Return to Journal
“In its 25th year our Society is undertaking a review of our current membership profile, our members’ research needs, the Society’s activities and members’ own willingness to contribute to improvements.” A year ago we wrote the above header to our first-ever consultation with our members about their profile, needs and involvement. Somewhat hesitatingly we enclosed an ambitious questionnaire with the annual membership renewal form and privately hoped for at least the 20% or so response that marketeers wish for from such surveys. We were astonished at the huge response, gratified by the thoroughness of the replies (very few questions unticked and considerable use made of the opportunities for ‘free’ expression given in “other” and “Your Views” spaces) and above all greatly encouraged by the warmth and support expressed throughout the Survey.
During 2004 the Committee has studied the Survey results in detail and is already taking action. The richness of the data is provoking reviews of the Society’s practices and 2005 should see more changes as a result. This Report completes a series of feedbacks to members over the year, via the Journal (see the June and September issues) and at several Hounslow monthly meetings.
Let us begin with some raw statistics. By the end of February, a month after the closing date for the Survey, 455 members had returned their Renewal of Membership forms for 2004; 320 of them also returned our Survey (with 2 others using the email option). Our surprise at this 71% response rate was quickly followed by serious concern at how we could do justice to the quality of the replies. Faced with over 10,000 ‘ticks’ on the forms and over 1,000 ‘free’ written comments, we decided to input the responses into a spreadsheet and to set up a small group of Committee members to look at the material in detail. In the June issue of the Journal (p.7) we summarised members’ profile, and in the September issue (pp.8,9) their research activities. Here we reveal members’ involvement in Society activities.
How then are we involved with our Family History Society? Attending the monthly meetings in Hounslow is, of course, not an option open to all! Of the 76 respondents who do attend, almost all value the lectures, while research is an objective for 38%. The Journal however is the Society’s contact point with all its members: its value is cited [multiple responses] as use for research (137 ticks), use for broader understanding of family history (224) and read members’ interests (254). Fewer members visit our website: a third of computer-users Never visit, while only 10 members report visiting constantly [several replied “just discovered it!”]. Finally, contact with WMFHS through Family History Fairs is made by nearly 70% of our respondents, who rate the benefits as research (86 ticks), use for a broader understanding of family history (99) and to purchase material (180). A key question was Q.18: “How would you like to contribute to the Society?” Excluding the current 12 Committee members, there were 82 direct offers of help, while 30 other members replied regretting their non-availability at present. Transcribing and computer inputting were ticked most frequently and there were several offers to help at Fairs and at the Hounslow meetings, to supply storage facilities, plus a variety of individual suggestions. We have replied to all these 112 respondents and have begun to enlist help principally in the computing area.
Perhaps some of the most intriguing material in the Survey is to be found among the 750 freely written comments in the final section. We had asked for “Your Views” on up to 8 issues – and how our members responded! Comments, criticisms, suggestions, ideas flow from the Survey pages. In this short Report it is impossible to categorise or summarise, so here are a few quotations typical of many.
Monthly Meetings: “invaluable when I was a beginner, now of peripheral interest, unless a new connection arises”; “good but disappointing when speakers changed at last minute”; “extend the tape recording or printing of talks”; “very friendly and welcoming, helpful for beginners, more PCs required”.
The Journal: “vital contact with the Society”; “not bad”; “varied and interesting”; “rather dated in its layout”; “family stories boring – could we have more articles on old places/churches/villages etc.?”; “compares well with other Societies”; “I hate the shiny paper, the reflection (light) gives me a headache”; “enjoy the clarity of the Journal and use of good font image”; [its value is] “historical information on Mdx. where I grew up”; “can’t wait for the Journal to drop through my letter box”; “it is difficult (and tedious) to find useful info. among the chit chat”; “could be more history of areas”.
Our Website: “needs more indexes put on”; “useful websites might be good together with a description”; “limited. Journal is better”; “not yet mastered”.
Our Stand at F.History Fairs: “fair”; “wonderful”; “offer too much material that is available on other stands. More Mdx. data on disk/computer needed”; “useful access for society expertise and publications”; “rather expensive!”; “not too expensive”.
The Cost of Being a Member: “acceptable”; “about right”; “as a pensioner I wish it was a bit less”; “on a par with other FHS” [belongs to 6 others]; “v.reasonable for the amount of information, research available. Could become less so as more and more inf. changeable on Internet”.
The Special Needs of: computer users – “I think one of the reasons why numbers of FHS are going down is increased dependency on computers and CDs, so websites need to cater for this to encourage membership”; non-computer users – “do not forget them”.
How to Attract and Retain More Members: “ more publications on m/fiche and/or CD”; “advertising, local Council websites”; “for remote members I think access to useful indexes, reciprocal research, loans of CDs of local material helps retain our interest - you need to offer us something we cannot get otherwise, as we get no ‘social’ benefits”; “difficult once you appear you have gained all the info. you think is required. One tends to move on, especially if ancestors came from outside the area (as in my case)”.
How to Increase our Research Database: “pre-census material, such as parish registers, indexes and other material relating back to 1600-1700s”; “all census data”; “only by getting from members copies of what research they have carried out for their own personal information”; “place your various indexes online and make them available to members only”; “we do have info. from ‘courier’ certs. but may be source for future”; “I feel this is a long-term aim. It will depend on members’ input, especially those living in the WM area”.
Finally, one respondent reflects how neither age nor distance need be obstacles in family history research, given good family networking and an effective, friendly Family History society : “I would travel to the UK more often but my age is slowing me down (I’ll be 80 this year). Luckily my daughter lives in High Wycombe and sends me much information, and I have a cousin (once-removed) who is an ardent FH researcher, living in Peterborough. So I am not completely helpless. Many thanks for your Journal and keep up the good work”.
Our Committee is already at work examining the consequences of the Survey, what can and cannot be implemented with the resources available. Just to indicate a few of the steps being taken: a new series on local history begins in this issue of the Journal; a dozen or so volunteers are involved in computer-based projects (MIs, burials, new parish records, strays). Simultaneously we are examining the priorities for a wider research database, launching advertisements to attract new members, producing a list of websites, planning a new programme of appearances at Fairs and implementing a number of improvements to monthly meetings, our website and our services in general to our members.
This Survey Report, together with the feedbacks in earlier issues, limited by space as they are, cannot do justice to the rich, detailed nature of the mass of replies. Nevertheless we hope all members will not only understand the tone and direction expressed by the 300+ respondents but also be able to identify with the profile and reflect on the practices, experience and ideas of the majority of their colleagues.
For any comments/questions on the Survey please write to the Survey Coordinator Mike
Cordery at 80, Garrick Close, Staines, Middlesex, TW18 2PH. We also have copies of the detailed raw
material being used by the Committee in its evaluation. Members’ names are protected, coded numbers
being assigned to each of the 322 returns. If you would like a copy please send Mike a stamped,
addressed envelope, size A4.
West Middlesex FHS Journal 22(4) (December 2004)