Appendix 2: Explanatory Guide to Coding Sheet

1. Coding unit ID.

To allow us to identify individual programmes, every programme is assigned an individual ID. This ID is constructed by combining two pieces of information: the ID number written on every individual tape or disc and the number relating to the order in which a given programme appears on a given disc. For example, a unit ID 25.03 would describe the third programme appearing on disc 25 (which in this case contains material from Connemara Community Radio). If programmes present with two or more discreet items which relate to disability (as may be the case on a news bulletin or a magazine show) we code those items separately. Thus the first item on the third programme of disk 25 would be coded, 25.03.01, the second 25.03.02 etc.

2. Title of Programme

This is largely for information only as the title of a given programme cannot be encoded in SPSS. Instead we have recorded that information, along with other uncodable data in a separate Excel spreadsheet. Since this spreadsheet also includes the unique coding unit ID, we can relate each SPSS entry to a particular named programme.

3. Channel

Channel: We identify individual stations by number - each is assigned a unique number. See Codebook

4. Broadcast time (Weekend or weekday; hour of day broadcast)

We code this in a two-stage manner, identifying whether an individual show is going out on a weekday or at the weekend and identifying which hour of the day (i.e. between 7am and 8am) the show is broadcast at.

4a. Is programme complete?

Given that the sample material starts on the hour in all cases, it is frequently the case that the sample includes the tail-end of some programme and the beginnings of others. These are coded as individual coding units.

5. Duration

We have measured this in minutes. In the event that the sample provided includes the tail-ends and/or beginnings of shows (i.e. shows which are incomplete), we measure only the duration included in the sample. In the case of non-current affairs radio shows (such as the Ian Dempsey Breakfast Show) which include news, sport and weather in their running order, we have subtracted the duration of the latter material (which are coded as separate programme units) from the overall duration of such magazine shows.

We have done so because we feel that such programming is generally characterised by a shift in tone from light-hearted to serious and that to code references to disability which appear in a news segment of, for example, the Ian Dempsey breakfast show, would give a misleading impression of how a reference to disability was being treated.

6. Programme Genre classified according to the system as follows

For the most part the categorisation of television in particular is relatively straightforward although there is some recent academic literature which notes that shifts in the political economy of broadcasting (i.e. pressure to reduce costs) has brought new "reality" genres to the fore, complicating "traditional" classifications. Given this, we have sought to introduce clarity into our classifications by sub-categorising the categories of "drama", "young people's", "lifestyle" and "factual".

Even so there remain some classifications that are somewhat arbitrary. Reality Shows such as "Big Brother" and makeover shows such as "How to Look Good Naked" for example may not necessarily be regarded as radically different from one another despite the fact that our classification places them in the category of factual and lifestyle respectively.

1. Drama
2. News/Current Affairs
3. Young People's
4. Comedy
5. Lifestyle
6. Music
7. Factual
8. Sports
9. Movies/Mini-Series
10. Other (Please Specify)____________________________

7. Origin of production

Coders identify as to whether a production is produced by an Irish broadcaster, commissioned from an Irish independent production company by an Irish broadcaster or imported. In the latter case, they record on a separate Excel sheet, the country of origin (determined by the headquarters of the production company). In the event that a production is a co-production involving an Irish partner we code this separately and also record (again on an Excel spreadsheet) the origin of the non-Irish production partner.

8. Number of individuated characters in programme.

We have used the term "individuated" to circumvent the difficulties posed by groups or crowds (such as those associated with sporting events) where it would be difficult if not impossible to accurately enumerate the number of individuals before the camera and, for similar reasons, where it would be difficult to isolate individuals with disabilities.

Our working definitions of "individuated" relate to the particular broadcast format and genre under examination. (i.e. we have devised definitions of individuated appropriate for radio and television on the one hand and drama and non-fiction on the other.)

Initially we had proposed counting fictional individuals by counting those listed in the pre and post credit sequences in radio and television drama. However, in practice it became clear that this was not reliable, given that some dramas include in their credits actors who may be involved in an ongoing storyline but who are do not appear in a particular episode.

Similarly, in radio drama, it is commonplace for one actor to play several roles: thus relying on radio credits risked missing individual characters. Thus we defined as individuated in drama: characters with speaking roles whether physically present or not (i.e. we include characters who's appearance may be limited to a voice on a telephone), or characters without speaking roles who are nonetheless physically present and who overtly interact with other characters who do have speaking roles. Thus we do not include background characters (such as extras appearing in a restaurant, unless they are manifestly addressed by more overtly individuated characters).

Non-fiction television presents other challenges, not least the sheer number of people covered in relatively short periods in genres such as television news. In this case we enumerate all individuals who address the camera and/or a proxy for the camera such as a reporter either orally or through other means (e.g. someone using gestural language such as sign language). However, we also include those individuals in news and current affairs programming who are physically represented and who are overtly identified by the reporter/presenter, even if they do not directly address the camera/reporter. We also include individuals who, though not physically present (i.e. who do not speak, and of whom there are no images, moving or still) who are effectively individuated through substantial discussion (i.e. for a minute or more).

For non-fiction radio we have applied a similar schema as for television. We enumerate all individuals whose voices are individually distinguishable. We also include individuals who, though not physically present are substantively discussed (again for a minute or more). In effect this would mean that in a five minute radio news bulletin, brief references to individuals will not be coded. However, when an individual is discussed at length in their absence - i.e. a book review show discussing an author's work or a current affairs show discussing a figure of public notoriety as a programme item, then they are regarded as having been individuated for the purposes of this project.

In passing we should note that because we are coding at the level of individual programmes, the final headcount will include multiple references some high profile individuals. For example, figures like the Taoiseach may well appear in virtually every news bulletin. We did consider a research design whereby the appearance/presence of individuals would only be counted once regardless of how many times they appeared in programmes across the sample. However, on reflection and in consultation with the BCI and the NDA, we rejected such an approach because it would not offer an accurate reflection of the incidence of representation of people with disabilities but was likely to be skewed. There was also a more pragmatic difficulty about how to avoid double counting individuals, especially given that an hour of genres like television news may include upwards of 100 individuated but relatively low-profile characters who would not be easy to distinguish in later programmes.

8a. Is the programme live action, entirely animated, or a mix of both?

Self-explanatory

9. Does the programme refer to disability at any level or feature a person with a disability? If no, do not continue to the remaining questions.

This is a gate-keeping question. All coding units (programmes) will be coded by questions 1 - 9. However, only those programmes featuring people with disabilities or disability as a discourse will be coded under the remaining questions.

10. Is the programming specialised disability-focussed programming, mainstream or an episode of a mainstream show focused on disability for its entire duration?

The nature of the sample means that we are unlikely to encounter any disability specific programming. However we are open to the possibility that mainstream shows may devote individual programmes to the subject.

11. Does the programme include the presence of one or more individuated individuals with a disability? If "no", go straight to question 15, if yes proceed to question 12.

This is a further gate-keeping question which effectively separates those programmes which feature people with disabilities from those which merely refer to a discourse around disability.

12. How many individuals with a disability are present/apparent?

Relatively straight-forward: "apparent" was introduced to account for the possibility of characters who though physically present in a given context may nonetheless participate in a programme (i.e. through phone-in participation).

12a. Does the programme feature people with disabilities who are not individuated but who are clearly present? If so go straight to question 14.

This question was added to address the possibility of programming which though featuring people with disabilities exclusively treated them as a group (such as a news report on a politicians visit to a centre for children with disabilities). It was felt that such a representation would be pertinent to the focus of the study and indeed that it was important to note such representations which - if found - might reasonably be described as sidelining people with disabilities.

13. For programmes containing participant(s) with a disability, give a coding for each participant:13a. Gender

1. male
2. female

Self-explanatory.

13b. Observed Age

1. child (0-12)
2. teenager (13-19)
3. young adult(20-35)
4. middle aged(36-50)
5. older middle-aged(51-65)
6. elderly(over 65))

We have stressed "observed age" here because in most cases the specific age of a given individual is unlikely to be identified. Clearly this raises the prospect of error. However, in broad terms we are less concerned with identifying the extent to which people with disabilities fall into such specific age groups and more the extent to which representations of disability concentrate on pre-adult, adult and elderly groups. Thus even if coders are unsure whether to place for example, a 14 year old, into the first or second category we will still be able to record the presence of a pre-adult representation.

13c.

This question asks whether the individual's disability is directly referred to or only tacitly evident. In practice "directly referred to" means mentioned in speech. "Tacitly evident" means evident through a visual cue such as the fact that an individual is in a wheelchair or uses a cane or through an aural cue such as slurred speech. The function of the question is to allow us to prepare for considering questions 16a and 16b relating to whether representations of people with disabilities are stereotyped, discriminatory or prejudiced. Commonsense suggests that the failure to directly advert to the presence of a person's impairment increases the likelihood that the representation will be neutral. However, this question will allow us to establish whether or not this is in fact the case.

13d. Type of disability

Given the nature of the research this category was obviously of key importance and we have gone to some effort to ensure that it is coded as accurately as possible. We have effectively sought to ensure accuracy through collating all representations for the examination of the Head of the Disability Service in DCU, Pat Hoey, to ensure that the final categorisations are carried out by an expert in the field rather than by our coders. However, in the pre-coding training, we expended some effort on introducing coders to the basic categories of disability. We should stress that we have only coded those incidences of disability which are made manifest through a visual or oral cue (see 13c). To do otherwise, would effectively place our coders in the position of having to make diagnoses: thus a character who is witnessed drinking a lot or even referred to as "having a drink problem" would not be coded as an alcoholic unless s/he is also overtly described as alcoholic, or was identified as alcoholic by other cues such as attending Alcoholics Anonymous.

13e. Level of appearance in programme

Coders apply a combination of four metrics to determine whether an individual plays a major, minor or incidental role within a given programme/item. These are the amount of onscreen time, amount of speech/dialogue, role in developing the narrative and (although this largely applies to fiction) extent of character development).

13f. Type of Role

This question asks coders to identify the type of role played by the person with disability: comedic; light; serious or mixed. To a large extent this will be conditioned by the nature of the programme the person feature in, but it is possible, for example, that a comedy show may use a person with disability in a role that is both comedic and serious and hence the need for the mixed category. Furthermore, magazine programmes such as "The Tubridy Show" may switch from one tone to another depending on the particular item, so there is particular tone definitively associated with the show.

13g.

This question asks whether the appearance of a person with a disability is live, pre-recorded or impossible to distinguish. The function of the question is to examine the extent to which editorial decisions seek to control representation of people with disabilities. If, for example, representations of people with disabilities are disproportionately apparent in pre-recorded shows, this may suggest a concern at an editorial level that people with disabilities present a particular production risk (either in terms of the need to make special arrangements to facilitate their participation or because they may face particular communicative obstacles).

13h. Relevance of disability (if any) to role (e.g. extent to which the participant's disability was important to the programme item).

To determine how to code this, coders should consider the impact on the individuals role of removing their disability. If the individual's role is essentially unchanged then their disability is "incidental". If their role would be substantially reduced by such a removal but not entirely obviated then their disability is "relevant". If, finally, their role would essentially be reduced to nothing - i.e. there would effectively be reason left for them to feature - then their disability should be coded as "central".

13i and j

Both questions ask coders to code the occupation of the person with disability. The second question asks coders to code the former occupation of those identified as retired in the first.

13 k.

This question asks the coders - with regard to factual programming only to code the person with a disability's role under the following categories:

• Expert;
• Elected representative;
• Presenter;
• Person with a disability,, and;
• Subject of the factual/current affairs item

"Presenter" and "Elected Representative" are straight-forward categories. Since a "Person with a Disability" might by definition be regarded as an "expert" on their own impairment, we have defined "expert" as referring to a person with a disability who is overtly described as an expert in a particular field. If their expertise is in the field of disability it will be need to be clarified that this is an expertise over and above that acquired purely through lived experience (i.e. some kind of qualification will need to be identified). Thus "Person with a Disability" will be taken as referring to an individual whose role is primarily to explain their everyday, lived experience as a person with a disability but who is permitted to perform their explanation in their own right. This in turn is distinguished from "subject" of the factual/current affairs item, which describes a person with a disability who is represented as a person with a disability by a third party (i.e. the programme makers) but not permitted to actively represent themselves.

13l.

This question asks the coders to state the subject of contribution made by the person with a disability. The categories proposed are as follows.

1. personal experiences
2. minority issues
3. discussion of political issues
4. everyday topics such as cookery, gardening. DIY etc.
5. Gameshow contestant
6. Other (please specify)
7. Too brief to classify

Categories 4-7 are self-explanatory. However we feel the need to amplify our working understanding of 1-3. "Personal experiences" refers to personal descriptions of disability that remain largely descriptive and fall short of outright advocacy. "Minority issues" refers to discussion of disability-related issues (including talking about disability in the context of larger discussions about what constitutes "normal") in an overtly political advocacy context. "Discussion of political issues" refers to a context where a person with disability discusses "mainstream" (i.e. non-disability related) political issues.

14.

Question 14 asks coders to apply the structures of questions 13e, 13f, 13g and 13h to programmes containing non-individuated groups with disabilities.

15.

Similarly question 15 asks coders to apply the structures of questions 13e and 13f to the discourses featured in those programmes which refer to disability as a discourse but DO NOT featuring any individuals with a disability.

16. Relevance of representation to minority disability issues (e.g. lobbying/highlighting disability issues.).

The first question in this section asks whether representation of the person(s) with disability/the discourse around disability fall into any of a series of specified stereotypical categories? We have adapted these from Colin Barnes' work.

16b

This question asks whether the representation of the person(s) with disability/the discourse around disability discriminates against a particular person with a disability or is prejudiced against people with disability as a group? The codebook design also allows for the possibility that a given representation is either neutral or is simultaneously discriminatory and prejudicial.