ÿWPCüK ëãµú¡dCxc·8e1í²ñNe²Zí™…€ITpde§‹^nnæîŠÎàQ­}~ê7 ø=QNùb$cù´óV£t^,§©í HvˆÜnÀ»½»[Bëa$ÕsH{U}¾ÂûD=#ˆ«W®¯kÚ Ãá—}åýÊÛêu‘ð(æIdI¼ú¿_µ‡¡™uQÞhïov§P ÑÆª“kj%ò'9¢d8“Ž ×ë:Q/R§`Sê˜u¹–µAJþ®¡::)¿Ò¼ŠèÓªH5ѦòE‹y€˜B³QsV}/¢÷ÐT¯­£–à8w€dµ¨.vÓ$Xa˜´Ö6¨ÉN.Sú)ÑÍÓçT&‡ ©¸säbÈôìƒà Ý%ºv‡ã68™½OÝbðry76›±'‰ª²Jußxg¬ócP†&çÛùòNÆàª[qjnR– œ—y‘¨bÀ0Oj{!‡&~°—Ö5/NV4>ã_‰€y¹Î -"†¹mÃðFª#‚4 èÝ6‡´&¡¹Ù´À+/ç{€L@ð&°oóANë¢B×шFFŠâÛ–5œÀ?Æþ¦¥¤û¥=õ,µ,K²4•÷Ó-`‘Dz“¯ë:i¹‡‹èõ×5Ø>árz|AU:Ž %ÈU@Î4 0"8¯UNç5 nE 0rH U >º  ø ÖWÜ, 3-J6àM7M7 -8à6AB4H4H4H4H4H4H4H4H4H4H4H4H4H4H4H4H4H B5I5I5I5I5I5I5I 0DRIRIRI AO–IÆåI 0Ž«J 0D9K D/}K}K}K}K}K}K}K}K}K D3¬K BßK<þ6X9`("Courier 10cpi X*Ͼ¦ `(CG TimesScalable]¬Íÿÿÿÿ/ÿÿÿÿ4(e2Ü_$©©Ý ƒ ­!ÝÔ€ Xÿ XX XÔÔ€X|XX Xÿ ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝZUMA Talk (Revised Version)Ë ' '  (@øÐ Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular 3|X%«<þ6X9`("Courier 10cpiXôxþ6X@É“8Ç;X@*Ͼ¦ `(CG TimesScalableXXwϾ¦ P쉊7ûXP<þ6X9`("Courier 12cpileôÂdþ6X@Ƀ8Ç;ô@(J­$¡¡Ô€XÙ"XXXÔÔ€X)‹XXXÙ"ÔÓ  Ó3ZWµ Z &Tms Rmn Regular  Ý ƒ40ƒ"ÝÔ€ XɱXX XÔÔ€XɱXX XɱÔÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà@77*<àTEXTˆÐ  Ðà0 X àà àMINISTER:€€"The€church€is€God's€house€where€the€children€of€God€come€together€to€praiseÏand€worship€Him."Ð XxXx Ðà0 X àà àARCHITECT:€€"We€would€like€to€build€that€church.€€Its€maintenance€costs€and€energy€loss€isÏlow.€€Spaces€have€multiple€uses.€€It's€cost€effective€and€impressive."Ð XxXx Ðà0 X àà àPARISHIONER:€€"My€church€is€a€friendly€place„„but€it's€sometimes€hard€to€hear€the€sermons."Ð XxXx Ðà0 X àà àRESEARCHER:€€"The€church€is€a€good€example€of€a€social€institution€being€a€source€ofÏcultural€mores€and€normative€behavior."Ð XxXx ÐÌà@K K (<àEMPHASISˆÌÓ ë ƒ°œXÓIdea€Categoryà‘9 9 ë àMinisterˆà‘——*ˆàArchitectˆà‘‚‚5%àParishionerˆà‘::CÂàResearcherˆÐ    ÐÌHaveà‘9 9 ë à„5.37ˆà‘µµ.ˆà17.00ˆà‘ss;%à„5.37ˆà‘HÂà„5.37ˆÐ ì ì  ÐBeingà‘| | !ë à3.18ˆà‘/ˆà0.28ˆà‘¶¶<%à5.49ˆà‘ïïHÂà13.55ˆÐ Õ Õ  ÐObjectà‘Õ Õ ë à„13.84ˆà‘µµ.ˆà41.54ˆà‘RR;%à15.70ˆà‘¬¬GÂà„13.84ˆÐ ¾ ¾  ÐSenseà‘9 9 ë à„2.65ˆà‘ÖÖ.ˆà„2.65ˆà‘RR;%à32.91ˆà‘HÂà„2.65ˆÐ § §  ÐExpression„Arenaà‘  ë à70.78ˆà‘ÖÖ.ˆà„4.21ˆà‘ss;%à„4.21ˆà‘HÂà„4.21ˆÐ  ÐActivityà‘9 9 ë à„4.01ˆà‘µµ.ˆà32.14ˆà‘ss;%à„4.01ˆà‘ïïHÂà41.65ˆÐ yy ÐScienceà‘9 9 ë à„1.77ˆà‘ÖÖ.ˆà„1.77ˆà‘ss;%à„1.77ˆà‘SSIÂà7.85ˆÐ bb ÐStructureà‘| | !ë à7.88ˆà‘/ˆà5.39ˆà‘¶¶<%à9.87ˆà‘ïïHÂà16.79ˆÐ KK ÐProcessing€Thingsà‘9 9 ë à„6.05ˆà‘/ˆà9.22ˆà‘RR;%à18.39ˆà‘HÂà„6.05ˆÐ 44 ÐÌà@a a )<àCONTEXTˆÌRoleà‘e e ë àTraditionalˆà‘¿¿*ˆàPracticalˆà‘ÞÞ7%àEmotionalˆà‘EÂàAnalyticˆÐ ïï ÐÌMinisterà‘  ë à25.00ˆà‘rr-ˆà„13.17ˆà‘ss;%à„2.49ˆà‘HÂà„9.33ˆÐ ÁÁ ÐArchitectà‘9 9 ë à„8.77ˆà‘µµ.ˆà25.00ˆà‘ss;%à„7.25ˆà‘HÂà„8.98ˆÐ ªª ÐParishionerà‘| | !ë à4.65ˆà‘rr-ˆà„20.72ˆà‘RR;%à20.35ˆà‘HÂà„4.28ˆÐ ““ ÐResearcherà‘| | !ë à3.84ˆà‘ÖÖ.ˆà„1.45ˆà‘:%à„23.55ˆà‘ïïHÂà21.16ˆÐ || Ð ÌÝ ƒ40ƒ"ÝÔ€ XɱXX XÔÔ€XɱXX XɱÔÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àManagerà  àManagerà È àStaffÐ  Ðà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àMeanà  àà h àto€Staffà  àto€Residentà È àto€ResidentÐ éé ÐIdea€Categoryà  àà ` àà ¸ àE„Scoreà h àDistanceà  àDistanceà È àDistance€Ð ÒÒ Ðà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àC€o€r€r€e€l€a€t€i€o€n€s€Ìà X àGoodÌà X àà ° àManagerà ` àà ¸ à€9.5à  àà h à0.13à À àà  à0.36à p àà È à„0.22Ð  Ðà X àà ° àStaffà  àà ` àà ¸ à14.4à  àà h à0.64à À àà  à0.63à p àà È à„0.29Ð vv Ðà X àà ° àResidentà ` àà ¸ à16.6à  àà h à0.08à À àà  à„0.13à p àà È à0.09Ð __ Ðà X àHappyÌà X àà ° àManagerà ` àà ¸ à„0.1à  àà h à0.12à À àà  à0.26à p àà È à„0.55Ð 11  Ðà X àà ° àStaffà  àà ` àà ¸ à0.8à  àà h à0.26à À àà  à0.19à p àà È à„0.27Ð    Ðà X àà ° àResidentà ` àà ¸ à3.5à  àà h à„0.50à À àà  à„0.35à p àà È à0.10Ð    Ðà X àDepressed€€€€€€€Ìà X àà ° àManagerà ` àà ¸ à„1.1à  àà h à0.01à À àà  à„0.20à p àà È à0.16Ð Õ Õ  Ðà X àà ° àStaffà  àà ` àà ¸ à„0.6à  àà h à„0.24à À àà  à„0.28à p àà È à0.02Ð ¾ ¾  Ðà X àà ° àResidentà ` àà ¸ à0.2à  àà h à0.30à À àà  à0.16à p àà È à0.29Ð § §  Ðà X àCommunity€€€€€€€€Ìà X àà ° àManagerà ` àà ¸ à3.8à  àà h à0.44à À àà  à0.73à p àà È à0.05Ð yy Ðà X àà ° àStaffà  àà ` àà ¸ à3.2à  àà h à0.09à À àà  à0.06à p àà È à„0.22Ð bb Ðà X àà ° àResidentà ` àà ¸ à1.6à  àà h à„0.17à À àà  à0.33à p àà È à0.08Ð KK Ðà X àWe€€€€€€€€€€Ìà X àà ° àManagerà ` àà ¸ à1.8à  àà h à0.07à À àà  à0.15à p àà È à„0.35Ð  Ðà X àà ° àStaffà  àà ` àà ¸ à3.0à  àà h à0.24à À àà  à„0.04à p àà È à0.25Ð  Ðà X àà ° àResidentà ` àà ¸ à1.3à  àà h à„0.33à À àà  à0.28à p àà È à0.28Ð ïï Ðà X àThey€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà X àà ° àManagerà ` àà ¸ à4.6à  àà h à0.20à À àà  à0.25à p àà È à0.00Ð ÁÁ Ðà X àà ° àStaffà  àà ` àà ¸ à6.8à  àà h à„0.40à À àà  à„0.38à p àà È à„0.14Ð ªª Ðà X àà ° àResidentà ` àà ¸ à7.3à  àà h à„0.09à À àà  à„0.33à p àà È à0.08Ð ““ Ðà X àFellow„Feeling€€€€€€Ìà X àà ° àManagerà ` àà ¸ à3.6à  àà h à„0.04à À àà  à„0.28à p àà È à0.30Ð ee Ðà X àà ° àStaffà  àà ` àà ¸ à3.0à  àà h à„0.03à À àà  à„0.04à p àà È à0.38Ð NN Ðà X àà ° àResidentà ` àà ¸ à1.6à  àà h à„0.30à À àà  à„0.27à p àà È à„0.08Ð 77 Ðà X àImplication€€€€€€€Ìà X àà ° àManagerà ` àà ¸ à4.0à  àà h à0.37à À àà  à0.47à p àà È à0.14Ð   ! Ðà X àà ° àStaffà  àà ` àà ¸ à6.2à  àà h à„0.43à À àà  à„0.25à p àà È à0.42Ð òò" Ðà X àà ° àResidentà ` àà ¸ à6.0à  àà h à0.67à À àà  à0.74à p àà È à„0.13Ð ÛÛ# Ðà X àCognition€€€€Ìà X àà ° àManagerà ` àà ¸ à10.1à  àà h à„0.62à À àà  à„0.36à p àà È à0.63Ð ­!­!% Ðà X àà ° àStaffà  àà ` àà ¸ à14.0à  àà h à0.02à À àà  à0.00à p àà È à„0.32Ð –"–"& Ðà X àà ° àResidentà ` àà ¸ à10.4à  àà h à„0.13à À àà  à„0.23à p àà È à0.34Ð ##' ÐÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ Q%Q%) Ðòò*€€Source:€Metropolitan€Minnesota€data€on€11€homes,€1984.óó MÝ ƒ/¯#ÝÝ  ÝTable€1.€€An€Illustration€of€E„Scores€and€C„Scores Ý ƒ40ƒ"ÝÔ€ XɱXX XÔÔ€XɱXX XɱÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÌà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àUrbanà  àà p àRuralÐ éé Ðà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àòòSampleóóà p àòòSampleóóÐ ÒÒ Ðà X àManager€to€Resident€Social€DistanceÌà X àà ° àOverall€Distanceà ¸ àà  àmeanà h àà À à€€30.1à  àà p à€€22.7Ð ¤¤ Ðà X àà ° àBetween€Homesà ¸ àà  àmeanà h àà À à€€17.7à  àà p à€€13.7Ð  Ðà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àrangeà h àà À à(50.2)à  àà p à(31.7)Ð vv Ðà X àà ° àWithin€Homesà ¸ àà  àmeanà h àà À à€€€€2.1à p à€€€1.8Ð __ Ðà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àrangeà h àà À à€(€6.0)à p à(€5.9)Ð HH Ðà X àStaff€to€Resident€Social€DistanceÌà X àà ° àOverall€Distanceà ¸ àà  àmeanà h àà À à€€15.9à  àà p à€€€7.4Ð    Ðà X àà ° àBetween€Homesà ¸ àà  àmeanà h àà À à€€10.2à  àà p à€€€4.2Ð    Ðà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àrangeà h àà À à(29.3)à  àà p à(14.6)Ð ì ì  Ðà X àà ° àWithin€Homesà ¸ àà  àmeanà h àà À à€€€3.6à  àà p à€€€2.4Ð Õ Õ  Ðà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àrangeà h àà À à(€7.2)à  àà p à(€8.0)Ð ¾ ¾  Ðòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ § §  Ðòò*€€Source:€Metropolitan€data€on€11€nursing€homes€include€11€managers,€11€staff,€and€28€residents€interviewed€in€1984.€Ð  ÐRural€data€include€4€managers,€22€staff,€and€20€residents€interviewed€in€1990.€€Both€studies€were€conducted€inÏMinnesota.óó ùÝ ƒ/¯#ÝÝ  ÝTable€3.€€Ô‡XɱXX XÔAverage€Social€Distance€of€Residents€From€Each€Other€And€From€Staff€andÐ  ÐMangers€Within€And€Between€Homes*Ô#† XɱXXXɱ%#ÔÐ éé Ð ÖÝ ƒ/¯#ÝÝ  ÝTable€5.€€Ô‡XɱXX XÔCorrelates€of€Contextual€Distance€Between€Roles€And€Selected€Idea€CategoryÐ  ÐEmphasis€Scores*Ô#† XɱXXXɱ%#Ô ÿÝ ƒ40ƒ"ÝÔ€ XɱXX XÔÔ€XɱXX XɱÔÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àManagerà À àManagerà p àStaffÐ  Ðà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àto€Staffà À àto€Residentà p àto€ResidentÐ éé Ðà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àDistanceà À àDistanceà p àDistance€Ð ÒÒ Ðà X àOverall€Social€Distanceà ¸ àà  à25.1à h àà À à30.1à  àà p à15.9Ð »» Ðà X àOwnershipÌà X à€€€Proprietary€(N=2)à ¸ àà  à14.2à h àà À à19.9à  àà p à€9.9Ð  Ðà X à€€€Church„Sponsored€(N=4)à  à21.6à h àà À à29.7à  àà p à10.9Ð vv Ðà X à€€€Foundation€(N=3)à ¸ àà  à24.6à h àà À à42.0à  àà p à20.9Ð __ Ðà X à€€€Public€(N=4)à ` àà ¸ àà  à31.4à h àà À à23.0à  àà p à24.3Ð HH Ðà X àDecision„making€AutonomyÌà X à€€€Local€Decisions€(N=2)à ¸ àà  à€4.7à h àà À à11.0à  àà p à10.0Ð    Ðà X à€€€Centralized€Decisions€(N=8)à  à32.5à h àà À à35.2à  àà p à15.6Ð    ÐÌà X àCorrelations€With€Social€DistanceÌÌà X àNumber€of€Bedsà ` àà ¸ àà  à0.28à h àà À à„0.02à  àà p à„0.33Ð § §  Ðà X àNursing€Home€Reputation€(rank€r)à  à0.32à h àà À à0.41à  àà p à0.17Ð  Ðà X àManager€to€Staff€Distanceà ¸ àà  à€€„„à h àà À à0.86à  àà p à„0.28Ð yy Ðà X àManager€to€Resident€Distanceà  à€€„„à h àà À à€€„„à  àà p à„0.20Ð bb Ðòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ KK Ðòò*€€Source:€Metropolitan€Minnesota€data€on€11€homes,€1984.óóÐ 44 Ð ÖÝ ƒ/¯#ÝÝ  ÝTable€4.€€Ô‡XɱXX XÔRelationship€Between€Social€Distance€and€Selected€Characteristics,€UrbanÐ  ÐMinnesota€Sample€*Ô#† XɱXXXɱ%#Ô Ý ƒ40ƒ"ÝÔ€ XɱXX XÔÔ€XɱXX XɱÔÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà@" " $<àContext€DimensionˆÐ  ÐÓ$°ë ‚Ö°œX$Óà ° àà‘e e ë àòòTraditionalóóˆà‘¿¿*ˆàòòPracticalóóˆà‘ÞÞ7%àòòEmotionalóóˆà‘$$CÖàòòAnalyticóóˆÐ éé ÐManagersÌà ° àUrbanà‘| | !ë à2.76ˆà‘//,ˆà€€11.31ˆà‘¶¶<%à5.13ˆà‘ÀÀEÖà„19.20ˆÐ »» Ðà ° àRuralà‘| | !ë à3.80ˆà‘““-ˆà„€3.10ˆà‘ÌÌ9%à€€19.58ˆà‘ÀÀEÖà„20.28ˆÐ ¤¤ ÐStaffÌà ° àUrbanà‘| | !ë à1.79ˆà‘´´-ˆà„€€.23ˆà‘ÌÌ9%à€€18.64ˆà‘ÀÀEÖà„20.20ˆÐ vv Ðà ° àRuralà‘| | !ë à3.52ˆà‘““-ˆà„€7.75ˆà‘ÌÌ9%à€€21.48ˆà‘ÀÀEÖà„17.24ˆÐ __ ÐResidentsà ° àÐ HH Ðà ° àUrbanà‘ !ë à„.03ˆà‘rr-ˆà„10.63ˆà‘ÌÌ9%à€€24.31ˆà‘ÀÀEÖà„13.64ˆÐ 11  Ðà ° àRuralà‘à à "ë à.98ˆà‘““-ˆà„€9.93ˆà‘ÌÌ9%à€€23.97ˆà‘ÀÀEÖà„15.01ˆÐ    Ðòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ    Ðòò*€€Source:€Metropolitan€data€include€11€managers,€11€staff,€and€28€residents€interviewed€in€1984.€€Rural€data€includeÐ ì ì  Ð4€managers,€22€staff,€and€20€residents€interviewed€in€1990.€€Both€studies€were€conducted€in€Minnesota.Ìóó ÷Ý ƒ/¯#ÝÝ  ÝTable€2.€€Ô‡XɱXX XÔSocial€Context€Score€Profiles€for€Administrators,€Staff€and€Residents€of€Urban€andÐ  ÐRural€Nursing€Homes*Ô#† XɱXXXɱ%#ÔÐ éé ÐüÿP Pd(3¯$££Ý ƒ !ÝÝ  Ý3/56Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(f30ƒ$¢¢Ý ƒ ­!ÝÔ€ XoxXX XÔÔ€X†ôXX XoxÔÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(('÷ÿ dxd@@@@'ýÿdxdþÿ dÝ ƒ ­!ÝÔ€ XɱXX XÔÔ€XɱXX XɱÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÓ0°°‡zŽz¤&ŽzÉ<C>°œX0Óà@d d &ìàA€COMPUTER€CONTENT€ANALYSIS€APPROACH€TOˆÐ ° Ðà@± ± %ìàMEASURING€SOCIAL€DISTANCE€IN€RESIDENTIALˆÌà@Á Á *ìàORGANIZATIONS€FOR€OLDER€PEOPLEˆÌÌÓ  ÓDonald€G.€McTavishÌDepartment€of€SociologyÌUniversity€of€MinnesotaÌMinneapolis,€MN€55455ÌÓ  ÓÌà@88/ìà€Kenneth€C.€LitkowskiˆÌà@ÕÕ4ìàCL€ResearchˆÌà@KK/ìà20239€Lea€Pond€PlaceˆÌà@××.ìàGaithersburg,€MD€20879ˆÌÌà@uu2ìàSusan€SchraderˆÌà@ãã.ìàDepartment€of€SociologyˆÌà@åå1ìàAugustana€CollegeˆÌà@.ìàSioux€Falls,€SD€€57105ˆÌÌà8 * àComputer€content€analysis€provides€another€approach€to€measuring€aspects€of€socialÏstructure.€€Different€social€positions€imply€different€social€perspectives€that€are€evidentÏin€language.€€A€language-based€measurement€of€distance€between€positions€in€anÏorganization€is€described,€using€as€data€verbatim€transcripts€of€interviews€withÏoccupants€of€positions€in€nursing€homes€talking€about€their€organizational€situation.€ÏMinnesota€Contextual€Content€Analysis€(MCCA),€a€computer€content€analysisÏapproach,€scores€social€perspectives€in€these€texts€and€computes€social€distance€as€aÏfunction€of€differences€between€perspectives,€facilitating€an€examination€of€socialÏdistance€with€other€organizational€and€personal€outcomes.€€Correlates€of€distanceÏbetween€roles€across€nursing€homes€suggest€consequences€for€organizational€structureÏand€the€meaning€residents€express€about€their€experience.€€This€content€analysisÏpermitted€a€relatively€accurate€identification€of€each€respondent€with€a€particularÏnursing€home,€a€measurable€aspect€of€organizational€culture.€€The€structure€of€theseÏdifferences€reveals€important€facets€of€organizational€structure.€€The€methodology€usedÏhere€is€compared€to€techniques€in€information€retrieval€for€characterizing€documentsÏby€semantic€vectors.€€This€comparison€suggests€that€MCCA€captures€finer„grainedÏconcepts.€€Semantic€analysis€of€the€MCCA€categories€using€WordNet€shows€that€theyÏconstitute€semantic€domains,€whose€further€refinement€may€lead€to€betterÏcharacterization€of€the€identified€differences.Ð *®!*®! ÐÌ1à * àIntroductionÐ /(#' Ðà * àThis€paper€describes€a€language„based€approach€to€the€measurement€of€the€social€distanceÏbetween€positions€in€an€organization,€as€an€example€of€using€a€content€analysis€technique€thatÏmay€usefully€be€extended€to€numerous€other€applications.€€In€everyday€interaction,€differencesÏin€stylistic€register€and€pragmatics€are€evident€between€managers€and€employees,€doctors€andÏpatients,€accountants€and€sales€staff€in€òòwhatóó€they€commonly€discuss€as€well€as€òòhowóó€these€topicsÐ ¼, (, Ðare€presented.€€The€approach€discussed€in€this€paper€uses€conversational€interviews€withÐ §-÷(- Ðoccupants€of€positions€in€organizations€in€which€they€talk€about€their€organizational€situation.€ÏComputer€content€analysis€provides€a€practical€tool€for€reliably€coding€social€perspectives€usingÏthese€verbatim€transcripts.€€Differences€between€perspectives€is€a€function€of€social€distanceÏbetween€statuses.€€This€approach€to€the€measurement€of€social€distance€in€organizationsÏfacilitates€an€examination€of€the€impact€this€feature€of€social€structure€upon€other€organizationalÏand€personal€outcomes.Ìà * àIn€this€paper€we€describe€a€contextual€content€analysis€approach€to€the€measurement€of€Ïcultural€aspects€of€social€distance€between€statuses€in€organizations.€€These€distances€are€shownÏto€be€related€to€selected€other€features€of€organizations€and€individuals€in€the€organizations.€ÏConversational€interview€data€from€a€study€of€administrators,€staff€and€residents€of€nursingÏhomes€in€Minnesota,€USA€are€used€to€illustrate€the€approach.ÌÌ2à * àDifferences€in€Perspective€Between€StatusesÐ œì  Ðà * àSeveral€measures€of€social€distance€have€been€developed€and€various€approaches€have€beenÏused€in€analyzing€them.€€(See,€for€example,€Kadushin€(1962),€Kidwell€&€Booth€(1977),ÏMcPhersion€et€al.€(1987),€Miller€(1983),€and€Reiss€(1961)€for€further€details,€as€well€asÏMcTavish€&€Felt€(1987)€and€McTavish€&€Schrader€(1992)€for€consideration€of€these€measuresÏand€approaches€in€the€genesis€of€this€study.)€€Here€we€focus€on€relevant€concepts€of€socialÏperspectives€necessary€to€understand€our€results€and€to€explicate€our€content€analysis€approach.Ìà * àQualified€incumbents€of€different€social€positions€learn€expected€role€behavior€and€interactÏin€somewhat€different€social€circles€by€virtue€of€their€positions;€understand€differing€priorities,Ïobjectives,€and€obligations;€and€because€of€these€differences,€typically€see€their€organizationalÏsituation€in€somewhat€different€ways.€€By€virtue€of€their€social€position€in€a€structure,€they€haveÏsomewhat€different€social€perspectives.Ìà * àThe€administrator€of€a€nursing€home,€for€example,€is€involved€with€residents€and€their€kin,Ïstate€regulators,€volunteers,€owners,€staff€and€media,€to€name€a€few.€€A€typical€responsibilityÏis€to€represent€the€organization€to€these€various€stakeholders.€€Residents,€on€the€other€hand,Ïrelate€to€other€residents€and€to€their€own€kin,€to€staff€and€administrators,€and€to€variousÏvolunteers€who€may€be€around€from€time€to€time,€primarily€as€the€recipient€of€services.€ÏDifferent€statuses€promote€different€perspectives€on€the€nursing€home€situation.Ìà * àParticular€statuses€can€be€located€in€more€general€institutional€structures.€€Thus€we€canÏidentify€a€particular€status€such€as€"father"€with€a€specific€family€organization€as€well€as€withÏa€type€of€social€institution€(e.g.€"the€family").€€More€broadly,€a€status€can€be€characterized€inÏterms€of€the€more€general€themes€of€institutional€sectors.€"Traditional"€institutions€(e.g.€religion,Ïfamily,€legal€institutions)€emphasize€normative€standards€for€appropriate€behavior€and€sanctionsÏfor€deviance.€€Practical€accomplishment€of€goals€and€success€are€themes€emphasized€in€economicÏand€production€institutions.€€A€given€social€position€can€be€identified€to€a€greater€or€lesserÏdegree€with€the€broader€institutional€sectors€whose€themes€it€most€emphasizes.€€TheseÏinstitutional€themes€characterize€a€social€position€and€are€evident€in€the€language€used€byÏoccupants€of€a€status.€€For€example,€while€a€minister€might€be€expected€to€approach€topics€inÏa€more€traditional€than€pragmatic€way,€a€church€treasurer€might€typically€emphasize€pragmaticÏthemes€a€bit€more,€stemming€from€the€somewhat€different€perspectives€involved€in€their€differentÏstatuses€in€a€church€organization.€€The€"same"€types€of€status€may€have€a€somewhat€differentÏperspective€in€different€social€structures€(societies,€times,€places).€€A€salesperson€for€IBM€hasÏa€different€perspective€than€a€salesperson€for€a€car€dealership€and€these€have€changed€throughÏtime.Ð ¥-õ(- Ðà * àIn€this€paper€we€measure€social€distance€between€statuses€in€terms€of€institutionalÏperspectives,€using€the€role€behavior€of€participants'€talking€about€their€social€position€as€anÏindicator€of€the€institutional€perspective€of€their€social€position.€€This€is€scored€in€a€way€thatÏindicates€the€relative€emphasis€on€different€institutional€themes.€€Differences€between€scores€inÏterms€of€these€institutional€perspectives€is€proposed€as€a€measure€of€social€distance.ÌÌ3à * àA€Language„based€Measure€of€Social€Distance.Ð & v Ðà * àOccupants€of€a€social€position€are€asked€to€talk€in€an€open„ended€fashion€about€what€theirÏcontext€is€like€from€their€positional€point€of€view.€€Open„ended€conversations€are€a€moreÏrelevant€and€direct€solution€to€the€measurement€of€differences€in€social€perspective€because€theyÏreadily€capture€meanings€and€emphasis€that€the€respondent€wishes€to€express€than€manyÏstructured€approaches.€€Ideas€which€the€respondent€introduces€are€conditioned€by€theirÏexperience€in€a€particular€status.€€This€contributes€to€face€validity€by€utilizing€meanings€aÏposition„holder€chooses€to€use.€€A€verbatim€transcript€of€these€conversations€is€scored€using€aÏcomputer€content€analysis€procedure€to€indicate€similarity€to€themes€characteristic€of€broaderÏinstitutional€perspectives.€€A€social€distance€score€is€then€computed.€€Computer€scoring€permitsÏa€reliable€contrast€of€status„centered€dialogue€by€avoiding€coder€reliability€problems€affected€byÏa€coder's€own€position,€experience€and€fatigue.ÌÌ4à * àThe€MCCA€Approach.Ð ûK Ðà * àThe€computer€content€analysis€approach€used€here€is€called€Minnesota€Contextual€ContentÏAnalysis€(MCCA).€€MCCA€is€described€in€McTavish€and€Pirro€(1990)€and€early€work€on€aÏsimilar€approach€was€reported€by€Cleveland,€McTavish€and€Pirro€(1974).€€Two€kinds€of€normedÏscores€are€generated€for€each€analyzed€text.€€One€kind€of€score€shows€the€emphasis€(calledÏE-scores)€placed€on€each€of€many€idea€categories.€€An€idea€category€consists€of€a€group€ofÏwords€which€reflect€a€given€idea€or€meaning.€€For€example,€the€idea€of€"control"€occurs€whenÏwords€such€as€"allow",€"authorize",€"insist",€and€"command"€are€used.€€The€MCCA€dictionaryÏdistinguishes€116€idea€categories;€words€may€be€assigned€to€more€than€one€category€since€theyÏmay€have€more€than€one€sense;€the€assignments€to€categories€were€made€judgmentally.€€ScoresÏare€"normed"€against€expected€usage€of€the€words€in€an€idea€category€so€that€positive€E„scoresÏindicate€an€over„emphasis€and€negative€E„scores€indicate€a€relative€omission€of€a€given€idea€inÏthe€text.€€Normed€scores€are€computed€in€a€z„score„like€fashion,€contrasting€category€proportionsÏwith€the€expected€probability€of€use€of€a€given€idea€category,€divided€by€a€standard€deviationÏof€expected€category€usage€across€various€social€contexts.€€Expectations€are€based€on€the€KuceraÏand€Francis€(1967)€word€counts€and€percentages.Ìà * àThe€E„scores€are€computed€for€each€of€the€categories€and€are€the€basis€for€the€conceptualÏanalysis.€€The€pattern€of€connectedness€of€various€ideas€in€a€text€is€examined€using€a€clusteringÏroutine.€€Similarity€and€distinction€between€texts€in€terms€of€emphasized€patterns€of€ideas€canÏbe€quantified€as€well.€€A€distance€between€texts€can€be€measured€as€a€discrepancy€between€textsÏon€their€profile€of€relative€use€of€the€117€categories€(the€117th€category€is€the€"leftover"€list€ofÏuncategorized€words).€€The€structure€of€conceptual€differences€shown€in€this€proximity€matrixÏcan€also€be€examined€by€clustering€and€other€statistical€techniques.Ìà * àThe€second€kind€of€score€consists€of€a€profile€of€four€"social€context"€scores€(C-scores).€ÏOrganizational€settings€can€be€distinguished€by€the€pattern€of€language€used€in€these€contexts,Ïin€part,€because€of€different€problems€or€tasks€an€organization€typically€encounters.€€ContextualÏcontent€analysis€utilizes€these€differential€patterns€of€emphasis.€€Four€vectors€or€contextualÐ ¥-õ(- Ðthemes€have€been€identified€by€factoring€and€experience€with€texts€from€different€institutionalÏsectors.€€Each€context€dimension€is€a€function€of€the€emphasis€in€the€text€across€a€large€numberÏof€idea€categories,€and€is€represented€in€MCCA€by€a€vector€of€weights;€these€marker€contextsÏare€experimental,€empirically„derived€profiles€of€relative€emphasis€on€each€idea€category.€€ForÏexample,€although€the€idea€of€"deviance"€can€be€used€in€any€organization,€it€receives€relativelyÏgreater€emphasis€in€more€traditional€institutions.€€Together€the€profile€of€four€social€C„scoresÏfor€a€text€measures€how€closely€the€text's€pattern€of€language€matches€each€of€these€four€broadÏinstitutional€themes.€€The€reference€themes€are€labeled€as€follows:Ìà0 * àa)€Traditional€-€a€focus€on€norms€and€expectations€for€appropriate€behavior.€€This€isÏespecially€emphasized€in€text€from€judicial€and€religious€organizations.Ð *(#*(# Ðà0 * àb)€Practical€-€a€focus€on€successful€(efficient)€goal€accomplishment.€€This€theme€is€mostÏevident€in€business€and€work€organizations.Ð *(#*(# Ðà0 * àc)€Emotional€-€a€focus€on€personal€involvement,€comfort,€enjoyment,€or€leisure.€€ThisÏtheme€is€typical€of€leisure€or€recreational€organizations.Ð *(#*(# Ðà0 * àd)€Analytic€-€a€focus€on€objectivity,€curiosity€or€interest.€€This€emphasis€is€moreÏpronounced€in€research€and€educational€settings.Ð *(#*(# ÐUsually€there€are€no€"pure€types"€and€people€describe€their€orientation€to€their€setting€in€aÏ"blend"€or€"profile"€of€emphases€across€the€four€contextual€dimensions€which,€thus,€locate€theÏsocial€context€of€the€text.€€The€social€context€of€the€text€is€used€to€disambiguate€ambiguousÏwords€by€accumulating€contextual€scores€using€weights€reflecting€the€relative€use€of€eachÏconceptual€category€in€the€four€social€contexts.€€Table€1€illustrates€E„scores€and€C„scoresÏassigned€to€different€texts,€showing€how€different€vectors€are€generated.Ìà * àWhere€texts€are€generated€by€people€occupying€different€status€locations€in€an€organization,Ïthe€vector€of€four€C„scores€identifies€the€social€location€of€their€statuses.€€Distance€between€twoÏC„score€profiles€can€be€represented€by€a€standard€euclidean€distance€computation.€€If€the€distanceÏmeasure€is€zero,€the€two€positions€have€the€same€profile€of€C„scores.€€The€larger€the€distanceÏmeasure,€the€greater€the€social€context€distance€between€the€two€positions.€€It€becomes€largerÏas€they€take€on€quite€different€contextual€perspectives.€€If€the€measure€between€twoÏorganizational€positions€is€very€large,€it€is€hypothesized€that€communication€difficulties€are€likelyÏto€be€encountered€because€there€is€little€shared€perspective.€€These€contextual€distance€measuresÏhave€been€used€in€a€wide€variety€of€research.Ìà * àIt€is€this€euclidean€distance€measure€between€pairs€of€C„score€profiles€which€we€proposeÏto€measure€social€distance€between€statuses.€€It€is€based€on€perspectives€that€incumbents€of€aÏstatus€express.€€This€measure€facilitates€studies€of€the€relative€similarity€of€social€distance€acrossÏsimilar€statuses,€changes€through€time,€as€well€as€studies€of€the€consequences€of€differing€socialÏdistances€for€the€same€positions€in€different€organizations.ÌÌ5à * àSocial€Distance€In€Nursing€Homes:€An€Illustration.à á àÐ ]&­!% Ðà * àConversational€interviews€were€conducted€with€98€administrators,€staff€and€residents€fromÏ15€selected€residential€settings€for€older€people€in€two€studies:€one€from€a€metropolitan€regionÏ(McTavish€and€Felt,€1987)€and€a€1990€replication€in€a€rural€county€(McTavish€and€Schrader,Ï1992).€€The€two€studies€include€very€large€and€small€nursing€homes€and€retirement€apartmentsÏas€well€as€in„home€care€in€a€rural€county€and€a€variety€of€ownership€arrangements.€€Given€theÏâ âsmall€sample€size,€the€findings€suggested€below€should€be€viewed€as€suggestive€rather€thanÐ Ó+#'+ Ðâ °±°±°(#°(#â³â ââ °±°±°±°±â³â ââ °±°±°±°±â³â ââ °±°±°±°±â³â ââ °±°±°±°±â³â ââ °±°±°±°±â³â ââ °±°±°±°±â³â ââ °±°±°±°±â³â ââ °±°±°±°±â³â ââ °±°±°±°±â³â ââ °±°±°±°±â³â ââ °±°±°±°±â³â ââ °±°±°±°±â³â ââ °±°±°±°±â³â ââ °±°±°±°±â³â ââ °±°±°±°±â³â ââ °±°±°±°±â³â ââ °±°±°±°±â³â ââ °±°±°±°±â³â ââ °±°±°±°±â³â ââ °±°±°±°±â³â ââ °±°±°±°±â³â ââ °±°±°±°±â³â ââ °±°±°±°±â³â ââ °±°±°±°±â³â ââ °±°±°±°±â³â ââ °±°±°±°±â³â ââ °±°±°±°±â³â ââ °±°±°±°±â³â ââ °±°±°±°±â³â ââ °±°±°±°±â³â ââ °±°±°±°±â³â ââ °(#°(#°±°±âdefinitive.€€However,€systematic€patterns€are€found,€generally€in€hypothesized€directions.ßQ€2 >.*x p  `€À€QßÌâ âà * àSubjects€were€asked,€"What€is€it€like€for€you€around€here?"€and€their€responses€(someÏ264,000€words)€were€transcribed€verbatim€onto€a€computer€text€file€so€that€overall€similaritiesÏand€differences€in€perspective€from€each€of€the€three€positions€could€be€examined.ÌÌ5.1à * àSocial€StructureÐ ]&­!% Ðà * àTable€2€shows€the€profile€of€context€scores€for€administrator,€staff€and€resident€groups.€ÏOverall,€the€people€we€interviewed€describe€their€nursing€home€in€emotional€terms€(the€highestÏC-score€in€most€cases),€that€is,€in€terms€of€personal€involvement,€reactions,€preferences€andÏconcerns.€€This€is€much€more€the€case€for€residents€who€are€involved€continuously,€than€forÏeither€staff€or€administrators€for€whom€it€is€a€job.€€As€expected,€administrators€talk€in€moreÏpragmatic€terms€about€goal-accomplishment€and€achievement€than€is€true€of€the€other€twoÏgroups.€€Administrators€also€have€a€more€traditional€perspective€than€the€other€two€groups.€Ìà * àIt€is€interesting€to€note€the€increased€traditional€and€pragmatic€scores,€and€decreasedÐ ¥-õ(- Ðâ °±°±°(#°(#â³â °±°±°±°±â³â °±°±°±°±â³â °±°±°±°±â³â °±°±°±°±â³â °±°±°±°±â³â °±°±°±°±â³â °±°±°±°±â³â °±°±°±°±â³â °±°±°±°±â³â °±°±°±°±â³â °±°±°±°±â³â °±°±°±°±â³â °±°±°±°±â³â °±°±°±°±â³â °±°±°±°±â³â °±°±°±°±â³â °±°±°±°±â³â °(#°(#°±°±âemotional€and€analytic€scores€as€one€moves€from€residents€to€staff€to€administrators.€€ThisÏordering€fits€with€expectations€about€the€intermediate€position€of€staff€in€the€nursing€homeÏcontext.€€The€difference€in€context€scores€between€rural€and€urban€nursing€homes€indicates€thatÏrural€managers,€staff€and€residents€are€more€traditional€and€managers€and€staff€are€less€practicalÏand€more€involved€personally€(emotional€C„score),€for€example.ßQ€2>.*x p  `€À€QßÌà * àTable€3€presents€the€social€distances€of€managers€and€staff€òòfromóó€residents€in€both€urban€andÐ Ÿï Ðrural€samples.€€While€social€distances€are€somewhat€smaller€for€the€rural€sample,€the€strikingÏcontrast€is€not€the€òòdifferenceóó€in€social€distance€between€nursing€homes€but€the€òòuniformityóó€ofÐ sà Ðsocial€distance€within€a€given€organization.€€We€interpret€this€as€a€result€of€the€social€structureÏof€a€given€home.€€For€example,€in€the€urban€sample,€social€distances€between€residents€andÏmanagers€in€different€nursing€homes€averaged€17.7€(range€50.2€points),€but€within€the€sameÏhome€was€only€2.1€(range€6.0€points).€€While€different€homes€are€quite€different€in€the€socialÏdistances,€within€a€given€home€there€is€great€uniformity,€suggesting€an€organizational€constraint:Ïa€typical€distance€within€any€given€home.€€Different€organizations€seem€to€have€different€typicalÏsocial€distances,€a€phenomenon€that€is€not€adequately€dealt€with€in€organizational€literature.Ìà * àFinally,€Figure€1€shows€the€pattern€of€social€distance€between€these€three€statuses.€€TheÏdistances€suggest€a€"triangular"€structure:€the€distance€between€managers€and€residents€is€notÏsimply€the€sum€of€distance€between€manager€and€staff€plus€staff€to€resident€distances.€€For€onlyÏone€of€our€homes,€the€most€bureaucratically€structured,€was€the€more€"linear"€pattern€evident.€ÏInterestingly,€proprietary€homes€have€the€smallest€social€distances€between€all€statuses,€perhapsÏbecause€these€structures€underlie€some€of€the€typical€strains€felt€by€staff,€residents€and€managers.ÌÌ5.2à * àCorrelates€of€distance€between€rolesÐ )l$( Ðà * àTable€4€shows€some€distances€between€a)€managers€and€staff,€b)€managers€and€residents,Ïand€c)€staff€and€residents,€within€urban€nursing€homes€for€which€we€have€complete€data.€Ïâ âOverall,€managers€are€more€distinct€from€residents€(distance€=€30.1)€than€they€are€from€staffÐ ×+''+ Ð(distance€=€25.1),€and€than€staff€are€from€residents€(distance€=€15.9),€as€expected.ßQ€2>.*x p L `€À€QßÌâ âà * àSocial€distance€measured€in€this€way€is€systematically€related€to€several€organizationalÏfeatures,€as€shown€in€table€4.€€As€to€type€of€ownership,€large€public€institutions€show€the€largestÏmanager€to€staff€and€staff€to€resident€distances,€while€non„profit€foundation„owned€homes€haveÏthe€largest€manager€to€resident€distance.€€To€some€extent,€this€difference€is€reflected€in€theÏstructure€of€the€ownership.€€As€expected,€homes€which€are€a€part€of€a€larger€corporate€structureÏwith€centralized€decision„making,€have€a€considerably€larger€social€distance€internally€betweenÏthe€manager€and€both€staff€and€residents€than€do€homes€which€are€not€part€of€a€corporate€chain.Ìà * àCorrelations€with€the€number€of€beds€in€a€home€show€that€managers€in€larger€homes€areÏmore€remote€structurally€and€in€the€perspectives€they€share€with€those€in€other€statuses.€€ThisÏwould€create€a€sense€of€remoteness€and€dissimilarity€among€statuses,€and€impede€open€discussionÏ(what€is€clear€expression€for€one€becomes€odd€and€encoded€response€from€other€perspectives).€ÏThe€opposite€pattern€is€evident€for€staff„resident€distances;€the€larger€the€home€the€smaller€theÏdistance.€€This€is€perhaps€due€to€hiring€practices€if€larger€metropolitan€Minnesota€homes€seekÏstaff€who€are€more€similar€to€residents.Ìà * àNursing€home€reputation,€as€judged€by€outside€professionals,€is€positively€correlated€withÏsocial€distance€and€strongest€for€the€social€distance€of€managers€from€both€residents€and€fromÏstaff.€€Perhaps€the€greater€distance€for€higher€ranked€homes€represents€a€distinctive€managerialÏperspective€or€special€professional€training€or€the€function€of€the€manager€in€representing€theÏâ °±°±°(#°(#â³â °±°±°±°±â³â °±°±°±°±â³â °±°±°±°±â³â °±°±°±°±â³â °±°±°±°±â³â °±°±°±°±â³â °±°±°±°±â³â °±°±°±°±â³â °±°±°±°±â³â °±°±°±°±â³â °±°±°±°±â³â °±°±°±°±â³â °±°±°±°±â³â °±°±°±°±â³â °±°±°±°±â³â °±°±°±°±â³â °±°±°±°±â³â °±°±°±°±â³â °±°±°±°±â³â °±°±°±°±â³â °±°±°±°±â³â °(#°(#°±°±âhome€to€the€community.€€Finally,€manager's€distance€from€staff€is€positively€related€to€theirÏâ âdistance€from€residents,€with€greater€distance€of€managers€from€staff€and€residents€negativelyÐ ê*:&* Ðâ ââ ââ ââ ââ ââ ââ ââ ââ ââ ââ ââ ââ ââ ââ ââ ââ ââ ââ ââ ââ ââ ââ ââ ââ âñ$ñÐ ¥-õ(-°±°± Ðñ$ñâ °±°±°(#°(#â³â °±°±°±°±â³â °±°±°±°±â³â °±°±°±°±â³â °±°±°±°±â³â °±°±°±°±â³â °±°±°±°±â³â °±°±°±°±â³â °±°±°±°±â³â °±°±°±°±â³â °±°±°±°±â³â °±°±°±°±â³â °±°±°±°±â³â °±°±°±°±â³â °±°±°±°±â³â °±°±°±°±â³â °±°±°±°±â³â °±°±°±°±â³â °±°±°±°±â³â °±°±°±°±â³â °±°±°±°±â³â °±°±°±°±â³â °±°±°±°±â³â °±°±°±°±â³â °±°±°±°±â³â °(#°(#°±°±âcorrelated€with€closer€distance€between€staff€and€residents.ßQ€2>.*x p  `€À€QßÌâ âà * àSocial€distance€also€appears€to€be€systematically€related€to€meanings€that€a€nursing€homeÏhas€for€those€who€work€and€live€in€it,€suggesting€structural€effects€that€need€furtherÏinvestigation.€€Table€5€presents€nine€idea€(E„score)€categories€that€illustrate€some€correlates€ofÏsocial€distance€in€urban€nursing€homes.€€Themes€like€"good",€"happy"€and€"depressed"€receiveÏmore€emphasis€by€residents€than€managers€(E„scores€for€each€of€the€nine€conceptual€areas€areÏgiven€for€each€status€in€column€one€of€Table€5).€€Emphasis€on€the€idea€of€"good"€in€staffÏinterviews€becomes€more€pronounced€where€managers€are€at€a€greater€social€distance€from€staffÏand€òòresidentsóó€(correlations€of€+.64€and€+.63),€but€greater€staff„resident€social€distance€isÐ ¹" ! Ðnegatively€related€to€emphasis€on€"good"€by€both€staff€and€managers€(but€essentiallyÏuncorrelated€with€this€theme€for€residents).€€The€greater€the€manager„staff€distance,€the€lessÏresidents€express€themes€of€"happy",€"we",€and€"fellow„feelings"€and€the€more€they€expressÏ"depressed"€themes.€€Also,€larger€distance€between€staff€and€residents€is€related€to€greaterÏresident€emphasis€on€"depression".€€Greater€managerial€distance€seems€to€be€negatively€relatedÏto€emphasis€on€"cognition",€that€is,€talk€of€knowing€or€thinking,€suggesting€an€"out€of€sight,€outÏof€mind"€aspect€of€social€distance.€€It€is€interesting€to€note€the€positive€relationship€of€staffÏdistance€from€residents€on€the€cognitive€concerns€of€both€managers€and€residents.Ìà * àThe€greater€managerial€distance€from€staff€or€residents,€the€more€managers€emphasizeÏ"community".€€On€the€other€hand,€the€greater€staff„resident€distances€the€less€emphasis€onÏâ â"community"€by€staff,€suggesting€that€distance€from€residents€has€a€different€effect€on€managerÐ ¾,(, ЀßQ€2 >.*x p  `€À€QßÐ ° Ðâ âñ%ñÐ  ° Ðñ%ñand€staff.€€Greater€staff€distance€is€associated€with€greater€resident€emphasis€on€"we",€and,Ïlikewise,€the€greater€manager„staff€distance,€the€more€likely€staff€are€to€emphasize€"we"€andÏmore€likely€they€are€to€refer€to€"they".€€These€indicate€trends€toward€separation€and€recognitionÏof€their€separate€status€in€the€organization.€€Managerial€social€distances€(from€staff€and/orÏresidents)€seems€to€correlate€more€strongly€with€meanings€expressed€by€residents€than€do€staff„¼ñ%ñ¼ñ%ñresident€distances,€suggesting€a€greater€impact€of€the€manager€on€meanings€residents€expressÏabout€their€setting.€€These€relationships€point€up€the€need€for€further€investigation€ofÏimplications€of€social€distance€for€meanings€others€express€about€their€organization.Ìà * àIn€sum,€the€manager€(or€staff)€to€resident€social€distance€appears€to€be€a€characacteristicÏwhich€distinguishes€these€orgranizations€but€is€relatively€uniform€within€a€given€home.€€TheÏcorrelations€lead€us€to€expect€consequences€of€the€distances€for€communication€andÏdifferentiation€within€nursing€homes,€for€staff€training€and€effectiveness,€and€for€the€ability€ofÏstaff€and€managers€to€respond€to€changes€in€their€client€population.€€There€are€also€implicationsÏfor€factors€which€may€affect€organizational€"climate".Ì€Ì5.3à * àEvidence€of€Organizational€ClimateÐ W§  Ðà * àFigure€2€presents€the€result€of€a€discriminant€function€analysis€in€which€selected€E„scoresÏfrom€the€conversation€of€managers,€staff€and€residents€are€used€to€predict€which€organizationÏthey€come€from.€€The€structure€of€the€discriminant€function€analysis€reflects€differences€betweenÏorganizations.€€Three€dimensions€were€identified€(the€two€main€ones€are€shown€in€Figure€2).Ìà * àThe€first€dimension€(top€to€bottom)€emphasizes€choices€or€reasoning€about€the€setting.€€AtÏthe€top,€reasoning€about€organizational€limitations€is€emphasized€("Everybody€had€a€place€to€sitÏand€they€didn't€welcome€anyone€else"),€and€toward€the€bottom€personal€reasoning€related€to€selfÏand€the€outside€("Because€we€exercised€together").€€The€second€dimension€from€left€to€rightÏsuggests€the€basis€of€integration€into€the€setting.€€At€the€left€are€themes€emphasizing€a€normativeÏintegration,€with€a€sense€of€guest„like€attachment€("They€do€keep€it€nice€and€clean"€and€"I€likeÏthe€friends€here").€€At€the€right€contractual€integration€appears€to€be€emphasized€with€talk€aboutÏchanging€arrangements€and€what€"they"€want€("So€I've€been€able€to€act€quickly€andÏresponsibly"„„to€arrange€for€the€home).€€Finally,€a€third€dimension€extends€toward€the€readerÏfrom€the€graph,€running€from€an€emphasis€on€supervised€care€and€assistance€toward€relativeÏfreedom€of€choice€at€the€other€end€of€the€continuum.Ìà * àThe€fact€that€meaning€scores€permit€an€accurate€identification€of€the€speaker's€organizationÏsuggests€the€existence€of€an€organizational€"climate"€which€pervades€the€speech€patterns€of€thoseÏin€each€residential€organization.ÌÌ6à * àDiscussionÐ ‹$Û# Ðà * àUsing€computer€content€analysis€tools,€open„ended€conversations€with€occupants€ofÏstructural€positions€can€be€coded€in€terms€of€their€contextual€perspective.€€Distances€betweenÏthese€perspectives€are€proposed€as€a€measure€of€social€distance.€€Such€measures€build€upon€theÏmeanings€expressed€about€a€social€context€in€ways€which€permit€comparisons€in€a€generalÏframework€of€institutional€themes,€across€social€structures€and€through€time.€€Thus,€one€couldÏempirically€raise€questions€about€the€effect€of€structural€versus€personal€characteristics€in€alteringÏthe€social€distance€between€positions€in€an€organization.€€Social€distance€appears€to€be€relatedÏto€structural€features€of€nursing€homes€and€to€meanings€those€in€different€positions€in€the€homeÏhave€about€their€organizational€situation.€We€suggest€that€contextual€content€analysis€and€otherÏlanguage„based€measures€of€social€distance€can€be€explored€for€use€in€organizational€research.Ð ¥-õ(- Ї7à * àFuture€ProspectsÐ ° Ðà * àThe€E„scores€used€as€the€basis€for€the€foregoing€analysis€are€similar€to€the€use€of€semanticÔ‡XIÍXXX6ÑÔ€Ô#†X6ÑXXXIÍz#ÔÐ ™é Ðcodes€from€a€machine„readable€dictionary€for€filtering€documents€for€their€broad€subjectÏappropriateness€to€a€topic€of€interest€(Liddy€et€al.,€1993).€€In€that€study,€semantic€codes€(suchÏas€"business,"€"occupations,"€and€"political€science")€categorizing€the€use€of€many€(but€onlyÏspecialized)€words€into€124€major€fields€are€used.€€After€processing€a€text€to€disambiguate€wordsÏ(including€stemming,€part€of€speech€tagging,€using€sentence„level€context„heuristics,€analyzingÏco„occurrence€probabilities€with€a€correlation€matrix),€a€vector€of€frequencies€is€generated€andÏnormalized€(to€control€for€document€length).€€A€query€is€coded€using€the€same€technique€andÏis€matched€with€semantic€vectors€characterizing€a€document€collection€based€on€a€computedÏpredicted€similarity€value.€€(The€document€collection€has€also€been€clustered€using€agglomerativeÏclustering€algorithms€so€that€cluster€centroids€can€be€compared€to€the€query€to€provide€aÏsearcher€with€a€"semantically€cohesive€cluster"€for€browsing.)€€This€approach€has€been€foundÏto€provide€enhanced€information€retrieval€results.Ìà * àAs€noted€above,€E„scores€provide€a€mechanism€for€identifying€a€speaker's€organization.€ÏTo€understand€why€this€mechanism€is€similar€to€the€use€of€semantic€codes,€we€have€begun€aÏsemantic€analysis€of€the€words€in€MCCA's€idea€categories€(as€part€of€a€longer„term€effort€toÏextend€the€words€and€categories€that€can€be€used€and€to€port€the€system€to€a€different€computingÏenvironment).€€MCCA's€dictionary€consists€of€11,000€distinct€words,€with€an€average€of€aboutÏ95€words€per€category.€€Using€DIMAP„2€(CL€Research,€1992)€and€DIMAP„3€(CL€Research,Ï1995),€the€MCCA€dictionary€was€uploaded€into€machine„tractable€form€for€study€with€otherÏlexical€resources.€€In€particular,€sublexicon€dictionaries€were€created€for€individual€ideaÏcategories€by€converting€WordNetð)ð€1.4€(Miller€et€al.,€1993)€entries€for€the€words€in€theÏcategory€into€DIMAP€format.€€The€hypernymic,€hyponymic,€and€other€relations€in€WordNetÏcould€then€be€examined€to€assess€the€semantic€characteristics€of€these€sublexicons.Ìà * àWordNet€is€a€semantic€network€of€about€100K€words€grouped€into€"synonym€sets"€(synsets)Ïof€about€5€words€or€phrases.€€These€synsets€are€connected€by€various€semantic€relations€withÏone€another,€identifying€more€general€and€more€specific€concepts,€part-of€relations,€synonymicÏrelations,€antonymic€relations,€etc.€€These€are€among€the€more€general€relations€that€exist€amongÏwords€as€identified€in€lexical€semantics€(Cruse,€1986€and€Nida,€1975).€€Moreover,€theÏhierarchical€structure€of€WordNet€is€such€that€all€nouns€and€verbs€are€grouped€into€about€150Ïsemantically€coherent€categories.€€In€examining€the€MCCA€sublexicons,€after€removing€someÏsenses€from€the€WordNet€entries€that€were€clearly€not€members€of€a€particular€idea€category,Ïan€(intuitively)€high€degree€of€coherence€was€found.€€In€particular,€most€of€the€words€wereÏconnected€to€other€words€in€the€sublexicon€by€morphological€and€derivational€relations,Ïtaxonomic€relations,€and€partitive€relations,€thus€containing€common€semantic€components€andÏmaking€them€semantic€domains.€€In€addition,€using€the€WordNet€data,€it€was€possible€to€extendÏthe€words€that€might€be€associated€with€each€idea€category,€primarily€by€identifying€hyponymsÏ(narrower€terms).Ìà * àThese€relations€provide€a€stronger€unity€than€do€the€subject€categories€of€a€dictionary,€whichÏonly€indicate€specialized€usages€of€particular€words.€€These€subject€categories€do€not€captureÏsemantic€components€which€reflect€fine„grained€meanings€inherent€in€particular€words.€€It€mayÏbe€suggested€that€representing€texts€with€such€meanings€will€provide€better€characterizations€ofÏtexts€and€result€in€even€better€information€retrieval.€€Krovetz€and€Croft€(1992)€have€alreadyÏshown€that€using€such€derivational€and€other€lexical€relations€results€in€improved€identificationÏof€word€senses€in€disambiguation€with€an€accompanying€improved€retrieval,€as€measured€byÐ Í-)- Ðimproved€recall€and€precision.Ìà * àThe€use€of€WordNet€and€other€lexical€resources€allows€the€further€refinement€of€the€ideaÏcategories€into€semantic€components.€€Considerable€research€is€now€identifying€such€componentsÏ(as€well€as€features€characterizing€stylistic€register,€other€pragmatic€information,€and€words€thatÏare€associated€with€particular€functions„„such€as€expressive,€interpersonal,€and€emotive„„ofÏlanguage)€and€incorporating€them€into€machine„readable€dictionaries.€€In€fact,€it€is€possible€thatÏthe€functions€of€language€may€correspond€to€the€contexts€set€up€in€MCCA.€€The€effect€of€thisÏwork€on€the€content€analysis€of€the€present€study€of€nursing€homes€will€be€examined€next;€it€isÏexpected€that€this€will€lead€to€sharper€and€better„defined€characterizations€of€the€results€reportedÏherein.€€These€results€are€likely€to€support€other€similar€analyses€using€MCCA€contextualÏcontent€analysis€on€numerous€other€kinds€of€texts.Ìà * àÌ8à * àReferencesÐ œì  ЀÌCleveland,€C.E.,€McTavish,€D.€&€Pirro,€E.B.€(1974):€Contextual€Content€Analysis.€In:ÏProceedings€of€the€ISSC/CISS€Workshop€on€Content€Analysis€in€the€Social€Sciences,€aÏconference€sponsored€by€the€Standing€Committee€on€Social€Science€Data€of€the€InternationalÏSocial€Science€Council,€UNESCO,€Centro€Nazionale€Universitario€del€Calcolo€EletronicoÏ(CUNCE),€Pisa,€Italy€September€5„13.ÌÌCL€Research€(1992):€DIMAP„2€(Dictionary€Maintenance€Programs)€User's€Manual.€ÏGaithersburg,€MD:€CL€Research.ÌÌCL€Research€(1995):€DIMAP„3€(Dictionary€Maintenance€Programs)€User's€Manual.€ÏGaithersburg,€MD:€CL€Research.€(In€preparation.)ÌÌCruse,€D.€A.€(1986):€Lexical€Semantics.€Cambridge:€Cambridge€University€Press.ÌÌKadushin,€C.€(1962):€Social€Distance€Between€Client€and€Professional.€American€Journal€ofÏSociology€67(5):€517„531.ÌÌKidwell,€I.€J.€&€Booth,€A.€(1977):€Social€Distance€and€Intergenerational€Relations.ÏGerontologist€17(5):€412„420.ÌÌKrovetz,€R.€&€Croft,€W.€B.€(1992):€Lexical€Ambiguity€and€Information€Retrieval.€ACMÏTransactions€on€Information€Systems€10(2):€115„41.ÌÌLiddy,€E.€D.,€Paik,€W.,€&€Yu,€E.€S.€(1993):€Document€Filtering€Using€Semantic€InformationÏfrom€a€Machine€Readable€Dictionary.€€In:€Proceedings€of€the€Workshop€on€Very€LargeÏCorpora:€Academic€and€Industrial€Perspectives,€sponsored€by€the€Association€of€ComputationalÏLinguistics,€Ohio€State€University,€Columbus,€Ohio,€USA,€June€22,€1993:€20„29.Ì€ÌMcPherson,€J.€M.€&€Smith„Lovin,€L.€(1987):€Homophily€in€Voluntary€Organizations:€StatusÏDistance€and€the€Composition€of€Face„to„Face€Groups.€American€Sociological€Review€52:€€370„¼ñ!ñ¼ñ!ñ379.ÌÐ ¥-õ(- ÐMcTavish,€D.€G.€&€Felt,€D.€(1987):€Role€Distances€and€Atmosphere€in€Nursing€Homes.ÏSociology€of€Rural€Life€9(1):€3„4,8.ÌÌMcTavish,€D.€G.€&€Pirro,€E.€B.€(1990):€Contextual€Content€Analysis.€Quality€and€Quantity€24:Ï245„265.ÌÌMcTavish,€D.€G.€&€Schrader,€S.€L.€(1992):€Residential€Options€for€Rural€Minnesota€Elderly.ÏSociology€of€Rural€Life€12:€3„4,7„8.ÌÌMiller,€D.€C.€(1983):€Handbook€of€Research€Design€and€Social€Measurement,€4th€edition,€NewÏYork:€Longman€329„333.ÌÌMiller,€G.€A.,€Beckwith,€R.,€Fellbaum,€C.,€Gross,€D.,€Miller,€K.€&€Tengi,€R.€(1993):€FiveÏPapers€on€WordNetð)ð.€€CSL€Report€43.€Princeton,€NJ:€Princeton€University€Cognitive€ScienceÏLaboratory.ÌÌNida,€E.€A.€(1975):€Componential€Analysis€of€Meaning.€The€Hague:€Mouton.ÌÌReiss,€A.€J.,€Jr.€(1961):€Occupations€and€Social€Status,€New€York:€Free€Press€of€Glencoe.ÌÌ9à * àBiographical€SketchesÐ ä4 ÐÌDonald€McTavish,€PhD,€is€a€Professor€of€Sociology€at€the€University€of€Minnesota.€€Areas€ofÏinterest€include€computer€content€analysis,€research€methods€and€statistics,€and€the€sociology€ofÏage.ÌÌKenneth€Litkowski€is€the€owner€of€CL€Research,€which€markets€software€for€use€in€developingÏand€maintaining€lexicons€for€natural€language€processing.€€He€uses€this€software€for€researchÏin€the€semantic€structure€of€language.ÌÌSusan€Schrader,€PhD,€is€Assistant€Professor€of€Sociology€at€Augustana€College.€€Areas€ofÏinterest€include€institutional€settings€for€older€people€and€the€sociology€of€age.Ìâ â