- 24 -
the likelihood of as many different answers as there were respondents.
Such a question, whilst possibly yielding ideas, would not have easily
lent itself to numerate analysis, and might, by lengthening the ques-
tionnaire, have reduced the response rate. Again the opportunity was
passed over, partly because it was felt that should the results of a
simple Yes/No question show substantial feeling against potential
income, then it would become a proper subject for consideration through
the synodical system, wherein of course all parishes have representation.
2.5.1.7 - C4 -
Opinions on diocesan office
These two questions were deliberate probes. Since it is the
Diocesan Secretary's policy to make himself and his staff as available
and as helpful as possible it was worth taking the opportunity afforded
by the questionnaire to ascertain the degree of his success.
2.5.1.8 - C5 -
Description of the Diocese
This again was a probe with no anterior knowledge as to how best
it should be phrased. The format adopted sought to distinguish, prin-
cipally, between those who saw the Diocese united under the Bishop and
those who had a less centripetal viewpoint; and possibly also distin-
guish any who had feelings of alienation.
2.5.1.9 - C6 -
Control over diocesan financial policy
This question contained an inherent ambiguity in that the Board
of Finance is technically a committee of the Bishop's Council, but the
point was either missed or not considered a difficulty because the
greater majority of respondents correctly identified the Board as the
principal controlling agency.
2.5.1.10 - C7 -
Parochial influence over diocesan policy
This moved away from the purely financial to try to ascertain the
parochial feeling about the working of the synodical system. It was
