CITATION AND COPYRIGHT INFORMATION:
Cite as: Brendlinger, N. H. (1990). Influence of research methods on policy development: Comparison of a survey and a Sense-Making study about Texans and AIDS (immune deficiency). Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin. Advisor, Pamela J. Shoemaker.
© Nancy Helen Brendlinger (1990).
You may be able to order a full copy of this dissertation through the author, or through ProQuest Dissertation Express.

ADVISOR:
Pamela J. Shoemaker

ABSTRACT:
The author compared two research projects designed to help the Texas Department of Health with an AIDS education campaign. TDH commissioned a state-wide survey and the author did a parallel study in the 512 telephone area code using Sense-Making interviewing methods developed by Brenda Dervin. The two studies were compared on (1) how well each met the TDH goals, (2) the recommendations that were based on the results of each, and (3) how each addressed a feminist critique of social science research.

The major differences between the two projects were: (1) The survey gathered quantitative data with the respondent as the unit of analysis while the Sense-Making study gathered qualitative and quantitative data and had three databases. In one data base the units of analysis were the situations which the respondents had described; in another, the respondents were the units of analysis; and in the third, the questions the respondents had discussed in the situations. (2) The survey provided information from the TDH perspective in regard to how concepts were defined and in testing expected relationships. The Sense-Making study provided information from the respondents’ perspectives. For example, while the survey showed the extent to which government information about AIDS was disseminated, the Sense-Making project showed that many people know, but do not trust, this information.

The author concludes that Sense-Making is the more attractive of the two for gathering information for policy development because: (1) Sense-Making is more likely to suggest changes that reflect constituents’ rather than organizations’ needs. (2) Sense-Making is more likely to uncover the unexpected for the researcher. (3) Sense-Making is based on a construction model of communication while surveys are based on a transmission model; construction models are better metaphors for understanding the communication process. (4) Sense-Making analysis takes into account interactions among respondents, interviewers and researchers rather than striving to reach the impossible goal of objectivity. (5) Sense-Making minimizes the invasive qualities of social science interviewing when compared to surveys.

OTHER MATERIALS BY THIS AUTHOR ON THIS WEBSITE:
See: http://communication.sbs.ohio-state.edu/sense-making/AAauthors/authorlistbrendlinger.html