1989 Annual Meeting: Salt Lake City, Oct. 27-29

Search for a New Editor of RRR

Short Takes

TO: Members of the RRA Board
FROM: Jim Davidson
RE: 1988-89 President's Report
DATE: October 26, 1989

We have had a good year. Our membership remains strong; board members and others in the association have donated their time and talents very generously; our financial condition continues to improve; and we have explored several new ideas which might strengthen us even more in the years ahead. We should all be pleased by the current situation and hopeful for the future.

I want to address three areas in which I had some responsibility over the past year: the selection of a new editor for the Review; the proposals I put before you last spring concerning the role of the president and executive officer; and RRA's role in the interfacing of academic- and church-based research. I also want to comment briefly on other few items.

Selection of New Editor

At last year's meeting, you gave Ed Lehman, Hart Nelsen, and me the responsibility of finding an editor to replace Ed Lehman. We put out a general call for nominees through the Review and the President's Letter; we also contacted about a dozen people who we felt might be excellent candidates. By spring, we had a list of five people who were willing to explore the position. We asked each of these people to respond to a set of 19 questions; their answers constituted their applications for the post.

After reviewing the five applications, we all commented on the high quality of the proposals and our willingness to turn the journal over to several of the applicants. However, having to select only one person, we picked the person who we thought put together the best overall proposal: Doyle Paul Johnson.

Many of you know Paul. He is associate professor of sociology at the University of South Florida. He has been a member of RRA for years, has attended lots of our meetings, has been an associate editor of the Review since 1980, and has published in the Review. He knows the kinds of work we want to include in the Review and is sensitive to the association's interest in research which has policy implications. He has lots of research experience and an excellent writing style of his own. His institution has pledged to support his work with release time, secretarial time, and funds to take care of routine office expenses. He wants to work closely with the board: he will seek your ideas and input, and he will be accountable to you for actions he takes during the year.

We move the selection of Doyle Paul Johnson as the next editor of the Review.

Roles of President and Executive Officer

You will recall suggesting that we consider redefining the role of RRA president and consider the possibility of creating an executive officer position in the association. Four people were charged with the responsibility of considering these proposals and reporting back to the board: Ted Long (former EO of ASR),Hart Nelsen (past president of RRA and former ES of SSSR), Bill Swatos (RRA board member), and me (RRA president and ES of SSSR).

1. There was an overall feeling that it made sense to separate the honorific, presidential role from the administrative, executive role and that we ought to explore the possibility in the next year. There seemed to be very little difficulty with the idea of reshaping the presidency along the lines proposed. There were more questions concerning the nature of the EO position and the funding of it.
   


2. Everyone liked the idea of the President selecting the Program Chair. Everyone also felt that the President should participate in the selection of the HPD lecturer, but most felt the final responsibility should rest with an HPD selection committee, not the President.
   


3. Most everyone felt the President should be encouraged to give a presidential address, but that the President should have the option of selecting some other speaker who she/he felt had something important to say about research and its relation to policy.
   


4. One person said that having an EO would make for more continuity and better board meetings (we wouldn't have to reconstruct ourselves each time we meet).
   


5. Two people said that having an EO might allow the association to publish more newsletters, which they said are important ways of staying in touch with the membership.
   
   
6. If we changed the president's role, would we want to stay with a two-year presidency, or go to a one-year term? A two-year term would permit a presidential address one year and an HPD lecture the next. A one-year term might create a problem: would we have two addresses each year, drop one of them, or call the presidential address the HPD lecture?
   


7. One person was concerned whether becoming a more professional society would rob RRA of its traditional emphasis on fellowship. The others did not seem to feel this tension.
   
   
8. Would the EO be appointed by the board (as in SSSR) or elected by the membership (as in ASR)?
   


9. One person stressed that having an EO would not necessarily replace board committees. Committees could formulate policies, and the EO could execute them.
   


10. Would we like an aggressive EO who had permission to generate new ideas and propose changes, or more of a caretaker EO who took care of daily operations of the association?
    


11. What specific responsibilities would an EO have? In particular, what would the EO's fiscal responsibilities be, and how would they relate to the work done by the Treasurer and the Business Manager? Who would prepare the budget? Who would take care of the books? Who would spend the money?
    


12. Several people felt that an EO might not be able to pay for him/herself through membership drives etc. In fact, having one might require additional expenditures. Are we in good enough financial condition to support an EO if having someone in that post cost the association some money each year? How much are we willing to spend on this position?
    

1. There was a strong consensus that RRA could and should take a leadership in forging closer ties between religious researchers in colleges and universities and their colleagues in church-related settings. Several important points were made which will guide our efforts in this direction.
   
   
2. The "problem" needs to be elaborated. What is wrong? What isn't getting done? What's not happening? For example, data generated by church offices doesn't always get out into the public arena because church researchers don't have the time and aren't rewarded for writing articles. Academicians often need data, don't have the resources to gather their own, and don't have access to the data church researchers already have gathered. The lack of contact between the groups fosters feelings of alienation and limits their professional growth.
   


3. The church-based side of the equation includes several constituencies: people who actually do research in national and regional offices but often have little or no administrative authority; administrators who have bureaucratic authority and resources but aren't actively engaged in research themselves; seminary faculty in areas such as practical theology, ethics, preaching, and pastoral care; consultants in areas such as church growth and stewardship, who tend to be consumers of research. Should all of these groups be involved, or some more than others? Most people agreed that at least church researchers and administrators ought to be involved. We weren't so sure about the other two groups.
   
   
4. Sometimes academic- and church-based people have similar goals and concerns, but use different language/concepts to express them. But, academic scholars and church researchers also often have different agendas. They want to reach different audiences and want to publish in different places.
   
   
5. Everyone's self interests need to be taken seriously. Many academic researchers are very busy with their own research agendas and don't see any need to work with church-based researchers. Others aren't as active and might be more inclined to see the advantages of such collaboration. Many church-based people also are busy and could care less about working with academicians, but others can see many personal and professional advantages to it. Those who stand to gain the most are most likely to get involved.
   
   
6. Any collaboration needs to start with specific topics which are of interest to all parties. All parties must be involved in the planning of any collaborative efforts on those topics.
   
   
7. RRA should make an effort to forge such collaboration: arrange a one-day meeting on a given topic; bring together 10-12 academic- and church-based people who have interests in that topic; and let them come up with a proposal.
   
   
8. Money for their proposal might come from denominations (through church administrators who are in on the process) and/or endowments (who have worked with the people who are involved or can be reassured of their competence by others they trust).
   


9. Should our Research Committee initiate projects involving collaboration? Should we use our research money to support such efforts, instead of waiting for proposals?
   
   
10. Some of the dialogue can take place without any funding.
    
    
11. We need more sessions at national meetings which include both academicians, church-based researchers, and church administrators. Our program chairs should try to create such sessions.
    
    
12. We should expect collaborators to present some of their work at RRA meetings and publish some of their work in the Review, but we should not prevent them from reporting at other meetings or publishing in other outlets, including books.
    

1. If the spirit of the board and the membership is to alter the role of the president in some way, and since that discussion already has raised questions about the HPD lecture, I would recommend that we wait to hear what the committee on the presidency recommends at the spring teleconference concerning the lecture, rather than establish another committee at this point.
   


2. I recently received a letter from Connie Jacquet, indicating that he will be stepping down from his role as RRA archivist. We all want to thank Connie for years and years of extraordinary service on RRA's behalf. We also need to find someone to replace Connie. If you have any suggestions, please share them with us now or at the teleconference in the spring.
   
   
3. I talked recently with George Gallup about the survey he did in collaboration with SSSR, RRA, and ASR. He thought the first survey was a very good experience for everyone, but he has no immediate plans to do another survey. He is open to the possibility of another survey, but if there were to be another one, it would have to be financed differently. He would not be able to put as much money into the next one, and we would have to put in considerably more.
   
   
4. Lorraine D'Antonio will relinquish her SSSR Business Manager responsibilities during the next year (due mainly to the strains involved with caring for her elderly parents in Connecticut), but she plans to continue her work with RRA and ASR for a couple of more years. In all probability, Anna Tassone Davidson will take over Lorraine's SSSR duties by next fall. RRA and ASR will have time to monitor Anna's work and decide if we want to ask her to take on our business activities, or if we want to pursue some other course of action.
   


5. Last year, a question was raised concerning the publication of the abstract book. SSSR decided to discontinue the book two years ago. Last year, several people asked whether it might be reinstated. A survey of SSSR members was done and will be discussed at the SSSR Council meeting later today. In my opinion, the poll doesn't demonstrate enough interest in the abstract book to warrant its reinstatement, but that's a decision the SSSR Council will have to make. You are welcome to speak to SSSR Council members if you have a particular interest in this issue. And, depending on what the SSSR Council decides, we mayor may not want to address this issue in our teleconference in the spring.
   
   
6. The SSSR Council will make a site selection for our 1992 meeting when the Council meets later today. The Council will choose between three sites: most economical - the Hilton Hotel in Albany, New York ($70 flat rate); most expensive -the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC ($88 flat rate); in between - the Omni Biltmore Hotel in Providence, Rhode Island ($80-84 for deluxe, $74-78 for superior, and $10 less for about 50 rooms at the Holiday Inn down the street). Please share any thoughts you might have on these alternatives, and I will be sure to share them with the SSSR Council.