14.07.2013 Views

Journal of the American Viola Society Volume 6 No. 3, Fall 1990

Journal of the American Viola Society Volume 6 No. 3, Fall 1990

Journal of the American Viola Society Volume 6 No. 3, Fall 1990

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

-Location <strong>of</strong> participants/respondents<br />

-Distance to Congress<br />

-Canadian <strong>Viola</strong> <strong>Society</strong> (CVS)<br />

Unfortunately, Ms. Frederking has<br />

missed <strong>the</strong> significance <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Summary<br />

and Conclusions in <strong>the</strong> Survey Report. It<br />

is in <strong>the</strong> interests <strong>of</strong> existing organizations,<br />

to monitor <strong>the</strong>ir members' mandate in<br />

order to ensure and maintain <strong>the</strong>ir<br />

interests.<br />

Questionnaire conlpletion rates <strong>of</strong> n1en and<br />

women:<br />

Questionnaire returns were 2:1 in favor<br />

<strong>of</strong> women based on returns from <strong>the</strong><br />

survey. The report stated that "one could<br />

speculate that women will complete<br />

questionnaires more readily than men...."<br />

By having access to additional information<br />

after <strong>the</strong> Congress, Ms. Frederking simply<br />

confirmed that women at <strong>the</strong> Congress<br />

completed <strong>the</strong> questionnaire more readily.<br />

Location <strong>of</strong> participantsr res pondents:<br />

The report indicated that seventeen<br />

states plus D.C. and three provinces were<br />

represented at <strong>the</strong> Congress. One's<br />

residence was taken from completed<br />

questionnaires. Once again, additional<br />

information, has provided Ms. Frederking<br />

with knowledge <strong>of</strong> an additional eleven<br />

states, one province, and three foreign<br />

countries, who had participants. However,<br />

<strong>the</strong>se individuals failed to submit <strong>the</strong>ir<br />

input at <strong>the</strong> Congress. Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore, what<br />

is important, is <strong>the</strong> fact that a significant<br />

number <strong>of</strong> states and provinces had no one<br />

registered at <strong>the</strong> Congress. The Report<br />

comment was directed to <strong>the</strong> market<br />

penetration and universal appeal <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />

AVS and CVS. As national organizations,<br />

is <strong>the</strong> lack <strong>of</strong> universal participation an<br />

important issue? Is it a realistic goal to<br />

have a significant number <strong>of</strong> members<br />

from all states or provinces?<br />

Distdnce to <strong>the</strong> Congress:<br />

The map <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> U.S.A., that was<br />

included in <strong>the</strong> JA VS article, illustrated<br />

pictorially that distance did not prevent<br />

registrants, and subsequently survey<br />

respondents, from travelling to California,<br />

States such as, NY, ME, MA, CT, MD,<br />

PA, IN, IL, KY, and provinces such as ON<br />

and AB were represented at <strong>the</strong> Congress.<br />

The report also stated that "<strong>the</strong> host state<br />

contributes significantly to <strong>the</strong> total<br />

attendance." Ms. Frederking simply<br />

confirmed this result in <strong>the</strong> report, once<br />

again, by stating "California residents<br />

accounted for 47% <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Congress<br />

participants."<br />

Mrs. Frederking suggests that <strong>the</strong> lack<br />

<strong>of</strong> Canadian participation at <strong>the</strong><br />

Congress is due to <strong>the</strong> distance factor,<br />

and that "California is a long way from<br />

Canada." However, geographically,<br />

California is closer to <strong>the</strong> Canadian<br />

provinces <strong>of</strong> MB, SK, AB, and BC, than<br />

some nineteen states. In fact, <strong>the</strong>re were<br />

respondents, who were not members <strong>of</strong><br />

ei<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> AVS or CVS, who travelled<br />

from DC, MO, AB, and IL. Her feeling<br />

"that distance has to be counted" is<br />

contrary to <strong>the</strong> survey responses. Her<br />

comments may in fact be based on a<br />

very small number <strong>of</strong> questionnaire<br />

returns to <strong>the</strong> CVS, regarding an event,<br />

where those who did not attend<br />

indicated, "that it was just too far<br />

away..." (CVS Newsletter #22, <strong>Fall</strong><br />

1988).<br />

CJ/S:<br />

The report stated that "Canadian<br />

participation was weak at <strong>the</strong> Congress.<br />

Should <strong>the</strong> CVS continue to be a separate<br />

organization?" Ms. Frederking found<br />

this "most upsetting" and states that "The<br />

Canadian <strong>Viola</strong> <strong>Society</strong> still numbers<br />

eighty members, most <strong>of</strong> whom see<br />

distinct value in a separate <strong>Society</strong>."<br />

Perhaps her position as Secretary­<br />

Treasurer with <strong>the</strong> CVS, has something<br />

to do with her statement. Interestingly,<br />

"a meeting <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> CVS was chaired by<br />

Ms. Frederking..." at <strong>the</strong> Redlands'<br />

Congress. "One outcome <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />

discussion was a debate on <strong>the</strong> merits <strong>of</strong><br />

<strong>the</strong> CVS as a unique organization, an<br />

entity distinct from its much larger<br />

founding body, <strong>the</strong> AVS...\Ve decided<br />

that it was important to maintain a<br />

distinctly Canadian organization..." (CVS<br />

Newsletter #24, <strong>Fall</strong>/Winter 1989). \Vhat<br />

is remarkable is that <strong>the</strong> question <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />

CVS, noted independently in <strong>the</strong> Report,<br />

was also discussed at <strong>the</strong> CVS meeting.<br />

This meeting confirmed <strong>the</strong> independent<br />

view based on survey returns.<br />

Apparent discrepancies, that Ms.<br />

Frederking comments about, do not<br />

adjust or modify any conclusions drawn<br />

31<br />

70<br />

68<br />

60<br />

56<br />

so<br />

42<br />

...-_..... b<br />

38<br />

36<br />

32<br />

2tJ<br />

21,.<br />

20<br />

76<br />

12<br />

_4

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!