DigitalResources
Electronic Survey Report 2014-010
The Wheel of Vitality
An Approach to Rapid Vitality Assessment
in New Britain
John Grummitt
The Wheel of Vitality:
An approach to rapid vitality assessment in New Britain
John Grummitt
SIL International®
2014
SIL Electronic Survey Report 2014-010, November 2014
© 2014 SIL International®
All rights reserved
Abstract
In a recent survey, sub-goals determined by stakeholders’ needs were dependent on the main goal of
assessing an agreed minimum vitality level. This vitality level was the determining factor for the
inclusion of five language communities in a proposed multi-language development project. This
dependence created a need for an in situ rapid vitality assessment to determine whether pursuit of subgoals was necessary. This report describes the development of a tool based on the Expanded Graded
Intergenerational Disruption Scale vitality scale and used to rapidly assess vitality in an environment
where logistical constraints made traditional and more detailed vitality assessment unfeasible.
Contents
Abstract
1
Introduction
1.1 Survey Need
1.2 Survey Purpose and Goals
2
Methodology
2.1 Initial Approaches to Tool Design
2.2 Tool Description and Administration
3
Critique
4
Conclusion
Appendix A Original Rubric for the Wheel of Vitality Tool
Appendix B Original Wheel of Vitality Data Collection Sheet
Appendix C Observation Schedule
References
iii
1 Introduction
1.1
Survey Need
In the planning of a multi-language project aiming to “ensure that all the language communities on New
Britain have access to adequate…materials in the languages that serve them well” (Wiebe and Wiebe
2009:1), the SIL Papua New Guinea (PNG) survey team was asked to assess five language communities
which had no established language development programs. At the time of the survey, Ethnologue (Lewis
2009) listed these as shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Information on languages surveyed
Name
ISO code
2012 Population
Language Classification
Bilur (Minigir)a
[bxf]b
4,000
Minigir (Lungalunga)
[vmg]
c. 1,000 of c. 3,000
Kairak
[ckr]
c. 900
Non-Austronesian, Baining
Simbali
[smg]
450
Non-Austronesian, Baining
Taulil
[tuh]
c. 3,000
Non-Austronesian isolate
Austronesian
c
Austronesian
Changes to these names were recommended by the survey as shown in parentheses and displayed in bold blue
font in Map 1.
b
ISO codes for languages are given at the first mention in the text only.
c
This is the speaking population estimate from an ethnic population estimate of 3,000.
a
Map 1 shows the location of the five language communities on the Gazelle Peninsula of East New
Britain Province, PNG. Kokopo, the regional capital, is the nearest urban centre and was the base for the
survey team. Geographically, the Baining Mountains run across the centre of the peninsula and divide
Simbali from the much more densely populated north east. Both the western Lungalunga-speaking
community and the Simbali language area are inaccessible by road from Kokopo and are therefore
reached by boat. All the other communities are easily accessible by road and, with the exception of
Minigir, these roads are paved and in relatively good condition. The entire northern area is very
uncharacteristic of much of the rest of PNG with a dense, widely scattered collection of indistinct
population centres supplied by an extensive and relatively developed infrastructure.
1
2
Map 1. Location of the five language communities involved in this assessment
1.2
Survey Purpose and Goals
The purpose of the survey was to determine to what extent the five language communities could
participate in the proposed multi-language project. In order to achieve this, a number of goals were
agreed with stakeholders. However, during pre-survey discussions, it became clear that the overriding
concern was for each language to have a level of vitality that would not potentially undermine
involvement in the project. Vitality was seen to be central because if threatened in any way, resources
invested in language development may not subsequently benefit the community. In addition, there was a
need to identify communities with minimum vitality which may need additional support at the initial
stage of their involvement. Vitality was the deciding criterion for involvement because even if other
factors of interest to stakeholders were present, questionable vitality would undermine the impact of
language development on the community in any case. Thus, a clear goal hierarchy developed with the
primary goal, and the focus on this report, being vitality: all other goals were dependent on this being at
an agreed minimum.
An assessment of vitality in situ required a tool that would elicit data simple enough to analyse
while it was being administered to inform an instant decision about whether to pursue other dependent
goals. It was not only research needs that determined that a rapid assessment of vitality was necessary.
Logistical factors that are usually not encountered in PNG also constrained tool design. Typically, the
SIL–PNG survey team has employed a range of lengthy questionnaires to assess vitality. These focus on
culture and society, church, education, contact patterns and language use. While these are timeconsuming to administer and produce data which is complex to analyse, survey teams in PNG typically
find themselves working in an environment which is much more clearly defined than was the case on
this survey. Typically, these are homogenous language communities living in distinct population centres
and in concentrated geographical areas just a few miles across. As Section 1.1 described, this survey
involved populations that were not homogenous with communities consisting of residents from a number
3
of ethnolinguistic backgrounds. Thus, employing a traditional approach to survey in PNG and
administering a large range of qualitative tools would both be overly time-consuming and provide more
data than was appropriate, consequently requiring complex analysis. This was particularly the case for
the four northern languages where, because of the ease of contact with the politically and economically
dominant Kuanua-speaking community, vitality was most in question.
This survey therefore called for the production of a new tool which provided enough detail to make
a vitality assessment in situ while the tool was being administered, not during data analysis after the
survey as is typical.
2 Methodology
2.1
Initial Approaches to Tool Design
At first, the design of a tool foundered on the complexity involved in making an assessment of vitality.
Studying approaches described by various theorists revealed the vast array of factors that influence
ethnolinguistic vitality: status, demographics and institutional support (Giles, Bourhis, and Taylor 1977),
ethnicity and nationalism (Bratt Paulston 2000), motivation (Karan 2000) as well as a whole host of
other factors described by Edwards (2010:100–101). A rapid assessment would not be able to consider
all of these. Attempts were made to reduce these to those most relevant to the PNG context and to
explore tools, such as Landweer’s Indicators of Ethnolinguistic Vitality (IEV) (2009), which had been
applied before. Under closer scrutiny however, because the IEV had been developed for the more
common and ethnolinguistically simpler environments typically encountered in PNG, it proved
inadequate to assess vitality in the suburban heterogeneous complexity faced by the survey team.
The top down approach to tool design was not successful. Not only did it present an unmanageable
array of factors, it also failed to isolate any simple enough to assess as rapidly as required. At this point
therefore, the team decided to try another approach. Rather than think of what influences vitality in
general, the team thought specifically of what the bare minimum level of vitality would be to satisfy
stakeholders’ requirements for participation in the proposed multi-language project.
As vitality is a scalable feature of language communities and the product of a combination of
factors, a description of distinguishing factors defines a graded scale to guide assessment. One such scale
is known as the Expanded Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale or EGIDS (Lewis and Simons 2010).
Background research indicated that all of the five languages on this survey were likely to fall into one of
the EGIDS levels described in Table 2.
4
Table 2. EGIDS values relevant to this survey
EGIDS level
Description
5 Written
The language is used orally by all generations and is effectively used in written
form in parts of the community.
6a Vigorous
The language is used orally by all generations and is being learned by children as
their first language.
6b Threatened
The language is used orally by all generations but only some of the child-bearing
generation are transmitting it to their children.
7 Shifting
The child-bearing generation knows the language well enough to use it among
themselves but none are transmitting it to their children.
8a Moribund
The only remaining active speakers of the language are members of the
grandparent generation.
8b Nearly Extinct
The only remaining speakers of the language are members of the grandparent
generation or older who have little opportunity to use the language.
9 Dormant
The language serves as a reminder of heritage identity for an ethnic community.
No one has more than symbolic proficiency. This is the level of sustainable
identity. This is the state where no fully proficient speakers remain but the
language is still closely associated with the community identity and is used as a
symbolic marker and reinforcer of that identity.
Being discrete, these individual descriptions contain a narrow focus that top down approaches to
vitality assessment do not. Because of this, they enable research to concentrate on explicitly defined
variables and thus make tool design manageable as will be shown in the following section.
Presenting EGIDS to stakeholders resulted in their decision that the minimum vitality for
participation in the proposed multi-language project would be an EGIDS score of no weaker than 7.1
However, as alluded to in Section 1.2, vitality as weak as EGIDS 7 was only acceptable to stakeholders
provided that certain additional factors were also found to be present. Assessment of these additional
factors was provided for by goals subsequent to our priority of assessing vitality. Thus, if an EGIDS score
of 7 was identified, pursuit of additional goals would be essential. However, an EGIDS score stronger
than this would not require assessment of dependent factors because vitality alone would be sufficient
for an initial invitation to participate.
In reviewing the criteria for a score of EGIDS 7, the survey team realised that an attempt to assess
this level exclusively could be complicated. Although assessing that “none are transmitting it to their
children” is relatively straightforward, adequately assessing knowing the language “well enough” is
problematic even if a definition of “well enough” can be agreed. Thus, the survey team took a further
step in goal clarification by choosing to define assessment focus not in terms of what is, but rather what
is not. In doing so, they were pursuing what in participatory literature is commonly termed “optimal
ignorance” which “emphasises the usefulness of information, unlike questionnaires where the strong
tendency is to go for an excess of data” (Kumar 2002:41). Indicators as revealed in the descriptors of
EGIDS scores either side of level 7 are simpler to isolate. Demonstrating the presence of these therefore
indicates a vitality either weaker or stronger than EGIDS 7; their absence thus reveals EGIDS 7 itself.
This thought process is shown in the decision tree in Figure 1. By this point, the provision of these
indicators had set the stage for the design of a tool to isolate them.
Although in this case the minimum vitality condition was an EGIDS score of 7, SIL typically works with
communities with a vitality of EGIDS greater than 6b or 6a.
1
5
Research Question (RQ) 1: Is the community EGIDS 8?
Indicator (I) 1.1: “active speakers of the language are only members of the grandparent
generation.”
YES
NO
RQ 2: Is the community EGIDS 6b or higher?
I 2.1: “The language is used orally by all generations.”
NO
YES
Vitality alone is sufficient for
inclusion in the project.
Assessment of dependent goals is
useful but not essential.
Vitality being less than
EGIDS 7 is too low for
participation in the
multi-language project.
Stop assessment.
Vitality is EGIDS 7. Continued assessment
essential to achieve dependent goals and
thus determine whether participation is
viable.
Figure 1. Decision tree as determined by minimum vitality requirements.
2.2
Tool Description and Administration
The resulting tool was named the Wheel of Vitality due to the visual construction of the tool components
in the shape of a wheel as it is administered. The purpose of the tool is to identify whether all three
generations of a community are using the vernacular, i.e. to isolate Indicators 1.1 and 2.1 from Figure 1.
Figure 2. A community leader in the Simbali language area
identifies who initiates vernacular in Step 4 of the tool.
6
Three surveyors were involved in the tool’s administration: the tool leader, the data collector and the
observer. The tool leader followed the rubric which directs interaction with the community and materials.
The provision of a rubric, or script, ensures reliability is maintained as the tool is administered by
different surveyors in different communities. The tool was administered in Tok Pisin [tpi], a lingua
franca common to the survey team and the five surveyed language communities. An English translation
of the rubric is shown in Appendix A. In summary, the rubric directs the tool in the following way:











tool leader introduces the photographs used in the tool and clarifies that the community
understands that they represent different sectors of the community (e.g. children, middle-aged
women, etc.)
tool leader elicits the name of the community and the vernacular and volunteers write these on
laminated labels
tool leader clarifies whether additional languages are used by the community as well as the
vernacular and, if so, a card is placed to indicate these
tool leader keys the languages using red (vernacular) and yellow (other languages) plastic chips and
clarifies the community understands what these colours now represent
tool leader places the “fathers” card in the centre and clarifies that the focus will be on what
languages fathers use to communicate
the community places cards representing children, middle-aged men, middle-aged women, elderly
men and elderly women around the “fathers” card
tool leader asks what languages are used by fathers in interactions with each of the population
strata represented by the surrounding photos while a volunteer places blue string between each pair
of cards to indicate the focus of discussion
volunteer places plastic chips on each string to clarify community agreement on whether the
vernacular, other languages or both are used for each of the fathers’ interactions
all yellow chips are removed to indicate that discussion is now going to focus on local vernacular
use by fathers only. If any strings have only a yellow chip, they are also removed at this point along
with the photo they connect to.
tool leader goes around the wheel randomly again focussing on who exactly uses vernacular for
each of the fathers’ interactions. If the fathers do use vernacular to interact with each, then the blue
string is replaced with a green string. If they don’t, the blue string is replaced with a pink string.
if the fathers do use vernacular with any other group in the community, the above steps are
repeated with the “children” card at the centre of the wheel. If the fathers do not use vernacular,
the “mothers” card is used2 before finally going on to the “children” card.
In addition, the data collector focusses solely on completing the Data Collection Sheet (Appendix B)
by writing in abbreviations to describe how the community constructs the Wheel of Vitality and using
coloured pencils to mark the various materials. As the tool is administered, the data collector uses the
information provided to follow the decision tree at the bottom of the Data Collection Sheet and feeds this
back to the tool leader. In this way, the survey team builds up a picture of the vernacular use of children,
the middle-aged and the elderly in a community which results in enough data being recorded to assign
an EGIDS score for the language. If the Wheel of Vitality reveals that all three generations use
vernacular, this indicates that the language is at least EGIDS 6b and possibly EGIDS 6a. If only the
elderly use the vernacular, the language has vitality weaker than EGIDS 7 and is therefore EGIDS 8. To
monitor the community’s response to the tool, their interaction with it and the tool leader and the
resulting community discussions, a third surveyor fulfils the role of observer under the direction of the
Observation Schedule shown in Appendix C.
The additional step of asking about mothers allowed for communities where linguistic repertoires of fathers could
potentially differ from that of mothers, for example in those practicing exogamy.
2
7
As is typical on surveys in PNG, sampling on this particular survey was carried out at two levels:
within each language community and within locations visited in each of these. Sampling at language
community level was relevant only to the northern language communities as relatively large, widely
scattered and non-homogenous language populations made visiting every individual community
impractical even when they could be identified. Therefore, for each of the four northern language
communities, every effort was made to visit the main population centres as indicated by informants from
the communities. Assessment in these language communities was regarded as complete when either all
accessible communities had been visited or community leaders themselves informed us that we had
effectively gathered information from the majority of stakeholders concerned. For the southern sub-team
working in Simbali, sampling at language community level was unnecessary: every community was
visited, including those regarded as mixed with other language communities.
Within each location visited, the Wheel of Vitality was administered only when a representative
group of the community had gathered to participate. This group consisted of young, middle-aged and
elderly people of both genders and included all available community leaders. Every effort was made to
gather such a group in each location visited. These methods included sending information about our
visits weeks in advance via email, telephone and letter. In the northern region, visiting many
communities on more than one occasion generated interest and enabled us to pre-arrange assessment
meetings. Overall, we made a particular effort to submit ourselves to the direction of community leaders
and contacts including being guided by them as to when a representative cross-section of the community
had gathered to begin administering the tool.
The photographs used for the tool are shown in use in Figure 2 and Figure 3. These photos were
selected by volunteer Papua New Guineans from various provinces who were visiting or living in the
location of the survey team office in Eastern Highlands Province. The volunteers were shown various
images intended to represent each of the tool’s demographics and were asked which image they thought
was most representative. In addition to this input, the tool was pilot tested with informants from the
nearby Gadsup [gaj] community. During this test, the team received excellent feedback on how the tool
could be improved for use with a PNG community. One example challenged surveyors’ natural
inclinations to proceed around the circle clockwise asking about each image in turn. Instead, the team
were told that this was more likely to generate pat answers than if they randomised the order in which
each photo was discussed. All the suggestions made during pilot testing were subsequently integrated
into the tool described above. Further modifications to tool materials and rubric which were carried out
on the field based on experience administering the tool are discussed in the next section.
3 Critique
The laminated colour photographs engaged every community right from the start, especially when the
tool leader handed the photos to representative members of the community to hold. These were often
passed around the crowd until the tool leader collected them back to use. As the images were laminated,
they proved to be resilient to being used in dusty, wet and windy environments. String however was less
useful when it was windy. Participants improvised though, and in the one location where this was an
issue, quickly assembled a pile of small stones to use as paperweights. In some communities, limited
space prevented everyone from seeing the materials. This meant that not everyone was able to see what
was being constructed and were thus perhaps marginalised during the discussion. In order to avoid this,
the survey teams could have ensured that a space large enough to accommodate all participants was
available even if it had meant rescheduling the tool, waiting for more favourable conditions or moving to
a different venue.
The team adapted materials in one significant way during the survey: a series of single-headed and
double-headed arrows were produced. These were substituted for the green/pink string replacement in
Step 4 of the tool. They proved to be not only easier to employ but also inspired discussion of the
vernacular interaction of different sectors of the community. The original step of replacing the blue
8
string with string of an alternate colour did not seem to inspire as much discussion. This is perhaps
because, unlike arrows which are common traditional items in PNG cultures, coloured string represents a
more abstract concept.3
With the use of these materials, the Wheel of Vitality provides visual support that is both
constructed by the community and remains available to them throughout. Thus, the tool enabled the
survey team to achieve the “verbal to visual” (Kumar 2002:44) transition essential for participatory
approaches. This approach provides support for community reflection in contrast to traditional
questionnaires where the information provided is not available once it is recorded by the surveyor.
Discussion is therefore not an end in itself, even if it does provide valuable data for the survey team. The
intended result is that the community “think through the process and come out with points that they are
not consciously aware of but realise as the process goes on” (ibid.). Despite living with the issues of
questionable vitality day by day, many communities do not formally discuss these. As a vehicle for selfrealisation, the Wheel of Vitality Tool explicitly provides a forum for community discussion of the
vitality issues that are important to them. A good example of this comes from the Minigir-speaking
community. Villagers in Makurapau and Bilur reported that children use a mixture of Minigir, Tok Pisin
and Kuanua and discussion in both these communities revealed that the Minigir spoken by children is
not identical to how the elders speak it. Thus the people initially described low vitality and a lack of use
by children of their vernacular. A questionnaire may have left the discussion there. The Wheel of Vitality
however required the community to continue to a point where they were able to make the decisions
necessary to arrange the elements of the tool. In doing this, the community agreed that children were
capable of and did communicate effectively using only Minigir even to the satisfaction of older people in
interactions with them. Thus, the community eventually arranged the tool to indicate that their
vernacular had an EGIDS score of stronger than 7 even though their initial perceptions would perhaps
have led them to the assumption that vitality was lower than this.
Figure 3. Lungalunga Village community discuss the extent to which children
use the vernacular in their community.
An updated version of the rubric of this tool along with a short video of its administration can be seen at
http://surveywiki.info/index.php/Wheel_of_Vitality.
3
9
In addition to improving the appropriacy of our survey methods, the Wheel of Vitality also
appeared to maintain a good balance with accuracy as it distinguished between EGIDS scores of 8, 7 and
6b as confirmed through observation. The team pursued all opportunities to provide triangulation
through observation of community language use before and after the tool. The major context for
observation of adult language use came through the tool itself as its administration provided
opportunities for the community to actually employ their vernacular. Discussions took place almost
exclusively in the vernacular and were often lengthy. At the end of each, the tool leader requested a
summary of what had been discussed and the observer was also free to ask onlookers what was being
said. In both Ivere and Malabunga in the Kairak language area, for example, village leaders translated
our tool rubric into vernacular for the community. When asked what language subsequent discussions
were taking place in, the team were consistently told that it was “Kairak” or “our language”.4
As the survey team became more confident administering the tool, they were able to hand over
materials to the communities and, after an explanation of the purpose of each step and a brief
demonstration, give them autonomy in building the complete wheel and labelling it appropriately. When
this approach was taken, it generated much more discussion in the community than when the tool leader
closely supervised the handling of materials and the construction of the wheel. Whereas in earlier
approaches the tool leader had stood with community volunteers and handled materials with them, this
adaptation enabled the tool leader to literally sit down at the side of the group and not return to the
centre until discussion had completely finished and the community had assembled the wheel. In effect,
this latter adaptation revealed that what had seemed to the team a complex, possibly over-complex, tool
during the design stages actually proved to be one which communities not only engaged with but, with
relatively little explanation, administered themselves autonomously.
Adapting the administration of the tool in this way went some way to addressing a concern about
the design of the tool. Initially, the rubric (as shown in Appendix A) seemed to frustrate the community
if their answers for each section of the community were the same. The rubric as originally designed
made no allowance for this or for the community providing more than basic information in Step 3. Often
however, the community grasped very quickly what the tool leader was attempting to elicit and provided
Step 4 information at Step 3. The community appeared frustrated if the tool leader gave the impression
of ignoring previously declared information by asking again about it only minutes later simply because
this was what the rubric required. In addition to giving the community more autonomy, the rubric was
also adapted so that when information had already been provided, succeeding steps that would have
reiterated the data were omitted. In addition, the tool leader gave an explanation to the community that
as they had already provided the data, there was no need to carry out that step of the tool.
As the team became more familiar with the rubric and more comfortable giving autonomy to the
community to direct the pace of the tool, it was not unusual for the tool to take as little as 30 minutes to
administer. It therefore admirably demonstrated its ability to enable a vitality assessment that is rapid.
Although the tool does not provide more than a snapshot synchronic glimpse of vitality, that it is so
quick to administer indicates that is a good balance between the brief time invested and the value of the
information gained. Thus, the tool is particularly suited to situations as encountered on this survey
where communities are dispersed and the requirement to sample multiple locations means efficiency is
needed because of logistical constraints.
4 Conclusion
In its application to the varied language communities on this survey, in both suburban and village
environments, the tool performed well, stimulating discussion and allowing the communities themselves
to reach agreement on the current vitality of their vernacular.
Much of the success of the Wheel of Vitality is due to the PNG survey team’s continuing efforts to
employ participatory methodology. The Gazelle Peninsula survey described here was not the first survey
4
Tok Pisin: tok ples bilong mipela.
10
by the current team to attempt this. Elements of recent surveys have been applied here: establishing a
hierarchy of goals based on stakeholders’ priorities; the decision to let research questions drive tool
design rather than relying on established tools; a research rationale of optimal ignorance; the use of
decision trees to hone the efficiency of tool design and application; the use of three surveyors in
complementary roles during administration of the tool; the decision to hand the administration of the
tool over to the autonomous communities—all of these elements have been tried before on previous
surveys.
What made this survey novel was the combination of the elements above and the application of
EGIDS to guide vitality assessment. Having done this and seen the results, the SIL–PNG survey team feels
that there is considerable potential for the application of the Wheel of Vitality tool in the rapid
assessment of vitality. This is particularly the case when research demands the sampling of a large
number of population centres and especially so when logistical constraints make this time-consuming or
expensive.
For all its potential however, the Wheel of Vitality is not an end in itself. The next survey that
investigates vitality will have to start, as this one did, with the clarification of stakeholders’ needs and
the research questions that result. It may turn out that the Wheel of Vitality or some version of it is the
right tool for that occasion. It may turn out that it is not. Unless we prioritise process over product we
will remain ignorant either way. It is only by focussing our efforts on improving the process of research
that we will discover the next generation of survey tools.
Appendix A Original Rubric for the Wheel of Vitality Tool
Aim: assign an EGIDS rating of 8, 7 or 6b to a vernacular (V). Materials: 5 x blue, pink and green string | photos representing children (x2), middle-aged
men/women, old men/women, mothers, fathers.| 2 x blank labels | black pen | green pen | label: “other language/Simbali” | red, pink, green pencils | 6 x red and
yellow chips Key: shading indicates questioner can vary probe.
Step
1a
1b
2a
2b
2c
2d
2e
2f
3a
3b
3c
What you do and why
To introduce social categories to the community,
show the community all photos one by one. Make
sure everyone in the community sees photo. Then
give it to a representative member of that group.
NOTE: make it clear that outsiders are not
represented by these photos but only people in their
community.
Collect in the photos and put them on the ground. To
enable the community to demonstrate their
understanding, pick up each photo one at a time
until all have responded.
To confirm the name of the village and define the
social context for communication, give a volunteer a
card and green pen.
To confirm the name of the V used in this location,
give a volunteer a card and black pen.
To check whether they use other languages, ask
them this. As long as they say anything from one
other language to "lots," give them the "other
language" card.
To key the V with a colour, give volunteer a red
chip.
To key the "other language" with a colour, give
volunteer a yellow chip.
Check understanding of the key. Call out the name of
the V and use gestures to elicit a response. Repeat
this for other languages e.g. Kuanua, Tok Pisin,
English, interspersing them with V until people are
indicating the correct colours.
Retain fathers, mothers and extra children photos
Give out all other photos. They spread them out in a
circle.
To check the vernacular use of the fathers begin by
focussing on the fathers photo. Place it against the
orange card backing.
To show communication between fathers and old
men, put blue string between the fathers photo and
the old men photo.
What you say
We’d like you to look at this photo. It represents
children in your community. It does not
represent children from other communities, but
only your own. This photo represents elderly
women, etc.
What you may observe and do in response
The community show engagement with the photos
and understanding of what they represent. There
should be no one in the group who wants to see the
photos that has not seen them. There will be two
children cards.
Step
1a
Okay now we’d like to check you understand
what the photos represent. If I hold one photo
up, please tell me what it represents. Etc...
People say "fathers" etc...
1b
What’s the name of your village? Can someone
write this on a card? When you’ve written it,
please put it on the ground.
What’s the name of your language? Can someone
write this on a card? When you’ve written it,
please put it on the ground.
Do you use any other languages such as other or
Tok Pisin as well in village?
They provide the name of the village and write it in
green on a card which they place on the ground.
2a
They write the name of their V in black on the card
and place it on the ground.
2b
They put this card on the ground next to their V
card.
2c
Now we’d like to mark these two language cards
with colours. Please put this red chip on the card
with your language.
This yellow chip will mark the “other languages”
card. Please put it on top of that card.
Now we’d like to check that you understand
what these two colours mark. If I say a language,
you tell me what colour represents it.
Volunteer puts red chip on the V card.
2d
Volunteer puts yellow chip on the "other language"
card.
People say "red" etc.
2e
Please put all the photos on the ground in a big
circle.
Volunteer takes all photos except fathers, mothers or
one children photo and forms a circle.
3a
We’d like you to think about what languages
fathers use. Please put this fathers photo in the
middle of the circle.
Volunteer takes fathers photo on orange card and
puts it in the centre of the circle. You then put
village card above photo and V and "other language"
card under photo.
The blue string between the fathers photo and the
old men photo creates the first spoke of the wheel.
3b
Okay first, think about when fathers and elderly
men talk.
11
2f
3c
Step
3d
What you do and why
Ask if V or other languages are used between these
two groups or not and mark this accordingly.
REPEAT STEPS 3c-3d for relationships fathers have
with all other social groups represented by photos.
NOTE: make sure you randomise the sequence you
work in to minimise pat answers.
Before you proceed, you need to be certain that you
have accurately recorded all uses of V and not
missed any.
What you say
In these conversations, do they use V or not? If
they do, put a red chip on the string. Do they use
other languages too? If so, please put a yellow
chip on the blue string. If they don’t use V, just
put a yellow chip.
To clarify the extent of vernacular use of fathers, you
first need to make sure that the community are
thinking only about V and other languages.
NOTE: do not proceed to 4b until you are certain
that the community understand you no longer want
them to think about other languages. Make sure they
are only focussed on V.
To find out who initiates V, ask who uses it.
Now we’d like you to think about when fathers
use only V. We’d like you to forget about all
other languages. Look at the circle. We’re now
looking at everything to do with V only. Even if
you sometimes use other languages with V,
forget about all other languages; we’d like you to
think about V only.
When fathers talk to photo, who uses V?
4c
Offer them a length of green string which they will
use if they are sure that fathers understand and
respond in V with the photo category in focus.
If fathers reply in V, please change the blue
string to green.
4d
To check that they understand what the diagram
represents ask...
Okay, you’ve changed the blue string to green.
The green string represents fathers responding in
V. Is this right?
4e
Offer them a length of pink string which they will
use if they are sure that fathers understand but
respond in anything but the V with the photo
category in focus.
When fathers talk to photo, do the fathers only
hear V? If that’s true and fathers don’t respond in
V, please change the blue string to pink.
4f
To check that they understand what the diagram
represents ask...
Okay you’ve changed the blue string to pink. The
pink string represents that when fathers speak to
photo, they don’t respond in V. Instead, fathers
respond in another language. Is that right?
3e
4a
4b
Now I’d like to check. When fathers talk to
photo, they don’t use V. Is that right, or...?
What you may observe and do in response
Volunteer marks blue string with red chip if V is
used between fathers and old men and yellow if they
use something else. If no V, just use yellow.
A complete wheel is formed randomly with blue
strings between the fathers card and all other photo
cards, and at least a yellow chip on every spoke.
 If unsure, GO BACK TO STEPS 3c-3d to clarify if V
is used.
 If no red chips anywhere, confirm no V and GO TO
STEP 5
 For each spoke with no red chip, confirm no V is
used in these interactions and then GO TO STEP 4a
Remove blue spokes with only yellow chips and
remove all yellow chips. Remove photos that do not
have a spoke. Remove "other language" card.
Ultimately, you should still have only photos of
people who use V. There should be only blue spokes
with red chips on them remaining. There should be
no yellow chips.
 If they say either both or only fathers use V, go to
step 4c
 If they say photo category only uses V, go to step
4e
 If they feel that fathers can respond in V with this
photo, they take the green string from you and
replace the blue string with it. Take the blue string
from them and GO TO STEP 4d
 If they are hesitant GO TO STEP 4e
 If they are unsure GO TO STEP 4e
 If they confirm that fathers respond, repeat for
another random photo leaving peer photo last GO
BACK TO STEP 4b
 If peer photo is last GO TO STEP 4g
 If there are no more photos GO TO STEP 5a
 If they feel that fathers can only hear V with this
category, they take the pink string from you to
replace the blue string. Take the blue string from
them and GO TO STEP 4f
 If they are hesitant GO TO STEP 4h
 If they are unsure GO TO STEP 4f
 If they confirm fathers don't respond in V, repeat
for another random photo leaving peer photo last GO
BACK TO STEP 4b
 If peer photo is last GO TO STEP 4g
 If there are no more categories GO TO STEP 5a
Step
3d
3e
4a
4b
4c
4d
4e
4f
12
13
Step
4g
4h
5a
What you do and why
What you say
What you may observe and do in response
As parents are middle-aged, interaction between
You’ve said that fathers and middle-aged men
Give volunteer a green string. They change blue
them that has a red chip will automatically qualify as use V together. So, fathers must respond using V. string to green and give you blue string. GO TO STEP
a green string.
5a
Though they said that fathers used V with this photo
Once you have clarified, repeat for another random
category, the tool has revealed that they actually do
photo leaving peer photo last GO BACK TO STEP 4b
not. You need to backtrack to figure out why this is.
 If there are no more categories GO TO STEP 5a
Ask further questions to clarify whether fathers do
use or even understand V with this category.
Check with Data Recorder as to what step you take next. You will either repeat STEPS 3 and 4 with CHILDREN photo or with MOTHERS photo and then with
CHILDREN photo.
If STEP 3 has resulted in no red chips being placed on a blue string, you will skip STEP 4 for that category.
Step
4g
4h
5a
Appendix B Original Wheel of Vitality Data Collection Sheet
Wheel of Vitality Data recorded by _____________________ while ______________________ asked questions on ___ April/May 2012.
Step 2a
Name of village:
Step 2b
Name of vernacular (V):
Step 2c
Any other languages mentioned at this point or later in the tool
Step 3
FATHERS
Step 4
FATHERS
fathers
Step 3
MOTHERS
fathers
Step 4
MOTHERS
mothers
Step 3
CHILDREN
mothers
STEP 3 Key:
CH children
OM old men
OW old women
MM middle-aged men
MW middle-aged women
yellow line = other lang.
red line = V medium
arrow = direction of comm.
STEP 4 Key:
CH children
OM old men
OW old women
MM middle-aged men
MW middle-aged women
green line = V spoken
pink line = V only heard
Step 4
CHILDREN
children
children
Misc. Language Notes (for any relevant comments on lang. use, write footnote numbers on the
relevant parts of the diagrams above and then detail the comments as footnotes below.)
If FATHERS green to at least 1 gen.
CHILDREN
If children green to another gen.
If FATHERS green to no gen.
If children green to no gen.
EGIDS 7
MOTHERS
If mothers green to at least 1 gen
If mothers green to no gen.
EGIDS 8a
14
confirm old people use V
if no EGIDS 7
go back and do CHILDREN
if yes EGIDS 6b
Appendix C Observation Schedule
Note that in this schedule, lettering in gray was intended to act only as a prompt and then be
written over by the observer.
Village ____________________________ Language ____________________________
Date:
Observer:
Interviewer:
1 WHEEL OF VITALITY
 Who Participates in the Discussion?
Start:
Stop:
Who from the community LEADS this activity?
CIRCLE groups that participate IN DISCUSSION and specify topic underneath. Also TALLY number present during tool:
old men #::
middle-aged men #:
young men #:
old women #:
middle-aged women #:
young women
#:
Is there any DISAGREEMENT among . . . participants? . . . observers?
 Language Use Attitudes
Regarding USE OF VERNACULAR do the community express any of the following?
enthusiasm smiles, nodding, animated tone of voice, lots of talking, positive statements
reluctance to explicitly show their feelings thoughtful expression, quiet, looking at speaker, few comments
disinterest in the discussion side conversations, people leaving group, lack of eye contact with speaker, atmosphere too relaxed
embarrassment nervous laughter, head shaking, side conversations, negative statements
disappointment solemn atmosphere, head shaking, negative tone of voice, negative statement
mixed feelings mixed body language, mixed tones of voice, positive and negative statements
other?
Regarding USE OF OTHER LANGUAGE do the community express any of the above?
 Critique of Tool
What worked well?
What didn’t work well?
CONCLUSION / Q&A SESSION
 Community Response
How do the community respond to the conclusion? Circle all that apply, adding any relevant notes:
polite listening
nodding
smiles
shaking heads frowns
conversation
deep thinking
List questions asked by the community. Who asked them?
 Speeches
Does anybody make a “speech”? If so . . .
Who?
What about?
Community response?
15
other?
References
Bratt Paulston, C. 2000. Ethnicity, Ethnic Movements, and Language Maintenance. In G. Kindell and
M. P. Lewis (eds.), Assessing Ethnolinguistic Vitality: Theory and Practice, 27–38. Dallas: SIL
International.
Edwards, J. 2010. Minority Languages and Group Identity: Cases and Categories. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Giles, H., R. Bourhis, and D. Taylor. 1977. Towards a theory of language in ethnic group relations. In
H. Giles (ed.), Language, Ethnicity and Intergroup Relations, 307–348. London: Academic Press.
Karan, M. E. 2000. Motivations: Language Vitality Assessments Using the Perceived Benefit Model of
Language Shift. In G. Kindell and M. P. Lewis (eds.), Assessing Ethnolinguistic Vitality: Theory and
Practice, 65–77. Dallas: SIL International.
Kumar, S. 2002. Methods for Community Participation: A Complete Guide for Practitioners. New Delhi:
Vistaar Publications.
Landweer, M. L. 2009. Indicators of Ethnolinguistic Vitality. Unpublished report.
Lewis, M. P. (ed.). 2009. Ethnologue: Languages of the World (16th ed.). Dallas: SIL International.
Lewis, M. P., and G. F. Simons. 2010. Assessing Endangerment: Expanding Fishman's GIDS. Romanian
Review of Linguistics, 55(2), 103–120.
Wiebe, B., and S. Wiebe. (2009). New Britain Initiative. Unpublished manuscript.
16