compared to academicians administrators are spend a lot time regularly to read newspapers, might be have spare time for in-depth reading of newspapers.

DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

In this chapter the researcher analyzed the data in response of respondentsâ?? awareness/knowledge, personal identification, and confirmation of their news-seeking patterns. The data on the â??News-seeking Patterns of academicians and administrators of AIOUâ? were collected through a questionnaire which was designed for this study with the help of supervisor. Primarily, cross-tabulation and correlation coefficient statistical procedure was applied to investigate exposure of newspapersâ?? readership, their demography and news-seeking patternsâ?? dimension; viz Reading English/Urdu language newspapers, purpose of reading newspapers, national and international current affairs, editorials and articles, economics, health and sport news, educational development news, information seeking on political news, and reading newspapersâ?? supplements.

Theoretical frame work for all the variables of this study was based on Uses and Gratification model. The data was analyzed with the help of SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) version 12.0. Details of the data analysis are given below:

Table 4.1: Cross-tabulation of Professionâ??s Gender and
Age of the respondents

Professionâ??s Gender and Age Age of the respondents Total
30 to 40 41 to 45 46 to 50 51 & above
Academicians Gender of the respondents Male Count 22 15 1 10 48
% Age 64.7% 68.2% 50.0% 83.3% 68.6%
Female Count 12 7 1 2 22
% Age 35.3% 31.8% 50.0% 16.7% 31.4%
Total Count 34 22 2 12 70
% Age 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Administrators Gender of the respondents Male Count 14 14 10 20 58
% Age 73.7% 77.8% 83.3% 95.2% 82.9%
Female Count 5 4 2 1 12
% Age 26.3% 22.2% 16.7% 4.8% 17.1%
Total Count 19 18 12 21 70
% Age 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Table 4.1 shows the sampleâ??s age of Academicians and administrators of the AIOU. The sample comprises the 50% Academicians and 50% administratorsâ?? communities. As evident from the table, greater numbers of male Academicians 83.3% as well as male administrators 95.2% are falling in the age category of 51 and above. Whereas, the numbers of female Academicians 31.8% and female administrators 22% are falling in the age category between 41 to 45. Similarly, there is quite a good number of both Academicians and administrators falling in the young age category; i.e. 30 to 40 years.

To sum up, comparatively young male Academicians are working in the AIOU. However, the age group between 30 to 40 of female Academicians is younger than the age group of female administrators. Similarly, overall, there are young people ranging from the age between 30 to 50 employed in the University.

Table 4.2: Cross-tabulation of Professionâ??s Gender and
Qualification

Graph 4.2 documents that there are greater numbers of both male and female Academicians having M. Phil and PhD qualification 68.5%. Whereas, the administrating positions are mostly having masters degree qualification 91.7%. Thus the Academicians community is highly qualified as compared to the administrators in the AIOU.

Table 4.3: Cross-tabulation of Professionâ??s Gender and
Reading Newspaper

Graph 4.3 refers to the reading habits of faculty members and administrators. As evident from the table both male academicians and administrators read newspaper very greatly. However, the female academicians are less inclined toward reading newspaper as compare to female administrators i.e. 63% and 83% respectively. The overall result shows that reading newspaper by the administrators is higher than the academician community.

Table 4.4: Cross-tabulation of Professionâ??s Qualification and Reading Newspaper
Professionâ??s Qualification and Reading Newspaper Reading Newspaper Total
Yes No
Academicians Qualification of the respondents Master Count 21 8 29
% of Total 30.0% 11.4% 41.4%
M Phil Count 15 4 19
% of Total 21.4% 5.7% 27.1%
PhD Count 21 1 22
% of Total 30.0% 1.4% 31.4%
Total Count 57 13 70
% of Total 81.4% 18.6% 100.0%
Administrators Qualification of the respondents Master Count 39 6 45
% of Total 55.7% 8.6% 64.3%
M Phil Count 4 1 5
% of Total 5.7% 1.4% 7.1%