The ESP Journal

Vol. 1, No. 1
Fall 1980

A Re-Evaluationof Needs Analysisin ESP

F. Chambers

The value of needs analysis may go unrealized unless ambiguity and lack of preci-
sion in the use of the term are cleared away. It is necessary first to remove
superfluous terminology, and second to establish different levels of needs, allotting
some kind of priority between them. A solution is proposed under the rubric of
target situation analysis. TSA goes into the target situations, collects and analyses
data in order to establish the communication that really occurs-its functions, forms,
and frequencies, and provides a basis for selecting the long-range aims of the
course. Certain intermediate objectives will also be established prior to the course as
a result of pedagogic considerations. Their number and delicacy will be controlled
largely by constraints from all participants concerned in the design and implementa-
tion of the course. The programme is monitored while it is in progress to ensure that
intermediate objectives are still relevant and attainable.

Concurrent with the upsurge of interest in ESP over the last ten to fifteen years has
been the development of the idea of needs analysis. ESP by its nature is student-task
orientated, and the formalisation of this interest subsumed under the name “needs
analysis” was a natural and healthy development in EFL. However, today there are in-
dications that developments in the area of needs analysis are seen as being, if not ir-
relevant, then at least increasingly marginal. Real advance in this area that was
originally seen as being so critical to ESP is now lacking. Symptomatic of this
waywardness and marginality is the suggestion that one of the chief values of needs
analysis is its ability “to demonstrate the teacher’s interest in the students and lead to
some useful discussion” (Robinson 1980: 29), a fine example of “damning with faint
praise”! Possibly more revealing of the lack of direction is the plethora of terminology.
C.V. James (1974) comments upon this and notes that needs analysis involves real
and imaginary needs, demands, requirements, expectations, and use. Elsewhere we
find mention of felt needs, prior needs, symptomatic needs and so on, all of which
seem to require consideration within the aegis of needs analysis. This plethora sug-
gests a certain lack of precision that is contradictory to what one would expect from an
“analysis” - a term that implies a degree of a scientific exactitude, and, I suggest, it is
this resulting confusion that slurs over distinctions and conceals areas critical for the
advancement of needs analysis.
Given this degree of confusion we seem to be left with the option of either abandon-
ing as a useful tool, or at least largely ignoring, needs analysis - a tendency that one
suspects occurs very frequently in practice - or, alternatively, of rationalising to
remove the anomalies. I hope to undertake the latter.
One of the chief sources of confusion is inherent within the term “needs analysis”. If
the unruliness at present found can be ordered then it may be possible to regularise ter-
minology and provide some kind of insight concerning priorities. Both terms, “needs”
and “analysis”, separately and in conjunction, beg numerous questions.

25
26 The ESP Journal

It is fairly obvious that the term “need” is both ambiguous and imprecise. Die-
tionary definitions are generally long, and it is almost trite to note that needs can cover
a range of meaning from “necessities” (“Man needs water to live.“) to “desires”
(“What I need is a long holiday somewhere in the sun.“). This terminological inexac-
titude has permitted a profusion of related but not identical items being commonly
referred to as “needs” (usually with some qualifying adjective), requirements, or ob-
jectives, and being treated as if they were all more or less identical. It would be surpris-
ing if among this confusion there had been no examples of the same item being given
different terminology by different writers, and obviously there is room for rationahsa-
tion here. But that is the simplest and most obvious part of the problem. It would be
equally surprising to find that so much varied terminology did not signify that unlike
qualities are being considered. What is required therefore is a twofold rationalisation,
firstly removing any superfluous terminology and secondly establishing the different
“levels” of needs and allotting some kind of priority between them. Having noted this
necessity for rationalisation I intend to leave the matter for the moment in order to con-
sider certain other problems.
The next area of difficulty concerns the very obvious question of whose needs we
are concerned with and how they are determined. It now seems accepted that the
“needs” of all parties concerned have to be considered. It is reasonable to suggest that
the development of needs other than those of the student has been promoted by the
way in which information is collated for needs analysis. The tendency has been for as
many as possible alternative sources of information regarding the needs of the student
to be tapped. This, on the face of it, seems a reasonable progression; the more infor-
mation that is available, the more detailed the needs analysis can be.
Richterich and Chancerel(l978) authoritatively suggest three separate sources of in-
formation: the student, the student’s employer, and the teaching organisation. The last
two of these may or may not be identical with the sponsor and the materials writer, so
that it is quite possible to envisage a situation where there are five possible sources of
information concerning needs. On the basis of the more informants, the more complete
the information, the better the needs analysis, all should be taken up. However, the
problem is rather more complex than that, and in fact these numerous sources of infor-
mation tend to exacerbate existing problems or even create new ones. The first pro-
blem is, which of these is capable of determining needs? The student may be aware of
aims at some gross level, e.g., need to use certain manuals, but as Drobnic (1978:320)
notes, “Linguistically naive students should not be expected to make sound language
decisions concerning their training.” Likewise, the employer may be able to specify
needs at some gross level, but is a nonexpert in analysing communicative events and
determining such things as priorities. l If these things were simple the very problems
that we are considering would not exist.
The teaching organisation, on the other hand, whilst being experts on teaching (and
this does not mean that they are necessarily experts on needs analysis), are often large-
ly ignorant of the communicative situation, and have to base their materials on an
analysis of the communicative situation provided by these nonexperts. And, of course,

‘It may be tit the needs analysis is completed by an administrator who may unwittingly be quite unaware of
the reality of needs on, say, a factory floor.
 A Re-Evaluation of Needs Analysis in ESP 27

communication between these parties is impeded by the “gaps” - those areas of un-
common interest that impede the flow of information - the most obvious examples be-
ing the information gap (all parties are experts, but in different areas), language gaps
(different parties have different languages), geographical gaps (distance makes the ac-
curate transfer of information even more difficult), culture gaps, and so on. (For an ex-
ample of the problems inoperation see Drobnic 1978).
Probably the most important point that makes this question of the alternative
sources of information nontrivial is that whoever determines needs largely determines
which needs are determined. Each of the bodies concerned - the student, the sponsor,
the employer, the teaching organisation - is going to have their own needs in mind.
Not surprisingly in some cases these will be contradictory. For instance, for financial
reasons the sponsoring organisation will want the course to be as short as possible,
whilst for similar reasons the teaching organisation will want to keep it as long as
possible. The employer may be concerned with the professional needs of the student,
but the student may be concerned with his social needs.2 This problem can then be
summarised by saying that interests, in both senses of the word, are not likely to be
common between those trying to establish the needs.
A third factor generally acknowledged as problematical in establishing needs is their
transience. Richterich and Chancerel, amongst others, point out that needs change
even during a course: “as we have seen the learner’s needs may change during the
course.” (1978:32) This may be due to factors
1) extraneous to the language learning situation (e.g., shortage of funds from
the sponsor)
2) inherent to the learner (e.g., lack of ability or change of interests)
3) resulting from misjudgement/error in the original analysis.
Again Drobnic (1978) outlines these well.
It seems there are two possible solutions. The first is to recognise that needs
change over time and to establish short-term, medium-term, and long-term needs.
However, this system will only cope with envisaged changes in needs, e.g., fie

ZSocial English provides a particular problem for the course designer. The main problem seems to be its size
and amorphous nature. Within the total set of all Englishes lie relatively restricted fields of ESP, but within
many ESP courses we have to find a place for social English, which is far more indeterminate and potentially
larger.

SET OF ALL ENGLISHES

28 The ESP Journal

establishment of threshold levels as a prior need before continuing to more ad-

vanced English. It cannot cope with ad hoc changes occurring as a result of factor
(Z), and particularly factor (3). The second solution, to provide for changes in
needs that cannot be envisaged prior to the course, is the establishment of what
Sinclair (1978) refers to as off-line and on-line research. Somewhat simplified, by
off-line research Sinclair is referring to needs established by research prior to the
course. On-line research refers to a more or less continuous assessment of the
needs established by off-line research, ensuring that they are appropriate and be-
ing attained.
Now there is nothing wrong with such an analysis of needs; in fact I am quite
certain it is necessary. The problem is that if we accept there are long-, medium-,
and short-term needs established by on-line and off-line research combined with
the needs of up to five participants, plus, let us say, four different kinds of needs
all interacting, then a little simple arithmentic suggests that the maximum
number of factors being handled within the needs analysis is in the area of forty!
Even if that number is halved, say, because some factors are irrelevant or sub
sumed under broader categories, the task that results will still be, I suggest, too
unwieldy. It seems to me that it should not be the purpose of needs analysis to
establish that numerous, largely contradictory needs exist that require to be ar-
bitrarily compromised. The purpose of needs analysis should be to distinguish
between what are presently loosely referred to as needs, as a first step in deter-
mining priorities.
So far the problems inherent in needs analysis arising from the term “needs”
have been considered. But what of the term “analysis”? Any analysis is generally
considered to consist of two aspects: first, the establishment of the elements of
which the whole is composed, and second, their thorough examination. Any
analysis must consist of more than the collation of information. It must be capable
of then categorising, which, hopefully, will help in evaluating. The problems
should now be obvious. All the above has been an attempt to show that needs are
presently ill-defined and difficult to establish. If the needs cannot be accurately
established they cannot be anaIysed. Of course, this is not to argue that we cannot
make considered judgements concerning what needs are, and then give con-
sidered opinions about them, but it seems reasonable to expect at least a strong in-
ferred distinction between an analysis and a considered opinion.
Herein lies the crux of the problem. Apparently until needs are accurately
established then the analysis cannot begin, and until the analysis is carried out the
needs cannot be determined. This contradictory situation suggests that if seen in
this way needs analysis is either at an impasse, or our reasoning is, if not er-
roneous, then unprofitable. The obvious countersuggestion is that if needs
analysis does not mean the analysis of needs, then it must refer to analysing in
order to atablish needs, i.e., what one needs to know.3 The sequitur to this must

3For those interested, “needs arialysis” seems to be a term that fulfills all the most confusing effects
that may occur after a nominalization transformation: apparent simplicity masking real complexity;
shift from concern regarding participants and courses to process; and loss of information by deletion.
(Kress and Hodge 197927).
 A Re-Evaluation of Needs Analysis in ESP

be: analysing what to establish needs? It would be simple to suggest that the
analysis should be of the student, the course writer, the sponsor, etc., or more
precisely their needs, but that is entirely circular and therefore must be avoided.
The one thing that is outside this circularity is the language - one thing that has
so far been largely ignored. By the language I mean the language of the target
situation. Thus needs analysis should be concerned primarily with the establish-
ment of communicative needs and their realisations, resulting from an analysis of
the communication in the target situation - what I will refer to from now on as
target situation analysis (TSA) to identify this more restricted sense of needs
analysis.
This necessitates going into the target situations, collecting data and analysing that
data in order to establish the communication that really occurs - its functions, forms,
and frequencies - then selecting from these on some pragmatic pedagogical basis. To
this extent I agree with Munby when he says “the syllabus specification is directly
derivable from the prior identification of the communication needs of that particular
participant or participant stereotype . . .“, but disagree when he goes on to say that
‘I. . . it is possible to begin with the learner and work systematically forward to the
syllabus specification that represents the target communicative competence.” (Munby
1978:218) For the reason given above and further reasons outlined below, I suggest
the student is not the appropriate main source for data to establish the aims of a course.
If the dictum is that “needs” are specifications from the language of the target situa-
tion, what then are all the other so-called needs? Any definition of needs analysis as be-
ing centrally concerned with TSA would be inadequate if it did not permit considera-
tion of the other parties mentioned above. The needs and requirements of the other
participants are realities that must be permitted a place in the plan of things. It has been
suggested that the result of the TSA is the establishment of certain needs. Presumably
the needs, couched in more or less communicative terminology, determine the aims of
the ESP course, and these are expected to be taught and learnt. The corollary of this is
that anything that interferes with those aims being maximally fulfilled in the most
simple manner is a CONSTRAINT.
Constraints on courses are already generahy recognised; the usual ones are time and
money for all participants. By this definition the field of constraints is much enlarged.
For instance, a student learning English in order to work with Americans on an oil rig
in his own country may desire to study social English to enable him to survive his
training period in the USA. This would represent a constraint on the course, as it
would not be defined by the TSA (or at least only very marginally) and distracts from
those needs that were. On the other hand, a student learning English for diplomatic
purposes may have social English defined by the TSA, in which case it should con-
stitute part of the course - but because it is part of the TSA and not because the stu-
dent needs it to make life more pleasant during training. Although it may be anathema
to student-centred teachers to suggest so, the student frequently acts as a constraint on
the course. Whenever we modify a course to allow for a student’s ability or predilic-
tions we are being constrained. We must not ignore these constraints; they will modify
the course, but we should recognise them for what they are. Likewise, the need
specified by the employer for the employee to be able to read manuals is a legitimate
need (but only if that need is also determined by TSA); his expectation that the student
30 The ESP Journal

should be able to converse in English or to pass Cambridge Intermediate will be a con-

straint if it was not identified by TSA, as it is an additional time-consuming aim.
Similarly the need of the sponsor for the course to be completed within a certain
costing, or the requirement of the teaching organisation to be able to operate with a
certain number of classrooms or staff may be needs as far as those particular bodies
are concerned but are all constraints on the course militating against maximal attain-
ment of the “needs” as specified by TSA.
Such constraints are unavoidable and will influence syllabus design. However,
recognising them as constraints has two results. Firstly, the problem of why needs
seemed so contradictory, restrictive, damaging to the course and intractable to any
answer by needs analysis becomes clearer. Most of the clashes are not clashes of
needs; but various restrictive constraints demanded by the participants on the course,
who are likely to have dissimilar interests. Needs of a course are not inherently con-
tradictory. Secondly, and more importantly, there is a criterion, at least to some
degree, concerning priorities. Needs determined by TSA are the real needs, which all
efforts should be made to fulfiIl; constraints limit the attainment of those aims and
should as far as is possible be minimised.
Now to suggest that TSA is the main data source for establishing needs is not to
suggest that other information is not required. It is, for instance, appropriate to deter-
mine from the employer the designation of the relevant target situations. Likewise, in-
formation must be sought from the student to establish what he is bringing with him in
terms of subject knowledge and knowledge of English. This information will be
needed by the course designer to establish appropriacy and priority amongst the needs
specified by TSA. Such information is vital. What we are concerned with here is
establishing the status of that information.
Our third major problem, that of the transience of needs, must also be met. It was
previously suggested that needs change over time as a result of three factors: those ex-
traneous to language learning, those inherent in the learner, and those resulting from
misjudgement./error in the original analysis. The first two, by our amended definition
of needs as arising only from TSA, are no longer needs, they are constraints; hence
the needs of the course do not change over time. Now it requires a change in the target
situation, or the student’s role in that situation, to change needs over time.
Earlier mention was made of short-term, medium-term, and long-term needs. The
needs established by TSA are obviously the long-term needs, and it has been sug-
gested that these are not subject to change as long as the envisaged target situation
does not change. But what of short- and medium-term needs? Again, by our working
definition they are not needs; they are not established by TSA. Neither do they con-
strain the eventual attainment of the aims of the course, as they are not constraints.
They are, in fact, the third part of our model of needs analysis - intermediate objec-
tives. These will be established by the course designer as critical stages that the
learner must attain as he proceeds towards the defined needs; i.e., they are entirely
pedagogic in nature. Presumably they will largely be established before the course, but
are subject to change over time from the factors noted above. In other words, the
forces of change operate on pedagogic considerations, not needs. However, although it
has been noted that generally needs do not change, the changes do still occur in the
areas of constraints and pedagogic judgements that will affect the relevancy of the in-
 A Re-Evaluation of Needs Analysis in ESP 31

termed&e objectives (objectives, for short) and therefore the model must incorporate
a mechanism for coping with change. The existing mechanism, what Sinclair refers to
as on-line research, would seem to be entirely appropriate for this task. Its purpose will
be to monitor progress towards the aims and ensure that intermediate objectives are
still appropriate regardless of changes in constraints and that they are still attainable.
The situation now outlined is that needs analysis involves TSA establishing the
needs of the student in the target situation, and these are relatively permanent. In the
process of course design, a pedagogic matter, intermediate objectives intended to en-
sure the attainment of those needs are established, bearing in mind all constraints, the
effect of which should be minimised. The programme is then monitored by on-line
research to ensure that regardless of any changes in constraints the programme re-
mains appropriate and attainable. (See Figure 1.)

Figure 1

STUDENT

Intermediate
Established prior to
the course as a result Programme monitoring
of pedagogic consider- by on-line research
ations. Their number ensures that inter-
and delicacy will lx mediate objectives
controlled largely by are still relevant
constraints from all and attainable.
participants.
Objective 2

NEEDS

Determined by TSA.
Define final objectives.

The process that has just been outlined might be subject to criticism as mere
relabelliig. The unprincipled introduction of new terminology, or to put it less politely, ,
more jargon, is not generally to be recommended. However it has been suggested that
one of the major problems in the field of needs analysis is the terminological confu-
32 The ESP Journal

sion4, and by taking a particular standpoint it has been possible to reclassify the
previous fairly arbitrary terminology into three main areas: needs (determined by
TSA), constraints (limiting the attainment of those needs), and intermediate objectives
(stages to attain those needs). In itself this is a useful exercise as it provides perspec-
tive, removing confusion, but more importantly it also indicates where priorities should
be. Needs, determined by TSA, are relatively permanent and provide the aims of the
course. Intermediate objectives are intended to be points en route to the needs and are
subject to revision, particularly as determined by the on-line evaluation.
Needless to say problems still remain. For instance, TSA establishes needs but does
not necessarily distinguish between those needs to select the aims of the course.5 A
very obvious problem is that TSA can be closely identified with discourse analysis,
which is as yet in its infancy. Again though, this criticism can be met by the
counterargument that it is now at least possible to determine that discourse analysis is
the appropriate area for research, where at the beginning the lack of direction in needs
analysis was being considered.
A final point: what should be clear is that without an adequate TSA then there can be
no needs analysis. Any judgement concerning needs, however well considered, will be
largely intuitive, and this fact should be recognised. The term “needs analysis” should
be reserved for those courses where aims have been established by TSA. If EFL, and
ESP in particular, is to be academically viable its foundations must be stronger than
considered opinion.

REFERENCES

Drobnic, K. 1978. Mistakes and Modifications in Course Design: An EST Case

History. English for Specific Puq%ses: Science and Technology 313-321. M.T.
Trimble, L. Trimble, and K. Drobnic (Eds.). Corvallis, Ore.: English Language In-
stitute, Oregon State University.
James, C. V. 1974. Estimating Adult Needs. Teaching Language to Adults for
Special Purgoses. CILT Reports and Papers No. 11, 76-90. G. E. Perren (Ed.).
London: Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research.
Kress, G. and R. Hodge. 1979. Language as Ideology. London: Routledge and
Kegan Paul.
Munby, J. 1978. Communicative Syllabus Design. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
Richterich, R. and J. L. Chancerel. 1978. Identifring the N&s of Adults Learning
a Foreign Language. Strasbourg: Council for Cultural Cooperation of the Council of
Europe.
Robinson, P. 1980. ESP: English for S$ecific PurgOses (The Present Position).
Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Sinclair, J. M. 1978. Issues in Current ESP Project Design and Management.
ESP-MALS Jownal (Summer 1978), 104-125.

Fred Chambers teaches in the EFL Unit and also lectures in applied linguistics
at the University of Essex. After obtaining a BEd (Business Studies) at London he
worked overseas for several years in Africa, the Middle East, and Ascension Island,
 A Re-Evaluation of Needs Analysis in ESP 33

where he developed an interest in EFL. In between periods overseas he obtained

The Certificate in Applied Linguistics and the Teaching of English and an MA in
Applied Linguistics, both from Essex University. He is a member of BAAL and
SELMOUS. His publications include the co-authorship (with Jo McDonough) of
A@ects of ESP, University of Essex Occasional Papers No. 22, 1980.

4The term “needs analysis” itself is of course not original to EFL; it is one that has been adopted as relevant
from other fields. When it was adopted it fiied a gap, and served its purpose by creating an object from an ac-
tivity for us to ,be able to manipulate. However, by taking wholesale someone else’s terminology, we have
ended up with a term that is by no means entirely appropriate. We have accepted the term “needs” as the end
product of the analysis.

Needs
analysis b >Needs

But this in fact complicates what is essentially a much simpler situation. We have noted “needs” is a very
loose piece of terminology which, by a considerable rationalisation and discipline, can be made appropriate.
But this quasi-sophistry is really unnecessary. If needs analysis is conceived of as beiig concerned with
establishing the objectives of a course
establishes
Needs analysis I > Objectives
then I suspect most of these problems which are only terminological would disappear.

5Though, note we have been able to limit this question of indeterminate priority to selection from a much
smaller number of needs than the widely disparate set outlined at the beginning.