26 — Newspaper Research Journal: Winter 1990

Staff Consolidation:
A Newsroom With A View
by Robert C. Kochersberger Jr.

In 1987, plans were announced to merge the

editorial staffs of the Raleigh Times and the
News & Observer. This study of reactions by
the two newspaper staffs both before and after
the merger suggests some ways management
can ease the transition. Last November, after
the study was complete, the Raleigh Times
ceased publication altogether.

A s the number of American newspapers slowly decreases — through

closings, mergers and consolidations — an increasing number of
reporters and editors face the dislocation of having their work situations
dramatically change or even disappear.
While much has been written about the decreasing number of newspa-
pers', the human factor—the reporter and editor caught in the situation —
largely has been ignored, even though its people are crucial to any newspa-
per.
The settings in which jobs are changed or eliminated generally come
about in three ways:
• Elimination of a newspaper; its publication in any form stops. Ex-
amples from the last several years are the Columbus (Ohio) Citizen-Journal
and the Memphis Press-Scimitar.

Kochersberger teaches journalism in the Department of English at North Carolina State University,
Raleigh. He wishes to acknowledge the cooperation of the Raleigh Times and the News & Observer
in carrying out this study.
 Kochersbergen Staff Consolidation: A Newsroom With A View — 27

• The merging of two newspapers. This generally occurs where two

newspapers have one owner and one is merged into the other, leaving the
area with one newspaper or, perhaps, morning and afternoon editions of
the same newspaper. An ex-
ample is from Binghamton, Newsrooms are places notorious
N.Y., where the Evening Press for gossip and gallows humor,
and the Sun-Bulletin were and reporters and editors of the
merged into the morning Press Raleigh Times immediately
& Sun-Bulletin.
^ .. ,.^ . ^,. speculated that the consolidation
Staff consolidation. This was merely ' preliminary
-- - to
generally occurs when the ictual closing of their
the actual
news staffs of two newspa- newspaper
pers with the same owner are
consolidated into one news
staff, but the separate newspapers' identities continue to exist. Examples
include Raleigh, N.C., where the separate editorial staffs of the News &
Observer and the Raleigh Times were blended into one staff, which writes
and edits for the two continuing newspapers. This often is viewed as a
precursor to the merger of the papers.^

Background

T his study was directed at the Raleigh situation. The News & Observer
Publishing Co., ovmer of the Raleigh newspapers, announced in July
1987 that editorial staffs were to be merged. The consolidation was effected
in November 1987.
Management said there were no plans to close the Raleigh Times, the
afternoon daily, which had a circulation of about 35,000, about one-fourth
that of the morning News & Observer.
Newsrooms are places notorious for gossip and gallows humor, and
reporters and editors of the Raleigh Times immediately speculated that the
consolidation was merely a preliminary to the actual closing of their
newspaper.
There also was concern over the assignments of beats and reporting
areas. At the time of the announcement, management said
that assignments would be made anew, with reporters and editors from
each newspaper getting equal consideration. Times staffers feared, how-
ever, that News & Observer people would be given preferential treatment.
 28 — Newspaper Research Journal: Winter 1990

How Management Prepared for Merger

O ne use of this study might be to help other publishers prepare their

staffs for similar changes at their newspapers. Publishers could very
well consider the comments of the Raleigh reporters and editors; their
concerns will be applicable in many other locations.
When the News & Observer and the Times set out to plan the consolidation,
management took a number of steps to help smooth the transition for staff
members. Reporters and editors from both
Respondents' newspapers were appointed to several com-
individual, personal, mittees to work out and propose details for
sometimes caustic consolidating their areas.
and often emotional The committees dealt with the following
remarks provide departments: sports, lifestyle, copy desk/
the best look into the wire, metro news, and government affairs.
minds of persons The committees, each with six or seven
caught in the members, met to hold hearings, at which
uncertainty of times any persons with any interest in their
consolidation. work could speak. They also visited and tele-
phoned other newspapers that had under-
gone consolidation to learn of their experiences.
Committee reports included plans for effecting the merger, outlines of
how the newly merged departments would function and requests for
staffing. The committees did not make specific personnel decisions. Ac-
cording to management, most provisions of the committee reports were
actually used in the merger.
To help in making personnel decisions, lists of specific jobs were posted
and reporters and editors were asked to indicate what they'd like to do. The
process, designed to provide equal opportunity for persons from both
newspapers, resulted in most persons getting their first or second choices.
The specific assignments were made by editors and department heads.
Management was pleased that it knew of only one person who resigned
specifically because of unhappiness with a new assignment.
Even after reports had been accepted and personnel assignments made,
the ongoing nature of the consolidation became apparent. Some fine-tuning
has been necessary, during which minor changes were made. The newspa-
pers' deputy managing editor said staffers from both newspapers took
special pains to exhibit good will during the change, especially as many
Times employees had to move into a different newsroom.
 Kochersbeigen Staff Consolidation: A Newsroom With A View — 29

The Sxirvey

T he project took the form of a pretest/posttest survey. In this case, the

first survey instrument was administered after the announcement of
the consolidation but before it actually occurred. This was done to elicit re-
sponses before consolidation had been experienced, at a time when uncer-
tainty was likely to be at its highest. The second survey instrument was
administered one year later—in November 1988—and served to measure
the perceptions in the "after" period, in effect, the changes caused by the
consolidation.
The survey instrument was a three-page questionnaire consisting of
short-answer questions and one open-ended question that sought unstruc-
tured comments.
The first 12 questions elicited demographic information about the sub-
jects, such as age, sex, education, experience and salary. Sixteen other items
asked subjects to register their agreement or disagreement with statements
reflecting personal opinions (e.g., "I am glad I picked journalism as a
career," "I like my job," "I think the consolidation will mean improved news
coverage for Wake County" and "I believe I have a bright future in journal-
ism").
The statements were formulated on the basis of a pilot study, which
involved detailed interviews with several of the reporters and editors. A 0-
to-100 scale, with 0 meaning complete disagreement and 100 meaning
complete agreement, was used to gauge reaction to the statements. Re-
sponses on the completed questionnaires ranged from 0 to 100 for virtually
all statements. Pretesting indicated the questionnaire required about 15
minutes to complete.
A personally signed cover letter accompanied each questionnaire, asking
cooperation and pledging confidentiality. They were distributed and col-
lected in the newsroom.

Results

F ifty-four questionnaires, representing about one-half the newsroom,

were returned from the first survey, and 36, or about one-third, from
the second. The lower return on the second questionnaire occurred in part
because only persons who had been eligible to take part in the first survey
(pre-consolidation) were included in the second. This means that people
30 — Newspaper Research Journal: Winter 1990

who left during the year and people who were hired during the year were
not eligible to complete the second questionnaire.
While the return rate was somewhat disappointing, the responses did
permit statistical significance in tests of differences. Moreover, the principal
value of this study is in the comments from respondents; their individual,
personal, sometimes caustic and often emotional remarks provide the best
look into the minds of persons caught in the uncertainty of consolidation.

T he t-test was the first procedure used to check for differences in

responses from Times and News & Observer staffers. For all respon-
dents, there were significant (.05-level) differences on responses to two
statements. News & Observer workers were more likely than Times workers
to give a high response to the statement "I think the staff consolidation will
mean improved news coverage for Wake County" (t=3.22, p=.002, df=52).
Reporters and editors for the News & Observer also were more likely than
those from the Times to give a higher response to "I believe I have a bright
future in journalism" (t=2.15, p=.O36, df=50).
T-tests run on reporters and editors as separate groups turned up several
significant differences. Editors for the Times were more likely (t=-2.32,
p=.O3, df=22) to agree with the statement, "I like my job" than were editors
for the News & Observer. At the same time, though. News & Observer editors
were more likely to agree with the statement, "I believe I have a bright future
in journalism" than were Times editors (t=3.51, p=.002, df=20). This suggests
that while Times editors were happier in their work, they also feared that
that work would not last long — an attitude that seems to plague respon-
dents from the "weaker" Times.

I n contrast, and examined separately, reporters for both papers showed

virtually no difference in their responses to "I like my job" (t=-.O8,
p=.935, df=28). There were two statements that elicited differences in
reporters. Reporters from the News & Observer were significantly more
likely (t=2.12, p=.O43, df=28) to agree with the statement, "I believe there
will be no firings or layoffs." Again, respondents from the Times were more
pessimistic about this. The other was that reporters from the News &
Observer were more likely (t=2.52, p=.O18, df=28) to agree with "I think the
staff consolidation will mean improved news coverage for Wake County."
In fairness, it must be noted that there were no differences between
newspapers on responses to a number of questionnaire items, including,
"I'd recommend journalism as a career to college students," "I believe that
 Kochersbeigen Staff Consolidation: A Newsroom With A View — 31

one paper eventually will be closed as a logical consequence of the staff

consolidation" and "I fully understand the reasoning that went into the
decision to consolidate staffs."

As respondents' ages
Correlations increased (the oldest was
63) their satisfaction
C orrelation analysis of the results
showed little in the way of sur-
prise, but did confirm several intuitive
with journalism apparently
waned, leaving a somewhat
glum picture of aging
notions of how the respondents would journalists believing that
tend to view the staff consolidation. years earlier they had made
For instance, there was significant the wrong career decisions.
(r=.4040, p=.Ol) correlation between
the statements "I like my job" and "I'm now working as hard as I ever have
in my current job."
A strong positive correlation (r=.6006, p=.OOl) existed between the
statements, "I fully understand the reasoning that went into the decision to
consolidate staffs" and, "A strong effort was made to clearly explain this
reasoning to me." There was a negative correlation between the "under-
stand reasoning" statement and "I plan to apply for work with other
newspapers in the next six months" (r=-.355O, p=.Ol) and a positive corre-
lation between it and "I believe there will be no firings or layoffs" (r=.4363,
p=.Ol). These findings should signal the importance of management's
making an utterly clear explanation of the consolidation.
One startling finding was the significant negative correlation between
respondent age and the statement, "I am glad I picked journalism as a
career" (r=-.3874, p=.Ol). As respondents' ages increased (the oldest was
63), their satisfaction with journalism apparently waned, leaving a some-
what glum picture of aging journalists believing that years earlier they had
made the wrong career decisions. It raises, too, the important issue of what
newspapers need to do for their staff members as they grow older, espe-
cially as journalism, in many ways, is a young person's game. If it seems
logical that senior, older journalists could provide insight and skill in the
newsroom — be valued residents of it — so why are they dissatisfied? This
is a subject for further research.
32 — Newspaper Research Journal; Winter 1990

Comments from the Times

A s nught be expected, reporters and editors from the Times had a good
deal to say, most of it negative, much of it emotional, some of it
positive. The publisher was praised and vilified. The consolidation was
seen, ruefully, as inevitable. The way it was carried out was criticized.
Newspapers considering their own staff consolidations — or any kind of
dislocating change — should note these respondents' comments.
One group of comments reflected some bitterness and anger. 'Tm very
unhappy and want out," said one. Other remarks: "I expect some people to
be forced out before too long because they don't fit the News & Observer
mold for reporters," "... I loved my job until the merger," "Committees for
employee input were a waste of time; management did not accept most of
their recommendations, and apparently had already made its own deci-
sions. Committees only prolonged the agony."

A nother group of respondents was less likely to be angry, and instead

were more contemplative. One said, for instance, the Times "had a
specific 'mission.' It no longer has that 'mission' and, as an evening echo of
the News & Observer, probably has no viable function. This is particularly
sad to those of us who always preferred it to the News & Observer as our
choice of a newspaper."Another person said, "I always considered this an
enlightened company...; however I am quite disappointed in the way the
company is going about closing the Times—mortally wounding it and then
letting it bleed to death. Killing it outright would have been more honest—
and would have left the community with an impression of the Times as a
strong newspaper, rather than a weak echo of the News & Observer. One
reporter wrote:

[Consolidation] means the competitive edge is gone — the desire

to get out and write better information, more of it, than the other
guy, to do a better job to make the readers want to buy your paper.
It also means that with no appreciable increase in news space,
reporters (and their editors) are going to be politicking, back-
stabbing, and throat-cutting to get their stories into the paper, and
to hell with what is best for the paper and/or the readers it is trying
to serve.

One group of responses from the Times dealt with the strong uncertainty
 Kochersberger Staff Consolidation: A Newsroom With A View — 33

felt by its workers. "The uncertainty of the situation has a hold on everyone
and the paper has suffered in quality.... I don't know if there is any way to
reduce the uncertainty of situations like this, but it would help a lot to find
it." Some other comments:
"Many of us at the Raleigh I'm disappointed in the way
Times feel like we will re- the company is going about closing
ceive the leftovers after the the Times - mortally wounding it
best beats are assigned to and then letting it bleed to death.
News & Observer staff.... We Killing it outright would have been
felt like we had so little con- more honest - and would have left the
trol," "The timing of the an- community with an impression of
nouncement in July and the the Times as a strong newspaper,
wait to know our changing rather than a weak echo of
duties have been extremely the News & Observer.
stressful," and, "It has been
HELL since the merger, with everybody anxious and depressed. 'Way too
long between decision and action."
Some comments dealt with competition. One person said:

Consolidation will eliminate competition for news . . . in Wake

County. That is a tragedy for the public. Nothing can compensate
for or mitigate the loss. All editors are human and have blind spots
and biases. Because this is so a monopoly on gatekeeping for news
is necessarily and inevitably a bad thing for the free flow of
information, which is a prerequisite for democratic society. Need I
say that I feel a deep sense of sadness, cynicism and loss — even
though my own "separate" job is safe for now.

Another Times staffer said, "A community is better off with two under-
staffed yet competitive papers than with two 'efficient' non-competitive
papers."

"Who is kidding whom? This had to happen sooner or later.

Now we can make the News & Observer a damn good paper.
I hate to see the Times suffer, but the numbers just don't
justify keeping it alive."
 34 — Newspaper Research Journal: Winter 1990

Comments from the News & Observer

I t wasn't surprising that fewer respondents from the News & Observer
added comments. They were part of the prevailing staff and did not feel
the threat the Times people felt. Some felt the consolidation would be good
for the News & Observer, one saying, "I'm generally pleased, for selfish
reasons. I believe the News &
"I know that reporters Observer's staff has always been too
and editors at the N&O small to do what it tries to do. Merger
have always been worried should help the N&O much more
about what stories the than it helps the Raleigh Times."
Times had.... When we Some of the other comments from
merge, that will all be lost. the News & Observer: "I'm looking
... There won't even be any forward to a possible easing of the
reason to work much for a stuffiness of the N&O newsroom
local news story." from infusion of relaxed PM types,"
"I believe the consolidation will im-
prove coverage," "I believe merger will be difficult for the two papers and
unhappy for some staff members."
Other comments dealt with competition: "I know that reporters and
editors at the N&O have always been worried about what stories the Times
had When we merge, that will all be lost There won't even be any
reason to work much for a local news story," and "I am concerned that the
disappearance of competitive news staffs will mean that some stories will
not be covered."
Some people from the News & Observer criticized how the changes were
made: "Because of the sudden nature of the announcement, which was
followed by weeks of confusion, it appeared the decision was made before
the plan for the merger was thought through," "Few people, even [the
editorial director] understand the real reasons for the merger," and "De-
spite the extensive committees, I think the merger was rushed ahead
without much study."

One year later

" \ /{ ost fruitful at the point one year later was to examine respondents
1 V X from each newspaper to see ho w or whether they had changed a year
after the consolidation. There were three significant changes in responses
 Kochersbergen Staff Consolidation: A Newsroom With A View — 35

from the News & Observer reporters and editors over the year.
First, they were less likely (t=2.56, df=25.27, p=.O17) to agree that the
"staff consolidation has meant improved local news coverage for Wake
County." They also were more likely (t=-2.02, df=38.99, p=.O5O) to agree
with the statement that they know "others in my newsroom who have
accepted or applied for jobs with other newspapers since the merger."
Finally, News & Observer staffers were more likely (t=-3.09, df=37.67,
p=.004) to agree with the statement, "I fully understand the reasoning that
went into the decision to meant improved local news coverage for Wake
County."
There was one significant difference before and after for the Times
people. There were much less likely to agree (t=9.14, df=39.07, p=.OOl) that
"consolidation has meant improved news coverage for Wake County."

A s a group, editors from both newspapers expressed sentiments that

changed significantly over the year on two items. They were less
likely to agree (t=2.39, df=14.30, p=.O31) with the statement, "I am glad I
picked journalism as a career" and were less likely (t=4.27, df=13.90, p= .001)
to agree with the statement, "the staff consolidation has meant improved
local news coverage for Wake County."
Also as a group, reporters from both newspapers before and after were
less likely to agree with the same statement dealing v^th improved local
news coverage.
The second questionnaire One staffer's comment,
asked for responses to five state- however, did seem to sum up the
ments not on the original ques- differences: "Things are better than
tionnaire. These statements dealt expected. The realproblem with the
with perceptions of changes in merger is that attempt to keep the
work conditions. In four of the Raleigh Times alive.
five cases, staffers who had Wasted effort."
worked for the Times had signifi-
cantly less agreement than those who had worked for the News & Observer.
The statements were:
1. "My work quality has improved since the merger."
2. "The atmosphere in the newsroom now is better than it was in my
newsroom before the merger."
3. "Most people I know in the newsroom are happier with their jobs since
the merger than they were before it."
4. "My colleagues often say positive things about the merger."
36 — Newspaper Research Journal: Winter 1990

There was no significant difference on the statement, "My conditions

have improved since the merger."

Comments from Times and N&O staffers

R eporters and editors from the Times had a variety of comments about
the consolidation, and several indicated that things had gone better
than expected. Some comments: "Things are not as bad as I thought they
might be," "I was surprised to find my job actually improved with the
merger," "In general, the merger itself went better than I expected. The
transition from two competing newspapers to one big happy staff was
pretty smooth."
No one who had previously worked for the Times, however, was com-
pletely positive. Some of those comments: "An interesting occurrence,
merger," "... life has improved for me personally, but I think the commu-
nity has lost out," "The relaxed atmosphere of the Raleigh Times, however,
has been replaced," "Compared to the Times, people in the merged
newsroom and cold and indifferent to community sentiment."
As in the pretest stage, respondents from the News & Observer were much
less likely than those from the Times to add personal comment. One
comment, however, did seem to sum up the differences between the
newspapers: "Things are better than expected. The real problem with the
merger is that attempt to keep the Raleigh Times alive. Wasted effort."
Finally, one former News & Observer reporter indicted the consolidation
because it was leading to delays in reporting news. "In a very few instances,
we've withheld what I perceive as spot news... for the sake of reporting it
later in a broader story." The reporter alleged that major information about
an important story was withheld for as much as six months to permit a
thorough investigation of the event and "make the package more powerful
(and more likely to win press awards)."

C omparing before and after answers from individuals can be another

fruitful way of examining the change that occurred as the merger took
place. The most pronounced changes were on the item, "I think the staff con-
solidation will mean improved news coverage for Wake County." One 30-
year-old editor dropped from 90 to 30 in response to this statement on the
100-point agreement scale; a 29-year-old reporter dropped from 100 to 50
and one 40-year-old reporter went from a 50 to 0. Many more individuals
 Kochersbeigen Staff Consolidation: A Newsroom With A View — 37

went down on this item than remained the same or increased.

A 45-year-old reporter said in the first survey, "It was inevitable. . . .
Management sincerely wants to keep both papers, but... the Times will close
within five years." In the second survey, the subject wrote, "Better than I
expected." At the same time, though, Uiis person's response to the state-
ment, "I believe I have a bright future in journalism" dropped from 60 to 30.

A 39-year-old reporter said in the first survey, "While merger removes

an important element of competition on local news coverage, it also
provides an opportunity to cover more bases. The issue is the most impor-
tant for the public, and I'll be interested to see if we serve them better or
worse."
A year later, this person asked rhetori- I "Did it benefit the public?
cally, "Did it benefit thepublic? I find I'm I J find I'm less sure about the
less sure about the answer than a year I answer than a year ago
ago when we merged." The subject I when we merged."
added, "On one hand, we have more
reporters covering more nooks and crannies of the community we serve..
.. Yet we often reinvent the wheel on an issue that another has covered for
some time." The person also said the newspapers have many more editors
than necessary and that "I have seen a couple of examples of lower-ranking
editors maneuvering news coverage in such a way that their area of
responsibility receives some small gain but at the expense of a significant
loss to another area."

O ne 33-year-old reporter commented in the first survey that merger

would adversely affect competition but agreed v^th management
that a "combined staff will have resources to cover more issues, meetings,
etc., than two papers with overlapping coverage."
A year later, this person said, "Communication between management
(higher editors) and staff (reporters and lower editors) has sharply de-
graded since the merger. We used to have staff meetings once a month" but
they were stopped with merger on the argument that "the staff was too large
to meet in one place. ... Now the staff has no input or voice in management
decisions, or even in trying to communicate simple information that would
benefit management."
A 38-year-old reporter said in the first survey, "While competition keeps
reporters here sharp, it also forces us at times to waste energy covering
events and developments that are not very newsworthy just to ensure we
38 — Newspaper Research Journal: Winter 1990

don't get scooped." A year later, this person said, "The merger creates a
new, more interesting, more challenging job for me so I am quite pleased
with it."

A 31-year-old editor wrote in the first survey that, "I expect some
people to be forced out before too long because they don't fit the News
& Observer mold for reporters," but a year later said, "People from the
Raleigh Times generally like their jobs better in that they work for a larger
newspaper and get more respect from sources, etc."
A 37-year-old editor wrote in the first survey, "I always considered this
an enlightened company... however I am quite disappointed in the way the
company is going about closing the times — mortally wounding it and
letting it bleed to death."
A year later the same sentiment came through: "I've slowly become
accustomed to the conditions imposed by the merger, but it's more like
getting through the grief process after the death of a friend than any real
enthusiasm for my new situation."

Conclusions

W hen newspaper staffs merge, one wins and one loses. There is a
"stronger" partner and a "weaker" one, and virtually regardless of
the way the consolidation is described, there is no way to avoid that reality.
This study suggests that it is the weaker staff that needs the most attention.
Results of this study make clear that because the weaker newspaper
knows it is the weaker newspaper, explaining that the consolidation is the
joining of two equal staffs is regarded cynically and not believed.
Far better, it seems, would be to work hard to ensure that individual
reporters and editors from the weaker newspaper are treated fairly and
with respect, making clear that they as individuals can be strong and
valuable while their newspaper was less so. Some other suggestions:
• Expect that no matter what is done, the staff of the weaker newspaper
is going to be more depressed, unhappy, dissatisfied and cynical than the
staff of the stronger paper.
• Plan the consolidation under some secrecy until it isclearly mapped out.
Early awareness of the plan would start the newsroom rumor mill grinding,
forcing management to make public the consolidation before it's firmly
planned.
 Kochersbergen Staff Consolidation: A Newsroom With A View — 39

• Be honest about the reasons. Most of the time, it's going to be financial,
so don't tell staffers the consolidation is to provide a better news product.
Few will believe that.
• The dates on which specific aspects of the consolidation will occur
should be realistically selected, being mindful that carrjdng out the consoli-
dation quickly is a desirable
t h i n e . Do r e m e m b e r , TATI J. ^C
.. °, ,, . .. ... , When newspaper staffs merj^e,
though, that activities in- . ^j ^ T -^-^ T^ ° •
, P , ^ , one wins and one loses. There ts a
volvinc people can take « , « x J « 7 w
more time than might be ^^^^^^f Partner and a weaker' one,
. , ^, f
include for-
and virtually regardless
•-,«. consolidation
.
of the way
is described,
• j xi x r -x
there is
,. J J , no way to avoid that reality.
n:\alized procedures for ^ ^
making new assignments
for the consolidated staff. This is particularly important for the morale of the
"weaker" staff. In the Raleigh example, there was widespread cynicism that
News & Observer people would get the better assignments without fair
consideration. Management should work affirmatively to place people
from the weaker staff into vital positions in the consolidated staff.
• It should include organizational charts that will explain, in clear,
graphic terms, what the new staff hierarchy and copy flow will be.
• Management must make it clear that it is willing and patient enough to
listen to whatever the staff has to say about the consolidation and, if
possible, to act on what is said. An off-premises, group discussion — with
a counselor but without management — could be helpful in enabling staff
members to blow off steam and worry out loud in a supportive setting.
In sum, the consolidation of newspaper staffs never will be easy, but
examples from Raleigh can suggest ways to make it as painless as possible.

Notes
1. See, for instance: Peter Benjaminson, Death in the Afternoon: America's Newspaper
Giants Struggle for Survival. (Kansas City: Andrews, McMeel & Parker, 1984); W.B,
Blankenburg, "Consolidation in Two-Newspaper Firms," Journalism Quarterly,
62:474-481 (1985); Marilyn S.Greenwald, "Life After Death," presstime, July 1987, pp.
12-17; and Gregory C, Lisby, "Commentary: Death Watch for America's Sister
Newspapers," Newspaper Research Journal, 7:27-33 (1986).
2. Lisby, op cit.