Nov
5
By V. Adams
Einstein had a sign hanging in his office that said, "Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts."
This interesting quote may sum up the value of the results presented by the James Bay Neighborhood Association in their recently completed "Quality of Life Survey".
While this was not a random survey of people's opinions about their level of satisfaction with Victoria's oldest neighborhood, this shortcoming means that the JBNA Quality of Life Survey may not be a meaningful way of accurately identifying either the critical problems or the key opportunities facing the community.
So, what value should be given to the survey results, and what actions should be taken as a consequence of these numbers? The short answer is that it may not be as helpful a tool as had been hoped in order to guide residents or decision-makers in planning for the future of James Bay.
How does quality of life express itself in the general population?
According to the 2006 Census of population in James Bay, 80 percent of people reside in rental accommodation, while 20 per cent live in owner-occupied dwellings. The JBNA "Quality of Life Survey", indicates that more than 87 percent of people are satisfied with the present quality of life in James Bay (as defined by the JBNA), while 13 per cent are not.
This pattern of systematic and predictable lack of balance, (as demonstrated in the aforementioned examples), was discovered in 1897 by the Italian economist, Vilfredo Pareto. His discovery has since been called many names, including the Pareto Principle, the Pareto Law, the 80/20 Rule, the Principle of Least Effort, and the Principle of Imbalance.
So what has this interesting bit of bumpf got to do with the Quality of Life Survey?
Well, according to a fascinating book by Richard Koch entitled, The 80/20 Principle, the world is unbalanced (though its human population hopefully is neither unhinged nor coming unglued). The message of the 80/20 Principle is that a majority of any phenomena will be explained or caused by a minority of those participating in the phenomena; for example, 80 percent of results come from 20 percent of the causes.
In a business context for example, the 80/20 Principle asserts that 20 percent of products, or customers or employees, are responsible for approximately 80 percent of profits (which may reflect a less than optimal or effective use of resources). And, in the case of the JBNA Quality of Life Survey, 87 percent of the self-selected population sample said they were satisfied with the current quality of life in James Bay, compared to 13 percent who expressed their dissatisfaction with it.
What these concepts and phenomena reveal, according to Koch, is that "there are always a few forces that have an influence way beyond their numbers. These are the forces that must be identified and watched. If they are forces for good, we should multiply them. If they are forces we don't like, we need to think very carefully about how to neutralize them." (Richard Koch, The 80/20 Principle, Doubleday, 1998, p. 14)
If we take a step further, according to the Pareto Principle, we will find that within the 87 percent of the population who are satisfied with living in James Bay, there will be a core group of about 20 percent who will be very satisfied. They will tend to initiate a strong positive influence over the majority of the population sample who expressed satisfaction with the quality of life in the James Bay neighborhood. Conversely, of those who are dissatisfied (13 percent according to JBNA), there will be a core group of 20 percent who will tend to be very dissatisfied and are likely to exhibit a negative influence over the population.
In light of this information, one might conclude that if the JBNA wishes to serve the needs of the neighborhood, that it should focus its attention and efforts on the vital few things that will truly make a difference and that will leave a positive impact on the entire community.
For the neighborhood association, this may mean trying to understand what few things are working exceptionally well in the community (and strengthening them). If they wish however to focus on things that are not working well, then at least focus on which 20 percent, that if resolved, will yield 80 percent of the benefits to the dissatisfied group and thereby transform them into satisfied members of the community.
Change is necessary for survival. Constructive change requires not only insight into what is most effective, but also the ability to focus on securing those things that count in the eyes of the majority of the residents. As life experience and scientific research show, often efforts do not realize their intended results (whether this involves reducing problems such traffic congestion, substance abuse, noise, poor air quality, graffiti/vandalism, accidents or enhancing opportunities such as the availability of health/social services or affordable housing).
The lesson learned here is the need to concentrate on finding the few things that will produce those ever-elusive yet important results for the majority of the community.
In response to the first comment, to my knowledge, the JBNA Quality of Life Survey was neither random nor unbiased.
The survey research team, by their own admission, did not distribute surveys to all adults living in the community, nor did they disclose how many surveys they printed and distributed. Since there were no control or validity measures taken with regard to survey completion, there was nothing to prevent several surveys being completed by the same person or people with vested interests in a particular outcome. Furthermore, there was no independent review of the methodology used (content analysis) to determine what the JBNA considered issues worth surveying or on what basis they would prioritize them.
Some might argue that the survey was filled with "leading" or "biased" questions, in which case it was highly unlikely to achieve an unbiased or independent result when questions were weighted in favor of a pre-determined interest or issue which the JBNA had identified.
The article states "While this was not a random survey of people's opinions about their level of satisfaction ...".
To determine if a sampling method is random two criteria must be met.
- Every member of the population must have an equal opportunity to be part fo the sample (principle of equality).
- The selection of each member must not be affected by the selection of previous members (principle of independence).
The survey met both criteria for randomness since ALL residents were surveyed and no resident was excluded by virtue of the participation of others.
Re: "Random sample" comment
It should be noted that the JBNA Quality of Life Survey team admitted, in a monthly meeting this fall, that it would have been far too expensive, too time consuming, and too resource intensive to have completed a statistically-valid random sample of community opinions.
Since the survey team did not eliminate perceived bias in the survey questions, and did not disclose how many surveys were printed or distributed, it is difficult to say what value to place on the results. Secondly, since the surveys were not distributed to the entire adult population of the neighborhood, at best this survey can be described as a "self-selective" view of the community. Thirdly, since there were no control measures in place to prevent more than one survey completed per person, it is difficult to interpret the results or to make any meaningful conclusions as a basis for appropriate action.
The QoL survey team did not permit independent validation of its "content analysis" (of JBNA minutes of monthly meetings to determine issues of concern to residents) used to establish issues of concern to community members which formed the content of survey questions. Hence, it is difficult indeed to draw any warranted conclusions based on the results of this survey.
One might be tempted to ask, do the concerns and priorities expressed by the JBNA in the Quality of Life Survey represent those of the community at large, or simply a small self-interested group seeking way to pursue their own agenda?
In the haste of the JBNA to get results, (without taking the appropriate time and care to complete a reliable needs assessment), the organization risks losing the confidence of the community in its ability to represent their key concerns and views in matters of public interest. It is regrettable that given the significance of the tasks to be undertaken next year that the JBNA would jeopardize its mandate and its long-standing community roots.
Perhaps it is time for citizens to take an active role in planning their future and taking responsibility for decisions that will affect generations to come. Rather than leaving their fate in the hands of "experts" who think they may know what's best for everyone, perhaps it is time to engage in a thoughtful and wide-ranging public planning process with decision-makers in this city. It is our birthright and it is our responsibility.