What kind of research design is being used? Is it a
good choice?
2. Do you think it was ethical for the researchers not
to disclose the identity of the sponsoring organization?
Do you think it was ethical for the boards of
directors to release the names of their members in
return for a report that analyzes their members’ perceptions
toward their own club?
3. Overall, how does Chestnut Ridge compare to the
other three country clubs (Alden, Chalet, and
Lancaster)?
4. In what areas might Chestnut Ridge consider making
improvements to attract additional members?
The Chestnut Ridge Country Club has long maintained
a distinguished reputation as one of the outstanding
country clubs in the Elma, Tennessee, area. The club’s
golf facilities are said by some to be the finest in the
state, and its dining and banquet facilities are highly
regarded as well. This reputation is due in part to the
commitment by the board of directors of Chestnut
Ridge to offer the finest facilities of any club in the area.
For example, several negative comments by club members
regarding the dining facilities prompted the board
to survey members to get their feelings and perceptions
of the dining facilities and food offerings at the club.
Based on the survey findings, the board of directors
established a quality control committee to oversee the
dining room, and a new club manager was hired.
Most recently, the board became concerned about the
number of people seeking membership to Chestnut
Ridge. Although no records are kept on the number of
membership applications received each year, the board
sensed that this figure was declining. They also believed
that membership applications at the three competing
country clubs in the area—namely, Alden, Chalet, and
Lancaster—were not experiencing similar declines.
Because Chestnut Ridge had other facilities, such as tennis
courts and a pool, that were comparable to the facilities at
these other clubs, the board was perplexed as to why membership
applications would be falling at Chestnut Ridge.
To gain insight into the matter, the board of directors
hired an outside research firm to conduct a study of
the country clubs in Elma, Tennessee. The goals of the
research were (1) to outline areas in which Chestnut
Ridge fared poorly in relation to other clubs in the area;
(2) to determine people’s overall perception of Chestnut
Ridge; and (3) to provide recommendations for ways to
increase membership applications at the club.
Research Method
The researchers met with the board of directors and key
personnel at Chestnut Ridge to gain a better understanding
of the goals of the research and the types of services
and facilities offered at a country club. A literature search
of published research relating to country clubs uncovered
no studies. Based solely on their contact with individuals
at Chestnut Ridge, therefore, the research team
developed the survey contained in Exhibit 1. Because
personal information regarding demographics and
attitudes would be asked of those contacted, the
researchers decided to use a mail questionnaire.
The researchers thought it would be useful to survey
members from Alden, Chalet, and Lancaster country
clubs in addition to those from Chestnut Ridge for two
reasons: (1) Members of these other clubs would be
knowledgeable about the levels and types of services and
facilities desired from a country club and (2) They had at
one time represented potential members of Chestnut
Ridge. Hence, their perceptions of Chestnut Ridge
might reveal why they chose to belong to a different
country club.
No public documents were available that contained a
listing of each club’s members. Consequently, the
researchers decided to contact each of the clubs personally
to try to obtain a mailing list. Identifying themselves
as being affiliated with an independent research firm
conducting a study on country clubs in the Elma area,
the researchers first spoke to the chairman of the board
at Alden Country Club. The researchers told the chairman
that they could not reveal the organization sponsoring
the study but that the results of their study would
not be made public. The chairman was not willing to
provide the researchers with the mailing list. The chairman
cited an obligation to respect the privacy of the
club’s members as his primary reason for turning down
the research team’s request.
The researchers then made the following proposal to
the board chairman: In return for the mailing list, the
researchers would provide the chairman a report on
Alden members’ perceptions of Alden Country Club. In
addition, the mailing list would be destroyed as soon as
the surveys were sent. The proposal seemed to please
the chairman, for he agreed to give the researchers a listing
of the members and their addresses in exchange for
the report. The researchers told the chairman they had
to check with their sponsoring organization for approval
of this arrangement.
The research team made similar proposals to the
chairmen of the boards of directors of both the Chalet
and Lancaster country clubs. In return for a mailing list
of the club’s members, they promised each chairman a
report outlining their members’ perceptions of their
clubs, contingent on approval from the research team’s
sponsoring organization. Both chairmen agreed to supply
the requested list of members. The researchers subsequently
met with the Chestnut Ridge board of
directors. In their meeting, the researchers outlined the
situation and asked for the board’s approval to provide
each of the clubs with a report in return for the mailing
lists. The researchers emphasized that the report would
contain no information regarding Chestnut Ridge nor
information by which each of the other clubs could compare
itself to any of the other clubs in the area, in contrast
to the information to be provided to the Chestnut
Ridge board of directors. The report would only contain
a small portion of the overall study’s results. After carefully
considering the research team’s arguments, the
board of directors agreed to the proposal.
Membership Surveys
A review of the lists subsequently provided by each club
showed that Alden had 114 members, Chalet had 98
members, and Lancaster had 132 members. The
researchers believed that 69 to 70 responses from each
membership group would be adequate. Anticipating a 70
to 75% response rate because of the unusually high
involvement and familiarity of each group with the subject
matter, the research team decided to mail 85 to 90
surveys to each group; a simple random sample of members
was chosen from each list. In all, 87 members from
each country club were mailed a questionnaire (348 surveys
in total). Sixty-three usable surveys were returned
from each group (252 in total) for a response rate of 72%.
Summary results of the survey are presented in the
exhibits. Exhibit 2 gives members’ overall ratings of the
country clubs, and Exhibit 3 shows their ratings of the
various clubs on an array of dimensions. Exhibit 4 is a
breakdown of attitudes toward Chestnut Ridge by the
three different membership groups: Alden, Chalet, and
Lancaster. The data are average ratings of respondents.
Exhibit 2 scores are based on a five-point scale, where
‘‘1’’ is poor and ‘‘5’’ is excellent. The last two are based
on seven-point scales in which ‘‘1’’ represents an
extremely negative rating and ‘‘7’’ an extremely positive
rating.
Questions
1. What kind of research design is being used? Is it a
good choice?
2. Do you think it was ethical for the researchers not
to disclose the identity of the sponsoring organization?
Do you think it was ethical for the boards of
directors to release the names of their members in
return for a report that analyzes their members’ perceptions
toward their own club?
3. Overall, how does Chestnut Ridge compare to the
other three country clubs (Alden, Chalet, and
Lancaster)?
4. In what areas might Chestnut Ridge consider making
improvements to attract additional members?
