Content-Type: text/html

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
<a href="/cgi-bin/wa?LOGON=A3%3Dind0602A%26L%3DAEJMC%26E%3D8bit%26P%3D4847831%26B%3D--%26T%3Dtext%252Fplain%3B%2520charset%3Diso-8859-1" >[log in to unmask]</a> 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: 	<a href="/cgi-bin/wa?LOGON=A3%3Dind0602A%26L%3DAEJMC%26E%3D8bit%26P%3D4847831%26B%3D--%26T%3Dtext%252Fplain%3B%2520charset%3Diso-8859-1" >[log in to unmask]</a>; <a href="/cgi-bin/wa?LOGON=A3%3Dind0602A%26L%3DAEJMC%26E%3D8bit%26P%3D4847831%26B%3D--%26T%3Dtext%252Fplain%3B%2520charset%3Diso-8859-1" >[log in to unmask]</a>
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.