- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I believe in years past it has been mentioned that the church does surveys of members but that people like us are probably not part of them. Lo and behold, earlier this week I was invited to participate via email. Quote:Under the direction of the Correlation Executive Committee, the Research Division of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints periodically conducts research. You have been selected to participate in a survey about Church products and resources.
This survey will ask you about some of the resources that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints provides, which you may or may not use. It should take 10-15 minutes or less to complete. This survey is for everyone, even if you have not heard of or used the resources we ask about.
I did the survey. The beginning was some general demographic info asking about what language I speak at home and church, what language I use for church materials, and if there were children in the home. It later asked if I prefer digital or print versions of stuff (I mostly prefer digital).
After that it got into the nitty gritty, and it was about church resources as stated in the email. The first set of questions was about my “needs.” It included sections like support for youth and answering their questions, help reading and understanding the Book of Mormon (no other scriptures referenced), help with addiction, preparing for the temple, family history, official sources for learning about church history, support for YSA, and hearing testimonies of the apostles and prophets. This was presented as a list and I was to choose which of them I needed help with, and I could choose as many as I wanted. There was a none of these option (which I chose).The survey appeared to skip ahead at that point judging by the progress bar, so it didn’t at this point ask why.
The next section presented me with a list of resources. The list was Light the World, Nombre, The Christ Child, The Christ Child Behind the Scenes, Be Part of the Greatest Story, and Silent Night (Pres. Nelson and Clair Crosby). It then asked individually whether I had heard of each one and used it (it was a rating scale with never heard of it, heard of it but don’t use, have used it, use it a lot). I had only heard of Light the World, and had actually used it but not a lot.
Then there was an interesting screen that basically said if I had three extra hours per week I could spend on items on the list, how much would I spend on each? I could use decimals, but not more than 3 total hours. The list was Light the World, Gospel Living app, My Family Booklet, First Presidency Video Messages, Strengthening Young Single Adult content, Liahona, Scripture Stories, My Plan for Returning Missionaries, Self Reliance Initiative, and Life Help content. I left them all 0, and I was not able to add my own choices or say “something else” (I may have said something like reading the scriptures or family history). The truth is I have plenty of time to do all those things if I wanted, I am retired after all (every day is Saturday!). It then asked specifically why I didn’t use some of them with answers like doesn’t apply to me, not interested, not helpful, or difficult to understand (I think there was another choice I can’t remember and didn’t note). I answered some didn’t apply (the returning missionary thing for example) and most not interested, although I somehow must have indicated I have sometimes used the Gospel Living app because it asked more specific questions about that one – or maybe they were just doing a blue plate special with that one. I am surprised Addiction Recovery was not on this list, but the list appears to be only online resources. I was likewise surprised that things like church employment assistance and social services were not on the list, but again it appeared to only be online or print resources.
Lastly it gave me the opportunity to say whatever I’d like. I wrote a very brief statement about while I understand many people need the types of resources discussed in the survey to stay engaged, my own faith in Jesus Christ and his gospel was engaging enough and I feel I “live the gospel” (I did use quotation marks) by following Christ’s example as found in the four gospels and trying to love God and love my neighbors. I also indicated I didn’t feel the need to engage in “gospel related” (again with the marks) activities like self reliance beyond what I already naturally do.
So for what it’s worth, there it is. Like many other things, I don’t get my tithing money’s worth out of church resources.
With surveys that have more numerical output (rate from 1 to 10) than free form answers, I always wonder why they don’t try to get the survey out to a lot more people than they do. If they look at the average, or 90th percentile, or whatever it seems like they’d get closer to a number that reflected the general membership’s opinion by including more people. Taking the average of 50,000 participants or taking the average of 500,000 participants, it’s still just one calculation.
Even if the survey had a mix of numbers and free form, they could still take the average of all participants and randomly select a certain number of free form answers from those that provided them. Cap the number they look at so someone doesn’t have to parse 500,000 free form answers. Or get AI to parse them all and summarize.
Agreed, Nibbler. There was only the opportunity at the end to give any input other than the responses offered. Those responses could be tabulated of course, but I have wondered in retrospect to what end? Are they trying to show people do use the resources or don’t? There was really no input about how to improve the resources or what other resources one might like. It was only about 15 minutes so I don’t feel like I wasted a chunk of my life, but it’s pretty clear I will never know the results of the survey or even what the intent of it is or how any results may be used. And I’m sure my responses were outliers, so likely insignificant and meaningless. In general I am glad that the church does surveys to get feedback from membership on changing needs and likes. I hope that it uses the feedback to tweak their offerings. I too would be an outlier and I would not expect the church to cater to me specifically. It is enough that the church might be trying to determine what would be best for the majority.
In general, I like surveys that ask me my needs and if my needs are being fulfilled. What I like even better, ask me the same questions to my face & don’t pass judgement.
Give me the opportunity to ask follow up questions. Give me the opportunity to ask
“what do you mean by that…?” Survey’s & questionnaires are too impersonal & robotic.
They are more of a marketing tool then anything else.
Do religious organizations that claim special access to God need surveys to discover if
the members spiritual needs are being met?
Roy wrote:
In general I am glad that the church does surveys to get feedback from membership on changing needs and likes. I hope that it uses the feedback to tweak their offerings.I too would be an outlier and I would not expect the church
to cater to me specifically. It is enough that the church might be trying to determine what would be best for the majority.
[bolding is mine]
I think that this is essentially what the church organization is up against in terms of keeping the members’ attention. We can set up playlists for our custom music in our own headphone bubble tailored to us. We can set up different temperature zones in the car tailored to an individual’s temperature preferences. We can find our own “echo chambers” much more easily these days. We are grappling with what “everything” looks likes on a personal scale – from the increase in “single serve” portions (personalized for 1 serving to “on the goal”), to life goals, to a variety of self-empowering/self-accessing options. A re-occurring question is “what does spirituality look like for me?” and the church’s answer isn’t as relevant as it used to be.
Since the majority of active church attenders are single females – taking them seriously and empowering them (actual respect for their authority – not lip service that they are “authority figures” while putting them back on the bench) would be a game-changer.
In my family, the “what was best for the majority” did not work for my eldest – and “religious teachings” actually injected more self-shame into family relationships that spiraled out wreaking havoc. I don’t know what I am doing as a parent – but the things that I do know that work didn’t come directly from church teachings or church culture. Some things from my heritage were wonderful and honorable – but in this time and in this space, I can get what I need with less harm done to my family from other spaces.
AmyJ wrote:
I think that this is essentially what the church organization is up against in terms of keeping the members’ attention. We can set up playlists for our custom music in our own headphone bubble tailored to us. We can set up different temperature zones in the car tailored to an individual’s temperature preferences. We can find our own “echo chambers” much more easily these days. We are grappling with what “everything” looks likes on a personal scale – from the increase in “single serve” portions (personalized for 1 serving to “on the goal”), to life goals, to a variety of self-empowering/self-accessing options. A re-occurring question is “what does spirituality look like for me?” and the church’s answer isn’t as relevant as it used to be.
Interesting observation.
I think there has been some small recognition of this. For instance, the changes to the ministering program were supposed to make the program adapt to the individual.
I also think that the church is currently in a period of entrenchment. We see that with garments right now. It’s also evident by how orthodoxy tries to paint members that try to approach the church on their terms (cafeteria Mormons).
nibbler wrote:
AmyJ wrote:
I think that this is essentially what the church organization is up against in terms of keeping the members’ attention. We can set up playlists for our custom music in our own headphone bubble tailored to us. We can set up different temperature zones in the car tailored to an individual’s temperature preferences. We can find our own “echo chambers” much more easily these days. We are grappling with what “everything” looks likes on a personal scale – from the increase in “single serve” portions (personalized for 1 serving to “on the goal”), to life goals, to a variety of self-empowering/self-accessing options. A re-occurring question is “what does spirituality look like for me?” and the church’s answer isn’t as relevant as it used to be.
Interesting observation.
Thank you:)
nibbler wrote:
I think there has been some small recognition of this. For instance, the changes to the ministering program were supposed to make the program adapt to the individual.
Changes to the Primary Activity Days a few years ago is another example I would include. It was supposed to be part of the “Home-Centered, Church Supported” rollout. I also think that there was a shift away from Cub Scouts at the same time that was propelling some changes too.nibbler wrote:
I also think that the church is currently in a period of entrenchment. We see that with garments right now. It’s also evident by how orthodoxy tries to paint members that try to approach the church on their terms (cafeteria Mormons).
I think the church is on the defensive on quite a few fronts. I don’t think that my seat from the peanut gallery allows me to have the clarity as to whether it is a “full-fledged retrenchment” or just a defensive measures coming down repeatedly.
I don’t think/feel that my reckoning with my LDS heritage and cultural upbringing is over yet – so I keep coming back here in part to work on that.
Thanks for sharing this DJ. I am glad the church is conducting this kind of research to help the members. I wish there were more surveys that focused on the experience of being a Mormon in general, though. How well the church experience meets the needs of individuals in all different phases of life. I have twice been selected for a survey. On both occasions, I was several questions into it when everything began to feel a bit pharisaical (e.g., how many hours each week do you spend reading the scriptures? What is the frequency of your personal prayers?) I don’t recall it being anonymous, so I concluded, “That’s none of your business. Go and judge someone else.”
On both occasions, I exited the questionnaire and didn’t return.
Carburettor wrote:
(e.g., how many hours each week do you spend reading the scriptures? What is the frequency of your personal prayers?)
I would be interesting to know why those types of questions are asked. For example:
To weed out responses: “Says here that this person doesn’t read scriptures every day so none of their other opinions matter.”
To know what initiatives to push: “Lots of people say they aren’t reading scriptures every day. Now we know what to talk about during general conference.”
Correlation/causation: “Person A doesn’t read scriptures every day and they don’t hold this opinion. Person B does read their scriptures every day and they do hold this opinion. If we want members to hold this opinion, we need to get them reading scripture every day.”
nibbler wrote:
Correlation/causation: “Person A doesn’t read scriptures every day and they don’t hold this opinion. Person B does read their scriptures every day and they do hold this opinion. If we want members to hold this opinion, we need to get them reading scripture every day.”
Oh, absolutely, and I wouldn’t have minded if it were anonymous. However, the survey link appeared to have unique elements to it for traceability (such as an ID), so I felt that was uncool.Imagine if the results were forwarded to your Stake President or Bishop because you were deemed to be a person of concern — and suddenly you’re called in for a PPI.
Carburettor wrote:
nibbler wrote:
Correlation/causation: “Person A doesn’t read scriptures every day and they don’t hold this opinion. Person B does read their scriptures every day and they do hold this opinion. If we want members to hold this opinion, we need to get them reading scripture every day.”
Oh, absolutely, and I wouldn’t have minded if it were anonymous. However, the survey link appeared to have unique elements to it for traceability (such as an ID), so I felt that was uncool.Imagine if the results were forwarded to your Stake President or Bishop because you were deemed to be a person of concern — and suddenly you’re called in for a PPI.
I agree, the church has long seemed to be bent on correlation/causation. If there really is correlation/causation that’s fine, if it works do it. But all too often (and most of the time from what I can see) there may be correlation but not necessarily causation and it is presented as a correlation/causation. I don’t want to get too nerdy here, but just because everyone who has ever eaten a pickle has (or will) died doesn’t mean pickles are bad for you, and besides everybody who has never eaten a pickle has (or will) also died. I think the church very often takes the everyone who has ever eaten a pickle approach, ignoring the opposite and ignoring the idea that there are multiple variables leading to death that don’t necessarily involve pickles (although it is entirely possible a small number of people do directly die from eating pickles). It’s almost as if church executives are uneducated and unable to think critically, but they’re not either. It’s a bit confounding (some of you will see what I did there).
And as a side note, I also agree Carb, the survey did not seem anonymous. In this particular case I don’t think it will really surprise anybody that I am unsupportive of programs like self reliance. I do personally believe in self reliance but I don’t think it has anything to do with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Carburettor wrote:
Imagine if the results were forwarded to your Stake President or Bishop because you were deemed to be a person of concern — and suddenly you’re called in for a PPI.
I get what you’re saying, but I have an idea of what I might do in that scenario.
If you were called into the stake president’s office and he decided to flex his authority, how likely would you be to:
Scoff:
[Very unlikely] [Somewhat unlikely] [Neutral] [Somewhat likely] [Very likely]
Laugh:
[Very unlikely] [Somewhat unlikely] [Neutral] [Somewhat likely] [Very likely]
Roll your eyes:
[Very unlikely] [Somewhat unlikely] [Neutral] [Somewhat likely] [Very likely]
Facepalm:
[Very unlikely] [Somewhat unlikely] [Neutral] [Somewhat likely] [Very likely]
nibbler wrote:
If you were called into the stake president’s office and he decided to flex his authority, how likely would you be to:Scoff/Laugh/Roll your eyes/Facepalm: [Very unlikely] [Somewhat unlikely] [Neutral] [Somewhat likely] [Very likely]
Whatever my parents’ intent was in respect of grooming me to give deference to Church leadership, the outcome was that I grew up with a palpable fear of being judged by them. Consequently, if I have ever been challenged by someone in authority, my default response has always been to figuratively throw myself on my sword. I might even have done so literally if a sword had been present.However, now that I am reaching old(er) age, this whole localised judgement scenario feels more “culty” than Christlike — so I no longer wish to afford anyone an opportunity to assess me as substandard. It was bad enough dealing with those feelings a child. Do we really need the same throughout adulthood? It’s so demeaning.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.