Laserfiche WebLink
in an unbiased manner that serves the needs of your line of inquiry. Following a standard <br /> procedure increases the reliability of the study. <br /> 3.10 Study Participants <br /> In reaching public policy conclusions in this study, it will be necessary to determine <br /> cause-and-effect relationships. Comparing the actions of the public officials and administrators <br /> across a range of three distinctly different community types will help draw meaningful <br /> conclusions in this regard. Conversely, this study will rely on a sampling of a selected group of <br /> individuals that are common types found in many communities (e.g.,public administrator, <br /> elected officials), which will allow generalization of the findings within the different contexts. <br /> Three contrasting(most different) community types were examined. It is proposed that <br /> one first-ring suburban community(Community A), one freestanding regional center(Community <br /> B), and one exurban community(Community C)be analyzed concerning public art projects in the <br /> small city context. Conclusions were drawn in regard to the research questions by comparing <br /> and contrasting the similarities and differences of these communities. <br /> The communities chosen represent three different types of communities that all have <br /> experience with significant public art projects. The cities are described below: <br /> • Community A is a fully developed inner-ring suburban community of the Twin Cities with <br /> a 2010 population of 17,591. This community is a western suburb of Minneapolis and is <br /> located in Hennepin County. <br /> • Community B is a rural freestanding regional commerce center in central Minnesota. <br /> This community had a 2010 population of 14,176. This Community is located <br /> 79 <br />