Until recently, no organization within the Portuguese community yet existed which had the mandate and backing to undertake a study of the type identified in the previous section. However, in March of 1993, a work group comprised of Luso-Canadian social service workers, business-people, students, clubs and associations - under the initiative of the Portuguese Interagency Network (a Toronto-based social service “umbrella” organization) - brought together approximately 250 Portuguese-Canadians, in a three day-day conference in Ottawa, Ontario, in order to initiate a dialogue about the best means of addressing pressing national issues. Those individuals and associations in attendance at this Conference created the Portuguese-Canadian National Congress (hereafter referred to as “The Congress”) and elected the first Board of Directors, for this fledgling organization (Costa, 1995).

Like its counterparts in other ethnic communities, the Congress is an organization which seeks to identify and address the concerns of the Portuguese communities scattered throughout Canada and which promotes programmes and activities, that are designed to bring about their resolution. The individuals attending the inaugural conference charged the organization with the mandate to act on behalf of its members, on such issues as the social, economic, cultural and political development of the community, matters of social justice, human rights, the promotion of the full participation by community members in Canadian society, and the communication between Luso-Canadian communities and between Portugal and Canada. The Congress was also envisioned as an organization which could become a consultative body for the various levels of government.[1]

Initially, the beginnings of this study reflected the very pragmatic nature of the organization. The study was commissioned because of the need to begin the work of the Congress from a foundation of knowledge about the actual state of the Portuguese-Canadian communities; in particular those in the smaller population centres.

Yet, there was also a general consensus amongst those individuals at the March 1993 Ottawa Conference, that the concerns of the national Portuguese community, along with the activities of the Congress in addressing those concerns, could not be determined solely by the 250 people in attendance. There was an understanding that the resolutions taken at this Conference constituted merely a starting-point and that the fledgling organization needed to tap directly into the hopes and the vision of the communities-at-large, in order for the organization to function effectively.

Another reason was that no nation-wide research project on the Portuguese-Canadian community had ever before been attempted. Neither had any organization ever tried to consult with the various pockets of Luso-Canadians, scattered throughout Canada; many of these being located in places where economic and social problems could possibly be made more complex by cultural and geographic isolation. Finally, there was also the need for a project which could raise the profile of the Congress amongst these communities and which could foster a greater participation in the organization, on the part of all Portuguese-Canadians.

It was with these objectives in mind, that the newly-elected Executive soon sought funds, from the Federal Government’s Department of the Secretary of State, Multiculturalism and Citizenship Canada, (now the Multiculturalism Programme of the Department of Canadian Heritage) for a national “Needs Assessment”, which would serve to direct the activities of the Congress in the upcoming years. Upon receipt of the funds, an opening for a full-time, temporary Research Coordinator was posted across Canada. The position was filled in April of 1994 and the project officially launched.

One of the first activities of the project was a meeting between the Research Coordinator and the 18 volunteer Directors, in April of 1994, in order to set priorities for the study. At this meeting, the Directors laid out their hopes, objectives and views on the project. They described their vision of a study which could identify local and national needs and problems of Luso-Canadians, gather information on how the communities are accessing social services, enquire about cultural, social, educational and vocational needs and provide a general overview of population statistics. They also felt that the study could also serve to establish lines of communication between the Congress and the outlying communities and, in this fashion, possibly bring the communities closer together. Finally, they wanted a study which would utilize various research tools, in order to help determine which methods worked best with our communities.

This meeting was audio-taped and a summary of the proceedings was mailed to those Directors who had been unable to attend the meeting. A note was also included asking for the latter’s input and comments on the decisions taken at the meeting.

Following the meeting with the Directors, one of the first tasks of the Research Coordinator was the creation of a Project Steering Committee. This Committee was entirely composed of Luso-Canadian community members. These consisted of the Research Coordinator, a number of Congress Directors from the greater Toronto (Golden Horseshoe) region, (including a small business-owner), individuals in the social services, education and health fields, and one academic. The Community Project Steering Committee, in conjunction with the Congress Directors, had full control over formulating the general objectives and research methods, as well as developing the major questions. The Steering Committee also developed and revised the questionnaire and focus group questions, as well as taking the decisions to produce a training video and newsletters. In addition, a number of the members of the Steering Committee provided personal assistance and guidance to the Research Coordinator, throughout the study, in the form of securing national mailing lists of clubs and associations, writing articles for the newsletter, imparting moral and technical support, etc.

In total, there were 12 Steering Committee meetings. Each meeting was conducted in Portuguese, except in instances where the Committee member felt more comfortable in expressing him/herself in English. The meetings were audiotaped (except for the 8th meeting, due to technical problems) and written minutes of each session was produced by the Research Coordinator.

In order to make the development of the study as democratic and participatory as possible, after each Steering Committee meeting, the Research Coordinator mailed the summary of the event, to all of the Congress Directors who were scattered across Canada and encouraged input from these, regarding the decisions which had been taken. A number of these Directors from outside the Toronto region provided input through these means, and their comments were brought to the following Committee Meeting and discussed. On various occasions, the Research Coordinator also followed up on these comments, through long-distance calls to the Director who had provided input.

The general objectives, as identified by the Steering Committee and the Congress Directors were thus to conduct a nation-wide research project on the Portuguese-Canadian community, in order to:

• Broadly profile the state of the Luso-Canadian population, that is scattered across Canada.

• Gather the opinions of Portuguese-Canadians across this country, regarding what they perceive to be the major issues affecting their communities and the role which they see for the Congress in their resolution.

• Raise the profile of the Congress amongst these communities and, in this fashion, foster a greater participation in the organization.

• Collect suggestions for improving on-going Congress communication and on ways to foster a greater representativity on the part of the organization.

• Define the Congress membership and those individuals who are most involved in community organizations, in terms of demographic indicators, level of integration, the resolution of life problems and access to social services.

One important component of this project was the need to provide community control, and local ownership, over the development and the realization of the research. Besides the creation of the Steering Committee and regular telephone and mail communication with the local Directors, numerous volunteers were also recruited throughout the various communities, to undertake the realization of the focus groups. This not only allowed the scope of the project to increase (ex. more focus groups) but it also provided a means through which local community organizations and individuals participated in, and gained ownership in the study. All moderators and secretaries of focus groups were granted a small honorarium, except in the case where this individual was a Congress Director.

In order to accomplish the defined objectives, the Steering Committee, in conjunction with the Research Coordinator, agreed upon a study which would incorporate three different research strategies (a questionnaire, focus groups and compilation of statistics from the 1991 census) as well as two outreach components (a newsletter and a media campaign).

The first part of the study consisted of the development of a 14-page questionnaire, which was mailed to approximately 600 individuals and 250 associations, churches and media across Canada (Please see Appendix 2).

• Gather the opinions of Congress members and of those people who are heavily involved in community associations and development regarding what they believe to be the most crucial issues facing their community.

• Collect recommendations regarding the role and structure of the Congress in resolving these problems.

· • Gather a general profile of this segment of the Portuguese community, in terms of such variables as age, income/occupation, community participation and cultural maintenance.

· • Promote the involvement and participation of the local communities in the study.

One thousand copies of this questionnaire were mailed to all of the Congress members (approximately 600) as well as to approximately 250 Luso-Canadian clubs and associations, community media and churches across Canada, (approximately 1-2 questionnaires per organization). Instructions were provided in the mailings allowing the further photocopying of questionnaires, in case individual clubs, churches or other organizations wished to make this instrument more widely available to their members. In addition, the questionnaire also included a pre-addressed, postage-paid, reply envelope, which helped to facilitate the response process.

While it was written in Portuguese, the questionnaire was also made available, upon request, to respondents in English and French. At the end of the questionnaire covering letter, a small note was added in these two languages, asking those respondents who were interested to return their requests, along with a forwarding address, in the mail reply envelope (see Appendix 2). Two requests for an English-version questionnaire were received and the questionnaire was summarily translated by the Research Director and verified, utilizing the back-translation method. No requests were received for a French-language questionnaire, thus, no such translation was conducted.

A total of 168 questionnaires were received. This represented a return of 16.8% on the 1,000 forms which were sent out.[2] Unfortunately, the total numbers of returns was nevertheless too low to attempt many reliable statistical analyses. Furthermore, since the questionnaire was sent mainly to individuals who were heavily involved in community affairs and, subsequently, since these constituted a non-random sample, little benefit was seen to conducting more rigorous statistical tests, beyond simple frequencies and cross-tabulations.

The results of the questionnaire were entered on computer into a data-entry programme and the results were analyzed through the statistical programme SPSS. This decision was taken in order to facilitate the gathering of frequencies and cross-tabulations. In addition, by computer-coding the answers and leaving them in an SPSS readable format, the data has been left in a form which will allow easy comparison with another sample, should the Congress decide to administer the same questionnaire again, at a later date.

In order to forestall any kind of bias on the part of the Research Director, an outside consultant was sought out to assist with the aggregation and coding of the open-ended questions, dealing with major issues and Congress directions (Ilda Januario, a Luso-Canadian Research Officer at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education). These were also placed in SPSS-readable format and analyzed along with the closed-ended questions.

Through a series of open questions, respondents were asked to state what they felt to be the issues and problems that are faced by their local community, as well as by the wider Portuguese-Canadian communities, scattered across this country (see sample Questionnaire in Appendix 2). People were specifically asked to list one or more economic, social, political, educational and cultural issues. In addition, they were also asked their opinion as to which of these they believed to be the most important and which they felt the Congress should attempt to resolve.

A further series of questions prompted respondents to rank-order (from the most to least important) lists of issues, which had been pre-defined by the project Steering Committee as being potentially significant to the Portuguese communities and to the Congress. The first of these questions invited respondents to prioritize which issues were most crucial to their communities. The second asked people to rank the issues to which they felt the Congress should give the most attention. The third presented a list of activities that are designed to improve the economic and professional situation of Portuguese-Canadians and asked people to evaluate those activities in order of usefulness.

The questionnaire also asked questions that were designed to gather a profile and the patterns of access to social services of Congress members and of those people who were most heavily involved in Luso-Canadian associations. Although the results of this part of the survey are of value to the Congress and to social service organizations, they have not been included in this dissertation and only occasional reference will be made to them, according to their relevance towards the ensuing discussion. However, these have been fully detailed in the published report of this study (Nunes, 1998).

A series of 18 focus groups were also conducted in the majority of those regions where there was a significant number of Portuguese-Canadians (Table 6) (Kruger, 1993). Three of these groups were restricted to youth (up to 24 years of age), one each in the East, Centre and West. Another meeting was held in Toronto only with participants of Azorean origin. These groups were organized and conducted in the local regions by Congress Directors and by volunteers that were gathered from the immediate community. The regions to be sampled were selected by the Steering Committee .

Local moderators and recorders were provided instructions in how to organize and conduct a focus group through means of an in-house training video, which was created specifically for this project by the Research Coordinator.

Unlike the case with the questionnaire, the people who took part in these meetings were recruited from amongst the community-at-large, and not solely from the clubs, associations, media and churches.

• Gather the opinion of participants on the issues and problems facing the various Luso-Canadian communities across this nation.

• Gather community opinions regarding the role of the Congress, in addressing these issues.

• Seek out the views of individuals from groups who have not often been consulted in the community, or who may be underepresented amongst the membership of clubs and associations, ex. Portuguese of Azorean background, youth, women and seniors.

• Ensure that as many different regions as possible have an opportunity to voice their concerns.

• Engender community participation and ownership of the process, through the recruiting of local moderators and secretaries as well as through the involvement of grass-roots individuals, in community focus groups.

Each focus group was asked a series of six questions, which were designed to gauge the opinions of participants regarding major local and national problems as well as the role, functioning and structure of the Congress. The questions were:

• What do you feel should be the role of the Congress in the resolution of these problems?

• How do you feel that the Congress should be structured, in order to better represent the opinions of its members?

• In your opinion, what would be the fairest system of voting, with regards to Congress positions.

The same questions were also asked in the youth focus groups, however, the focus group moderators were instructed to probe for those issues and problems which were of specific concern to youth.

In order to overcome the obstacle of training and equipping volunteer moderators and secretaries over vast distances, a focus group kit was developed, (see Appendix 3). The kit was mailed to each potential focus group moderator and consisted of the following:

The main training tool of this kit was an hour-long video which was written and produced by the Research Coordinator, with the assistance of a number of volunteers. This video was produced in-house, by means of very basic filmaking techniques on regular VHS tape. Yet, it effectively explained and demonstrated recruitment and group facilitation methodologies. Approximately twenty duplicates of this video were copied free-of-charge by St. Joseph’s Health Centre, in Toronto and were sent out to all of the potential focus group facilitators.[3]

In order to ensure that the participants chosen for each focus group were representative of the different segments of the community-at-large, the meeting organizers were provided with a list, and an accompanying table, which directed them to recruit participants from amongst specific segments of the Luso-Canadian population and in specific proportions, (see Appendix 3). For example, organizers were instructed that, amongst the 10 to 15 participants which they would have to recruit, 5 of these should be men, 5 women, 6 of Azorean descent, etc.

This table, which organizers were asked to fill-in as they went about the process of recruiting participants, was devised as a means to help these individuals keep a running track of the categories of participants which had already been filled and those for which more recruitment was needed. In addition, since the moderators were instructed to return the completed table to the Research Coordinator, this instrument also served as an effective means for the Research Director to check on the representativeness of each particular focus group (i.e.. whether the final group roughly mirrored the community-at-large).

Despite these procedures, the list and table served mainly as guidelines, not as rigidly imposed quotas. The organizers were allowed to use some measure of their own judgement and their own knowledge of the composition of the community, to determine the exact proportions of people that they should recruit from the designated categories. For example: in the Okanagan valley, where many Portuguese work in agriculture, it may have been less relevant to seek out the same proportions of business-people for the group.

The organizers were also provided with all of the necessary forms and material for the realization of the focus group (a detailed list of step-by-step instructions on how to set up a focus group, letters of introduction, stationery, pen, pencil, folder, etc.), as well as two blank audio-cassettes and a pre-addressed, pre-stamped, padded reply envelope. The volunteers were instructed to tape the meetings and to take notes. The resulting tapes and notes were returned to the Research Coordinator who transcribed and analyzed the results.

Finally, each focus group was allowed a budget of $250, (including an honorarium for the moderator and secretary). Although the Steering Committee did not feel it appropriate to pay for the participation of focus group attendance, they felt that providing a light meal, or buffet-style snack, was an effective and culturally-appropriate means of securing attendance and of compensating individuals for the few hours which they spent contributing to the process.

A final important aspect of the study was the gathering of statistics from the 1991 Census. This was done in order to provide a general overview of the state of the Portuguese-Canadian communities. Unfortunately, only broad information on age levels, education and income could be gathered, since beginning with the 1991 Census, Statistics Canada had already begun to limit the amount of information on the various ethnic communities which they make available in published format. The costs and difficulties involved in gathering more precise data placed the goal of a more detailed examination out of reach of this study.

The launch of the questionnaire of the Needs Assessment was initiated with a media campaign in the Portuguese media. During November of 1994 to January of 1995, interviews were held with C.F.M.T. T.V. (multicultural television) in Toronto and with various Portuguese-language radio stations in this city. In addition, a press-release was sent to the local and national community papers. The regional Directors across Canada were also sent periodic press releases and instructed to approach their local media to talk about the project.

One extremely important part of this campaign was the publication of three issues of a Congress newsletter, which was undertaken by the Research Coordinator and which served to inform the community about the development of the study (see Appendix 4). The first issue of the newsletter was mailed out to all of the members of the Congress, as well as all of the clubs and associations across Canada, prior to the mailing of the questionnaire. Subsequent issues served to inform the community about progress of the project and to inform members of current Congress activities. A newsletter was also published, at the end of the study, in order to summarize the findings of the final report, for the community-at-large.

Nearly all of the research methods which are utilized in these types of projects are fraught with their own particular inherent limitations. This is also the case with the present study. While these should never invalidate the overall value of the results that are obtained, they must, nevertheless, be acknowledged, since these limitations can affect the generalizations which can be made from the available data.

• This project incorporated only the “first-stage” of the Participatory Research process.

Although the present study followed the participatory research framework of collective investigation, collective analysis and collective action, outlined in Participatory Research: An introduction (1982, p. 2), it did not incorporate all of the three elements identified above. Only certain aspects of the second and third points were undertaken. A final report was produced (Nunes, 1998a, 1998b) and there was the collection of themes within the focus groups. However within these groups there was no decodification and critical analysis of popular language (as has been described in Brandão, 1981; De Oliveira & De Oliveira, 1981; Freire, 1970, pp. 75-118; 1981). This process has also been described as the generation of “spiralling” logic (Goyette & Lessard-Hebert, La récherce-action, cited in Alary, Beausoleil, Guédon, Larivière & Mayer, 1990, p. 207) and “...the participation in an ever-deepening analysis of words or experiences common to [people’s] reality...” (Participatory, 1982, p. 3).

However, in its attempts to reach out and sample the voices and opinions of community members, this study did fulfil one important stage of P.R., which was the attempt to collectively seek out the community, in order to gather the “generative themes” and “generative words,” (Freire, 1970, pp. 101), which serve as the subject matter for the subsequent critical deconstruction of community problems (Freire, 1970, pp.101-103; 1981, pp. 39; Brandão, 1981; Yeich, 1996; p. 114).

This project also incorporated a number of the approaches and processes of Participatory Research. These were the active participation of community members in the formulation of the research questions and design (described, above, as stage 1 in the P.R. process), as well as in the implementation of the research activities. An attempt was also made to mould the research process along the lines of the major philosophical tenets of the P.R. paradigm, as described by Tandon (1988, p. 10-11):

• the refining of the capacity of community members to analyze their situations and to conduct an inquiry into the reasons behind their problems;

• the appropriation of knowledge by the community (and the creation of new knowledge, that is relevant to ordinary people);

• the liberation of the minds of community members by helping them to reflect on their situation.

The most severe limitation of this study was the insufficiency of the funds which were allocated to a project of this magnitude. In essence, the financial resources for this undertaking - one which was attempting to reach 1% of the population of the second largest country on earth - were on a level with studies that are conducted in small towns or with limited urban populations. This severe financial constraint resulted in a lack of adequate materials and assistance, (such as outsourcing the video and newsletter production), severely restricted the amount of travel and long-distance communication available to the Research Coordinator, made it impossible to bring other paid research or secretarial assistance into the process, and thus caused massive delays in the project.

While a great deal of the value of this study lay in the recruitment and training of local volunteers to conduct focus groups, working with unpaid volunteers over vast distances proved a daunting task and was often highly frustrating. Little could be done to encourage those individuals who did not have the time, formal education or experience to organize focus groups in a timely fashion, or to send needed information to the national project office (besides recruiting someone else).

Because of this factor, in some regions, the delays in realizing focus groups reached from between 6 months to 1 year.

There were a number of limitations inherent in the questionnaire process, which should also be summarized.

The most important limitation of the questionnaire is that this survey was not administered in a random fashion. To attempt to do so would have presented virtually insurmountable problems, given the time and financial constraints of this study and given the unavailability or unreliability of the available lists of Portuguese-Canadians. Thus, a decision was taken by the Steering Committee to limit the distribution of the questionnaire to Congress members, clubs and associations and the Luso-Canadian media. The non-random distribution pattern which was utilized effectively means that generalizations taken from the questionnaire data cannot be extended to the Portuguese-Canadian population-at-large.[4]

However, this does not mean that the information that was obtained is not valid or useful. The results of the survey section of the study can - and should - be interpreted as the opinions gathered from that segment of each community which is most involved in its social, cultural and political life and, consequently, of those individuals who have a good understanding of the problems and issues of the community-at-large. Meanwhile, the results from the focus groups can, and should, be regarded as the opinions of more diverse segments of the general population.

The fact that there is a high degree of parallel between the issues raised by respondents in the questionnaire and in the focus groups is one indication of the degree of convergence between various segments of the community regarding the problems of Luso-Canadians and the role of the Congress in addressing these concerns.

• The low number of returns and the low rate of response to certain questions.

Although there was a nearly 20% return on the questionnaires, the actual number which were received (168) was insufficient to carry out any highly complex statistical analyses. Thus, the statistical inquiries which were conducted were mostly limited to simple frequencies and cross-tabulations.

Furthermore, there was also an unexpectedly high non-response rate to the open questions which asked opinions about important issues. This ranged from 50 to 66 non-responses for the questions asking for local issues, to 105 to 115 non-responses for those asking for opinions on national problems. It was clear that, the majority of respondents were only able to comment on the situation of their local community and deferred giving opinions about national issues, which many of them most probably did not feel themselves qualified to answer.

The focus group process also displayed some limitations, which need to be summarized.

The most important limitation of the focus groups was the fact that the limited funds afforded to the study did not allow the Research Coordinator the opportunity to travel to the different regions to conduct the meetings, or to procure the services of professional moderators. This meant that there was often great difficulty in securing volunteers to conduct local focus groups and, in a few regions of significant Portuguese-Canadian populations, the Research Coordinator was unable to secure anyone to conduct a focus group, even after repeated telephone calls and referrals. This was the case in the regions of Kingston Ontario, Calgary Alberta and Kitimat British Columbia, where the Research Coordinator was not able to recruit volunteers to organize these meetings. Because of this problem, these areas were unfortunately not covered by this study.

• No distinction was made by participants between national and local issues.

Another limitation was that, in nearly every focus group, the participants did not make the distinction between national and local issues. Most people found it very difficult or impossible to comment on national problems, because most had had limited contact with other Luso-Canadian communities. In addition, there does not yet exist an effective Canada-wide Portuguese-Canadian newservice to reflect a pan-Canadian image of the Portuguese back to the local communities. For this reason, more often than not, when asked for their opinions on national problems, most people at these meetings commented on their local situations and simply extrapolated to the wider community.

Finally, in retrospect, given the relative importance which most participants placed on issues related to the newer generations, (ex. the education of young people, the maintenance of the Portuguese language and culture) the study may have benefited from the realization of a greater number of all-youth focus groups.

• Focus groups were not conducted in some areas of significant Luso-Canadian populations

In a few areas of significant Luso-Canadian populations, most notably Kitimat, B. C. and Kingston, Ontario, no volunteers could be secured to conduct focus groups. Consequently, the Portuguese-Canadians in these regions were not consulted in this study (except by the incidental questionnaire returned from these regions).

Focus group organizers were provide with letters of introduction and consent, which they were instructed to copy and distribute to all focus group participants, prior to their participation within the groups (Appendix 3 ). They were also instructed to inform these individuals that the meetings would be audiotaped, but that they should not use any last names during the discussions. Organizers were also directed not to include any names in the recruitment table. All participants were informed that the tapes and transcripts would remain in the possession of the Research Director. Finally, in the completion of the final report (Nunes, 1998a, 1998b), great care was taken to remove any and all references which could be used to identify individual participants from the testimonies included in these publications (ex. references to past jobs, etc).

[1] For more precise details, please refer to Article 1 of the Congress By-laws.

[2] This was a reasonable return, especially considering the length of the questionnaire.

[3] Subsequently, this video has been made available to the community by the Congress and the other organizations to where it was sent and has become a resource for other community groups to utilize.

[4] In essence, the questionnaire was not administered in a random fashion for a number of reasons:

1. There is no master directory, or list, of all of the Portuguese-Canadians across Canada, from which names could have been randomly selected.

2. Similarly, in most of the Portuguese communities, there do not exist any directories which list all of the Luso-Canadian residents in that area, (ex. telephone directories, consular lists).

3. Where Portuguese telephone directories do exists (ex. Toronto) these are frequently incomplete or inaccurate. For example, households which have unlisted phone numbers are not included. Furthermore, some of the Portuguese telephone directories list people whose names are Portuguese-sounding, yet who are from other ethnic groups, ex. from Latin-America, Spain, Sri-Lanka, Goa, the former Portuguese colonies of Mozambique, Cape Verde and Angola, etc.

4. In addition, lists compiled by the Portuguese consulates are also unreliable, in that they are dependent on self-disclosure. Many Luso-Canadians have never registered with these offices.

5. It would have proved financially and logistically impossible to conduct a random phone survey across Canada, in the hopes of chancing upon Luso-Canadian households. Perhaps, fewer than 1 in 100 households that would be called would turn out to be from a Luso-Canadian background. The study was not afforded either the time or resources to hire people to undertake this activity.

Thus, the Steering Committee decided to work with the lists which were readily available and to distribute the questionnaire to key informants (ex. those involved with associations, churches, the media etc).