Dear Dr. Mockros-- First, I want to thank you for clearing up many of the questions I had about your use of this survey, and the ultimate uses it would be put to (esp. since the names listed as contact persons all teach at Christian colleges, including a very conservative one, and I suspected some type of researcher bias on their part to obtain results consistent with their own beliefs). And I was interested in hearing about your own projects, and how this survey data might fit into that research. I, too, have some interest as a film scholar, but I probably won't see it (at least not in a theatre), because of other events in my life at this time. I also have been interested in the fact that my mostly Christian midwest students who have seen it have mixed responses. As for the comments on the survey itself, as I understand it, the amount of "n" by itself is not enough to ensure accuracy in a survey instrument If a truly random sample, then you do not need a very large "n" (certainly not thousands of people; as I understand it, surveys like Nielson and the Gallup polls don't need large numbers because of randomization). By no means am I an expert on statistical methodologies, as I only have taken two graduate stats courses and had some limited experience teaching our basic research methods course to master's students. I say that because a statistician might note different potential problems with the survey, or even challenge my concerns. When I used "self-selected" it wasn't as a warning not to do the survey, or even that it would be dominated by Christian respondents, but a statistical concern that the results might not be as revealing as one might hope. As I understand it, this is not a random sample, or even a systematic sample (as many other surveys try to accomplish). Unless you plan to develop a type of stratified or cluster sample from the demographic data (homogeneous subgroups), or other technique, then, although distributed to a large number of groups, there really is no way to assure the type of validity and reliablity you can get from a randomized sample (nor, as I understand it, could you use it to make probability generalizations to the whole population, as that term is used statistically, unless you have built into your design some way to randomize the data). Without some type of randomization, what you get is a type of non-random convenience sample or maybe a snowball (network) sample (since you ask respondents to pass it on to others). [My comments are based on the two main research method texts used by our students, Frey, et. al, "Investing Communication: An Introduction to Research Methods" and Wimmer & Dommick, "Mass Media Research: An Introduction."] Further, in the social sciences, there is a recognition of various effects that might contaminate the data further, such as additional possible intervening variables (i.e. education level, rural/urban respondent, etc.) that the demographic data do not get to. And I do think the fact that the on-line survey could be answered more than once by the same person could be problematic (maybe such an event is not likely, but it is possible, and I think there are ways to ensure that people don't take it more than once, even for an on-line survey). I am not opposed to surveys dealing with religious matters in film. As noted above, I have some interest in the film as a film scholar, as well as some interest in the types of varied responses to the film, as a communication scholar (esp. trained as a rhetorical scholar, examining the persuasiveness of texts). Normally, I would be interested in the results of such a survey, but, in this case, I'm not sure I could trust the results. I suppose sheer numbers might mitigate against some of the above problems (esp. any possible "ballot-box stuffing"). Also, perhaps the large numbers can be useful in limited ways as a more qualititative type of project (the open ended questions on two of the three surveys suggest that possiblity). I hope you will recognize these potential limitations when you write up the results. Barbara L. Baker, Ph.D. Professor Dept. of Communication Central Missouri State University Warrensburg, MO. 64093 [log in to unmask] >>> [log in to unmask] 04/08/04 07:38PM >>> I was not sure if I should respond to the criticisms of The Passion of the Christ survey, since I did not create the instrument and cannot thoroughly defend it. Since I posted the website and requested that it be completed, I feel obliged to explain my perspective. As Dr. Baker surmised, the survey designers are wondering if there are differences between how Christians respond to The Passion and how people of other faiths - especially Jewish - or no faith respond. Since many of the public concerns about Mel Gibson and his movie surround him inviting certain groups of Christians to prescreenings, how Jewish people might percieve anti-semitism in the film and how there is faith division over this movie, I think indicating one's faith is an important question to ask of the film's audience. The filmmaker has repeatedly said that he made the film in response to his own faith. Some churches claim to be using it as an evangelism tool. Audience faith background and questions about how the film impacts faith seems valuable and valid questions in a cultural survey about the movie. Most surveys like this are neutral instruments that participants have little interest in altering. It is not like stuffing a ballot box or voting in a way to increase an investment. With a film as controversial as this one, a survey that allows someone to take it multiple times is in danger of sabotage. In theory, publicists or enemies or proponents of the film could alter the results. I suspect that few if any participants realize that it is possible to do this, but it would be better if it were not possible. Likert-type questions would be useful, as would more questions of those who did not see the film. I suspect that those who did not see it may ignore the suggestion to fill out such a form, thinking it is not for them. All that is to say, I would have added a few questions, but it is not my tool. As for how I will use it, I wrote a dissertation that involves The Passion as well as other recent Jesus movies. Much of my cultural analysis involved press reports, industry and other critical reviews, online messages, website movie ratings, Nielsen or box office returns and the like. For the lower profile films, this sketched an idea of the film's reception. For The Passion, countless publications in print and online reported on the movie and/or Mel Gibson. Dozens of online message boards were overflowing for a year. I have collected well over 400 articles on The Passion, and daily recieve about 10 in the mail. It borders on impossible to assess all the material, let alone determine what is going on behind the reports or in the minds of vast theater crowds. I have a publisher for my dissertation as well as a few related articles and a Jesus movie reference book. I am not particularly passionate about the film as a personal or spiritual experience. As a student of film, TV, cultural studies and church history among other things, I myself find the film's historical and art references, sacramentalism and rich iconography artistically profound and culturally revealing. While I have many thoughts about the movie, I have no personal stake in people seeing or liking the movie or in how people answer the questionnaire. It seems like many viewers are deeply moved in a positive way, yet many others detest the film. As a student/scholar of Jesus movies, the whole thing is fascinating and complex. I hope the results of this survey illuminate my research a little more, weeding out publicity, reactionary press and other extreme impressions to reveal some of the mainstream public opinion and why everyone is flocking. About Dr. Spiceland's concern over increased respondants improving the results, perhaps it is my medical research background that inclines me toward increasing the "n", so thank you for bringing that assumption to my attention. My understanding of my former statistics studies is that numbers improve validity of results. I have only had a few anthropology and psychology courses and am not as familiar with designing and analyzing sociological experiments. In medical science, one seeks to eliminate all but one variable, yet here we seek broad distribution, and the survey has gone out to large groups aross educational, racial, economic, geographic, trade and faith lines. No tool - certainly not Nielsen ratings or common data collection systems - is flawless, unbiased and without drawbacks. While this one could certainly be improved, I think it will serve an important purpose. I hope it does not itself becoming a controversy! Finally, warnings are not helpful, as though answering the survey implies complicity with a plot. There is no "self-selected respondent sample." This SCREEN-L discussion list is not related to the community that created the survey nor is the State Farm agent who sent it to many other State Farm reps, etc. The survey has circulated among a wide range of communities, schools, in Kentucky as well as both coasts and several countries, Jewish and secular as well as Christian groups. While many more than 10,000 people have seen the movie and not everyone was queried and filled it out, the distribution has been as broad and varied as possible. By my suggestion that everyone send it around everywhere, how can the sample be "self-selected?" A more valid concern might be "What kind of people might be discarding it and how does that influence the results?" I welcome academic discussion and will read and consider any feedback (outside the group if you like) but deadlines and other pressures may prevent my further response. Nancy Mockros Ph.D. Theology and Culture (Film and TV) At 03:48 PM 4/6/04, you wrote: >I, too, wonder about the aims and methodology of this research. Out of >curiosity, and because this is a controversial film, I went over to the >website, which does provide some contact names. >....... > >Barbara L. Baker >Professor >Dept. of Communication >Central Missouri State University >Warrensburg, MO. 64093 > > >>> [log in to unmask] 04/04/04 03:06PM >>> > >http://www.edcomresearch.com/passion.html ---- Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite http://www.ScreenSite.org ---- Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite http://www.ScreenSite.org