Masters Dissertation Example


 Forms of direct communication



Yüklə 0,52 Mb.
Pdf görüntüsü
səhifə51/76
tarix13.05.2023
ölçüsü0,52 Mb.
#112902
1   ...   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   ...   76
masters-dissertation-example-pdf

4.7.3 Forms of direct communication 
Findings were more likely to be taken up if communicated in the form of a report (z= 3.5, 
df=347,p=<0.001) or public meeting (marginally,z=2,df=347,p=0.048). The two most 
important explanatory variables were personal communication (z=3.51,df=347,p=<0.001), and 
policy documents (z=4.18,df=347,p=<0.001). 


59 
4.7.4 Minimum adequate model for all dissemination variables 
Media, stakeholders, and forms of communication were combined to identify the most 
important predictors of uptake of findings (table 11).
Table 11Minimum adequate model for the main dissemination forms influencing the implementation of 
research findings (logistic regression (df=334). The factor levels of significance are shown in detail P(>|z|), 
and the significance of the factor in the model is represented P(>|Chi|) 
Factor 
Factor level 
Direction 
P(>|z|)
P(>|Chi|) 
Communities (Q48R1)
Local NGO (Q48R2 
Intl NGO
(Q48R3)
Local Govt (Q48R4) 
Personal Communication 
Policy Document
Q48R1No:Q48R2No
Q48R3No:Q48R4No
Yes 
Yes 
No 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
No 
No 
Positive 
Positive 
Negative 
Positive 
Positive 
Positive 
Negative
Negative 
0.62
0.36
0.08
0.28
0.047 
0.002 
0.048 
0.040 
6.022e-06 
8.299e-04 
3.371e-04 
3.518e-05 
0.03 
2.123e-04 
0.04 
0.02 
The significant explanatory variables of uptake of findings are: dissemination to communities, 
local and international NGOs, and local governments, and the most important forms of 
communication were policy documents and personal communication. Local media 
dissemination, public meetings, and reports no longer had sufficient explanatory power to 
remain in the minimum adequate model. This suggests that local forms of communication are 
most important to promote implementation of research findings.
4.7.5 Number of different forms of dissemination 
There was a significant relationship between the number of different stakeholders the 
information was communicated to (including media) and implementation of findings 
(X
2
=81.6,df = 5,p=<0.001). The apparent anomaly that levels of implementation were lower 
with only one outlet of dissemination than when there was no dissemination (fig. 32) is 
perhaps due to the fact that further analysis of the data revealed most of these cases to be those 
in which findings were communicated to scientists only, which would not be expected to 


60 
facilitate dissemination of findings. After 3 forms of dissemination, there was no further 
significant increase in levels of implementation (fig. 32). 

Yüklə 0,52 Mb.

Dostları ilə paylaş:
1   ...   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   ...   76




Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur ©azkurs.org 2024
rəhbərliyinə müraciət

gir | qeydiyyatdan keç
    Ana səhifə


yükləyin