1.
T h e
P e n n s y l v a n i a
S t a t e
U n i v e r s i t y
Rotary
Club
of
Erie
Prepared
by:
Holden
Snyder
Marketing
research
report
presented
to
the
Rotary
Club
of
Erie,
May
2015.
Spring
15
3. 3
Executive
Summary
The
research
contained
within
this
report
was
conducted
for
the
Rotary
Club
of
Erie
by
students
at
The
Pennsylvania
State
University-‐
The
Behrend
College.
This
research
builds
upon
the
findings
of
a
Fall
2014
study
which
found
a
decrease
in
social
capital
had
led
to
declining
membership
numbers.
This
study
was
completed
in
Spring
of
2015
and
was
conducted
as
an
effort
to
invest
in
the
future
of
the
Rotary
Club
of
Erie
as
they
seek
to
increase
membership
acquisition
and
retention.
The
research
process
began
with
understanding
the
background
of
social
capital
within
the
context
of
volunteer
organizations.
Qualitative
research
was
then
conducted
in
the
form
of
focus
groups
and
individual
depth
interviews
to.
The
qualitative
research,
combined
with
the
background
study,
allowed
for
the
creation
of
an
empirical
model
to
explain
social
capital.
To
test
the
empirical
model,
surveys
were
conducted
with
168
respondents.
The
data
obtained
through
the
surveys
were
then
analyzed
using
statistical
techniques.
This
report
with
culminate
with
the
main
findings
of
the
collected
data.
4. 4
Introduction
In
January
2015,
we
were
briefed
by
Rotary
Club
of
Erie,
represented
by
President
John
Stockard
and
Director
Lori
Barber.
Rotary
came
to
us
for
further
explanation
of
their
declining
membership
numbers.
Over
the
past
decade,
the
organization
had
lost
over
half
of
its
members.
The
research
that
we
conducted
for
Rotary
Club
of
Erie
was
designed
to
build
upon
previous
research
conducted
at
The
Pennsylvania
State
University-‐
The
Behrend
College
during
the
Fall
of
2014.
The
research
previously
conducted
found
that
declining
membership
could
be
explained
by
the
concept
of
social
capital.
Their
findings
concluded
that
a
construct
identified
as
social
capital
led
to
intention
to
participate
in
volunteer
organizations.
Organizations
that
were
perceived
to
have
low
social
capital
would
have
lower
participation
and
activity.
This
research
was
designed
to
explore
how
a
non-‐profit
organization
can
increase
social
capital.
Qualitative
research
was
conducted
through
literature
review,
in-‐depth
personal
interviews,
and
focus
groups
to
develop
an
empirical
model
(Fig.
1)
to
explain
the
construct
of
social
capital.
Quantitative
research
was
then
conducted
through
questionnaires
and
regression
analysis
to
test
the
empirical
model.
The
empirical
model
we
developed
suggested
that
four
factors
contributed
to
social
capital.
They
were
as
follows:
visibility
of
results,
quality
of
communication,
trust,
and
value
alignment.
It
was
then
suggested
that
social
capital
would
lead
to
an
increased
commitment
within
the
organization.
Through
quantitative
research
we
were
able
to
confirm
this
empirical
model
as
an
accurate
depiction
of
social
capital.
Of
the
four
factors
contributing
to
social
capital,
the
visibility
of
the
organization’s
results
was
shown
to
have
the
greatest
influence.
Demographics
of
respondents
were
studied,
which
revealed
women
are
more
likely
to
commit
to
a
volunteer
organization
than
men.
5. 5
Background
Story-‐-‐
Lit
Review
The
term
social
capital
is
not
a
new
concept.
This
sociology
term
has
been
around
since
the
1800’s
but
has
most
recently
become
more
popular
with
the
rise
of
globalization
and
the
age
of
technology.
In
the
1980’s
a
famous
author,
Pierre
Bourdieu,
redefined
the
term
social
capital
giving
it
its
most
contemporary
definition
of
‘the
aggregate
of
the
actual
or
potential
resources
which
are
linked
to
possession
of
a
durable
network
of
more
or
less
institutionalized
relationships
of
mutual
acquaintance
or
recognition”
(Portes,
2000).
This
definition
accurately
describes
the
need
to
build
this
imaginary
resource
but
doesn’t
include
the
time
and
effort
required
to
effectively
build
a
strong
social
network.
Social
capital
is
not
tangible,
it’s
imaginary.
However,
this
imaginary
resource
can
make
or
break
a
person’s
career.
The
building
of
a
social
network
is
hard
and
a
person
must
selectively
pick
and
choose
who
they
want
to
socialize
with.
However,
if
a
person
is
going
to
selectively
choose
the
people
they
want
to
include
in
their
social
network
they
must
devote
a
large
amount
of
economic
and
cultural
resources.
If
a
person
is
going
to
devote
this
much
effort
to
building
their
social
capital
the
most
important
thing
to
understand
is
that
social
capital
is
only
valuable
if
a
person
is
able
build
a
quality
relationship
with
another
individual
and
is
able
to
easily
access
the
information
that
is
beneficial
to
increase
the
individual’s
standard
of
living
(Portes,
2000).
Today
social
capital
is
essential.
A
person
must
devote
massive
amounts
of
time
and
resources
to
building
this
imaginary
resource
and
the
use
of
this
concept
has
fluctuated
over
time.
Alexis
De
Tocqueville
is
a
famous
mid-‐19th
century
author
who
wrote
Democracy
in
America.
In
his
book
Tocqueville
describes
the
climate
of
19th
century
America
as
he
traveled
through
the
country.
Americans
of
all
ages,
all
stations
in
life,
and
all
types
of
disposition
are
forever
forming
associations.
There
are
not
only
commercial
and
industrial
associations
in
which
all
take
part,
but
others
of
a
thousand
different
types
-‐-‐
6. 6
religious,
moral,
serious,
futile,
very
general
and
very
limited,
immensely
large
and
very
minute
(Jones,
1995).
He
later
draws
an
interesting
conclusion
that
the
thing
that
made
democracy
thrive
was
the
people
in
the
democracy.
The
people
wanted
to
make
it
work
and
so
the
people
worked
to
build
social
connections
to
build
associations
and
make
the
nation
blossom
into
what
it
eventually
became
today.
The
mid-‐19th
century
America
is
drastically
different
compared
to
the
post-‐cold
war
era.
After
the
cold
war
citizens
were
less
worried
about
building
social
capital
and
more
worried
about
themselves.
However,
Tocqueville
also
brings
up
a
great
point,
social
capital
is
the
only
thing
that
keeps
democracy
going.
People
strive
to
increase
their
social
networks
to
become
elected
officials
and
run
the
country.
Without
social
capital
democracy
would
merely
be
an
idea
rather
than
a
type
of
government
(Jones,
1995).
With
this
assessment
of
the
history
of
social
capital
we
believe
that
we
have
found
a
critical
reason
for
the
decline
of
Rotary
Erie.
People
in
this
post-‐cold
war
era
are
more
focused
on
themselves
and
they
need
to
become
more
aware
that
the
social
capital
of
joining
a
philanthropic
club
like
Rotary
can
drastically
increase
their
standard
of
living.
To
nonprofit
organizations,
like
Rotary
Erie,
social
capital
means
the
chance
to
advance
their
activities,
increase
efficiency
and
to
create
an
atmosphere
where
people
can
get
together
and
share
knowledge.
TED
is
a
great
example
of
what
social
capital
could
do
for
a
nonprofit
organization.
It
started
1984
in
Monterey,
California
and
being
an
invitation
only
event
and
now
it
is
worldwide
allowing
those
who
are
not
affiliated
with
TED
to
watch
the
videos
online.
Although
back
in
1984
those
who
spoke
at
TED
had
been
influential
people
talking
about
technology,
entertainment
and
design
the
audience
just
wasn’t
ready
to
hear
it.
On
the
TED
website,
the
author
spoke
directly
about
who
their
speakers
are
and
what
they
talk
about,
“Meanwhile
the
roster
of
presenters
broadened
to
include
scientists,
philosophers,
musicians,
business
and
religious
leaders,
philanthropists
and
many
others.
For
many
attendees,
TED
became
one
of
the
intellectual
and
emotional
highlights
of
the
year”(TED
Website).
They
grew
to
the
organization
they
are
now
because
members
7. 7
want
the
chance
to
meet
the
people
who
inspire
them.
They
value
the
TED
talks
and
think
so
highly
of
the
organization
because
of
those
who
speak
at
the
conferences.
In
the
society
we
live
in
today
networking
and
meeting
the
right
people
allow
for
ease
of
entry
in
the
work
place.
In
business,
the
people
you
know
are
what
can
further
your
career
sometimes.
In,
Social
Capital
in
Nonprofit
Organizations,
by
Jerzy
Przybysz
he
speaks
about
how
social
capital
can
shift
an
organization
and
provide
commonalities
among
members,
“Functioning
of
an
organization
both
in
economic
and
non-‐profit
organization
may
become
a
field
to
gain
a
deeper
insight
on
social
capital,
to
be
more
precise,
because
they
provide
common
background
in
which
it
is
possible
to
analyze
on
the
level
of
community
–
local
societies
as
well
as
in
the
institutional
dimension
–
formal
organizations”
(Przybysz).
So,
for
a
nonprofit
organization,
targeting
the
right
market
is
important
for
the
organization
to
stay
successful.
With
this
information
we
know
where
Rotary
needs
to
build
more
social
capitalism.
We
know
why
it’s
important
for
organizations
to
acquire
social
capitalism,
but
some
are
uncertain
on
the
steps
to
take
in
order
to
build
this
essential
resource.
Most
of
all,
we
will
find
out
why
some
nonprofits
are
appealing
to
individuals
and
others
aren’t.
As
social
capital
continues
to
decrease
across
the
board,
non-‐profit
organizations
must
be
concerned
and
put
practices
into
place
to
increase
their
social
capital.
The
report
entitled
Untapped
Potential:
Fostering
Organizational
Social
Capital
in
the
Nonprofit
and
Voluntary
Sector
written
by
Terri
Woods,
gives
several
suggestions
as
to
how
non-‐profit
organizations
are
able
to
increase
their
social
capital
in
the
age
where
social
capital
continues
to
diminish.
“Those
organizations
who
will
succeed
are
those
that
evoke
our
greatest
human
capacities-‐
our
need
to
be
in
good
relationships
and
our
desire
to
contribute
to
something
beyond
ourselves…
this
is
only
available
in
organizations
where
people
feel
trusted
and
welcome
and
where
people
know
that
their
work
matters”
(Woods
50).With
the
two
principles
of
self-‐awareness
and
good
relationships
as
our
foundation,
Woods
delves
into
practices
that
organizations
are
using
to
increase
social
capital.
8. 8
In
order
to
increase
social
capital
Woods
first
lists
better
communication,
reinforcing
this
concept
with
the
adage
one
cannot
not
communicate.
Second,
under
the
heading
of
Community
Development,
Woods
stresses
the
importance
of
non-‐
profits
creating
a
sense
of
community,
and
lists
the
“six
core
processes
that
are
fundamental
to
creating
and
sustaining
organizations
as
communities.”
The
processes
is
comprised
of:
capability
(of
members),
commitment,
contribution,
continuity,
collaboration,
and
conscience
(such
as
ethics).
Woods
encourages
organizations
to
create
space
and
time
for
community
to
happen
and
develop,
focus
on
assets
and
strengths,
and
recognize
and
appreciate
people
(Woods
65-‐66).
Woods
also
points
to
an
organization’s
mission,
vision,
and
values
as
a
direct
factor
in
social
capital
as
she
references
the
work
of
Peter
M.
Senge,
stating:
“People
will
be
truly
committed
to
a
vision
when
it
reflects
in
some
way
their
personal
vision
and
when
it
gives
them
a
sense
of
connection
and
coherence
when
doing
their
work.
They
must
know
that
they
are
working
together
to
accomplish
something
that
matters”
(Woods
68-‐69).
However,
Woods
is
not
the
only
authority
on
how
to
increase
social
capital.
Researchers
Jonathan
Isham
and
Jane
Kolodinsky
offer
views
on
ways
to
increase
social
capital
in
non-‐profits
in
their
report
The
Effects
of
Volunteering
for
Nonprofit
Organizations
on
Social
Capital
Formation:
Evidence
from
a
Statewide
Survey.
Unlike
Woods,
they
put
all
emphasis
on
volunteering
as
the
main
source
of
social
capital
in
non-‐profit
organizations,
referring
to
volunteering
as
an
alternative
source
of
social
capital
formation
in
the
United
States.
In
addition,
Isham
and
Kolodinsky
suggest
that
social
capital
is
accumulated
through
“an
increased
sense
of
social
connectedness
and
civic
capacity”
(Isham
368).
To
further
explore
the
topic
of
social
capital
in
non-‐profits,
they
conducted
a
survey
to
see
the
actual
factors
that
are
influencing
the
level
social
capital.
First,
they
found
the
more
an
individual
volunteers
for
a
nonprofit
organization,
the
more
socially
connected
and
civically
engaged
they
feel
towards
the
nonprofit.
The
most
important
note
is
that
the
type
of
organization
had
no
impact
on
the
level
of
social
capital.
Isham
notes,
“no
type
of
organization
builds
a
higher
level
of
social
capital
than
any
other”.
In
addition,
they
found
that
the
number
of
hours
spent
volunteering
9. 9
has
a
significant
impact
on
increasing
social
connections
and
civic
capacity
benefits
(Isham
379).
In
their
analysis
Isham
and
Kolodinsky
found,
“volunteering
for
nonprofit
organizations
may
indeed
be
a
partial
substitute
for
the
decline
of
traditional
membership”
(Isham
380).
In
other
words,
individuals
may
avoid
membership
dues
by
volunteering
rather
than
becoming
an
official
member
of
an
organization.
While
traditional,
membership
based
non-‐profits
may
be
struggling,
like
Rotary
Erie,
the
more
modern
TED
and
TEDx
are
thriving.
Especially
when
comparing
Millennials
to
all
other
age
groups
like
Generation
X,
Generation
Y,
and
Baby
Boomers.
TED
has
found
a
way
to
captivate
the
young
audiences
and
create
a
community
of
learning.
In
an
article
for
Forbes,
Mark
Fidelman
identifies
the
main
reason
is
that
the
organizers
of
TED
and
TEDx
are
more
captivating.
“They
select
interesting
themes,
interesting
speakers
and
interesting
audiences”
(Fidelman
1).
The
organizers
and
staff
of
TED
want
to
make
a
difference
and
that
is
why
they
are
so
successful.
“People
that
do
things
out
of
passion,
do
them
better”
(Fidelman,
1).
TED
employees
are
so
passionate
about
the
direction
of
their
organization
and
the
people
that
are
in
it
they
hand
select
who
is
allowed
to
earn
a
membership.
They
want
the
correct
people
in
the
room
so
that
they
can
actively
listen
and
engage
with
TED
content,
as
well
as
promote
further
conversation.
Ian
Murphy,
Executive
Producer
of
TEDxUSC
mentioned,
When
the
community
gets
together
it’s
like
a
United
Nations
summit.
It’s
people
from
around
the
world
that
come
together
to
share
resources,
share
stories,
and
just
kind
of
be
there
for
each
other.
It’s
a
very
collaborative
and
cooperative
environment
where
everyone
is
invested
in
making
TED
a
better
experience
for
everyone
involved
(Fidelman,
1).
Indeed
this
investment
by
its
members
proves
to
be
a
huge
factor
in
TED’s
increased
social
capital.
In
conclusion,
we
have
gathered
the
information
to
answer
three
main
questions
dealing
with
social
capital.
It
is
important
for
organizations
like
Rotary
10. 10
Erie
to
obtain
social
capital
because
of
the
benefits
they
could
acquire.
Rotary
can
gain
knowledge
from
other
nonprofits
who
have
been
deemed
successful
because
of
social
capital
and
even
for
profit
organizations
such
as
the
TED.
In
this
paper
our
mission
was
to
analyze
social
capital,
stress
the
importance,
and
also
highlight
others
organizations
accomplishments
and
answer
why
they
are
successful.
11. Methodology
Research
Design
The
research
was
conducted
in
4
steps.
1.
Literature
Review
2.
Individual
Depth
Interview
3.
Focus
Groups
4.
Questionnaire
For
the
first
step
in
the
research
process,
we
conducted
a
literature
review
to
analyze
secondary
data.
Rotary’s
declining
membership
is
not
an
issue
exclusive
to
their
organization;
many
non-‐profit
organizations
are
experiencing
the
same
problems
due
to
low
social
capital.
Given
the
nature
of
this
problem,
secondary
data
will
be
crucial
to
research.
The
literature
review,
to
examine
social
capital
in
the
non-‐profit
sector,
was
completed
as
a
cost-‐effective
and
efficient
method
of
obtaining
information.
The
literature
we
were
able
to
examine
provided
us
with
insight
to
clarify
and
redefine
the
marketing
research
problem.
This
exploratory
research
also
provided
us
with
the
necessary
background
information
to
base
the
rest
of
our
research
upon,
while
providing
credibility
for
the
report.
The
insight
gathered
through
the
initial
exploratory
research
allowed
us
to
craft
questions
(see
Fig.
2)
for
individual
depth
interviews
(IDI),
the
second
step
in
our
research
design.
These
unstructured
one-‐on-‐one
interviews
offered
many
advantages
and
provided
valuable
information
in
understanding
social
capital.
The
intimate
nature
of
the
IDIs
allowed
for
respondents
to
reveal
their
honest
feelings,
while
providing
them
with
a
heightened
state
of
awareness.
As
we
worked
to
understand
social
capital,
the
IDIs
provided
an
opportunity
to
probe
the
respondents
at
length
to
reveal
the
feelings
and
motivations
that
underlie
statements
of
interest.
Now
equipped
with
a
more
in-‐depth
understanding
of
our
12. 12
marketing
research
problem,
we
were
able
to
move
into
the
third
step
of
our
research
design.
The
focus
group
was
the
final
step
needed
before
developing
the
empirical
model.
Our
focus
group,
consisting
of
five
participants
and
led
by
a
moderator,
used
the
same
questions
as
the
IDIs
(see
Fig.
2)
as
a
starting
point
for
discussion.
The
focus
group
gave
us
the
opportunity
to
observe,
in
a
group
dynamic,
people
discussing
volunteer
organizations.
We
sought
to
understand
what
people
have
to
say
about
this
topic
and
why
they
say
it.
This
provided
us
with
a
different
type
of
insight
than
the
IDIs.
The
interaction
among
respondents
was
able
to
stimulate
new
ideas
and
thoughts
that
did
not
arise
during
our
IDIs.
Through
study
of
the
interaction
among
participants,
we
were
able
to
gain
a
better
understanding
of
the
group
dynamic
involved
with
social
capital.
From
this
qualitative
research,
we
were
able
to
develop
an
empirical
model
to
explain
social
capital
(see
Fig.
1).
We
hypothesized
that
trust,
visibility
of
results,
communication
quality,
and
value
alignment
were
the
factors
leading
to
social
capital,
and
that
social
capital
would
lead
to
increased
commitment.
To
test
this
hypothesis
we
designed
a
questionnaire
that
was
able
to
provide
us
with
an
immense
amount
of
data.
Questionnaires
are
extremely
valuable
to
the
marketing
research
design
as
they
were
able
to
provide
answers
to
many
of
our
questions.
The
survey
gave
us
insight
as
to
why
people
feel
a
particular
way
or
take
a
particular
action
when
it
comes
to
volunteer
organizations,
and
how
they
made
that
decision.
Most
importantly,
the
questionnaire
was
able
to
examine
the
individual
on
a
personal
level
from
a
demographic
and
lifestyle
perspective.
By
using
a
questionnaire,
we
were
able
to
collect
a
large
amount
of
data
and
easily
analyze
our
findings.
Instrument
To
measure
the
six
constructs
identified
in
our
empirical
model,
it
was
necessary
to
design
a
questionnaire
(see
Fig.
3)
capable
of
accurately
measuring
each
construct.
The
constructs
were:
trust,
value
alignment,
communication
quality,
13. 13
visibility
of
results,
social
capital,
and
commitment.
Once
these
constructs
were
identified,
we
began
to
design
the
question
format.
For
our
questionnaire
we
chose
to
use
open-‐ended,
close-‐ended,
and
scaled-‐response
questions.
The
open-‐ended
questions
allowed
the
respondents
to
reply
in
his
or
her
own
words.
These
questions
allowed
for
further
elaboration
on
the
part
of
the
respondent.
In
our
questionnaire,
this
allowed
respondents
to
go
into
depth
on
experience
they
have
had
with
volunteer
organizations.
We
also
chose
to
use
close-‐ended
questions,
primarily
for
demographic
related
responses.
This
question
type
allowed
respondents
to
give
a
realistic
response
without
the
option
of
expounding
on
the
topic.
Most
importantly,
the
use
of
close-‐ended
questions
made
it
possible
to
automatically
code
responses
for
later
use
in
software
analysis.
Occurring
most
frequently
in
our
questionnaire
was
the
scale-‐based
question.
These
were
close-‐
ended
questions
designed
to
capture
the
intensity
of
a
feeling.
By
using
scale-‐based
questions
to
measure
the
six
constructs
previously
defined,
we
were
able
to
gain
a
deeper
insight
into
the
respondent’s
true
feelings.
These
responses
would
be
easily
imported
into
analysis
software
and
allow
us
to
use
statistical
tools
for
further
analysis.
Sampling
When
administering
our
questionnaire,
we
sought
after
respondents
between
the
ages
of
18-‐50
who
could
be
considered
professionals
or
future
professionals.
We
had
168
respondents
to
our
questionnaire,
with
53
being
male
and
115
being
female.
This
resulted
in
a
sample
that
was
31.5%
male
and
68.5%
female.
The
relationship
status
of
our
sample
was
38.1%
single,
never
married,
34.5%
single,
in
a
relationship
with
a
significant
other,
and
20.2%
married.
Remaining
respondents
were
either
widowed,
divorced,
or
in
a
domestic
partnership.
Education
level
of
the
sample
varied.
41%
of
the
respondents
had
some
college,
but
no
degree,
24.7%
bachelor’s
degree,
15.1%
high
school
degree,
8.4%
associate’s
degree,
8.4%
graduate
degree,
and
2.4%
less
than
a
high
school
degree.
The
majority
of
our
sample
was
employed
with
41.9%
employed
full-‐time,
14. 14
32.9%
part-‐time,
12.6%
unemployed
and
not
looking
for
a
job,
7.2%
unemployed
and
looking
for
a
job,
3.6%
retired,
and
1.8%
disabled
and
unable
to
work.
The
age
of
the
respondents
supported
what
we
were
originally
intending
for,
with
2.4%
less
than
18
years
old,
69.1%
between
the
ages
of
18-‐29,
9.7%
between
30-‐44,
15.8%
between
45-‐59,
and
3%
over
60
years
old.
When
it
came
to
volunteer
experience,
the
sample
was
split
evenly,
with
47.7%
being
part
of
a
volunteer
organization
and
52.3%
not
belonging
to
a
volunteer
organization.
Data
Collection
The
data
from
the
questionnaire
was
collected
via
self
administered
online
surveys.
The
survey
was
available
for
two
weeks
and
was
shared
on
various
social
media
accounts
of
the
marketing
research
team
members.
The
use
of
online
surveys
provided
us
with
an
advantage
when
collecting
data.
Rapid
deployment
and
real-‐
time
reporting
allowed
us
to
reach
a
wider
audience
with
the
results
available
immediately.
The
digital
nature
of
the
survey
allowed
us
to
conduct
the
research
at
no
cost.
We
also
benefited
from
higher
response
rates,
as
opposed
to
more
traditional
survey
methods.
By
utilizing
technology
we
were
also
able
to
contact
the
“hard-‐to-‐reach”
professionals
that
we
otherwise
would
not
have
been
able
to
question.
15. Analysis
After developing the empirical model (Fig. 1) from our qualitative research, it was
necessary to develop and test a hypothesis for each relationship we identified using the
data from our questionnaire.
H1:
The
higher
the
trust
people
feel
for
the
organization,
the
higher
the
perceived
social
capital
of
the
organization
Our first hypothesis was that the higher the trust people feel for the organization,
the higher the perceived social capital of the organization. After completing regression
statistics, as seen in Fig. 4, we determined the correlation coefficient between trust and
social capital to be .55, showing a moderate, positive correlation between these two
constructs. The coefficient of determination was found to be .3008, meaning 30.08% of
the variability in social capital can be explained by the variation in trust. The p-value was
found to be .0045, supporting our hypothesis that the higher the trust people feel for the
organization, the higher the perceived social capital of the organization.
H2:
The
higher
the
perceived
value
alignment
between
the
people
and
organization,
the
higher
the
perceived
social
capital
of
the
organization
Our second hypothesis was that the higher the perceived value alignment between
the people and organization, the higher the perceived social capital of the organization.
After completing regression statistics, as seen in Fig. 5, we determined the correlation
coefficient between value alignment and social capital to be .36, showing a weak,
positive correlation between these two constructs. The coefficient of determination was
found to be .1261, meaning 12.61% of the variability in social capital can be explained by
variation in perceived value alignment. The p-value was found to be 1.11022E-16,
supporting our hypothesis that the higher the perceived value alignment between the
people and organization, the higher the perceived social capital of the organization.
16. 16
H3:
The
higher
the
perceived
quality
of
the
organization’s
communication
with
people,
the
higher
the
perceived
social
capital
of
the
organization
Our third hypothesis was that the higher the perceived quality of the
organization’s communication with people, the higher the perceived social capital of the
organization. After completing regression statistics, as seen in Fig. 6, we determined the
correlation coefficient between the organization’s communication and social capital to be
.52, showing a moderate, positive correlation between these two constructs. The
coefficient of determination was found to be .2617, meaning 26.17% of the variability in
social capital can be explained by variation in perceived quality of the organization’s
communication. The p-value was found to be 0, supporting our hypothesis that the higher
the perceived quality of the organization's communication with people, the higher the
perceived social capital of the organization.
H4:
The
higher
the
visibility
of
the
results
from
the
organization’s
projects,
the
higher
the
perceived
social
capital
of
the
organization
Our fourth hypothesis was that the higher the visibility of the results from the
organization’s projects, the higher the perceived social capital of the organization. After
completing regression statistics, as seen in Fig. 7, we determined the correlation
coefficient between visibility and social capital to be .65, showing a moderate, positive
correlation between these two constructs. Of the four factors believed to contribute to
social capital, visibility had the highest correlation with social capital. The coefficient of
determination was found to be .4149, meaning 41.49% of the variability in social capital
can be explained by variation in visibility of results. Of the four factors believed to
contribute to social capital, visibility also had the highest coefficient of determination.
The p-value was found to be .00001, supporting our hypothesis that the higher the
visibility of the results from the organization’s projects, the higher the perceived social
capital of the organization.
17. 17
H5:
the
higher
the
perceived
social
capital
of
the
organization,
the
higher
the
commitment
it
receives
from
its
people
Our fifth hypothesis was that the higher the perceived social capital of the
organization, the higher the commitment it receives from its people. After completing
regression statistics, as seen in Fig. 8, we determined the correlation coefficient between
social capital and commitment to be .55, showing a moderate, positive correlation. The
coefficient of determination was found to be .2982, meaning 29.82% of the variability in
commitment can be explained by the variation in social capital. The p-value was found to
be 0.E+0, supporting our hypothesis that the higher the perceived social capital of the
organization, the higher the commitment it receives from its people.
Group
Mean
Differences
In analyzing our data, we wanted to determine if there were any key differences
between two sets of groups. First, we wanted to identify any statistically significant
gender differences when it came to trust, visibility, commitment, communication quality,
social capital, value alignment and trustworthiness. To determine if there were
statistically significant differences between males and females, we conducted t-tests.
Trust
We hypothesized that there was a difference between males and females and the
importance they place on trust. Using our scale-based questions we were able to identify
a mean of 4.725 for women and a mean of 4.462 for men (see Fig. 9). We hypothesized
that this difference was significant and that women placed greater emphasis on trust. The
p-value of the mean differences was found to be .02121, supporting our hypothesis that
there is a statistically significant difference between males and females when it comes to
trust. Women place greater emphasis on trust.
18. 18
Commitment
We hypothesized that there was a difference between males and females in
regards to commitment. Using our scale-based questions we were able to identify a mean
of 4.624 for women and a mean of 4.304 for men (see Fig. 10). We hypothesized that this
difference was significant and that women had higher commitment. The p-value of the
mean differences was found to be .0078, supporting our hypothesis that there is a
statistically significant difference between males and females when it comes to
commitment. Women have higher levels of commitment.
Communication
Quality
We hypothesized that there was a difference between males and females and the
importance they placed on communication quality. Using our scale-based questions we
were able to identify a mean of 4.397 for women and a mean of 4.088 for men (see Fig.
11). We hypothesized that this difference was significant and that women placed greater
emphasis on communication quality. The p-value of the mean differences was found to
be .01847, supporting our hypothesis that there is a statistically significant difference
between males and females when it comes to communication quality. Women place more
importance on the quality of communication.
Social
Capital
We hypothesized that there was a difference between males and females when it
comes to social capital. Using our scale-based questions we were able to identify a mean
of 3.902 for women and a mean of 3.649 for men (see Fig. 12). We hypothesized that this
difference was significant and that women had higher levels of social capital. The p-value
of the mean differences was found to be .04781, supporting our hypothesis that there is a
statistically significant difference between males and females when it comes to levels of
social capital. Women display a higher level of social capital.
Visibility
of
Results
We hypothesized that there was a difference between males and females when it
comes to the importance they place on visibility of results. Using our scale-based
questions we were able to identify a mean of 3.979 for women and a mean of 3.739 for
19. 19
men (see Fig. 13). We hypothesized that this difference was significant and that women
placed more emphasis on visibility of results. The p-value of the mean differences was
found to be .0417, supporting our hypothesis that there is a statistically significant
difference between males and females when it comes to visibility of results. Women
place more emphasis on visibility than do men.
Value
Alignment
We hypothesized that there was a difference between males and females when it
comes to the importance they place on value alignment. Using our scale-based questions
we were able to identify a mean of 4.009 for women and a mean of 3.647 for men (see
Fig. 14). We hypothesized that this difference was significant and that women placed
more emphasis on value alignment. The p-value of the mean differences was found to be
.00761, supporting our hypothesis that there is a statistically significant difference
between males and females when it comes to value alignment. Women place more
emphasis on value alignment than do men.
Trustworthiness
The Questionnaire was designed to measure how trusting an individual was. We
hypothesized that there was a difference between males and females when it comes to
their level of trustworthiness. Using our scale-based questions we were able to identify a
mean of 3.145 for women and a mean of 3.039 for men (see Fig. 15). We hypothesized
that this difference was significant and that women were more trusting than men. The p-
value of the mean differences was found to be .27124, supporting the null hypothesis that
there is no statistically significant difference. Men and women have approximately the
same level of trustworthiness.
Volunteer
Organization
Involvement
In the analysis of our results, we wanted to determine if any differences existed
between individuals who were currently involved in volunteer organizations and those
who were not. The particular difference we were interested in was whether or not people
who were involved in volunteer organizations felt a higher sense of social capital. We
20. 20
hypothesized that individuals involved in a volunteer organization would have a higher
sense of social capital, and this difference would be statistically different. To test this
hypothesis we again used group mean differences. From our scale-based questions, we
determined individuals involved in organizations to have a mean of 4.169, in terms of
social capital, and individuals not involved in an organization to have a mean of 3.635
(see Fig. 16). The p-value was found to be 0, supporting our hypothesis. Individuals who
are involved in volunteer organizations have a higher sense of social capital.
21. Results
Qualitative
Results
For
our
qualitative
research,
we
used
a
combination
of
individual
depth
interviews
and
focus
groups.
The
first
step
in
our
qualitative
research
was
personal
interviews.
We
conducted
personal
interviews
because
we
know
the
value
of
information
a
personal
in-‐depth
interview
can
provide
for
our
client.
It
would
have
been
easy
to
skip
this
step
and
conduct
only
a
focus
group,
but
the
information
we
received
only
helped
us
draw
conclusions
on
the
problem
Rotary
is
facing.
Without
any
pressure
from
a
group
setting,
a
participant
will
be
more
likely
to
reveal
their
true
insights
on
the
topic
we
are
discussing
and
not
be
worried
about
the
judgment
they
will
receive
from
their
peers.
In
a
personal
interview
we
were
able
to
spend
more
time
devoted
to
one
participant.
This
allows
us
to
further
explore
their
more
insightful
comments
and
remarks
(McDaniel
&
Gates,
2014,
p.
106).
The
intimacy
a
personal
interview
provides
added
much
benefit
to
our
analysis.
Through
our
use
of
the
personal
interviews,
we
were
able
to
gain
the
trust
of
our
participants.
This
led
the
participants
to
provide
us
with
more
valuable
information
and
to
share
their
deep
thoughts
and
true
feelings.
The
personal
interview
is
crucial
in
gaining
an
in-‐depth
understanding
of
a
person’s
opinions
and
experiences
(Morgan,
1997,
p.
11).
To
complete
our
qualitative
research
we
then
conducted
a
focus
group.
Focus
groups
consist
of
a
small
group
of
participants,
which
are
led
by
a
moderator
and
feature
in-‐depth
discussion
about
a
particular
concept
(McDaniel
&
Gates,
2014,
p.
94).
Just
like
personal
interviews,
focus
groups
can
obtain
participants’
attitudes,
beliefs,
and
feelings;
however,
unlike
personal
interviews,
focus
groups
can
reveal
these
in
a
group
context.
The
social
gathering
and
interaction
may
reveal
different
or
more
complex
responses
than
individual
interviews
(Gibbs,
1997).
For
Rotary,
22. 22
we
wanted
to
research
people’s
thoughts
and
feelings
about
community.
The
group
context
helped
to
increase
the
social
interaction
of
the
individuals
in
our
focus
group
leading
the
individuals
to
build
off
each
other
and
reveal
more
complex
and
diverse
insights.
Conducting
focus
groups
is
key
to
successful
research.
Focus
groups
are
key
because
they
create
a
group
dynamic
that
allows
us
to
add
additional
insights
for
Rotary.
First,
the
group
dynamic
encourages
new
ideas
and
thoughts
to
be
brought
up
because
of
something
one
respondent
heard
from
another.
This
will
allow
us
to
dig
even
deeper
when
it
comes
to
the
participants’
attitudes,
beliefs,
and
feelings
by
asking
follow
up
questions
based
on
what
the
respondents
say.
The
group
dynamic
will
also
add
social
pressure
to
the
situation.
This
pressure
can
force
participants
to
have
more
realistic
ideas
and
responses.
The
energy
among
the
participants
and
their
interactions
will
also
give
us
a
better
insight
as
to
their
thoughts
and
feelings
(McDaniel
&
Gates,
2014,
p.
194).
While
it
can't
be
argued
that
focus
groups
provide
immense
value
to
the
qualitative
research
process,
it
is
important
to
mention
that
the
most
beneficial
feature
of
focus
groups
is,
the
direct,
open-‐response
interaction
among
participants
and
between
the
moderator
and
participants.
This
enables
focus
groups
to
bring
out
a
variety
of
responses
as
well
as
allows
for
clarification,
probing,
and
connections
among
points
made.
This
insight
will
lead
to
deeper
levels
of
meaning
in
the
responses
of
the
individuals
in
the
focus
group
(Litosseliti,
203,
p.
16).
For
our
individual
depth
interviews
we
were
able
to
separate
the
results
based
on
each
individuals.
For
our
focus
groups
we
were
able
to
compile
all
of
our
findings
from
their
conversations
and
draw
a
separate
result.
Both
the
individual
interviews
and
focus
group
results
are
as
follows:
Individual
Depth
Interview-‐
Jake
While
I
was
interviewing
Jake
we
talked
about
how
his
peers
in
high
school
drove
him
to
be
part
of
so
many
clubs
and
organizations.
The
members
are
the
most
important
aspect
of
an
organization
and
because
of
the
lack
of
commitment
to
an
unknown
organization
and
also
being
poorly
advertised
he
feels
it’s
unnecessary
to
join.
Now,
in
college
he
said
that
he
has
no
interest
in
joining
any
kind
of
club
except
23. 23
for
the
club
of
his
major
because
none
of
his
friends
and
him
have
time
for
organizations.
I
also
think
it
may
have
to
do
with
his
major,
because
it
is
such
an
intense
program
his
career
path
requires
strictly
on
what
you
know
and
how
well
you
know
the
human
body.
Maybe
out
of
college
he
could
decide
to
join
a
nonprofit
that
is
geared
towards
his
passions,
which
is
helping
people
heal.
Individual
Depth
Interview-‐
Don
I
believe
it
was
crucial
that
I
interviewed
Don
because
of
his
age.
Rotary
is
currently
looking
for
new
college
age
adults
to
join
their
group
to
offset
the
current
dynamic
of
the
club,
which
is
made
up
of
mostly
elderly
gentlemen.
While
Don
fits
the
age
of
the
current
club
members
it
is
important
to
know
how
he
defines
community
compared
to
the
younger
generations
in
order
for
us
to
provide
more
valuable
insights
on
what
Rotary
should
change
in
order
to
attract
their
new
group
members.
Don
has
never
been
a
part
of
a
nonprofit
organization
and
defines
community
in
the
sense
of
a
living
community,
like
Heritage
Hills
where
he
lives.
He
believes
community
is
important
and
civic
engagement
is
crucial
for
society
to
function
properly.
Individual
Depth
Interview-‐
Rachael
From
my
individual
depth
interview
with
Rachael,
I
found
that
community
can
play
a
big
part
in
people’s
lives.
She
felt
that
community
is
felt
when
people
are
coming
together
to
help
one
another.
Taking
care
of
each
other
was
something
that
was
brought
up
a
lot
when
referring
to
community.
She
also
felt
that
being
proud
of
your
community
and
appreciating
the
members
of
a
community
was
very
important.
The
fact
that
she
is
proud
of
the
community
she
belongs
to
may
be
why
she
is
so
ready
to
participate.
She
also
brought
up
the
fact
that
she
enjoys
making
a
difference
in
someone’s
life,
and
adds
to
her
sense
of
civic
engagement.
24. 24
Focus
Group
Output
In
our
focus
group
research
we
found
that
peer
involvement
is
the
leading
element
for
why
people
join
clubs.
Knowing
the
people
you’re
going
to
be
interacting
with
in
a
club
or
organization
is
a
really
important
deciding
factor
for
prospective
members.
It’s
hard
to
find
someone
who
would
blindly
go
and
join
a
club
when
they
have
no
knowledge
of
who
is
in
it.
There
was
additional
insight
provided
by
the
focus
groups
that
gave
us
a
clearer
picture
on
the
issue
of
social
capital.
We
found
that
many
participants,
being
college
students,
were
actively
involved
in
clubs.
When
asked
why
they
were
involved
in
clubs,
many
responded
that
it
provided
a
way
to
network
with
others,
especially
those
with
similar
interests.
It
was
interesting
to
note
that
many
of
these
respondents
agreed
that
they
were
previously
involved
in
more
organizations
in
high
school;
however
as
time
went
out
they
struggled
with
time
management
and
opportunities.
The
focus
group
participants
also
provided
us
with
insight
on
the
idea
of
community.
Some
respondents
claimed
that
community
is
a
difficult
construct
to
build.
They
agreed
that
a
community
is
a
group
of
people
who
will
come
together
and
unites
over
a
common
interest.
They
also
responded
that
a
community
comes
together
for
a
common
good
or
to
make
a
change.
From
the
combination
of
individual
depth
interviews
and
the
focus
group,
we
were
able
to
develop
an
empirical
model
that
can
help
explain
social
capital.
We
discovered
that
there
were
four
factors
contributing
to
social
capital.
These
factors
were
visibility
of
results,
quality
of
communication,
value
alignment,
and
trust.
Also,
from
this
research,
we
were
able
to
hypothesize
that
the
construct
of
social
capital
will
lead
to
commitment
within
an
organization.
Statistical
Results
The
results
from
the
statistical
analysis
of
our
questionnaire
data
helped
to
support
and
explain
our
empirical
model.
The
original
model
suggested
that
four
factors
(visibility
of
results,
quality
of
communication,
value
alignment,
and
trust)
25. 25
contribute
to
social
capital,
and
that
in
turn,
social
capital
will
lead
to
higher
commitment
within
an
organization.
We
were
able
to
successfully
confirm
all
of
our
hypothesis
concerning
the
empirical
model.
Visibility
of
results,
quality
of
communication,
value
alignment,
and
trust
were
all
found
to
be
factors
that
did
in
fact
lead
to
social
capital.
As
an
application
to
Rotary
Club
of
Erie,
it
was
found
that
the
increased
social
capital
would
lead
to
increase
commitment
within
their
organization.
The
most
important
factor
leading
to
social
capital,
was
overwhelming
determined
to
be
the
visibility
of
the
results.
Statistical
analysis
showed
41.49%
of
the
variability
in
social
capital
can
be
explained
by
variation
in
visibility
of
results.
Members
do
not
only
want
results
from
the
organization,
they
also
want
these
results
to
be
visible
by
others
in
the
community.
An
organization
that
actively
promotes
the
results
that
they
achieve
will
see
an
increase
in
their
social
capital.
The
next
factor,
by
level
of
importance,
was
trust.
Statistical
analysis
showed
30.08%
of
the
variability
in
social
capital
can
be
explained
by
the
variation
in
trust.
The
more
trust
that
an
individual
feels
from
an
organization
and
within
the
group,
the
higher
the
social
capital.
This
correlates
directly
with
results
from
individual
depth
interviews
and
focus
groups,
as
respondents
indicated
that
they
search
for
groups
where
they
will
find
trust
and
be
comfortable.
The
quality
of
the
organization's
communication
also
was
found
to
be
a
significant
factor
in
determining
social
capital.
Statistical
analysis
showed
26.17%
of
the
variability
in
social
capital
can
be
explained
by
variation
in
perceived
quality
of
the
organization’s
communication.
In
today’s
technology
driven
world,
constant
communication
is
crucial
in
keeping
an
organization
worthwhile.
Increased
use
of
social
media
to
stay
in
constant
communication
with
members
will
lead
to
an
increase
in
social
capital
of
the
organization.
Perceived
value
alignment
with
the
organization
had
the
least
effect
on
social
capital;
however,
this
factor
was
still
significant.
Statistical
analysis
showed
12.61%
of
the
variability
in
social
capital
can
be
explained
by
variation
in
perceived
value
alignment.
Value
alignment
alone
will
not
be
able
to
increase
social
capital
and
26. 26
persuade
individuals
to
join
an
organization.
While
value
alignment
should
still
be
taken
into
account,
it
should
not
be
depended
on
heavily.
In
terms
of
gender,
some
interesting
findings
were
uncovered.
It
was
shown
that
women
have
a
higher
tendency
to
commit
than
men.
In
acquisition
of
new
members,
it
may
be
beneficial
to
market
the
organization
towards
women,
as
they
will
be
more
likely
to
commit
and
retain
membership
status.
In
all
factors
contributing
to
social
capital
(visibility
of
results,
communication
quality,
value
alignment,
and
trust)
women
were
shown
to
be
more
receptive
to
these
messages,
and
more
likely
to
experience
an
increased
level
of
social
capital.
As
marketing
is
done
for
the
Rotary
Club
of
Erie,
special
attention
will
need
to
be
paid
to
women.
The
difference
between
respondents
who
were
active
in
volunteer
organizations
and
those
were
not
also
provided
valuable
insight.
Through
statistical
analysis,
it
was
shown
that
those
who
actively
participate
in
volunteer
organization
have
an
increased
sense
of
social
capital.
This
aligns
with
our
research
that
the
Rotary
Club
of
Erie
should
be
working
to
increase
their
social
capital.
As
marketing
is
conducted
in
the
future
for
new
member
acquisition,
special
attention
should
be
paid
to
those
who
have
already
previously
participated
in
volunteer
organizations.
27. Conclusions
Going
forward,
this
research
should
be
incorporated
into
all
marketing
efforts
on
the
part
of
the
Rotary
Club
of
Erie.
As
they
craft
their
marketing
strategies
and
messages,
the
concept
of
social
capital
should
be
considered
very
carefully
as
well
as
the
four
factors
contributing
to
it.
As
our
research
found
that
the
visibility
of
results
is
the
most
significant
factor
in
contributing
to
social
capital,
this
should
be
a
large
focus
of
the
Rotary
Club
of
Erie’s
plans.
As
the
organization
is
already
working
on
many
projects
and
achieving
results
within
the
community
and
around
the
world,
they
should
focus
their
attention
on
making
these
results
visible.
The
Club’s
website
should
prominently
feature
projects
recently
completed.
If
anyone
is
exploring
their
website
and
interested
in
becoming
a
member,
visible
results
on
the
homepage
will
have
the
highest
impact
on
perceived
social
capital
of
the
organization.
Social
media
should
also
be
used
to
communicate
these
results.
Due
to
the
“sharing”
nature
of
social
media,
results
will
be
able
to
reach
a
wide
audience
in
a
relatively
short
period
of
time.
As
the
Rotary
Club
of
Erie
shares
the
results
of
projects
on
their
official
social
media
accounts,
their
members
can
then
share
these
posts
and
allow
them
to
reach
an
even
wider
audience.
The
importance
of
legacy
media,
such
as
newspaper,
radio,
and
news
broadcast,
should
not
be
overlooked.
A
large
percentage
of
the
adult
population
still
depends
on
these
resources
for
information,
and
the
visibility
of
the
Rotary
Club
of
Erie’s
results
will
increase
social
capital
among
these
media
consumers.
The
Rotary
Club
of
Erie
must
also
work
to
increase
trust
within
their
organization
as
this
will
lead
to
an
increase
in
their
social
capital.
To
accomplish
this,
Rotary
must
work
to
build
a
community
within
their
organization.
Dialogue
and
communication
should
be
encouraged
among
all
members
within
the
organization,
especially
to
newer
members
to
welcome
them
into
the
community.
Strong
values
should
also
be
set
and
put
into
practice.
This
is
something
Rotary
already
has
with
the
4-‐Way
Test,
and
should
be
continued
to
be
promoted
within
the
organization.
28. 28
Rotary
should
be
cautious
of
not
focusing
on
hierarchy,
but
instead
focusing
on
the
community.
By
rewarding
and
recognizing
individuals
at
all
levels
within
the
organization,
increased
trust
and
community
will
develop.
To
address
the
issue
of
communication
quality,
the
Rotary
Club
of
Erie
must
develop
a
social
media
strategy.
By
implementing
social
media,
Rotary
will
be
able
remain
in
constant
contact
with
its
members.
Facebook,
the
most
widely
used
social
media
platform,
should
be
used
as
the
base
for
the
social
media
strategy.
Facebook
will
allow
for
Rotary
members
to
have
constant
communication
with
the
organization
and
its
members
through
the
official
Facebook
group.
This
contact
can
also
help
to
build
trust
and
community
within
the
organization.
Additionally,
this
will
provide
a
way
for
members
to
communicate
the
results
of
projects
completed
for
Rotary,
increasing
visibility
in
the
community.
As
Rotary’s
Facebook
begins
to
gain
momentum,
other
social
media
platforms
can
be
explored,
such
as
Twitter
or
Instagram.
Twitter
will
allow
for
quick
updates
on
the
organization
as
well
as
even
faster
communication
back
and
forth.
Instagram,
a
visually
based
platform,
would
work
well
for
communicating
results
of
projects
and
increasing
visibility.
Due
to
the
professional
nature
of
the
Rotary
Club
of
Erie,
LinkedIn
should
also
be
used
as
a
way
to
connect
members,
many
of
whom
may
already
be
using
the
professional
networking
site.
It
is
understandable
that
many
current
Rotary
members
are
not
social
media
savvy.
This
provides
an
opportunity
for
teaching
and
training
on
the
benefits
of
social
media
and
how
to
properly
use
these
platforms.
As
the
study
of
social
media
increases
within
universities
and
the
professional
world,
many
“social
media
experts”
are
emerging,
many
of
whom
would
make
excellent
guest
speakers
for
a
Rotary
meeting.
Value
alignment
presents
a
challenging
issue
for
Rotary.
This
factor
was
determined
to
be
a
contributor
to
social
capital;
however,
its
effect
was
not
as
strong
as
the
other
three
factors.
Currently,
Rotary
promotes
its
4-‐Way
Test
and
emphasis
on
ethics,
and
rightfully
so.
While
the
focus
on
ethics
and
value
alignment
should
still
remain
at
the
core
of
Rotary,
it
will
not
be
the
most
beneficial
way
or
marketing
the
organization
to
potential
members.
Instead
of
revolving
a
marketing
29. 29
campaign
around
ethics
and
value
alignment,
Rotary
should
instead
focus
on
visibility,
trust,
and
communication.
The
values
and
ethics
of
Rotary
are
implied.
Potential
members
will
already
assume
that
the
organization
has
high
moral
and
ethical
standards.
They
will
be
looking
for
the
results
of
the
organization’s
efforts
as
well
as
the
trust
and
communication
within
the
organization.
The
gender
differences
revealed
in
our
research
should
not
be
overlooked
by
the
Rotary
Club
of
Erie.
As
Rotary
focuses
on
not
only
acquiring
new
members,
but
also
retaining
them,
they
will
to
be
assured
they
are
seeking
committed
individuals.
As
shown
by
the
statistical
analysis,
women
are
more
likely
to
commit
to
an
organization
than
men.
In
this
sense,
Rotary
must
focus
on
marketing
themselves
to
women,
especially
given
their
male-‐dominated
background.
Marketing
efforts
geared
towards
women
will
result
in
higher
commitment
rates,
and
as
the
old
saying
goes,
“get
women
in
the
door
and
men
will
follow”.
Finally,
our
analysis
of
individuals
currently
involved
with
volunteer
organizations
compared
to
those
not
involved
led
to
valuable
insight.
The
individuals
who
involve
themselves
with
volunteer
organizations
have
an
increased
appreciation
of
social
capital.
As
Rotary
looks
for
new
members,
it
should
consider
those
are
currently
active
in
organizations
or
who
were
previously
active.
This
can
be
done
through
programs
through
high
schools
and
college
campuses.
In
addition
to
running
these
programs,
the
Rotary
Club
of
Erie
should
remain
in
contact
with
individuals
involved
in
their
high
school
and
college
programs
as
a
way
of
extending
an
invitation
to
join
the
Erie
chapter
when
they
begin
their
professional
lives.
30. Limitations
While
all
research
was
conducted
carefully,
there
were
some
limitations
that
may
have
an
effect
on
the
outcome
of
the
results.
We
were
faced
with
time
limits
when
conducting
all
aspects
of
the
research.
Due
to
the
research
assignment
being
part
of
the
curriculum
for
a
university
course,
all
research
had
to
be
conducted
within
the
confines
of
the
semester.
The
time
constraint
to
complete
the
research
led
to
other
issues,
mainly
concerning
the
quality
of
the
sample.
The
statistical
findings
were
analyzed
from
only
one
sample.
While
more
samples
would
have
provided
a
more
accurate
analysis
of
the
population,
the
time
constraints
made
this
impossible.
The
questionnaire
was
administered
only
online.
All
traditional
forms
of
survey
were
ignored.
Other
methods
would
have
provided
additional
insight
and
a
larger
sample;
however,
the
online
method
was
used
due
to
time
constraints
and
budget
purposes.
The
sample
chosen
for
the
questionnaire
was
a
convenience
sample.
This
was
used
instead
of
a
probability
sample,
again
due
to
time
and
budget
constraints.
The
sample
was
comprised
of
people
who
were
easy
accessible
and
chosen
due
to
convenience;
however,
this
does
not
mean
the
sample
is
of
poor
quality.
In
our
research
we
did
not
disclose
the
name
of
the
Rotary
Club
of
Erie
to
avoid
any
bias.
We
were
still
able
to
extract
insight
from
our
sample
in
an
efficient
and
effective
manner.
Convenience
sampling
can
be
valuable
in
an
exploratory
situation
where
we
need
an
inexpensive
approximation
of
the
true
value.
Due
to
the
nature
of
this
research
being
conducted
in
a
university
setting,
the
sample
was
taken
from
a
relatively
small
geographic
area.
The
majority
of
respondents
from
the
questionnaire
are
from
Erie
or
the
surrounding
areas.
This
may
prove
beneficial
to
the
Rotary
Club
of
Erie,
as
they
are
targeting
potential
members
in
the
Erie
area.
Any
use
of
this
research
for
non-‐profit
organizations
in
other
geographic
areas
should
be
done
with
caution.
31. References
Fidelman,
M.
(2012,
January
1).
Here's
Why
TED
and
TEDx
are
So
Incredibly
Appealing
(infographic).
Retrieved
February
12,
2015.
Gibbs,
A.
(1997,
January
1).
Social
Research
Update
19:
Focus
Groups.
Retrieved
March
24,
2015.
History
of
TED
|
Our
Organization
|
About
|
TED.
(2015,
January
1).
Retrieved
February
14,
2015.
Isham,
J.,
Kolodinsky,
J.,
&
Kimberly,
G.
(2004,
January
1).
Effects
of
Volunteering
for
Nonprofit
Organizations
on
Social
Capital
Formation:
Evidence
from
a
Statewide
Survey.
Retrieved
February
12,
2015.
King,
N.
(2004,
May
24).
Nonprofit
Management
and
Leadership
Volume
14,
Issue
4,
Article
first
published
online:
24
MAY
2004.
Retrieved
February
12,
2015.
Litosseliti,
L.
(2003).
Using
focus
groups
in
research.
London:
Continuum.
McDaniel,
C.,
&
Gates,
R.
(2014).
Marketing
research
(10th
ed.).
John
Wiley.
Morgan,
D.
(1997).
Focus
groups
as
qualitative
research
(2nd
ed.).
Thousand
Oaks,
Calif.:
Sage
Publications.
Portes,
A.
(2000,
January
1).
Social
Capital:
Its
Origins
and
Applications
in
Modern
Sociology.
Retrieved
February
12,
2015.
Przybysz,
J.
(2008,
September
25).
Social
Capital
in
Nonprofit
Organizations.
Retrieved
February
12,
2015.
Putnam,
R.
(1995,
January
1).
Bowling
Alone:
America's
Declining
Social
Capital.
Retrieved
February
12,
2015.
Saxton,
G.,
&
Benson,
M.
(2005,
February
2).
Social
Capital
and
the
Growth
of
the
Nonprofit
Sector*.
Retrieved
February
12,
2015.
Woods,
T.
(1996,
January
1).
Untapped
Potential:
Fostering
Organizational
Social
Capital
in
the
Nonprofit
and
Voluntary
Sector.
Retrieved
February
12,
2015.
32. Appendix
Fig.
1:
Empirical
Model
Fig.
2:
IDI
&
Focus
Group
Questions
1. Please tell me a little bit about yourself (age, country of origin, profession
& occupation, marital status)
2. What do you do in your spare time? What keeps you busy other than work
(study)?
3. How do you define community? What does it mean to you?
4. Do you belong to a community? What may be the reason?
5. What do you think about civic engagement e.g., Importance? (Please define
what civic engagement is to your respondent before s/he responds - civic
engagement is the community coming together to be a collective source of
change. It is a means of working together to make a difference in the civil life of
our communities and developing the combination of skills, knowledge, values and
motivation in order to make that difference)
6. Do you participate in civic engagement in the form of clubs (e.g., student
clubs, book clubs, sports team), fraternity, sorority, business network
33. 33
organizations, voluntary associations, student organizations, cause related non-
profit organizations? Why? What attracts/ does not attract you to it?
7. How do you feel being part (not being part) of a community and be engaged
(not being engaged in) civic engagement?
Fig.
3
A
STUDY
TO
DETERMINE
THE
FACTORS
THAT
LEAD
TO
SOCIAL
CAPITAL
This survey is designed to understand and explore the factors that lead to the concept
called social capital. Social capital is defined as the goodwill that is engendered by the
fabric of social relations that can be mobilized to facilitate action. It has informed many
studies such as youth education, public health, community life, economic development
and general problems of collective action. This study attempts to understand the concept
of social capital in the context of voluntary non-profit associations.
We would like your opinions to help us determine which factors lead to the high social
capital, especially in the context of voluntary non-profit organizations. This survey will
take five to seven minutes to complete. Your responses will be strictly confidential. We
will be using the aggregate findings to drive the results.
We thank you for your cooperation…
Please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with each of the following
statements by circling the number that best represents your choice.
I feel I am part of a community
when I join a voluntary organization 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I am interested in what goes on
in my community 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I would be willing to contribute
money to my community 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Interacting with people in my community
makes me want to try new things 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Interacting with people in my community
makes me feel like a part of something
that is bigger than me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I am willing to spend time to support
general activities in my community 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Interacting with people at my community
reminds me that everyone in the world
34. 34
is connected 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
In my relationships in general, it is important for me that other side
…. is honest 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
…. can be counted on what is right 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
…. is faithful 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
…. has integrity 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
…. is reliable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
…. is trustworthy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
…. is someone that I have
confidence in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I view my relationships in general as something
…. to be committed to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
…. that is important to me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
…. of significance 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
…. that I intend to maintain 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
…. that I really care about 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
…. that deserves my effort to
maintain 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
In my relationships in general, it is important for me that
… my personal values are a good fit 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
those of the other side
… the other side has the same values 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
as I have with regard to fairness
… my values and the values held 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
by the other side are similar.
35. 35
In my relationships in general, it is important for me that the other side and I
… keep each other informed of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
new development and updates
… communicate well with each other 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
in terms of our expectations
It is important to me that
… the result of our work in my community 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
will be visible to others
… what we do in our community matters 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
… the result of our work in my community 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
changes things in the positive direction
I think that
… most people would try to take advantage 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
of other people if they get a chance
… most people try to be fair 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
To complete this study we would like to know a little bit more about you.
How old are you?
18-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 55+
What is your educational degree? …………………………………….
What is your marital status? ……………………………………
Do you currently work? Yes No
If yes, what do you do? ……………………………………
Are you currently part of any voluntary association? Yes No
If yes, which association are you part of? And, why?
Thanks for your sincere insights to make this project a success…
36. 36
Fig.
4:
Trust
Predicting
Social
Capital
Regression Statistics
R 0.55219
R Square 0.30491
Adjusted R Square 0.30075
S 0.63329
Total number of
observations 169
ANOVA
d.f. SS MS F p-level
Regression 1. 29.38014 29.38014 73.25725 7.10543E-15
Residual 167. 66.97609 0.40105
Total 168. 96.35624
Coefficients
Standard
Error t Stat p-level
H0 (5%)
rejected?
Intercept 2.74 0.33703 2.88019 0.0045 Yes
y
=
0.496x
+
2.7429
R²
=
0.30
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Social
Capital
Trust
Trust
Predicting
Social
Capital
37. 37
Fig.
5:
Value
Alignment
Predicting
Social
Capital
Regression Statistics
R 0.36228
R Square 0.13125
Adjusted R Square 0.12605
S 0.70799
Total number of
observations 169
ANOVA
d.f. SS MS F p-level
Regression 1. 12.64654 12.64654 25.22972 0.
Residual 167. 83.7097 0.50126
Total 168. 96.35624
Coefficients
Standard
Error t Stat p-level
H0 (5%)
rejected?
Intercept 2.42 0.26948 9.27467 1.11022E-16 Yes
y
=
0.3877x
+
2.4216
R²
=
0.13235
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Social
Capital
Value
alignment
Value
Alignment
predicting
Social
Capital
38. 38
Fig.
6:
Communication
Quality
Predicting
Social
Capital
Regression Statistics
R 0.51585
R Square 0.2661
Adjusted R Square 0.26171
S 0.65073
Total number of
observations 169
ANOVA
d.f. SS MS F p-level
Regression 1. 25.64037 25.64037 60.55136 7.09988E-13
Residual 167. 70.71587 0.42345
Total 168. 96.35624
Coefficients
Standard
Error t Stat p-level H0 (5%) rejected?
Intercept 2.294 0.28177 5.91741 0. Yes
y
=
0.5239x
+
2.2942
R²
=
0.25849
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Social
Capital
Communication
Quality
Communication
Quality
predicting
Social
Capital
39. 39
Fig.
7:
Visibility
Predicting
Social
Capital
Regression Statistics
R 0.64684
R Square 0.4184
Adjusted R Square 0.41492
S 0.57929
Total number of
observations 169
ANOVA
d.f. SS MS F p-level
Regression 1. 40.31563 40.31563 120.13987 0.E+0
Residual 167. 56.0406 0.33557
Total 168. 96.35624
Coefficients
Standard
Error t Stat p-level
H0 (5%)
rejected?
Intercept 1.5858 0.25067 4.47281 0.00001 Yes
y
=
0.6106x
+
1.5858
R²
=
0.42037
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Social
Capital
Visibility
of
project
Visibility
predicting
Social
Capital
40. 40
Fig.
8:
Social
Capital
Predicting
Commitment
Regression Statistics
R 0.54992
R Square 0.30242
Adjusted R Square 0.29824
S 0.60005
Total number of
observations 169
ANOVA
d.f. SS MS F p-level
Regression 1. 26.06777 26.06777 72.39787 9.65894E-15
Residual 167. 60.13046 0.36006
Total 168. 86.19822
Coefficients
Standard
Error t Stat p-level H0 (5%) rejected?
Intercept 2.5412 0.23833 10.62457 0.E+0 Yes
y
=
0.517x
+
2.5412
R²
=
0.2998
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Commitment
Social
Capital
Social
Capital
predicting
Commitment
41. 41
Fig.
9:
Gender
Differences-‐
Trust
TRUST
Comparing Means [ t-test assuming equal variances (homoscedastic) ]
Descriptive Statistics
VAR
Sample
size Mean Variance
116 4.72537 0.34043
51 4.46218 0.71313
Summary
Degrees Of
Freedom 165
Hypothesized Mean
Difference 0.E+0
Test Statistics 2.32644 Pooled Variance 0.45337
Two-tailed distribution
p-level 0.02121 t Critical Value (5%) 1.97445
One-tailed distribution
p-level 0.01061 t Critical Value (5%) 1.65414
Fig.
10:
Gender
Differences-‐
Commitment
COMMITMENT
Comparing Means [ t-test assuming equal variances (homoscedastic) ]
Descriptive Statistics
VAR
Sample
size Mean Variance
116 4.62356 0.42131
51 4.30392 0.67745
Summary
Degrees Of
Freedom 165
Hypothesized Mean
Difference 0.E+0
Test Statistics 2.69339 Pooled Variance 0.49893
Two-tailed distribution
p-level 0.0078 t Critical Value (5%) 1.97445
One-tailed distribution
p-level 0.0039 t Critical Value (5%) 1.65414
42. 42
Fig.
11:
Gender
Differences-‐
Communication
Quality
COMMUNICATION QUALITY
Comparing Means [ t-test assuming equal variances (homoscedastic) ]
Descriptive Statistics
VAR
Sample
size Mean Variance
51 4.08824 0.81706
116 4.39655 0.4979
Summary
Degrees Of
Freedom 165
Hypothesized Mean
Difference 0.E+0
Test Statistics 2.37977 Pooled Variance 0.59462
Two-tailed distribution
p-level 0.01847 t Critical Value (5%) 1.97445
One-tailed distribution
p-level 0.00923 t Critical Value (5%) 1.65414
Fig.
12:
Gender
Differences-‐
Social
Capital
SOCIAL CAPITAL
Comparing Means [ t-test assuming equal variances (homoscedastic) ]
Descriptive Statistics
VAR
Sample
size Mean Variance
51 3.64986 0.69005
116 3.90271 0.51734
Summary
Degrees Of
Freedom 165
Hypothesized Mean
Difference 0.E+0
Test Statistics 1.9939 Pooled Variance 0.56968
Two-tailed distribution
p-level 0.04781 t Critical Value (5%) 1.97445
One-tailed distribution
p-level 0.02391 t Critical Value (5%) 1.65414
43. 43
Fig.
13:
Gender
Differences-‐
Visibility
VISIBILITY
Comparing Means [ t-test assuming equal variances (homoscedastic) ]
Descriptive Statistics
VAR
Sample
size Mean Variance
116 3.97989 0.47206
51 3.73856 0.53028
Summary
Degrees Of
Freedom 165
Hypothesized Mean
Difference 0.E+0
Test Statistics 2.05253 Pooled Variance 0.4897
Two-tailed distribution
p-level 0.0417 t Critical Value (5%) 1.97445
One-tailed distribution
p-level 0.02085 t Critical Value (5%) 1.65414
Fig.
14:
Gender
Differences-‐
Value
Alignment
VALUE ALIGNMENT
Comparing Means [ t-test assuming equal variances (homoscedastic) ]
Descriptive Statistics
VAR
Sample
size Mean Variance
116 4.00862 0.55162
51 3.64706 0.82405
Summary
Degrees Of
Freedom 165
Hypothesized Mean
Difference 0.E+0
Test Statistics 2.70231 Pooled Variance 0.63417
Two-tailed distribution
p-level 0.00761 t Critical Value (5%) 1.97445
One-tailed distribution
p-level 0.0038 t Critical Value (5%) 1.65414
44. 44
Fig.
15:
Gender
Differences-‐
Trustworthiness
TRUSTWORTHINESS
Comparing Means [ t-test assuming equal variances (homoscedastic) ]
Descriptive Statistics
VAR
Sample
size Mean Variance
51 3.03922 0.30843
117 3.1453 0.33646
Summary
Degrees Of
Freedom 166
Hypothesized Mean
Difference 0.E+0
Test Statistics 1.10388 Pooled Variance 0.32802
Two-tailed distribution
p-level 0.27124 t Critical Value (5%) 1.97436
One-tailed distribution
p-level 0.13562 t Critical Value (5%) 1.65408
Fig.
16:
Volunteer
Org.
Participation
Predicting
Social
Capital
SOCIAL CAPITAL
Comparing Means [ t-test assuming equal variances (homoscedastic) ]
Descriptive Statistics
VAR
Sample
size Mean Variance
NO 97 3.63476 0.50977
YES 70 4.16939 0.2847
Summary
Degrees Of
Freedom 165
Hypothesized Mean
Difference 0.E+0
Test Statistics 5.2877 Pooled Variance 0.41565
Two-tailed distribution
p-level 0. t Critical Value (5%) 1.97445
One-tailed distribution
p-level 0. t Critical Value (5%) 1.65414
