Feedback (November 1996)

Results of RRN Members’ Questionnaire

In the June Newsletter, we flagged up the very positive nature of the response to the RRN members’ Questionnaire, mailed in February this year. We also promised a fuller analysis of those responses and an indication of future directions for the RRN. A complete report is available on request from the RRN, including more detailed statistical analysis. The following is an edited version outlining the principal conclusions drawn from that data. We have not attempted to respond to each point raised in turn, but to report key findings.

A number of initiatives are planned for the second three year phase of RRN operation to address some of our members’ concerns highlighted by the results of this survey, including electronic distribution of our material, and the possibility of moving to free membership. These initiatives will form the subject of a more detailed report in the January 1997 Newsletter.

The total number of RRN members at February 1996 was 278 (today the total is 410). We received a total of 50 completed questionnaires (or 18% of total), a more than representative sample figure, according to one international commercial polling organisation.

The principal objective of the questionnaire was to establish whether our output (Good Practice Reviews (GPR), Network Papers (NP) and Newsletters (NL)) meets members’ needs and is considered to offer an effective contribution to humanitarian workers’ learning in the provision of emergency relief. It also gave us the opportunity to get a feel for the composition of our membership – predominantly NGO, donor, UN, academic etc, to help us focus future strategy.

RRN Member Profile

The survey supported our assessment that NGO workers represent the RRN’s largest audience/membership (74%). Of those, just under one third were based in Africa, 5% in Asia, with the majority, 62%, coming from developed countries.

Publications

Respondents were asked to rate each GPR, NP and NL section on a scale of very useful (3), quite useful (2) and not useful (1). We also looked at reasons given for not reading publications – ranging from ‘not relevant’, to ‘no time’ or ‘not received’.

The higher percentage of respondents who considered GPRs ‘very useful’ – 34% for GPR 1 (Water and Sanitation) to 71% for GPR 3 (General Food Distribution) suggests that the GPRs are improving in terms of usefulness. In terms of relevance, however, there appears to have been little difference. It is particularly encouraging that no respondent indicated they found the content of GPRs to be of no use.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Network Papers ranged widely in readers’ perceptions of usefulness. Clearly, the tendency for them to focus on a particular country or agency experience limits them to a more specific readership.

The Newsletter met with greater success than was anticipated. The articles/news sections and book reviews received the highest ratings, with 51% and 47% of respondents rating them very highly respectively, followed by the editorial and feedback. Lowest on the scale were the update and conference and training sections, although these nonetheless scored well compared to individual Network Papers or even Good Practice Reviews. To some extent, this can be explained by the fact that Newsletter information is likely to be more accessible and relevant to all, focusing less on specific activities or fields of humanitarian response. On the whole, it seems that this is still a valued tool and members would not wish to lose it.

Publication Sharing

In response to the question ‘With how many others do you share RRN publications’, a total of 173 other people, read our publications. It is interesting to note that although many members do not find individual papers to be relevant to their own work, the above results seem to indicate that those which are not thought to be relevant are passed to others. We are aware that the charges made for membership have been, for some organisations, a barrier to membership. The above results suggest that if our current total membership is 410, then readership (and potential membership if/when charges are removed/ reduced considerably) would be in the order of 1,418. Therefore, should we be in a position to offer free membership to all, there is a considerable potential readership and rationale for continuing to produce a range of papers on quite different subjects.

‘Delayed in the Post?’

Our attempts to establish whether our publications actually reach their destination met with some rather curious discrepancies, with some members receiving early mailings but not the more recent ones and even some publications of the same mailing being received and not others. The conclusion we have drawn from this is that there are problems at the recipients’ end (local postal systems or internal distribution hitches) or that papers were received but rapidly borrowed by colleagues. The anticipated the removal, of subscription charges for RRN membership (depending on funding availability) would ease the need for borrowing from colleagues as many more individuals will receive their own material. Where the problem is a question of wrongly addressed mail, we strongly urge members to let us know their change of address or post as early as possible so that we can operate effectively. Internal distribution systems are up to you!

RRN vs the Rest

When asked to compare our material with that of other ‘similar’ publications, the principle areas of advantage of the RRN compared with others seem to be: greater relevance/practicality from a field perspective; comment and analysis rather than simple unprocessed reporting; offers a breadth of country examples and overall, is seen to complement other information, such as Sitreps.

The principle criticisms were that much of our information is too specific and scientific. Our main competitors are considered to be the Refugee Participation Network, Monday Developments, Refugee Studies Programme and VOICE newsletter.

Mailing Frequency

The overwhelming conclusion from the questionnaire responses was to maintain the current frequency of mailings, ie. quarterly.

To Redesign or Not to Redesign

Perhaps unsurprisingly, few respondents felt strongly about changing our current grey and red colour scheme or the format. Moreover, it seems that the clear, simple and readable format is widely appreciated, and that the informality and non-glossy appearance fits with our audiences’s general taste. There was also evidence that it is recently rather improved. The principal criticism is that the our output tends to be rather ‘paper bound’.

Members’ Contributions

Nearly half the respondents (46%), indicated a willingness to contribute written material to the Network. Of those, the majority offered articles to the newsletter (17, or 34%) with a few volunteering Network Papers (5 or 10%). No one came forward and offered to draw up a good practice review. [It may have helped members to know that GPRs are commissioned and a fee is also offered to the peer group reviewers].

Cost Recovery

In terms of future RRN strategy, it was useful for us to know that 58% of respondents would be willing to continue to pay in some form or another for membership of the RRN, a positive indicator of the value attributed to our output.

Objectives Achieved

78% of members feel that the RRN achieves its stated objectives: that is, ‘to provide a mechanism for the exchange of experience and good practice between individuals and institutions working in emergencies around the world. It aims to bridge the gap between headquarters and field staff and between research and practice’.

Of those that did not, the main criticisms are: the limited involvement of the membership in guiding topics covered; more detailed experience wanted from the field; less emphasis on statements and a greater collection of members’ views; there does not seem to be a real feeling of an ‘active’ network (although these are probably more realistic at a national level); written material has too high a ‘threshold’ and a more diverse way of getting information in and out is needed.

Comments

A number of constructive comments were made by members on ways of improving our ‘service’. The most frequently cited was a desire to see a more active dialogue with members and more democratic selection of papers; more information on members’ own publications and more information available via email. On the positive side, our objectivity was described as central to what we do.