Scripture Engagement Dynamics

Your question about clarifying terminology is Scripture Engagement is important. I view Dye's Eight Conditions as eight categories of factors; factors are listed under the categories labeled as "conditions." The first factor in my study, theological issues, falls under Dye's Condition 2 - Acceptable Translation in his Eight Conditions Model. All of the factors addressed in this study are already included within Dye's Eight Conditions Model.

Consequently, I do not intend with this study to propose a new set of features apart from the Eight Conditions Model. Rather, I'm looking at which factors most frequently influence level of use. Even this process is risky because it would be possible to misread these findings as saying that only these six factors matter; that conclusion cannot be borne out when other research is taken into consideration.  So, I seek to defuse that possible misconception within the report:

"The Eight Conditions Model is made up of eight categories including dozens of factors that influence the eventual use or non-use of Bible translation programs. It is legitimate to ask whether this research makes it possible to ignore some or most of these factors. Dye’s original concept was that any one of these single factors could derail a Bible translation program’s effectiveness. This was based on Scripture Engagement research and field observations. Dr. Harriet Hill’s Kabiye research found that awareness and distribution of vernacular Bible translations were the primary impediments. This is an example of two factors significantly limiting the success of a Bible translation, but these factors were not statistically found to be the most common factors in the Scripture Engagement Dynamics research. The most common challenges are not the only challenges. There are many case studies where Bible translation programs were otherwise healthy but were derailed by a single factor. A comprehensive model like the Eight Conditions Model is more effective at diagnosing and addressing problems than minimalistic approaches that only address the most common challenges."

Thank you, Timothy. I wonder if you'd respond with agreement, disagreement, or clarification to these take-aways (as I understand them; I've also interspersed questions):

1. Practitioners should be familiar with and attentive to all the factors in Dye's Eight Conditions Model.
   1. Factor analysis suggests that the Eight Conditions are valid and helpful groupings of factors, but they are groupings of different sorts: four conditions contain factors that are functionally connected (likely to co-vary), while four conditions contain factors that are only thematically connected.
   2. [Question: The research suggests "the need to  broaden ... our categories of what influences successful engagement." Would this be a revision of the Eight Conditions? What sort of categories might be in need of revision?]
   3. [Question: are there factors in the Eight Conditions that, based on this research, could be safely ignored?]
2. Practitioners should be especially attentive to the Six Factors, as these (taken together) have the most (statistically) significant impact on use or non-use of Scriptures across the projects studied.
   1. The six factors are not the same as the six findings. (It took me a while to sort this out. As a reader, I would find it helpful if the six factors were listed in the Executive summary.)
   2. Neither orality nor media strategies are in the six factors, but taken together they rank in the top tier. [Why not have a seven factors? :)]
   3. [Questions: Does this research suggest that written-based aural strategies and "true" oral strategies are functionally interrelated, or that they are closer together than some theorists of Orality have suggested? Do "media" and "oral" make it to the top tier by labeling them as the same factor in the factor analysis, or by taking the results separately and then adding them together in some way? Probably a poorly framed question -- apologies to Dr. Walter!]
3. Practitioners must be attentive to their own situation, because the impact of particular factors is highly context sensitive.

Thank you for your helpful questions. I will answer them in the text below in italics.

1. Practitioners should be familiar with and attentive to all the factors in Dye's Eight Conditions Model.
   1. Factor analysis suggests that the Eight Conditions are valid and helpful groupings of factors, but they are groupings of different sorts: four conditions contain factors that are functionally connected (likely to co-vary), while four conditions contain factors that are only thematically connected.
   2. [Question: The research suggests "the need to  broaden ... our categories of what influences successful engagement." Would this be a revision of the Eight Conditions? What sort of categories might be in need of revision?]   By "we," I mean the Bible translation movement. In this statement, I am encouraging BT personnel to revisit a more comprehensive view of Scripture Engagement like the one presented in the Eight Conditions. A tendency I have observed is for Bible agencies to reduce conceptualizations of what influences Scripture Engagement. Scripture Engagement is highly interdisciplinary and advocates for a broad understanding of the complexities influencing engagement in particular social, cultural, and religious contexts. 
   3. [Question: are there factors in the Eight Conditions that, based on this research, could be safely ignored?]    I will begin with two specific examples. Problems with orthography and dialect are two issues that were infrequently identified as impediments to use in this data set. However, I know of multiple programs where dialect and/or orthography controversies were very serious blocks to use and had to be remedied. Each of the factors present within this model were included because of specific cases where they proved to be significant impediments. There are no extraneous factors within this model - all have been relevant in multiple Bible translation programs. There is a significant amount of risk introduced when teams choose to forgo considering any of these factors.
2. Practitioners should be especially attentive to the Six Factors, as these (taken together) have the most (statistically) significant impact on use or non-use of Scriptures across the projects studied.
   1. The six factors are not the same as the six findings. (It took me a while to sort this out. As a reader, I would find it helpful if the six factors were listed in the Executive summary.)           I can see how this could be bit confusing. It should be noted that the findings are not numbered - the phrase "the six findings" does not occur in the report. It is a coincidental curiosity that the top factors and the groupings of the findings both ended up being six in number.
   2. Neither orality nor media strategies are in the six factors but taken together they rank in the top tier. [Why not have a seven factors? :)]   The six factors were in a statistical tie for first place. Orality and media together raised their score but did not tie them for first place. So, those six factors were statically unique in a way orality was not. However, the influence of orality on level of use (especially in combination with additional modalities) did more consistently influence level of use than other factors. That is why I chose to include orality in of the key findings.
   3. [Questions: Does this research suggest that written-based aural strategies and "true" oral strategies are functionally interrelated, or that they are closer together than some theorists of Orality have suggested? Do "media" and "oral" make it to the top tier by labeling them as the same factor in the factor analysis, or by taking the results separately and then adding them together in some way? Probably a poorly framed question -- apologies to Dr. Walter!]   I do not think this data can speak to the issue of the efficacy of written-based aural strategies in contrast with OBT methodologies. We are conducting another research project right now on SE best practices in OBT programs. My current view is that there is merit to the idea that OBT is a better fit for many contexts.
3. Practitioners must be attentive to their own situation, because the impact of particular factors is highly context sensitive.  Yes. I agree strongly with this conclusion. Thank you for your thoughtful comments and questions.