Research Methods Described in “Does Service Affect Citizenship?” By James Perry and Michael Katula, 2001.

As Professor Rhodes suggested last week, I went back to revisit the Perry article to look at their research method, and identify how they found their empirical data in order to answer the question, “Is there a connection between service and citizenship?” (Perry, 2001, p.330)

Ultimately, the study focuses on 37 empirical studies related to service and citizenship, mostly involving youth and college-aged students. The research method involved in collecting and honing in on these 37 studies took almost one year, and began with a very broad search that continuously narrowed.

The research method involved several stages:
1. Created search terms. Initially they threw out a wide net. They searched for proper names of service related organizations like Americorp, Learn and Serve America, as well as faith-based, university-based, and community-based programs. They kept their search broad in order to capture as many related sources as possible. They kept a list of terms.

2. Databases used: Dissertation Abstracts International, ERIC (education), Education Abstracts, PAIS (public affairs), IPSA (International Political Science Abstracts), SocioFile (sociology), PsycINFO (psychology), and Philanthropic Studies Index (Perry, 2001, p.334).

3. Scrubbed databases. The search identified thousands of sources. From this point they began to focus their terms. They eliminated Education Abstracts and Philanthropic Studies for duplication and difficulty issues. They focused down further.

4. Bibliographic database used: ProCite. Here they incorporated there nine databases into one.

5. Identified key words. From thousands of sources, they scaled their search down specifically to citizenship and service empirical studies, 219 in total. They kept the source material from the lesser qualified studies for further research. Citations were reviewed to obtain the final 37.

Perry and Katula identify, review, and outline 37 studies on service and citizenship through the lenses of citizenship related cognitive understanding, citizenship attitudes, citizenship skills, institutional change, philanthropic and civic behaviors, and political behavior (Perry, 2001).

The authors are hesitant to draw conclusions based on few studies and small numbers; however they do summarize three points. “Service appears to influence favorably citizenship-related cognitive understand. . . . Service and volunteering appear to positively influence later giving and volunteering. . . . The type of service that produces the most consistent positive results is service learning” (Perry, 2001, pgs.359-360).

What I find most interesting is what Perry and Katula were unable to answer. The research appears to be practically negligible when it comes to looking at service in relation to citizenship and political behavior. As well, they note that that “the research sheds little light on the relationship between the attributes of service and citizenship outcomes” (Perry, 2001, p.361). They conclude more empirical research needs to be collected and studied on the characteristics of those who serve and the attributes of service (Perry, 2001).

I find the relationship between service and citizenship in relation to politics and the political process, to be an interesting idea to research further. I will incorporate that in my search terms as I scour these and other databases, I have found on my own through the UT Library system.