MOST MEMBERS NOT SHY IN THEIR RESPONSES TO NEWSLETTER SURVEY

by Lynne Friedmann and Bob Finn

NASW members were recently asked how satisfied they are with the scope, content, and frequency of ScienceWriters. Several hundred members used the opportunity to tell us what's on their mind. Overall, they expressed satisfaction with the publication, while making it clear they want it delivered on a more timely basis, prefer shorter articles, and seek more opportunities for members at large to contribute to the newsletter's editorial pages. Single-spaced comments and suggestions from respondents filled nearly two dozen pages. This input will guide the future direction of ScienceWriters.

The NASW newsletter debuted in 1952 in response to suggestions made at the annual membership meeting for the establishment of "a newsletter, or trade paper, or similar publication." At the time, the organization had 89 active and 80 associate members.

The first newsletter consisted of 10 stapled sheets produced using stencils (see note below). From the beginning, the newsletter has provided members with "trade" gossip, information on NASW activities, special articles written by members and invited contributors, a letter column, counsel on relations with scientists, and anything else that concerned science reporters and science reporting.

With NASW membership approaching 2,400, we thought it was high time to find out how satisfied members are with this member benefit.

The two of us developed a list of questions after researching newsletter surveys from other trade and professional organizations. We presented these to the NASW board for review and comment. At the suggestion of the board, the freelance committee added its own set of questions designed to glean the experiences of freelance members. At press time, the freelance committee was still analyzing results from that section of the survey. We expect to include these results in the next issue.

Working with Tim Torgenrud of Stanford (among his many other duties, Tim handles the technical details of nasw.org), we uploaded the two-part survey to the members section of the site. Administering the survey online eliminated printing and postage costs and allowed for faster and more accurate analysis of results. Members who could not access the Web (or did not wish to) could request a printed copy of the survey to complete and return by mail or fax.

An insert in the annual dues letter, sent to NASW members in December, announced the survey and the period during which it could be completed. Midway through that period, NASW members were sent a reminder notice about the survey deadline through nasw-announce, the new e-mail list.

Responses were collected during the month of January, with a total of 327 surveys completed. The overwhelming majority of surveys were done online, with only five members requesting a faxed copy. And most of those requests were made only because they'd forgotten their password to the NASW Web site.

Given the current membership base, the response rate of 13.6 percent is within the acceptable range of 10 percent to 15 percent for this type of survey, according to industry standards.
Survey questions and answers can be found on page 3. Here are some highlights:

Ninety-four percent of members responding indicated they were very satisfied, quite satisfied, or satisfied with the newsletter. Eighty percent of respondents read the newsletter within a week of receiving it, with nearly 40 percent reading it within two or three days of receipt.
Respondents favor the current quarterly publication cycle (75 percent) and wish to see the newsletter remain between 24 and 32 pages (80 percent).

While 92 percent answered in the affirmative that they are satisfied with the inclusion of articles reprinted from other sources, numerous written comments stated exactly the opposite. We're scratching our heads over this contradiction.

Regarding the "look" of ScienceWriters, 170 respondents said "leave it as is," with 134 respondents favoring the use of photos. There was little support for the introduction of color.
While 61 percent expressed a willingness to download the newsletter from the NASW Web site (in lieu of a printed copy), 37 percent wish to receive a printed copy only. Therefore, for the foreseeable future, ScienceWriters will continue to be distributed in print form via bulk mail. In addition, a .pdf version will be posted to the NASW Web site and members alerted via nasw-announce of its availability for viewing while they wait for snail mail to arrive.

A number of members expressed a desire for more articles on topics of concern to public information officers. In response to this feedback a new column is being introduced in this issue. PIO Forum (page 19) will be authored by Dennis Meredith of Duke University and Joann Rodgers of Johns Hopkins Medical Institution. In addition, we plan to include more feature articles of interest to PIOs.

Other members observed that only a small number of NASW members contribute to ScienceWriters. Your comments also included a wealth of story ideas that will be mined for future articles. Since all survey responses were anonymous, we have no way of connecting members with their story ideas. We are committed to including a greater variety of voices in ScienceWriters and encourage anyone with an idea for an article to contact Lynne.

We thank those of you who took the time to fill out the survey and encourage others to contact us with suggestions, reactions, and criticisms.

#

Lynne Friedmann (lfriedmann@nasw.org) is editor and Bob Finn (cybrarian @nasw.org) is deputy editor of ScienceWriters.