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?