 is a question where we need to find out about baskets by reading
Question 12 (the "why or why not" part) is probably a place where
it's really sufficient to look for gems - I don't believe that we'd
really win anything for our purposes by doing a statistical analysis
of the reasons given.
The "best way" part of questions 13 and 14 is similar. You don't
solve engineering problems by doing public polls.
Question 17 is another case where an approach with putting responses
into baskets and trying to do statistical analysis on this is
probably the only way to get some added value.
Same, of course, with question 20.
Thomas Roessler http://log.does-not-exist.org/