Laserfiche WebLink
<br />0353 <br /> <br />1.3.11 Aggreg~ting_~he Find~~~~ <br /> <br />The process of comparing the direction and magnitude <br /> <br />of the ratings is an important exercis~ in integrating the <br /> <br />findings, but is not, in and o{itself, suffi~ient for a <br /> <br />social assessment. <br /> <br />This is true for two reasons. <br /> <br />In the <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />first place, the ratings are fundamentally based upon judgments <br /> <br />of the researchers and are expressed in relative terms (to <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />the geographic areas in question). <br /> <br />Second, and perhaps more <br /> <br />important, these are not expressed in terms of social behaviors <br /> <br />per se, but rather as ratings of direction and extent of change. <br /> <br />It is still necessary to achieve an aggregation based upon the <br /> <br />important social impacts themselves. <br /> <br />The concerns of Quality of Life, Social Well Being, and <br /> <br />Relative Social Relationships, as set forth in Section 1.2, were <br /> <br />the key organizing Constructs for the aggregation process. <br /> <br />Each <br /> <br />of these concerns has a reasonably clear operational definition. <br /> <br />That is, for each construct there is a defined population: <br /> <br />Quality of Life = Individuals, Families <br /> <br />Social Well Being = Institutions' and Communities <br /> <br />Relative Social Relationships = Groups in.Comparison <br />with One Another. <br /> <br />Moreover, each of the constructs has various specific topical <br /> <br />concerns. With the population focus and the topical definitions, <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />all 23 of the sections were carefully reviewed to bring out the <br /> <br />impacts, for the various ge'ographic areAs, under the three con- <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />ditions, as relevant to the section. <br /> <br />The results of these aggre- <br /> <br />gate analyses are the subject of Section Five of this Assessment. <br /> <br />44 <br />