April 1998 - June 2001
Submitted by Hartford Seminary
Hartford Institute for Religion Research
Carl S. Dudley and David Roozen, Project
Principals
I. Project Initiation and Goals:
The Cooperative Congregational Studies Project had a modest
beginning during the October, 1995 meeting of the Religious Research Association, in a
panel discussion lead by the co-principals with a few church researchers who wanted to
collaborate in studying congregations. (Recently more researchers "remembered"
attending that discussion than there seats available in the small room at that time!) In
the past two years with generous support of Lilly Endowment (Grants 96-0206 and 97-0587)
we discovered far greater interest in this project than we anticipated as the number of
participants has grown to representatives from about 40 religious denominations, groups
and clusters of independent churches. During this time we have achieved our initial goal
to develop a core questionnaire that could be used in an interfaith study of
congregational life at the time of the U.S. census in 2000. We also generated broad
commitment among an interfaith coalition to work together to integrate common procedures,
comparable instruments, and coordinated schedules to develop and disseminated data with
congregations and their supporting organizations throughout the United States.
In earlier grant applications we stated our ambitions:
to create the first national, interfaith data bank on
congregational characteristics;
to augment the sample size for comparisons within and among
participants;
to improve the quality and quantity of useable information;
to utilize these research results with local leaders facing
practical problems;
to use these applications to strengthen congregations and their
supporting organizations;
to develop a cooperative relationship in research and
dissemination that is mutually beneficial, economical, and sustainable within our separate
resources.
After these two years working together we can summarize our
vision in two primary goals: first, to complete a genuinely cooperative interfaith
research project unparalleled in the breadth of participating religious groups and the
number of participating congregations; and, second, to develop and implement plans
for utilizing the survey research results in ways that will be appropriate within each
participating group to strengthen congregations and the structures that support them.
A. Challenge
The hundreds of thousands of congregations throughout the United
States represent a unique set of voluntary organizations that have had and continue to
have a pervasive influence on their members and the life of the communities of which they
are a part. Today’s congregations are under pressure from changing demographics,
changing institutional configurations, and changing values in the American culture. Some
congregations are finding the pressure of change overwhelming. But many more are finding
faithful and effective ways of ministry in new situations.
These congregations faithfully minister to their members, invite
new people into their membership, and provide service to their communities. They
also provide motivation and organization of vast volunteer efforts aimed at improving our
society and the lives of individuals. Despite available research technology and broad
interest in congregational life, current congregational studies are relatively limited in
their denominational orientation and organizational focus (see attached Brief Orientation
to Congregational Studies). A widely inclusive, national, multi-faith study of
congregations would provide the first common data bank of basic information. In fact, for
several participating groups this effort will provide the first ever statistical profile
of their congregations and for many it would serve as their first constructive use of
congregational studies. This information, if disseminated and utilized within the
religious culture of each group, could have a significant impact to shape and strengthen
innumerable congregations throughout America.
To that end, we have developed a cooperative effort among
professional researchers of separate institutions to generate a single, broad, coherent
picture of congregations in the United States, and we have gathered interpreters from
within these religious groups to utilize the research in their own congregations and
religious structures. In uniquely American voluntary style, we assembled an interfaith
coalition of research and educational leaders who are committed to develop common
procedures, shared data gathering and analysis, and utilization of information. Although
individually limited in experience and resources, our cooperative approach permits us to
broaden the base of ownership and financial support while gathering the data and sharing
the results within the organization and language of each participating group, thus
reducing the overhead costs while expanding the impact.
With support of Lilly Grants (96-0206 and 97-0587), during 1996
and 1997 the initial interest of a few protestant denominational researchers grew into a
multi-layered organization of researchers and key teachers. In these two years plenary
sessions of interested participants met four times, twice in Chicago (the most central
location) and once each in Nashville and San Diego (in association with annual gatherings
of professional religious research societies), to slowly negotiate a common research
instrument and procedure, and to develop strategies of dissemination that were congenial
with the wide variety of traditions represented among the participants. These plenary
meetings were planned by a representative executive committee, and managed by Carl Dudley
and David Roozen, co-principals of the project. As we moved toward the form of a common
questionnaire, each meeting increased in intensity of discussion and in diversity of
participation, continually adding participants (more than 70 people have joined our
discussions) until we now number representatives from about 40 denominations, associations
and clusters of independent religious bodies (for the current list of participants, see
attached List of Representatives).
Currently, strongly committed research representatives are drawn
from the following denominations/groups: American Baptist Churches, Assemblies of God,
Bahai National Center, Christian Reformed Church in North America, Church of Christ,
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Church of the Nazarene, Disciples of Christ,
Episcopal Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Lutheran Church - Missouri
Synod, Mennonite Church, Presbyterian Church in America, Presbyterian (U.S.A.), Roman
Catholic Church, Reformed Church in America, Seventh-day Adventist, Southern Baptist
Convention, United Church of Christ, United Methodist Church, Unitarian Universalist
Association, and Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod.
In addition to direct representation, we have participation from
academic research groups related to Black Churches (African Methodist Episcopal Church
(AME), African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church (AMEZ), Christian Methodist Episcopal
Church CME), Church of God in Christ (COGIC), National Baptist Convention, USA., Inc.
(NBC), National Baptist Convention of America, Unincorporated (NBCA), National Missionary
Baptist Convention of America, Progressive National Baptist Convention (PNBC), Progressive
National Baptist Association, Inc.); Muslim associations; Independent Christian Churches
(three clusters, plus one group of mega churches); Jewish Groups (Conservative, Orthodox,
Reconstructionist, Reform); and Orthodox Christian groups (Antiochian Orthodox Christian
Diocese of North America; Armenian Church, Diocese of America; Greek Orthodox Archdiocese
of North and South America, and Orthodox Church in America). Our discussions have also
included leaders of three well known research and consulting organizations, Alban
Institute, Barna Associates, and Percept, Inc.
B. Project Management
>The organizational structure and continuing work of this group
has been carried by Carl S. Dudley and David A. Roozen, Co-Directors of the Center for
Social and Religious Research, Hartford Seminary, who will continue as principal
investigators for the project. In the next phase we intend to divide our executive
committee into two groups, one working with research and the other with utilization. The
composition of these groups will change with the issues we face and the available
personnel, and the two planning groups will continue to work closely together. In addition
to the working committees, much of our productive relationship with participants will
continue to be handled through personal contacts by email, phone, individual
conversations, and small face to face meetings.
Office support will continue to be provided by the Center for
Social and Religious Research. CCSP co-principals will continue to share responsibility to
organize the plenary conferences and planning sessions, to prepare and distribute the
materials, and to manage the fiscal responsibilities of the project, as listed below in
greater detail. Beyond our own resources, we will continue to utilize various specialists
to prepare working papers and provide needed leadership.
II. Research Component
The research component of the Cooperative Congregation Studies
Project will consist of a key-informant, national survey of congregations. Each
participating denomination/group will survey or sub-contract with a researcher or research
organization to survey its own congregations. These surveys will use a commonly developed
core set of close-ended questions, supplemented by additional questions at a
denomination/group’s discretion and cost. The questionnaire will be mailed (except as
noted below) to a stratified random sample of congregations, the sample drawn using
commonly developed guidelines intended to produce a sampling error of, at a minimum, plus
or minus 4 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. Each denomination/group will use
commonly developed follow-up guidelines to maximize returns and use commonly developed
protocols to code and produce a digital data file of the core question responses to its
survey. A copy of each denomination\group’s core data file will be sent to the CCSP
central coordinating office where it will be merged with zip-code based census data for
each congregation, and this merged data file then merged with the data files from all
denominations/groups, producing an all-group-aggregate data set.
A. Mailed, Key-Informant Survey of Congregations
During the first year of project planning, CCSP representatives
articulated and debated five different possible approaches to an anticipated cooperative
study of congregations. The alternatives included: (1) a key-informant survey of
congregations; (2) a survey of members in a sizable sample of congregations, the
within-congregation aggregated data from which would provide congregational
characteristics; (3) the development and common archiving of member planning surveys that
denomination’s occasionally do for individual congregations, the within-congregation
aggregated data from which, again, would provide congregational characteristics, (4)
ethnographic studies of congregations and (5) the development of a limited set of
questions that all denominations would include in their annual requests for information
from congregations (the "yearbook" option).
After careful consideration the decision was made to pursue the
key-informant survey as the major thrust of our cooperative effort, with the other
alternatives left for various sub-groups to pursue as interest dictated or for the total
group to pick up at a future date. Both practical and substantive reasons guided this
decision, especially after the yearbook option proved unworkable. Practically, it provides
the broadest coverage of congregations per dollar cost and it is the least complex
methodological and interpretive challenge for those denominations/groups with little or no
experience with congregational research. Substantively, it provides a baseline that can be
used to inform studies using the other alternatives. For example, the key-informant survey
could be used to identify a highly targeted group of congregations for ethnographic study
(e.g., congregations that successfully resolved major conflicts). Additionally, member
surveys that are aggregated to produce organizational measures are typically supplemented
by a single informant, fact-sheet questionnaire and the CCSP key-informant questionnaire
could serve as this fact sheet questionnaire.
This is not to minimize the limitations of a key-informant,
closed-ended question survey. It obviously provides, for instance, a less nuanced probing
of issues and responses than either open-ended questions or ethnographies. Additionally,
it is highly dependent on the knowledge and subjectivity of the "key-informant."
To mitigate possible biases related to the latter we will keep questions that call for a
subjective evaluation of the congregation to a minimum (e.g., does the congregation offer
a quality worship service). But even "factual" questions can be problematic if
it cannot be reasonably assumed that the key informant has the requested
"facts." For example, while it may be reasonable to assume that a pastor or
senior lay leader will know (or be able to provide a reasonable estimate of) how many
"members" tithe, most participants in the CCSP feel that this is not a
reasonable assumption in regard to how many members say grace before meals at home. Still
further, a key-informant questionnaire does not provide the double-bang that a survey of
congregational members could provide (i.e., individual member responses plus the potential
to aggregate these individual responses to construct an organizational characteristic).
Without minimizing these and other limitations of key-informant surveys, and when balanced
against the pluses and minuses of all the alternatives, the key-informant survey proved to
be the most viable approach for the CCSP effort. Although a final determination has yet to
be made concerning the guidelines and/or terminology to be used in defining the
key-informant to whom the questionnaire will be addressed, the heavy balance of opinion at
the current time is to use a denomination/group’s equivalent of senior pastor or
senior lay leader.
>The decision to use a mailed questionnaire as the preferred
option is primarily driven by cost factors, although anonymity was also noted as a plus
for some denominations/groups. Low response rates can be a downside of such a decision,
but the experience of CCSP participants suggests that with appropriate follow-up efforts
they have been able to obtain return rates as high as 70%, without providing a financial
contribution to the respondents. A set of follow-up guidelines will be developed that
pools the experience of CCSP participants, as well as a review of the broader survey
literature. The guidelines will not include financial contributions, but are likely to
include such things as a pre-questionnaire post-card, a cover letter endorsement from a
credible denominational/group leader, a follow-up reminder post-card, a second mailing of
the questionnaire to non-respondents, reminder phone calls and possibly telephone
interviews using a shortened version of the mail questionnaire. An allowance for follow-up
efforts is built into our survey cost estimates. A line item of supplemental research
funds is also included in the grant request, one purpose of which is to supplement the
follow-up efforts of denominations/groups with unusually low initial return rates.
It is anticipated that the vast majority of CCSP
denominations/groups will use a mailed questionnaire and their matching grant research
funding will be based on the costs of a mailed questionnaire. We also expect that several
denominations, especially black denominations and/or non-English speaking language groups,
may opt for doing a significant number of telephone interviews or even rely entirely upon
telephone interviews. The CCSP central office will work with such groups to adapt the core
questions to telephone format and to secure necessary supplemental funding. The
supplemental research funds included in the grant proposal are not intended for this
purpose.
B. Common Core Of Close-ended Questions and Census Data
While each participating denomination/group will conduct its own
survey or sub-contract with a researcher or research organization to conduct its survey,
that survey will use a commonly developed core set of close-ended questions, supplemented
by additional questions at a denomination/group’s discretion. Parallel with early
discussions about what approach to take to cooperative congregational studies,
participants also began to articulate and debate general areas of congregational life to
cover, should a survey approach be chosen. Three general principles framed this
discussion. One was that a broad coverage of areas was preferable to a narrowly focused
survey. A second was that any specific item included in the core questions be directly
identifiable as of high interest to one or more of the project’s target
constituencies, which include: congregational leaders, denominational/group resourcers of
congregations, the general public through the media, and academic researchers. The third
was that length of the questionnaire be affordable and not overly detrimental to a
reasonable return rate. Once the decision was made to use a key-informant approach: (A)
the latter was refined to a goal of 10 pages and/or about 20 minutes, and (B) seven areas
of congregational life to cover in the core questions were articulated. These seven areas
include:
Spiritual, organizational and statistical vitality;
The variety and style of worship — the foundational act of
religious gathering;
The variety of congregational activities/programs which nurture
faith or provide opportunities for the expression of faith;
Levels of participation and the characteristics of participants;
Strategies congregations use to reach new members and raise
financial resources;
Characteristics of clergy and lay leadership;
How congregations relate to other congregations, to
denominational structures and to other institutions in their communities; and,
The widely different ways that congregations support and
strengthen the social and material well being of their communities.
Volunteer task forces of CCSP representatives initially reviewed
prior congregational surveys to identify potential questions for each area and then
submitted their findings to the research committee for drafting into a questionnaire. To
date, four draft versions of the questionnaire have been produced and then reviewed by
either CCSP representatives in plenary or the CCSP executive committee. The most current
draft, reviewed by CCSP representatives in plenary last month (November, 1997) is
attached, along with a "map" that correlates specific questions with the above
seven areas. Feedback from last month’s review, including the additional mapping of
specific questions to constituency interests, will be used by the research committee to
produce a pre-test draft of the core questionnaire by mid-January, 1998.
The attached draft questionnaire is the first version to reach
our "10 page goal" — prior versions ranged from 12 to 16 pages. It also
represents our best effort to date in dealing with what has been the greatest challenge in
the construction of the questionnaire (and perhaps the research committee’s richest
source of learning and the questionnaire’s most unique feature) -- namely, how to
identify specific questions and question wordings that capture the richness of, yet work
across, the interfaith coalition of traditions represented in the CCSP. While a majority
of the questions are adaptations of items appearing in other congregational and
"church member" questionnaires, several new items have been created to tap into
the CCSP’s diversity, without resorting to a bland, "least common
denominator" — e.g., Question I-4 on "preaching," Question I-10 on
dimensions in worship, Question II-6 on home and personal practices and Question VII-4 on
sources of religious authority. The challenge of question wording, however, has required
an important concession regarding methodological purity. Specifically, in negotiation with
the CCSP research committee each denomination/group will be permitted to change specific
words in core items to insert the word or phrase that best communicates the intended
meaning within its tradition (e.g., sermon, homily, lesson; church, congregation, ward,
synagogue; clergy, minister, priest, rabbi, president; etc) and to delete core items that
are totally inappropriate within its tradition.
Denominations/groups will be provided a digital copy of the core
items by the CCSP central office, which the denominations/groups will then use to produce
their own questionnaire. This "production" process will include, among other
things, adaptation of core items and integration with supplemental questions included at a
denomination/group’s discretion.
This process will first be used in the pre-test, with
denominations/groups receiving a digital copy of the pre-test version of the core
questions in late January, 1998. The pre-test, therefore, will provide not only a test of
the core and supplemental questions, but also a test of the general questionnaire
production process and the specific capacity of each denomination/group to produce their
specific survey questionnaires. Additionally, it will provide the research committee a
concrete basis for assessing and negotiating the range of individual
denomination/group’s adaptation of core question wordings.
Along with a digital copy of the pre-test version of the core
questions, denominations/groups will also be provided common guidelines for pre-testing
their questionnaires. Pre-test results (both comments/suggestions/concerns and the actual
completed questionnaires) will be sent to the CCSP central office by June 1, 1998 so that
the research committee can make a summary report to the CCSP plenary meeting in mid-July,
1998. Responses to core items in the pre-test questionnaires will be computer tabulated by
the CCSP central office, this serving at least three purposes. First it will necessitate
the development of a preliminary codebook. Second, it will assist in the evaluation of the
pre-tested core questions. Third, it will provide a "test" data set which can be
used by the key-teachers in developing the draft survey report and their respective
workbooks.
Denominations/groups will receive a digital copy of the final
version of the core questions no later than June, 1999 for an anticipated fielding of the
questionnaire in January, 2000. It is anticipated that denominations/groups will complete
their surveys and submit digital copies of the resulting data sets (and the codebooks for
the data sets) to the CCSP office no later than June 1, 2000. Upon receipt of each
denomination/group’s data set the CCSP office will merge it with zip-code based
census data for each congregation, and return a copy of this merged data set to the
denomination/group for its own use. The CCSP office will also produce an
all-group-aggregated data set and produce a set of preliminary tabulations of this
aggregated data set for the review and discussion of all CCSP representatives meeting in
plenary during July, 2000. Subsequently, the CCSP office will produce a final version of
the all-group-aggregated data set, copies of which will be: (A) sent to each
denomination/group; (B) used by the CCSP coordinating office to produce tabulations and
analyzes for the centralized project publications elaborated in the dissemination plan
(report, book and press releases); and (C) made available, at cost, to other researchers
and interested parties as elaborated in the dissemination plan.
There is a growing consensus among scholars and practitioners
that the life and mission of congregations cannot be adequately understood apart from the
social context within which a congregation is embedded. To provide both a reminder of the
importance of the social context and concrete data on the most geographically immediate
social context of congregations, the survey data from each congregation will be merged
with data from the U.S. census for the congregation’s zip-code. Specific census items
have yet to be determined, but will include, at a minimum, 1990 and 2000 statistics that
parallel demographic items about a congregation’s members contained in the core
questionnaire (e.g., race/ethnicity, educational level, age profile, etc). Because
detailed data from the 2000 census will not be publicly available until late 2001, the
2000 data initially purchased for merging with our congregational survey data will have to
be projections made by our selected census vendor based on 1990 census figures and the
various supplements the vendor uses in making its projections. The use of such projections
is common practice in planning based on census data, but it does mean that one of the
criteria in choosing a vendor will be the quality of its projections. Every attempt will
be made to secure funding, after the close of the currently proposed project, to purchase
and merge actual 2000 U.S. census data into the all-group-aggregate data set.
Cost, licensing and logistical considerations dictate our plan to
have the census data purchased by and merged with the denominational/group congregational
data by the CCSP central office (as opposed to providing each denomination/group its own
census data and letting it merge it with its survey data). Considerations of cost,
simplicity and ease of interpretation lie behind our decision to use zip-codes as our
geographic unit. Some of the CCSP denominations/groups may also, at their own expense,
geo-code their surveyed congregations so that congregational specific geographic units can
be specified and related census data obtained. Although this is the only geographic
approach that has clear substantive advantages over the use of zip-codes, it is simply
beyond the capacity (and relatedly, beyond the financial resources) of many of the
participating denominations/groups for use in our cooperative effort.
C. Sampling
Each denomination/group will survey a stratified random sample of
congregations, the sample drawn using commonly developed guidelines intended to produce a
sampling error of, at a minimum, plus or minus 4 percentage points at the 95% confidence
level. Denominations/groups may opt for a larger sample (and therefore lower sampling
error) for their own purposes, but they will only receive matching grant funds for the
minimum sampling size. Stratified random sampling is preferable over simple random
sampling because it offers the potential of reducing sampling error (because it increases
a sample’s representativeness in terms of the stratification variables, which also
can be of political/interpretive benefit). Although specific stratification specifications
have yet to be developed it is anticipated that they will include, as a minimum, 9 U.S.
Census geographic regions and 4 size of membership and/or worship attendance categories.
Denominations/groups may opt for more refined strata, but they must be aggregateable up to
the minimum, common guidelines for purposes of the all-group-aggregate data set. For
example, Roman Catholics have expressed an interest in using dioceses as their unit of
geographic stratification, the dioceses aggregated up to the 9 U.S. census regions for
purposes of the all-group-aggregate data set.
Most participating CCSP denominations/groups can produce an
inclusive, clean, existing address list of congregations which is either electronically or
manually stratifiable by region and size. In such cases the drawing of their sample will
be relatively straight forward. We do know, however, that there are at least a few
denominations/groups for which the production of such a stratifiable, sampling population
frame will be more challenging — e.g., Muslims, National Baptists. The CCSP office
will work with such groups as needed to draw their samples. Relatedly, the second major
purpose of the supplemental research funds included in the proposal budget is to support
the need for exceptional sample development situations.
Assuming random sampling, the primary determinant of sample size
is the degree of tolerable sampling error, and a secondary determinant in our research
undertaking is the total number of congregations a denomination/group has. Table 1 ( p.
14) presents the minimum sample size we will use for various size denominations/groups and
the number of denominations/ groups we anticipate within the various size categories. (The
table also contains the calculations we have used in determining the grant provided match
for survey research costs, which we elaborate in section F below.) The sample sizes
reflect our desire for a +/- 4% sampling error at the 95% confidence level for individual
denomination/group returns, assuming a 65% return rate. Such a sampling error is readily
acceptable for each denomination/group as a whole, but quickly increases for any
intra-denominational analysis of congregational sub-groups. However, one of the important
benefits of the cooperative effort is that in aggregating congregations across
denominations/groups one has the potential of conducting significant analyzes of types of
congregations that would appear in too few number in any individual sample for meaning
statistical study.
From the perspective of the total number of congregations
represented by all the denominations/groups participating in the CCSP, our approach to
sampling amounts to stratifying by denomination/group and then sampling disproportionate
to denomination/group strata size. This is unproblematic for the analysis of any given
denomination/group’s data. However, for the all-group-aggregate data set it will
require the calculation and inclusion of weights to adjust for the otherwise
disproportionate-to-denomination/group-strata size. Such weighting procedures for
disproportionate-to-size strata are common statistical practice, but they do require
conscious attention.
D. All-Group-Aggregate Data Set
As noted above, the CCSP office will combine all the
denominations/groups’ core question, survey data and related zip-code based census
data to produce an all-group-aggregated data set. A copy of the final version of the
all-group-aggregated data set will be sent to each CCSP denomination/group. The data set
also will be used by the CCSP central office to produce tabulations and analyzes for the
centralized project publications elaborated in the dissemination plan (report, book and
press releases). And, the data set will be made available, at cost, to other researchers
and interested parties as elaborated below. Five years after the completion of the project
the data set will be placed in a publicly accessible data archive.
Although an exacting, labor intensive and complex task,
production of the aggregated data set is a rather mechanical process, including the
development of denomination/group weights required to use the combined individual
denomination/group data sets as representative of all CCSP participant congregations (as
discussed above). The labor intensity and complexity of the task is compounded by the
necessity of producing an accompanying codebook that includes details of individual
denomination/group sampling procedures, return rates and adaptations of core question
wordings.
A major substantive and political issue related to the production
and use of the aggregate data set is the use of denomination/group identifiers in the
publicly distributed data set and/or public publications based on it. Politically, it is
unlikely that several denominations/groups would participate if their congregations’
could be identified as belonging to their denomination/group in the aggregated data set or
was identified as belonging to their denomination/group in public reports. Substantively,
the lack of denomination/group identification removes a variable of academic and public
interest from the data set and/or reports. Indeed, the lack of denominational
identification in the data sets and reports related to the Independent Sectors’ two
national survey’s of congregations was a frequent criticism. In order to balance the
desire for anonymity with the desire to "know," we will:
Permit individual denominations/groups the option of not being
specifically identified in the all-group-aggregate data set and any publications based on
it; but,
We will include one or more, constructed variables in the
all-group-aggregate data set that combine denominations/groups into aggregated sub-groups,
such variables being available for use in public publications. The specific variables to
be used have yet to be determined and will be negotiated by the CCSP in plenary and among
the CCSP office and individual denominations/groups. Possibilities suggested so far
include, for example, theologically liberal/moderate/conservative; numerically
growing/stable/declining; established in the U.S. prior to 1800/during the 1800s/during
the 1900s; polity; primary emphasis in worship.
E. Research Personnel And Advisory Structure
David A. Roozen, co-director of Hartford Seminary’s
Hartford Institute for Religion Research (resume attached) will have overall management and
coordination responsibility for the research component of the CCSP. Specific personal
responsibilities will include:
Chairing and staffing the Research Committee;
Constructing the all-group-aggregated data set;
Conducting the data analyzes and tabulations originating in the
CCSP central coordinating office;
Co-authoring the project report and books originating in the CCSP
central coordinating office; and
Assisting Carl Dudley in the overall administration of the grant
and management of the project.
In cooperation with the Research Committee he will also be
responsible for:
Developing the core questionnaire and distributing digital copies
to participant denomination/group research representatives;
Developing and distributing sampling, follow-up and coding
guidelines and protocols;
Negotiating individual denomination/group adaptations of the core
questionnaire;
Providing and/or securing assistance to denominations/groups
which have
special sampling and/or return rate problems;
Securing the zip-code based, U.S. census data set;
Administering the academic papers competition (discussed in the
dissemination section);
Locating the all-group-aggregate data set in a
publicly
accessible data archive.
In addition to Roozen, the Research Committee will consist of 5
CCSP research representatives. The committee will meet during the spring and fall of 1998,
1999 and 2000, the fall meetings in conjunction with the annual meeting of the Religious
Research Association. The CCSP research representatives will meet in plenary for two days
of mutual consultation and a day of consultation with the CCSP key teachers during each of
the summers 1998, 1999 and 2000. Major items on the research agenda for the summer
plenaries include: 1998 — review of core questionnaire pre-test and preliminary
review of sampling procedures; 1999 — review of sampling procedures, guidelines for
enhancing questionnaire return rates and coding procedures; 2000 — discussion of
preliminary findings. The possibility and desirability of two or more denominations/groups
working together to conduct their surveys has been a strand of conversation throughout our
planning process, and we know that at least a few groups have informally talked about such
partnerships. Given that the questionnaire pre-test marks the transition from research
design to actually conducting research, we will also use the summer 1998 research plenary
meeting to push for the formalization of such partnerships.
F. Denominational/Group Contribution To Survey Costs
A condition of participation in the project is that a
denomination/group provide staff time and direct costs (or funding for sub-contracting as
needed) for at least half of the cost of its common core survey, plus all of the costs of
its supplemental questions to the core questions, supplements to minimum sample sizes,
staff time for its research representatives to participate in committee and plenary
meetings, and staff travel costs to plenary meetings. Grant funds will be provided to
cover travel, room and board for committee meetings; to cover room and board for plenary
meetings; and to match staff and direct survey costs, up to a maximum match based on the
formula used in the construction of Table 1.
The "matching" formula used in Table 1 is based on and
necessitated by the fact that, while survey staff time (labor costs) can be assumed to be
invariant, minimum sample sizes required to meet the project’s sample error goal of
+/- 4% at the 95% confidence level will vary according to the total number of
congregations in a denomination/group. Several CCSP research offices/organizations were
polled to determine the $6,500 fixed labor cost and $8.00 per-sampled-congregation cost
used in the formula. Sample size times $8.00, plus $6,500, equals "Total Survey Cost
Per Group." "Total Survey Cost Per Group" divided by 2 equals the
"Maximum $ Match Per Group" (the second from the right column in Table 1). As
can be seen in the
table below, this maximum,
grant-provided match ranges from $5,392 for our smallest
denominations/groups to $7,588 for our largest denominations/groups. The
formula, including its pre-set amounts of $8.00 per sampled congregation
and $6,500 labor costs, will be used to determine each denomination/group’s
maximum grant match, regardless of the denomination/group’s actual
survey costs. If a denomination/group’s actual costs are more than this,
it will only receive the maximum match established by the formula. If a
denomination/group’s costs are less than this, it will only receive half
of its actual costs.
G. Dissemination to Academic Research
Constituencies
The CCSP all-group-aggregated data set will
be the most extensive national survey of congregations in the United States,
and the most comprehensive in terms of denominations/groups available for
meaningful statistical analysis, coverage of different dimensions of
congregational life and, because of the total number of congregations in the
data set (upwards to 16,000 to 20,000), sub-groups of congregations available
for meaningful statistical analysis. As such, the data set should be an
invaluable resource to a wide range of scholars for secondary analysis. At
least the following three strategies will be used to make the data set
available to the academic community, publicize its availability within the
academic community and/or show the relevance of congregations to the research
interests of various academic fields. These are, of course, in addition to the
variety of church- and public-oriented strategies elaborated in the
dissemination section of the proposal.
First, at least one session of papers
utilizing the data set will be organized for the 2001 joint annual meeting of
the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion and Religious Research
Association. And paper presenters will be encouraged to seek the publication
of revised versions of their papers in appropriate academic journals.
Second, the CCSP central coordinating office
will initiate, in the latter half of 2000, an "academic papers
competition." The competition will solicit proposals within each of at
least eight different academic fields for use of the all-group-aggregate data
set. The best proposal in each field will receive a copy of the
all-group-aggregate data set as soon as it is available, plus a $1,000
honorarium, conditioned upon the submitter’s commitment to present a paper
based on an analysis of the CCSP all-group-aggregate data set at a
professional meeting related to one’s academic field and commitment to seek
publication of this paper in an academic journal related to one’s academic
field. The intent of the multiple-field approach is, perhaps obviously, to
make the data set visible in fields beyond the sociology of religion. A final
selection of academic fields has yet to be made, but already suggested
possibilities include: organizational studies, social work, non-profit
organizations, philanthropy, urban studies, rural studies, theology, ethnic
studies, theological education, and the full range of "practical"
theological fields (e.g., Christian education, worship, preaching,
"church" administration, etc).
Third, five years after the completion of
the grant the all-group-aggregated data set will be located in a publicly
accessible data archive. By this time, on the one hand, the two above noted
strategies will, hopefully, have built at least some momentum of anticipation
for public access to the data. On the other hand, a five year lag in public
accessibility, although less than ideal from a scholarly perspective, is
necessary to provide CCSP participants some sense of proprietary investment
for using the data they have gathered.
III. Dissemination
Since the Cooperative Congregational Study
Project was initiated by church oriented denominational staff, the initial
focus was on practical research to provide information that is helpful to
local congregations and to the organizational structures that support them. In
the vision statement written by participants (see attached), participants
emphasized the issues that would strengthen congregational life, which proved
to appeal to the radically different faith groups that have joined this
interfaith research coalition. The same basic issues that guided the
development of the survey (listed above) have also shape our dissemination
strategy. Because of their importance, we reiterate:
The spiritual, organizational and
statistical vitality of congregations;
The variety and style of worship -- the
foundational act of religious gathering;
The variety of congregational activities
and programs which nurture faith and provide opportunities for the
expression of faith;
Levels of participation and the
characteristics of participants;
Strategies congregations use to reach
new members and raise financial resources;
Characteristics of clergy and lay
leadership;
How congregations relate to other
congregations, to denominational structures and to other institutions in
their communities such as schools, homes and hospitals;
The widely different ways that
congregations support and strengthen the social and material well being of
their communities.
To most effectively utilize the survey
results we envision an integrated dissemination strategy to reach three broad
target groups: (1) the congregational and denominational leaders of
participating religious bodies, (2) the news media and the general public it
serves, and (3) academic and research communities interested in religious
research.
To reach the first and primary target group,
we adopted a strategy of dissemination that is parallel to our research
approach. Just as we asked for an insider from each denomination/group to
serve as coordinator of research within their own group, in the same way we
asked each participating denomination/group to identify a key
teacher who would be responsible to develop and implement a plan to help
congregations and their supporting religious structures to utilize the
research in ways appropriate to that religious group. We expect the key
teachers to meet annually as a group, to work with other key teachers in areas
of their interests, and to work with the researcher in their own
denomination/group.
The primary task of the key teacher is to
help the congregations and the organizational connections of his or her
denomination/group engage and benefit from the results of the survey. In all
but the smallest denominations, key teachers must be "teachers of
teachers," i.e., they must develop a plan that involves the culture and
organization of their denomination/group to disseminate and utilize the survey
results. We invite key teachers to approach this in two ways: how do
organizations learn, and what can the survey responses teach them? Working
with consultants and specialists, key teachers will examine how congregations
and their denominational structure are learning organizations, develop an
appropriate plan to utilize the project’s survey research, and seek
organizational support for dissemination of this information in congregations
and their supporting structures. Key teachers will also work in partnership
with researchers to assist in pretesting the survey instrument, to design
workbooks and other materials that make use of our survey questions to address
pressing congregational issues, to develop a format for the research report
that will exhibit congregational contributions to the community,
denominational differences of faith and practice, and general issues that
would be of interest to participants, academics, and the general public. We
have identified the tasks of key teachers in rough chronological order during
the grant period.
A. Pre-testing the Survey and Defining
the Setting Winter-Spring, 1998
In this formative phase of research design,
key teachers are asked to work with researchers in each participating group
during the pre-testing of their respective survey instrument (winter-spring,
1998) to enable them together to refine the core questionnaire and optional
supplementary questions that would be most helpful to their congregations. In
particular, we ask this denominational/group team to review the core draft to
be sure that it addresses the most significant issues; to identify the
questions that provide information on these issues; to review and amend the
language to be appropriate for their religious culture; to identify desired
additional information and to formulate supplementary questions; and generally
to share in implementing the survey pretest and reviewing the results.
In addition, in the spring of 1998 key
teachers will examine their constituent congregations and denominational
connections as learning organizations. In this preliminary study, key teachers
should identify the number and characteristics of congregations in their
religious group, and describe the variety of ways in which these congregations
engage the world, process information, and change to meet new conditions. Key
teachers will be asked to describe in brief and imaginative ways how these
congregations might engage and utilize the survey results.
B. Focus on Helping Congregations Summer
1998 to Summer 1999
Summer Conference: The focus of the
year from the summer meeting in 1998 to a similar event in 1999 will be on
developing tools and procedures to utilize survey results with congregations
in each participating group. A plenary summer meeting of key teachers and
researchers is scheduled for July, 1998. In this three day meeting, which
mixes professional disciplines and denominational differences, the key
teachers will address two areas. First, together with researchers they will
review the results of pre-testing the draft survey. They will begin to
organize responses to specific questions in ways that address significant
congregational issues such as leadership, worship, fund raising, and
sustaining members. Based on this initial activity, groups will be asked to
continue through the year to develop materials that will be useful for work
in congregations and with congregational leaders.
Second, key teachers will meet as a group
with experienced leadership to share their initial descriptions of their
congregations and denominational/group as learning organizations and explore
optional strategies that might be used to reach their constituencies .
Throughout the year they will be encouraged to refine and develop their plans
to utilize survey data.
Workbooks:
From the fall of 1998 through the spring of 1999 key teachers will be asked
to work in interfaith teams (initiated at the summer conference) to
concentrate on twelve congregational issues that are addressed in the
survey. Meeting by email and with help from specialist/consultants and with
CCSP staff , these teams will draft and field test "workbooks" and
procedures that would utilize the survey data (when it is available in 2000)
to help congregations deal with these issues. The teams will complete a
first draft of these materials in the spring to be shared with
researchers and key teachers in the summer meeting, 1999.
Separate Plans: During the 1998-99 year we will also work
individually and in clusters of key teachers to help them develop an appropriate
utilization plan to engage congregational and denominational leaders within their own
constituency. These plans should include the congregations to be reached, the
communication procedures to be use, the leadership to be involved, the preparation and
materials that will be needed, the costs and resources available, and the standards and
procedures to evaluate this engagement. Each participating denomination/group should be
able to build on prior experience within their own group and from others to develop a plan
and to estimate necessary resources (staff, meetings, publications, etc.) to make the best
use of the survey data after 2000.
C. Develop Broad Structural Support and
Cooperation 1999-2000
Summer Conference: The emphasis in the year 1999-2000 will be
on developing the broad base within and among the participating groups to support the
utilization of this information in congregational life. In July, 1999, we plan a plenary
gathering for key teachers and researchers with two goals. First, the key teachers will
meet as a group to review and consolidate their tasks from the previous year. This
includes adopting the workbooks and other materials that sub-groups have developed to
address particular congregational issues; and sharing their distinctive strategic plans
that each have developed for utilizing data within their constituent congregations.
In the 1999 plenary meeting the key teachers
and researchers will also develop a strategy for interpreting congregational
data to the denomination/group support systems and to the general public,
especially using the existing communication channels and information services
within their group and in the public media. Based on the questions in the
survey instrument they will design the format of the "project
report" that will highlight congregational contributions to the general
society, suggest denominational differences in faith and religious expression,
and provide data about basic issues of broad religious and public interest.
Plans into action:
In the year 1999-2000 the key teachers and researchers will begin to translate
their plans into programs of research, analysis, and reporting. Although the
staff of several participating groups are prepared to customize the generic
workbooks and reports to fit their particular religious culture, most have
indicated an interest of organizing their work together in the final year of
research implementation with others of common traditions to effect economies
of scale in publishing, reporting information, and consulting with
congregations on a regional and local level. We also anticipate creative
combinations across significantly different faith traditions to maximize the
unique interfaith dimensions of this project in the reporting and utilizing of
these data at many levels and on a variety of issues.
D. Preliminary Data and Electronic
Consulting Summer and Fall 2000- Winter 2001
Summer Conference: The focus of the third year will be
utilization of data. In the summer of 2000 the key teachers and researchers will gather to
receive preliminary data from the survey. This event provides the first opportunity to
enter preliminary data into the pre-designed workbooks and report forms to allow
researchers and key teachers begin the process of amending these materials to facilitate
their usefulness with congregations.
In addition, in the summer conference in
2000 we will introduce several forms of electronic networks for data access
for use by congregations, denominations, press and others. We are currently
exploring several options provided by religious organizations and commercial
sources. Since legal complications of publishing rights and rapid changes in
technology make planning difficult, we have located this task in the third
year of this project to give maximum time to develop the variety of choices in
which participants have expressed interest.
National Interfaith Kickoff: If additional funding can be
secured, we will plan a national interfaith training session and press conference with
major religious leaders in November, 2000. Such an event would allow the leaders of
participating religious groups together to release the Project Report and highlight
particularly interesting results of the survey . We could also use the forum for key
teachers and specialists to train interpretation teams for work with congregations, and we
could publish the workshop workbooks for interpretation throughout participating groups.
Follow-up:
After the initial release of the research report and distribution of the
workbooks on congregational issues, we hope to continue to assist key teachers
and clusters of participating groups in their dissemination/utilization of
research data as funding allows. In addition to web site and other electronic
access, the CCSP staff will be responsible for timed release of research
findings in focused news stories, academic papers, and special interest
reports for specific audiences and publications.
E. Utilization Staff and Advisory Committee
Carl S. Dudley, co-director of the Center
for Social and Religious Research of Hartford Seminary (resume attached), will
be responsible for organization and coordination of the utilization of survey
results developed in the CCSP, and share with David A. Roozen in the oversight
of the project as a whole. Specific responsibilities include:
Chairing and staffing the Utilization
Advisory Committee
Identifying and maintaining
communication with participating groups
Securing leadership for plenary
conferences
Organizing and managing plenary and
planning conferences
In cooperation with Utilization Advisory
Committee
Planning themes, schedules and
leadership for plenary events
Reviewing workbooks etc. that focus on
congregational issues
Assisting key teachers in plans for
utilization in their denomination/group
Encouraging clusters of
denominations/groups for implementation of plans
Developing electronic data access for
congregations and others
Working with co-principal David Roozen
Developing and overseeing distribution
of information to the public and press
Co-authoring and/or overseeing
workbooks, reports, and other brief publications
Co-authoring two books, one
popular/academic and the other on congregational practices
Maintaining financial records and
submitting timely reports
Writing and submitting timely narrative
reports
F. Denomination/group Contributions:
The denominations/groups that have shared in
developing this project range from those with highly sophisticated research
practices to groups that have never participated in social research, or data
gathering of any sort. We expect that not all of the groups now in the
conversation will ultimately agree to participate, and a few others may join.
In this broad mix, our primary system of communication and management is
through summer conferences, with additional network building through religious
professional research societies. As we expand from the base of researchers to
incorporate an equal number of key teachers, the size and diversity of our
group will challenge our capacity to keep on course. We hope to keep project
focus through professional and personal associations that develop in our three
summer conferences, through follow-up exercises in shared design of workbooks
and utilization strategies, through the work of the Utilization and Research
committees, and through a variety of personal contacts by CCSP staff.
At the same time, as the project develops,
beyond the costs for research (above) these participating groups will need to
invest additional resources into dissemination and utilization as the results
of the survey become available. In 1998 their contributions will be primarily
in the cost of transportation to meetings and staff time for meetings and
follow-up assignments, such as developing a general plan and working with
others on particular congregational issues (e.g., workbooks). In 1999 their
investment will increase as the key teachers try to involve denomination/group
leaders in support of plans to customize, publish and utilize survey data.
The United Methodist Church leaders
anticipate spending $55,000 to edit, publish and distribute the survey
results, in addition to professional time for planning and utilization in
national, regional, and local meetings. Beyond their own groups, many
participants are fascinated by the possibilities of developing ecumenical and
inter-faith gatherings to explore the data in a variety of public and
religious settings (while a few are clearly uninterested in such activities).
Since the contributions to dissemination and utilization by participating
groups will increase as the project progresses, and since these are often
obscured by "in kind" contributions of staff and services that are
already in place, the total amounts are difficult to estimate. If the
projections of the Methodists are any indication, we expect that the direct
financial support generated by these 40 participating denominations/groups to
utilize the survey results in meetings from the national to the local levels
(beyond in kind contributions) will far exceed the total investment provided
by the Lilly Endowment.
G. Publications
As an extension of project management, Carl
Dudley and David Roozen assume responsibility for organizing and personally
writing or supervising the preparation of project related publications. We
envision seven kinds of "publications" that serve multiple purposes
of research utilization, namely:
Project Report
is user friendly
50 page report on congregations as religious institutions for
interpretation with secular and religious press, and for wide distribution
throughout the public and participating groups. Based on our work in
previous summer conferences, the Report will present research findings
that are scholarly yet comfortably integrated into consulting strategies
with local and national religious leaders. Each participating group will
have access to print out a report to compare their particular data with
clusters and aggregate profiles in selected areas.
Workbooks on Congregational Issues
are based on preparations provided by summer workshops with key teachers
and researchers and refined by experts in broad research in the particular
area under study. These materials should be used widely in the
congregations and among the leaders of participating denominations/groups
to better understand and strengthen particular areas of congregational
life, such as fund raising, leadership development, member recruitment,
volunteer training, and ministry development.
Press releases in 2001-2002
will
be coordinated with dates for release of U.S. Government reports from 2000
census, in such areas as demographic composition of congregations,
regional changes in population, immigration, etc. These coordinated press
releases are designed to maintain public consciousness following the
initial information release in the fall of 2000, to support utilization
strategies in participating groups in 2001 and beyond.
Articles for academic meetings and journals
will be prepared as a conscious strategy to show the relevance of
congregational research in such areas as sociology of religion, social
work, organizational theory, non-profit organizations, philanthropy, urban
or rural studies, theology, history of religious institutions,
"church" administration/leadership, theological education, etc
(see research section II - G).
A basic book for popular and academic
audience on the on the Characteristics
of Religious Congregations in U.S. will be written from the research
using several of the sources above, to provide primary profiles and cross
tabulations on the variety of congregational organization, composition,
beliefs, and civil investment.
A more applied book on U.S. Congregational Programs and
Practices will be written primarily for congregations and religious
leaders also using the material above, addressing such practical issues as
spiritual life, "membership" growth, financial support,
educational programs, leadership development, contributions to community
life, etc.
Electronic access to all published information
(above) would be provided through web site as reports are available. The
entire data set would be made available in appropriate research archive
(s), based on agreements with participating groups.
