This paper was presented at the Association for Education in Journalism and
Mass Communication in San Antonio, Texas August 2005.
If you have questions about this paper, please contact the author
directly. If you have questions about the archives, email
rakyat [ at ] eparker.org. For an explanation of the subject line,
send email to
[log in to unmask] with just the four words, "get help info aejmc," in the
body (drop the "").
(Feb 2006)
Thank you.
Elliott Parker
====================================================================
Title: A Comparative Study of Chiang Mai, Nan, and Pattani Community
Radio Stations, Thailand
Author: Chalisa Magpanthong, Ph. D. student, School of Telecommunications
Ohio University
Mailing Address: 1319 Carriage Hill Drive, Athens, OH 45701
Telephone number: 740-2740019
Email addresses: [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]
Paper Submitted to: International Communication Division; the
Markham Competition
Abstract:
The Thai Constitution states people's organizations should operate
community radio stations (CRS). Since this has not been
operationalized, various groups managed unlicensed CRS. This survey
explored audience perceptions of CRS with different owners and
locations. Findings suggested that setting and culture mattered in
the perception that CRS catered to minorities and provided local
connectivity and information. They recommended programming that was
based on local culture and research to attract new audiences and
maintain old audiences.
The Markham Competition
A Comparative Study of Chiang Mai, Nan, and Pattani
Community Radio Stations, Thailand
Abstract
The Thai Constitution states people's organizations should operate
community radio stations (CRS). Since this has not been
operationalized, various groups managed unlicensed CRS. This survey
explored audience perceptions of CRS with different owners and
locations. Findings suggested that setting and culture mattered in
the perception that CRS catered to minorities and provided local
connectivity and information. They recommended programming that was
based on local culture and research to attract new audiences and
maintain old audiences.
A Comparative Study of Chiang Mai, Nan, and Pattani
Community Radio Stations, Thailand
Introduction
Article 40 of the Thai constitution of 1997 states that no less than
20% of the total radio frequencies must be granted to the "people's
organizations" for community radio. This article created profound
changes in the broadcast industry and in broadcasting policymaking.
However, at present, there is still neither an agreement on issuance
of broadcasting licenses nor on a restructuring plan for frequency
allocation. Additionally, a controversy has arisen over allegations
that the government and private media businesses are trying to block
the lawmaking process in order to protect their vested interests.
Since the Ownership Act has not been promulgated, there are no means
to implement Article 40. As a result, hundreds of community radio
stations are set up without licenses throughout the country.
Interestingly, the operators are not limited to people's
organizations as indicated in Article 40. Instead, these stations are
owned by different operators such as government agencies, civic or
nongovernmental organizations, and grassroots groups.
The mushrooming of community radio in Thailand is a remarkable
phenomenon. It raises the question of whether the Thai people notice
community radio—whether they listen to community radio. To address
that question, this research aims not only to study how Thai people
respond to community radio, but also how they evaluate its functions.
The current research is a comparative study of three community radio
stations of Thailand. These stations, located in Chiang Mai, Nan, and
Pattani, were selected based on ownership and location factors.
Background of the stations
Ownership
Chiang Mai community radio station was initiated by scholars from
Chiang Mai University, Payup University, Rajapat Institute, and
Phothiyalai (Monk's Community Study Center). They are partners and
work as a not-for-profit organization. The station signed on in
April, 2003 as FM 99. At present, the station broadcasts 17 hours a
day. Nan radio is not actually a station. It is a community radio
program of Radio Thailand, Nan province. It is a pilot project of the
Public Relations Department, a government agency that owns 137 radio
stations. Nan community radio is one of the 68 stations that joined
the project and the program hosts are representatives from the
province. This program started in March 2003 and broadcasts from FM
94.75. At present, it broadcasts two hours a day. Finally, Pattani
community radio station belongs to the Pattani Community Radio Group,
which is a media grassroots group in this province. The station
started in June, 2003 on FM 97.75. At present, it broadcasts 12 hours a day.
Location
Chiang Mai and Nan community radio are in the North of Thailand. The
location allows them to share similar cultural and social contexts.
However, 60% of Chiang Mai programs are in the Lanna dialect, which
is the local language of Chiang Mai province. Nan community radio is
in Thai language, which is an official language of Thailand. Unlike
the first two stations, Pattani radio is located in the South of
Thailand, where 85% of the population is Muslim. Thirty percent of
its programs are broadcast in Thai and 56% of the programs are mixed
between Thai and Malay dialect. Malay is the dialect of Muslim Thai.
The rest of the programs are in Tai—a southern dialect spoken by
Buddhist Thais. Obviously, this difference in religion gives the
Pattani station a different cultural and social context from other
parts of the country.
In sum, the two main characteristic differences of the three
community radios—types of operators and location/social contexts—lead
to the following research questions: firstly, do community radio
stations fit into people's daily lives when compared to mainstream
media—television, public and commercial radio stations, and
newspapers in particular? And, secondly, how do the residents of the
three provinces identify the roles of community radio stations?
Literature Review
Community radio is not a new type of radio. Community radio started
about five decades ago in the late 1940s. Barlow (1988) states that
in the United States, community radio originated from two sources.
First were the groups of ethnic broadcasters such as German, Polish,
and Italian migrants who bought blocks of airtime from urban
commercial stations and broadcast in their native languages. Second
were leftist groups who struggled with the repressive political
climate of the Cold War era. They used radio as their tool to
generate political opposition. The first community radio station in
the United States, KPFA, was founded in 1949 (pp. 83-86). In Latin
America, Bolivian mining workers started their own station, Radios
Miner, also in 1949. Mining workers used radio to empower the miners
when the country was under military rule (Dagron, 2001, pp. 43-46).
Since the first appearance of community radio, it has been an
alternative radio source. The term 'alternative' is used to inscribe
its boundary as a supplement medium of society, where public and
commercial stations became mainstream radio types of society. At
present, community radio still clings to the term 'alternative' and
it is widely used as a tool for development and social change.
Mainly, the station operates on a community scale, a common station
type in developing countries.
The nature of community
The term 'community' is ambiguous by its nature. It sounds familiar
but it is also difficult to define. Hence, it is crucial to
deconstruct the term 'community' in order to expand the vision of
community radio.
Ahmed and Fortier (2003) pointed out that the term 'community' is
varied by the contexts in which it is found. For example, within a
political context, it refers to citizenship and rights. However, from
a sociological context, it focuses on how social change influences
the experiences of community life. To sociologists, it is mainly
judged either by the modes of 'being together,' which refers to
common grounds of sameness, mutual responsibility, connectedness, and
attachment, or by the sense of 'belonging' (p. 253).
Anderson stated that the term community shares two basic dimensions:
1) space where people habituate in and interact with each other and
2) recognition of insiders who share common interests, values, and
allegiances (1983, as cited in Bareiss, 1998, p. 405). His knowledge
seems associated to Kneafsey, who stated that community is not
physical, but rather it is a discursive construction that reminds us
of our shared locality (1995, as cited in Bareiss, 1998, p. 405).
Hummon added that community identifies a range of spatial
attachments: rootedness, alienation, and placelessness. That is,
individuals may define themselves through the sense of communal
membership and place rootedness, or may alienate themselves from a
specific place and also independently convince themselves to not
attach with any place (1992 cited in Bareiss, 1998, p. 406).
Finally, Ahmed and Fortier argued that there is a range of different
forms of community; we may view it as an effect of power, consider it
as a historical aspect of community formation, or articulate its
"grammars" of collective belonging: the multi(culture), the queers,
the diasporic, the virtual, or the cosmopolitan (2003, p. 256). They
proposed an interesting idea that community can be a nation, city, or
small town. Likewise, within the community, there are alternative
communities that provide "safe spaces" for queers, subalterns, and
others (2003, p. 225). Here, they discussed the binary meanings of
community: the interaction of dominant and alternative groups creates
a negotiation of the public space.
The features of community radio
The deconstruction of the nature of 'community' is a guideline to
better understanding the characteristics of community radio. Llyod
defined community radio as "a small, low powered station organized in
such a sway as to be responsive to the specific needs of the
grassroots community" (1991, as cited Offer, 2002, p. 9). Durlin and
Melio (2003) said community radio is a station where communities can
access and volunteers can be involved in every aspect of station
operations (p. 252). Offer (2002) described the features of community
radio as "small-scale, interactive, and participative" (p. 14).
Finally, MacBride proposed the main functions of community radio,
which help describe its characteristics. These are: information,
socialization, motivation, debate and discussion, education, cultural
promotion, entertainment, and integration (1980, as cited in Offer,
2002, pp. 14-15). In short, the cornerstone of community radio is
that it is a communication channel controlled by local people or civic groups.
Since community radio plays a role as a social institution and also
as part of a broadcasting system, it is necessary to deconstruct its
characteristics using four perspectives: politics, marketing, social
and cultural diversity, and localism. The four perspectives will not
only help reveal the characteristics and functions of community
radio, but eventually it will help focus the scope of this current
research as well.
Firstly, from the perspective of politics, community radio is a
symbol of a democratic and decentralized community. This point of
view may be extended by Habermas's (1989) notion of the 'public
sphere', which he describes as the sphere of people who join to form
a 'public.' In this perspective, people use community radio as a
place to post or announce their public opinions. Habermas stated that
the public sphere plays a role in allowing civil society to
articulate its interests in modern politics. Here, Aufderheide (1991)
asserted that "mass media can foster the communication essential to
formation of a public sphere" (p. 169), which is clear in that many
community radio stations position themselves as a public space for
localities and persuade residents to participate, both as listeners
and volunteers. Here, I posit a question: how does the audience
conceptualize the role of community radio as a public sphere of the community?
From the perspective of marketing, community radio categorized as a
noncommercial or not-for-profit type of radio station has to fight
with mainstream radio, television, and other media to survive. A
study of Bareiss (1998) seems to support this fact. He finds that a
community radio station faces two difficulties. Firstly, it has to
work under pressure from listeners who demand the station change
while others call for preservation of the established programming.
Secondly, it has to serve its role as a local station and also
compete with those from larger markets. From a marketing perspective,
I posit two questions for this study: what is the audience's media
usage pattern and how does the audience like community radio and its programs?
From the perspective of social and cultural diversity, community
radio refers to alternative media. Community radio exists on the
local level to encourage and insist on a democratic atmosphere in
which society supports diversity and differences. The notion of
diversity refers to a broad array of ideas, opinions, and information
relevant to content and programming. Here, community radio can
emphasize a feeling or a sense of belonging through its programming
or activities. The term 'diversity' implies multiple (and often
marginalized) races, civic groups, sexualities, subcultures, and
different languages. Its function is to serve as a supplement for
mainstream stations which produce few popular program genres. Here, I
posit a question: how does the audience view the roles of community radio?
Finally, on localism, community radio provides and heightens
decentralization in Thai broadcasting policymaking, as there are
community radio stations through out the country. However, Stavinsky
(1994) found that local radio has suffered from its ambiguous
definition. He said that there have been some debates over the nature
of community and the nature of community radio stations, conflicts
arising between spatial and social perspectives. As a result, it
seems community radio stations have to decide whether to work to
serve the policies of localism in the spatial conception or to
broadcast under the social conception of community. Here, I posit a
question: how does the audience value community radio in supporting
local identity?
Audience research in community radio
Generally speaking, audience research in community radio is rare. The
fact is that these stations are limited in budget and personnel.
Moreover, in the past, most of research focused on the station more
than its audiences. For example, Valbuena (1988) evaluated Mahaweli
Community Radio (MCR) of Sri Lanka to determine the impact of the
station on agriculture, husbandry, and primary health care. Howley
(1999) studied WFHB, a community radio in Bloomington, Indiana and
found that the station was facing financial problems and was
threatened by mainstream media. Beatty (2000) studied the
perspectives of staff and board members of KOOP-FM radio station—a
community radio in Austin Texas. He found that KOOP-FM had internal
problems, which obviously affect programming.
These studies are important in terms of institutional
development. However, the capacity of community radio also depends
on how well it can communicate with its audiences. Audience research
can benefit communication policy. Raboy, Proulx, and Welters (2001)
stated that audience research not only contributes to our
understanding of media but also aid media policy; it persuades us to
review media in terms of social and cultural objectives, which
hopefully might encourage policy makers to meet "non-market public
policy objectives" (p. 96).
What Stavisky indicated is that audience research in public radio
and community radio is much different from commercial radio due to
its characteristics and functions. Here, Eaman emphasized that
"commercial style ratings proved inadequate for ascertaining public
priorities in the area of broadcasting" (1994, as cited in Stavitsky,
1998, p. 521). Ang adds that "knowing the size of the audience alone
is not sufficient to gauge the success and failure of public service
media" (1991, as cited in Stavitsky, 1998, p. 521). According to the
nature of community radio, audience research should focus not only on
audience gratifications but also on audiences' perceptions about how
community radio as an institution of the society plays its roles in society.
In terms of investment, community radio is similar to commercial
broadcasting in that it is costly in both human and natural resources
(frequencies), so it is necessary to find out whether these are used
effectively. As Stavitsky (1998) rightly noted, noncommercial media
generally view their objective for broadcasting in social and
cultural terms (as opposed to commercial terms) (p. 521). As a
result, it is valuable to study from the receiver's side, as Hindman
and Coyle (1999) suggest, "What is not known is how community
residents talk about community radio in their community" (p. 13).
Research Questions and Hypotheses
This study thus poses two research questions which are answered
through six hypotheses:
RQ1: Do community radio stations fit into people's daily lives, when
compared to mainstream media—television, public and commercial radio
stations, and newspapers in particular?
H1: There is an association between community radio listening and
socio-demographic variables such as sex, age, religion, education,
languages, occupation, and income.
H2: There is an association between community radio listening and
media habits such as TV viewing, public/commercial radio listening,
and newspaper reading.
H3: There is an association between community radio listening and
frequency of listening and the extent to which they like community
radio programs
H4: There is an association between community radio listening
frequency and the strength of the signal.
RQ2: How do people of three provinces—Chiang Mai, Nan, and
Pattani—identify the roles of community radio stations?
H5: People who listen to community radio stations have a higher
positive thinking about the roles of community radio than those who
do not listen to it.
H6: Owing to differences in cultural and social contexts, people in
the three provinces have different attitudes toward the roles of
community radio stations.
Methodology
This survey of 66 respondents, 31 males and 35 females, was conducted
in the provinces of Chiang Mai, Nan, and Pattani in Thailand during
March 2005. In each site, a contact person administered the data
collection by handing out a questionnaire to 50 households within the
coverage area of the stations. The questionnaires were retrieved the
following day. The response rates were 36% in Chiang Mai, 40% in Nan,
and 56% in Pattani. These response rates were typical in Thailand.
Instrument
For convenience of the respondents, the questionnaire was translated
into Thai language. The questionnaire was composed of two parts:
media usage and demographic information. The section on media usage
asked about television viewing, newspaper reading, and radio
listening habits. It also included a 14-statement attitudinal scale
on the role of community radio. Finally, those who listened to
community radio were also asked about when they started listening to
it, how often they did so, and which programs they liked. The second
part covered sex, age, religion, education, languages spoken,
occupation, average family income, and area of residence.
Respondents Profile
A majority (53%) of the respondents were female. The age of the
respondents ranged from 18 to 63 years old, with a mean of 34. The
biggest group came from the 27 to 40 year old age group, while the
younger and older groups accounted for around a third of all
respondents. Nearly two-thirds (64%) of the respondents were
Buddhist, while the remainder were Muslims.
The biggest group (32%) of respondents had studied to a level
between 7 and 12 grades, followed by those with college degrees
(26%). Only a fifth (20%) of the respondents spoke both Thai and
local dialects. An almost equal number of respondents (around 40%)
spoke either Thai or the local dialect.
Nearly three-fourths of the respondents were professionals, working
as government employees, teachers, or traders. Almost 20% were
students. Forty percent had an average household income between $126
and $250 each month. Over one fourth had income higher than $375.
Pattani accounted for 42% of the respondents, followed by Nan (30%)
and Chiang Mai (27%).
Table 1 is about here.
Media Use
Television had the biggest audience as only one of the respondents
did not watch it. An almost equal number of respondents read
newspapers (83%) and listened to radio (80%). Community radio reached
six out of ten respondents.
Table 2 is about here.
Among those who watched TV, 70% did so everyday and nearly 38%
watched it more than four hours per day.
Table 2.1 is about here.
The biggest group (60%) of newspaper readers, meanwhile, spent only
up to 20 minutes per day.
Table 2.2 is about here.
Nearly half (45%) of radio listeners listen everyday, mainly for
information (57%) and entertainment (32%).
Table 2.3 is about here.
Community radio listeners listened for general (30%) and local (10%)
information. They also listened because the stations were connected
and managed locally (23%). Three persons listened for religion.
Nearly two-thirds of those who did not listen said they did not
listen to radio at all, followed by those who did not know the
station frequency (35%).
Among community radio listeners, the same number (40%) of
respondents had listened less than half a year or more than one year.
The biggest group (40%) of respondents listened one to two days a
week, followed by those who listened three to four days (30%). Twenty
percent listened daily. Over 60% said they liked the programming
somewhat, and 73% said they received a good signal.
Table 2.4 is about here.
Hypothesis Testing
H1: Community radio listening and socio-demographic variables
Religion, language, education and income were significantly
correlated (p<.05) with community radio listening. Religion (.48) and
language (.33) were positively correlated with listening. Muslims and
those who could speak both languages were most likely to listen to
community radio. Education (-.30) and family income (-.45) were
negatively correlated with listening. Higher-educated and
higher-income respondents were less likely to listen. Sex, age, and
occupation were not significantly correlated with community radio listening.
H2: Community radio listening and media use
Only radio listening (.61) is significantly and moderately
correlated to community radio listening. I believe the respondents
took it for granted whether they were listening to public/commercial
or community radio station since a list of their most favorite
programs in community radio stations were programs from general
radio. TV watching and newspaper reading were not correlated with
community radio listening, which suggested these media were not
competing with community radio.
H3: Community radio listening, frequency of listening and the extent
to which they liked its programs
Listening to community radio and liking it were highly and
significantly correlated (.89). Also, listening to community radio
and frequency of listening were highly and significantly correlated
(.76). Frequency of listening and likeliness were also significantly
correlated but not as strongly (.56). I can say that community radio
stations gave what their audiences wanted (See Table 2.4) because
they liked what they listened to. However, liking it did not mean
listening to it more frequently, maybe because of other activities.
H4: Community radio listening frequency and the strength of the signal
The strength of the signal and community radio listening were also
significantly and strongly correlated (.87). Better reception meant
people listened more frequently to community radio stations.
H5: Community radio listening and attitudes on its roles
Community radio listening and the composite scores for the
attitudinal statements on the role of community radio stations were
significantly correlated, but not strongly (.35).
H6: Province of residence and attitudes toward the roles of
community radio stations
Listening to community radio stations and province of residence were
significantly correlated (.41). This meant Pattani respondents
listened more than Nan and Chiang Mai to their community radio station.
Table 3 is about here.
There was no significant correlation between place of residence and
attitude since all of the respondents gave positive scores towards
the role of community radio.
Table 4 is about here.
Using a scale of 1 to 7, where 7 is strongly agree, there was
agreement, across locations, that the stations (in parentheses average means):
• Provide information (6.09)
• Reflect or monitor community problems (6.02)
• Support local diversity (5.95)
• Serve as a communication channel for the exchange of ideas (5.92)
• Create participatory atmosphere (5.86)
• Serve as a warning for fire, flood, drugs, and diseases (5.85)
• Promote local identity and minority groups (5.83)
• Support community affairs (5.76)
• Entertain people (5.15)
Testing each statement using ANOVA across all respondents showed
three important and significant (p<.05) differences across provinces
in the attitude towards the role of community radio stations.
Residents of Pattani, in a Muslim society, rated the function of
community radio as a tool to promote religion higher compared to
people from other places. On the other hand, people from Chiang Mai,
which was a major business city of the northern part of Thailand,
believed more strongly that community radio was 1) controlled by
local tycoons or politicians, 2) used as a tool for business profits
of a business sector, and 3) as a means for local politics.
Table 5.1 is about here.
But among community radio listeners only, the same test showed only
Pattani had a significantly different attitude on the use of the
station for religion.
Table 5.2 is about here.
Table 5.1 is about here.
Among non-community radio listeners, Nan respondents were
significantly different among the others in perceiving that their
community station was not 1) controlled by local tycoons or
politicians, 2) used as a tool for business profits of a business
sector, and 3) as a means for local politics.
Because Nan's community radio was government, there was probably a
perception that the local elites could not control it. However,
Chiang Mai's and Pattani's, which were organized by NGOs and
grassroots groups respectively, could be perceived as easily
controlled by local elites. This made exposure to community radio
important because listeners knew that their stations were not used by
these elites.
Conclusion and Implications
The study reveals the importance of cultural identity in the
characteristic of community radio as the ability to speak in both
national language and local dialect relates to listening. Also,
community radio is valuable in supporting minority identity as we see
in its use to promote religion in Pattani. The narrow coverage of
community radio is appropriate in catering to local cultural
identities. The data indicate that local language is very important
for audiences because it is only community radios that use it in
their broadcasts. Thus, for community radio stations to grow, they
need to use local languages to reach wider audiences. This means the
government policy on the sole use of Thai as the exclusive broadcast
language has to consider this finding, as supported by Raboy, Proulx,
and Welters (2001) who said social and cultural factors are key
concepts in media policymaking.
Findings suggested mainstream media such as television, newspapers,
and public/commercial radio did not threaten community radio. With
the wider audience of the mainstream media, community radio is
therefore a supplement to them. Community radio provides local
information and a sense of connection. In fact, radio listening is
associated with community radio listening. However, this is also a
dilemma for community radio because if it cannot change this
association, then it will only become an alternative medium. There is
a need for community radio to promote itself better for a variety of
reasons. Firstly, people cannot differentiate the content between
the two types of radio features. Secondly, some respondents do not
know the frequency of the stations. Thirdly, the stations have to
highlight their local affiliation since the data show people listen
not because of quality, but because of a sense of connection that
they want to support. Beyond promotion, community radio also had to
consider its technical aspect. A clear signal is very important for
encouraging people to listen more to community radio.
Promotion and a better signal can help in making people listen to
community radio. This first step is very important since the study
shows that people who listen to community radio like it. That people
listen to and like community radio, however, does not mean they
listen to it more frequently. This is a challenge for community radio
station managers and personnel to create programming that caters to
local needs, which is their main role. They also must promote loyalty
among their audiences. The drive to increase the number of frequent
listeners highlights the use of audience research as recommended by
Valbuena (1988).
The respondents from a big city such as Chiang Mai are more
suspicious of the use of community radio by politicians and business
tycoons. Similarly, non-listeners have this negative perception that
community radio can be controlled by local elites. However, community
radio listeners across all provinces believe that this is not the
case. This shows the importance in making people tune in to the
stations. The respondents did not see differences in the role of the
radio stations even if they were operated by various organizations.
What seems to be more important is the content.
In this case, the case of Pattani is important. Pattani community
radio station is able to cater to its audiences. Its residents
believe it helps in the promotion of Islam, their predominant
religion. This demonstrates the ability of a community radio to
support local culture and tradition.
References
Ahmed, S. & Fortier, A. (2003). Re-imagining communities.
International Journal of Cultural Studies. 6(3), 251-259.
Aufderheide, P. (1991). Public television and the public sphere.
Critical Studies in
Mass Communication, 8, 168-183.
Bareiss, W. (1998). Public Space, Private Face: Audience Construction at a
Noncommercial Radio Station. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 15,
405-422.
Barlow, W. (1988). Community radio in the U.S.: The struggle for a
democratic medium.
Media, Culture and Society, 10(1), 81-105.
Dagron, A. G. (2001). Making Waves: Stories of Participatory
Communication for Social
Change. New York: The Rockefeller Foundation.
Durlin, M. & Melio, C. (2003). The grassroots radio movement in the
United States. In
M. P. McCauley, E. E. Peterson, B. Lee Artz, & D. Halleck (Eds.). Public
Broadcasting and the Public Interest (pp. 252-264). New York: M. E. Sharpe.
Habermas, J. (1989). The Structural Transformation of the Public
Sphere. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Hindman, D. B. and Coyle, K. (1999). Audience orientations to local
radio coverage of
a natural disaster. Journal of Radio Studies, 6(1), 8-26.
Howley, K. (1999). Finding a spot on the dial: The struggle for
community radio in
Bloomington, Indiana. Journal of Radio Studies, 6(1), 41-55.
Offer, J. O. (2002). Community Radio and its Influence in the
Society: The Case of
Enugu State, Nigeria. Frankfurt am Main: IKO-Verlag fur Interkulturelle
Kommunikation.
Raboy, M., Proulx, S. & Welters, R. (2001). Media policy, audiences,
and social
demand: Research at the interface of policy studies and audience
studies. Television and New Media, 2(2), 95-115.
Stavitsky, A.G. (1998). Counting the house in public television: A
history of ratings use,
1980- Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media. 42(4), 520-535.
Stavinsky, A. G. (1994). The Changing Conception of Localism in U.S.
public Radio.
Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 38(1), 19-33.
Valbuena, V. T. (1988). Mahaweli Community Radio Project: An
Evaluation. Singapore:
Asian Mass Communication.
Appendix A: Tables of the findings
Table 1
Demographic Profile of Respondents (N=66)
Sex
Frequency
Percentage
Male
31
47.0
Female
35
53.0
Age
Frequency
Percentage
18 to 25
22
33.3
27 to 40
24
36.4
42 to 65
20
30.3
Religion
Frequency
Percentage
Buddhism
42
63.6
Islam
24
36.4
Education
Frequency
Percentage
Less than 6 grades
7
10.6
7 to 12 grades
21
31.8
Two years of college
12
18.2
College graduate
17
25.8
Higher than college degree
9
13.6
Languages Spoken
Frequency
Percentage
Thai
26
39.4
Local dialect
27
40.9
Both
13
19.7
Occupation
Frequency
Percentage
Student
13
19.7
Professional
47
71.2
Non-professional
2
3.0
None
4
6.1
Income
Frequency
Percentage
Lower than $125
7
10.6
$126 to $250
26
39.4
$251 to $375
12
18.2
Higher than $375
18
27.3
No answer
3
4.5
Province of residence
Frequency
Percentage
Nan
20
30.3
Chiang Mai
18
27.3
Pattani
28
42.4
Table 2
Media Use (N=66)
Television watching
Frequency
Percentage
Yes
65
98.5
No
1
1.5
Newspaper reading
Yes
55
83.3
No
11
16.7
Radio listening
Frequency
Percentage
Yes
53
80.3
No
13
19.7
Community radio listening
Frequency
Percentage
Yes
40
60.6
No
26
39.4
Table 2.1
Television Use (N=65)
Frequency
Frequency
Percentage
One to three times a week
10
15.4
Four to six times a week
9
13.8
Everyday
46
70.8
Number of hours per day
Frequency
Percentage
Up to 2 hours
22
33.8
3 to 4 hours
18
27.3
More than 4 hours
25
37.9
Table 2.2
Newspaper Use (N=55)
Number of minutes per day
Frequency
Percentage
Up to 20 minutes
33
60.0
More than 20 minutes
21
38.2
No answer
1
1.8
Table 2.3
Radio Use (N=53)
Frequency
Frequency
Percentage
One to two days a week
10
18.9
Three to four days
7
13.2
Five to six days
9
17.0
Daily
24
45.3
No answer
3
5.7
Reasons for listening
Frequency
Percentage
Information
30
56.6
Companionship
6
11.3
Entertainment
17
32.1
Table 2.4
Community Radio Use
Reasons for listening (N=40)
Frequency
Percentage
General information
12
30.0
Local connection and management
9
22.5
Local information
4
10.0
Companionship
4
10.0
Religion
3
7.5
Music
1
2.5
No answer
7
17.5
Reasons for not listening (N=26)
Frequency
Percentage
Boring
1
5.0
Not interested
1
5.0
Do not know the station frequency
7
35.0
Do not listen to radio at all
13
65.0
No answer
4
20.0
Beginning of listening (N=40)
Frequency
Percentage
Less than half a year
16
40.0
7 to 12 months
5
12.5
More than one year
16
40.0
Cannot remember
3
7.5
Frequency of listening (N=40)
Frequency
Percentage
One to two days a week
16
40.0
Three to four days
12
30.0
Five to six days
4
10.0
Daily
8
20.0
Likeliness of listening (N=40)
Frequency
Percentage
Strongly like
13
32.5
Like somewhat
25
62.5
Dislike somewhat
2
5.0
Strength of signal (N=40)
Frequency
Percentage
Good
29
72.5
Bad
11
27.5
A Comparative Study of Community Radio Stations in Thailand
Table 3
Correlations
TV watching
Newspaper reading
Radio listening
Frequency of community
radio listening
Strength of a radio signal
Sex
Age
Religion
Education
Language
Occupation
Family income
Province of residence
Community radio listening
Composite scores of attitude on roles of community radio
Likeliness of community radio programs
TV watching
1
Newspaper reading
.277*
1
Radio listening
-.061
-.017
1
Frequency of community radio listening
.025
-.120
.465**
1
Strength of a radio signal
-.040
-.256*
.536**
.676**
1
Sex
-.117
-.176
-.008
-.124
-.087
1
Age
-.011
-.038
.015
.228
.175
-.011
1
Religion
-.164
-.254*
.216
.220
.462**
.017
.274*
1
Education
.100
.229
-.123
-.315*
-.154
.024
-.257*
-.177
1
Language
-.033
-.119
.176
.219
.259*
-.045
-.017
.158
-.213
1
Occupation
-.113
-.288*
.029
.064
.131
.172
.244*
.260*
-.218
.055
1
Family income
.145
.201
-.376**
-.324**
-.365**
.099
.046
-.427**
.442**
-.188
-.247*
1
Province of residence
-.129
-.128
.387**
.236
.398**
.099
.309*
.787**
-.014
-.083
.286*
-.346**
1
Community radio listening
-.100
-.111
.614**
.758**
.873**
-.137
.189
.481**
-.299*
.329**
.122
-.448**
.410**
1
Composite scores of attitude on roles of community radio
-.146
.079
.197
.302*
.243*
-.060
-.083
.087
-.054
.013
-.219
-.047
.113
.353**
1
Likeliness of community radio programs
-.125
-.108
.548**
.559**
.825**
-.148
.107
.431**
-.194
.250*
.222
-.406**
.316**
.893**
.224
1
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
A Comparative Study of Community Radio Stations in Thailand
Table 4
Composite scores of attitude towards roles of community radio
Provinces
N
Mean
Nan
20
70.3
Chiang Mai
18
68.2
Pattani
28
72.8
Total
66
70.8
ANOVA
Composite scores of attitude towards roles of community radio
Sum of Squares
df
Mean Square
F
Sig.
Between Groups
232
2
116.01
1.05
0.36
Within Groups
6956.1
63
110.41
Total
7188.1
65
Table 5.1
Attitudes on the roles of community radio stations: Across all respondents
ANOVA
Community radio roles
F-Ratio
Provides information
.253
Entertainment
.129
Channel of communication
.138
Surveillance of the community
.262
Monitor community problems
.236
Participatory atmosphere
.219
Conserves local culture
.227
Supports local diversity/minority groups
.237
Promote local identity
.349
Support community affairs
.230
Promote religion
.000*
Tool controlled of local tycoon/politician
.049*
Tool of a business sector
.010*
Tool for local politics
.012*
* Significant at the 0.05 level.
Table 5.2
Attitudes on the roles of community radio stations: Among listeners only
ANOVA
Community radio roles
F-Ratio
Provides information
.918
Entertainment
.053
Channel of communication
.837
Surveillance of the community
.372
Monitor community problems
.538
Participatory atmosphere
.533
Conserves local culture
.517
Supports local diversity/minority groups
.875
Promote local identity
.337
Support community affairs
.802
Promote religion
.010*
Tool controlled of local tycoon/politician
.917
Tool of a business sector
.674
Tool for local politics
.845
* Significant at the 0.05 level.
Table 5.3
Attitudes on the roles of community radio stations: Among non-listeners
ANOVA
Community radio roles
F-Ratio
Provides information
.214
Entertainment
.067
Channel of communication
.066
Surveillance of the community
.176
Monitor community problems
.067
Participatory atmosphere
.061
Conserves local culture
.121
Supports local diversity/minority groups
.116
Promote local identity
.109
Support community affairs
.135
Promote religion
.505
Tool controlled of local tycoon/politician
.008*
Tool of a business sector
.014*
Tool for local politics
.015*
* Significant at the 0.05 level.
|
