Return to the Rogue Radio Research Main Page

Table of Contents

Annotated Web Links
Links are grouped by category and internally indexed for easy searching.

Micro Radio Art Gallery
Cool micro radio art and graphics-hacks from around the web.

Chapter 1: Introduction

Chapter 2: Literature Review

Chapter 3: Methods

Chapter 4: Findings

Chapter 5: Conclusions

Sailing the Spectrum from Pirates to Micro Broadcasters:
A Case Study of Micro Broadcasting in the San Francisco Bay Area
by Ted M. Coopman, master's thesis, 1995

CHAPTER 3

Methods
The purpose of this study was to examine the development of the micro radio movement in the Greater San Francisco Bay Area with a concentration on the Stephen Dunifer case, the motivations of the micro broadcasters, the FCC's response to this challenge, and to ascertain the overall scope of unlicensed radio broadcasting in the U.S. Because of the interpretive nature of this project, qualitative methods were used to address the research questions outlined in the previous chapter.

Three primary qualitative methods were employed in this study: observations, interviews, and document analysis. Although these three methods will be discussed separately, they were implemented in an integrated fashion as the research process unfolded.

This chapter is divided into six sections. First is a discussion of qualitative methods and their application to this study. Second, interviewee preparation and briefing procedures are outlined. Third, the process of interview question design is explained. Fourth, the reasoning behind observation procedures and criteria is examined. Fifth is a discussion of documentation selection and analysis. Last is a chronological account of the data gathering strategies used during the research process.

Qualitative Methods
Qualitative methods were employed in this study for several reasons. As noted in Chapter 2, the issues embedded in the micro broadcasting movement are complex, especially in terms of perceived economic and Constitutional rights concerns. Quantitative methods would not provide the multidimensional data necessary to gain an understanding of the dynamics of the micro broadcasting movement. As an exploratory investigation of this phenomenon, this project is by definition a case study of the micro broadcasting movement in the Bay Area. Case studies come under the general heading of qualitative research (Lindlof, 1995).

As Lindlof (1995) notes, "The qualitative researcher usually begins a study out of a personal and scholarly fascination with a phenomenon, and continues to respect its integrity while carrying out field activities. The researcher turns his or her attention to the forms and functions of the phenomenon as it operates in natural context. Yet a qualitative approach depends critically on the investigator's interacting with the subjects under study" (p. 22).

Interviewing, document analysis, and observation were the qualitative methods employed in this study. Because of the complexity of the micro broadcasting movement, multiple methods of data generation were essential. As Lindlof (1995) argues, multiple methods are particularly useful for examining communicative events from different perspectives. Further, using multiple methods as a form of triangulation increases the validity and reliability of the study (Marshall & Rossman, 1989).

Interviews were the primary source of data in this study. "In qualitative research, one interviews people to understand their perspectives on the scene, to retrieve experiences from the past, to gain expert insight or information, to obtain descriptions of events or scenes that are normally unavailable for observation" (Lindlof, 1995, p. 5). Clearly interviews were essential for this study in that this was the only method to get a better understanding of the various participants' perspectives. For example, the only way to discover micro broadcasters' and FCC agents' motivations was to go to the sources and ask.

Document analysis is an important indicator of events and processes, as well as a source of basic information. This method is particularly useful when researching the law, court proceedings, or governmental agencies. "Documents indicate, among other things, what an organization produces and how it certifies certain kinds of activities . . . categorizes events or people . . . codifies procedures or policies . . . explains past or future actions, and tracks its own activities" (Lindlof, 1995, p. 208). In this study, document analysis was critical in understanding the legal arguments and positions associated with the micro broadcasting movement and related precedent-setting cases. Further, resource allocation data and details concerning past interdiction or prohibition of unlicensed broadcasters were contained only in this form.

Observation of participants in various situations, whether in meetings, on the street, during interviews, or in court, was an important aspect of data collection. "Observing is indispensable to the research styles of ethnography, naturalistic inquiry, and the case study. Only the human investigator situated in a scene is able to register the subtle, processual actions of other human beings" (Lindlof, 1995, p. 134). For example, observation was critical in understanding the relationships between the participants during the court proceedings. During one session, David Silberman, FCC attorney, made a reference to the relative ages of Judge Claudia Wilken and himself. Her reaction to his comment would not have shown up on any court transcript and could only have been reported through direct observation.

While interviews were the primary source of data, document analysis and observations were an integral part of the research process. Lindlof (1995) argued that "data from the complementary can then enrich, or impose qualifications on, explanations arising from the primary one" (p. 239). More important for the present study, "[a] commitment to multiple modes of data generation leads to thickly described cases" (Lindlof, 1995, p. 239). In the following sections of the chapter, the specific research methods employed in the present study are discussed.

Interview Statement and Interviewee Briefing
Six individuals were interviewed for this study (see Appendix A). An interview statement was read prior to the beginning of all interviews describing the purpose and uses of the information gathered during the interview and requesting permission to tape record the session (see Appendix B for Interview Statement). Interviewees were informed that the study concerned the history of unlicensed broadcasting, the modern micro broadcasting movement in the Bay Area with a focus on the Dunifer case, and the size and strength of the unlicensed broadcasting phenomenon in the United States. Further, interviewees were told the general purpose of this thesis would be to produce a "picture" of the micro broadcasting movement as it currently exists and how it might develop. The interviewer also informed the interviewees that they would, at times, be asked to give opinions on certain subjects or to speculate on future events, and that these comments would be noted as such. Interviewees were encouraged to ask any questions concerning the study, as well as the identities of other participants interviewed. If interviewees inquired about the content of previous interviews, the researcher provided only general information. Further, all interviewees were offered access to the thesis upon its completion.

Interview Schedule Design
Interview schedules where constructed prior to all interviews. The exceptions to this were the unexpected interview opportunities with Daniel Emrick and David Silberman that occurred during the researcher's visit to FCC Headquarters in Washington, DC. These interviews were conducted using the Lawrence Clance interview schedule as a reference point. Impromptu questions were then generated with a focus on broad open-ended questions that allowed the interviewees the opportunity to more fully express their views and volunteer data spontaneously. This, in turn, generated follow-up questions.

The criteria for question selection were based on several factors. Primarily, questions were designed to yield information in two areas: (1) collection of basic data concerning actual events, policies, procedures, and time-lines; and (2) interviewees' attitudes, opinions, and perceptions of themselves and the other participants, especially the opposition. A moderately-scheduled interview strategy was employed because it "offers freedom to probe into answers and adapt to different interviewees and situations" (Stewart & Cash, 1994, p. 49). This type of interview schedule tends to yield the maximum amount of data with a minimum of digression (see Appendix B for interview schedules).

As stated above, questions were generally aimed at acquiring basic information and attitudes and opinions. Although the full original interview schedules are available in Appendix B, often specific questions were eliminated by previous answers. Further, other questions that had not been originally included on the interview schedule were suggested by an interviewee's response. An example of this could be found in the Tom Schreiner interview. When asking Schreiner about his background in radio, he responded by saying that he had no experience in radio or broadcasting. He went on to state that he was a high school dropout and a carpenter retrained as a academic. Although the original question was posed to gain basic background information in a specific area and lead to follow-up technical questions concerning radio, it instead generated a different set of questions and provided unforeseen background data. Any further questions concerning engineering or technical issues would be of little use. However, questions concerning a technical novice's experience in radio seemed appropriate.

Another example of the dynamic nature of interviews occurred in the meeting with the FCC's Clance. The researcher posed a question concerning a rumor that the FCC, having already expanded its subpoena powers, was looking to arm its agents. The question was designed to first obtain a basic yes/no answer and second to detect possible evasiveness if a non-specific response were given. Clance's answer was long, detailed, and vehement in the rejection of arming FCC agents. Rather than basic data, his comments yielded a great deal of information concerning the attitudes of the FCC rank and file and their roles in regulating communication.

Field notes were made after each interview concerning the researcher's reactions, the physical interview environment, and the apparent attitude of the interviewee towards certain questions and subjects. Field observation procedures and criteria are discussed in the following section.

Observation Procedures and Criteria
Observations were conducted using a combination of outside observation, or as a complete observer, and interaction with events and those being observed, as a participant observer (Lindlof, 1995). Researcher interaction consisted mostly of casual conversations with participants and bystanders. These conversations were not recorded. After the contact was made, the researcher disengaged from the scene and made notes, usually on audio tape.

Observation notes were both handwritten and tape recorded, with the latter used in a majority of observation situations. However, because of the prohibition against electronic recording devices in federal courtrooms, handwritten notation was used in those situations.

Field notes were organized into four major sections. Section one contained time, date, location, and a list of participants. Section two included observations of events as they unfolded. Primary criteria for observation were the actions and reactions of participants as they applied to the research questions listed at the end of Chapter 2, the physical environment and its apparent effects, and actual information about micro radio and its proponents. Section three contained the reactions and interpretations of the researcher to events and participants, including personal interaction between the observer and the participants. Finally, section four involved the transfer of field notes to computer hard-drive and the addition of further comments by the researcher concerning the observation data after a period of time and reflection.

Document Selection and Analysis
Initial document acquisition criteria were simple and concise: any document with the mention of unlicensed, micro, or pirate radio was examined. There were several reasons for this. First, the FCC as the primary source for documents for this study, did not recognize any differences among the various modes or motivations of unlicensed broadcasters in its record keeping. This made it necessary to access all available documents in order to assure that no important data were overlooked. Second, the different preferences for certain titles and descriptors by the parties involved required that attention be paid to a variety of references, many of which were obscure. Third, as noted in Chapter 1, the general lack of information concerning unlicensed broadcasting made a broad search critical to complete the data set. Depending on the document source, different strategies were employed in document selection.

The FCC's data organization methods required a broad approach to document collection. Documents gathered and analyzed covered four primary areas: Information concerning the interdiction of unlicensed broadcasters; press reports and other outside documentation collected by the FCC; budgetary, staffing and resource distribution data contained in FCC annual reports; and legal documents. Documents were used to the degree that they answered the research questions posed at the end of Chapter 2.

The Committee for Democratic Communication (CDC) was the second source of documents for this study. These documents consisted almost exclusively of legal briefs associated with the Dunifer case. Other documents obtained were of secondary source material collected and compiled by the CDC. The vast majority of these data were relevant to this study.

Data-gathering Strategies
Correspondence was initiated with all the parties involved: the FCC in Washington, DC and the Hayward, CA field office; the Committee for Democratic Communication in San Francisco; Free Radio Berkeley and Stephen Dunifer; Free Radio Santa Cruz and Tom Schreiner; and San Francisco Liberation Radio and Richard Edmonson (see Appendix A for detailed interviewee information). Kate Henton at the Hayward FCC office provided information and suggested filing a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to expedite matters. This was done June 11, 1994. Preliminary data, such as historical and legal background material, were gathered through computer searches and monitoring of radio hobbyist publications and the Free Radio Berkeley newsletter.

After initial contact was made with FCC headquarters in Washington, DC, correspondence was initiated with Lawrence Clance, Assistant Bureau Chief for Law, Field Operations Bureau (FOB). The Field Operations Bureau was re-designated the Compliance and Information Bureau (CIB) in the Fall of 1995 and will be referred to as such from this point on. According to the FCC's FOIA Office and Clance himself, he was their "pirate radio expert." At this point, requests for interviews were mailed out to Clance, Dunifer, and Edmonson. In addition, Louis Hiken of the Committee for Democratic Communication (CDC), attorney for Dunifer and Edmonson, was contacted. All replied that they would be willing to be interviewed for this study.

Allan Corn, a member of the legal staff at the CDC, provided CDC records concerning unlicensed broadcasting and the micro radio movement. This material was gathered at the CDC office in San Francisco and photocopied. It consisted of legal briefs, newsletters, journal articles, and media coverage.

Appointments for interviews were scheduled for the winter and spring of 1995. The first interviews took place at FCC Headquarters in Washington, DC on January 10. Access to the FCC library was provided and other material was obtained from CIB files. This information concerned FCC annual reports and actions against unlicensed broadcasters as well as data concerning FCC field offices. Clance was interviewed and set up additional interviews with other FCC employees. David Silberman, the primary FCC attorney in the Dunifer case, was interviewed, as well as Daniel S. Emrick, an engineer and Chief of Investigations Branch, Enforcement Division, CIB.

The FCC provided information that might indicate the frequency and band location of interdicted unlicensed broadcasters over the past 10 years. Clance stated that while specific statistical data on such activities did not exist, every FCC action was followed by a news release that was kept on file. However, these data were not available and were not on file at the Washington office. A list of FCC field offices was acquired with the intention of requesting additional data from each one, as Clance thought these offices might keep better data for their own areas of jurisdiction. Upon returning from Washington in mid-January, the researcher sent information requests to each office. Unfortunately, over the next six weeks, all but a few requests were sent back referring the researcher to Clance for that data. Clance was e-mailed concerning this. He then intervened providing some data by the end of February, most of which were redundant to other information previously obtained. During transcription of the Clance interview, it was discovered that he had mentioned that all fines had been removed as a result of the FCC fine table being invalidated by a federal court. Clance was contacted, and after some hesitation, he volunteered that the information was in the FCC data base. A printout concerning FCC fines was provided to the researcher.

The researcher analyzed the printout and all other FCC data concerning the frequency and band locations of unlicensed broadcasting. This analysis revealed that the data were insufficient to discover any trends or patterns in the interdiction of unlicensed broadcasters. This was because of several factors. The primary problem was that FCC field offices did not keep or report unlicensed broadcaster violations in a consistent manner. Some offices issued news releases as a deterrent. Other offices did not, reasoning that the publicity would encourage others to try unlicensed broadcasting. Certain field offices reported all violations of Section 301 simply as violations of Section 301; others detailed specific sections violated, and still others added comments concerning the violation. Further, there was no central clearinghouse for any information concerning this subject. This made any analysis problematic because the information was incomplete to an unknown degree. Further, many incidents of 301 violations could not be confirmed as unlicensed broadcasters, only as probable occurrences. At this point, this line of investigation was terminated. The only valuable data discovered was that the FCC, because of inconsistent recording and filing systems concerning violations, would not be able to detect any increase over time in unlicensed broadcasting activity until it became so large as to be unmistakable.

On January 20, Judge Claudia Wilken heard arguments concerning a request for a preliminary injunction by Silberman against Stephen Dunifer of Free Radio Berkeley, which was ultimately denied. These proceedings were observed and notes were taken as well as recordings outside the Federal District Courthouse in Oakland, CA where a rally for the defendant was held.

Subsequent interviews were conducted with Louis Hiken on February 15 and Stephen Dunifer on March 1. Repeated attempts were made to contact Richard Edmonson over the course of six months, without result, despite his agreeing to be interviewed. As the research window began to close, this interview was deleted. At this time a micro station began operation in Santa Cruz. A station meeting time and place were discovered and a one meeting was observed and notes taken. Tom Schreiner, a primary actor in the organization, was interested in the study and agreed to an interview, which took place on May 31. Further monitoring and observations of Free Radio Santa Cruz took place until November 1995.

The bulk of data-gathering efforts were completed in August after the FCC issued its response to Judge Wilken's request for explanation and information on January 20. An official copy of this was provided by Clance at the Compliance and Information Bureau (CIB).

Analysis focused on two main avenues of inquiry: (1) A case study of the micro radio movement in the Bay Area, and (2) the difficulties involved with FCC interdiction of micro radio. Once all the interviews were transcribed they were highlighted and notes were taken on specific and general subject matter. Material highlighted concerned participants' attitudes, perceptions, and stated motivations, as well as factual data concerning, for example, legal procedures. Interviewee references to factual data or events were compared with FCC and CDC documentation as well as news stories, and other data sources. The data were combined and organized to form a historical analysis and synthesis of the development of the micro broadcasting movement in North Central California. Further research was conducted on FCC precedent cases, the First Amendment and limited analysis of its philosophical roots as a way to position the case study within its larger regulatory and Constitutional contexts.

The second part of the data analysis process progressed in such a fashion as to indicate, through systematic analysis, the difficulty of using established FCC procedures to interdict micro radio. Analysis focused on superimposing past FCC procedures dealing with commercial or corporate violators, high-profile individuals, and traditional unlicensed broadcasters (pirates) on micro radio practitioners' activities.