M A Y    1 9 9 9
The International Society for Third-Sector Research (ISTR) is pleased to present the third in a series of occasional reports. This report focuses on the Society and its organizational structure. The report is divided into two parts, the first is the "State of the Association" address by the Society's president examining the mission of the organization. The second part compiles the valuable information shared by 168 members in their response to the 1998 Membership Survey. The summary of the results and the assessment of the members will serve as the basis for the Society's long range planning initiative and forthcoming strategic plan.

Part 1. Presidential Address on the Occasion of the General Assembly of ISTR, July 11, 1998
Antonin Wagner

In the seven brief years of its existence, ISTR has grown from a small group of dedicated researchers who all knew each other, to an international organization with approximately 600 members representing over 70 countries on all the five continents. The moment has arrived to reflect on the rapid growth of ISTR and to develop appropriate structures and systems of communication to connect with the membership and to fulfill our mission in the years to come. In this context, the board encouraged me at its Barcelona meeting in 1997 to begin a new ISTR tradition by holding a biennial "State of the Association" address to the General Assembly. Simultaneously, the executive committee decided to undertake a membership survey in order to involve our constituency in a long-range process of planning. Together, board and membership should define what ISTR is and where it is going. I would like to offer the thoughts that follow as my part in this process of planning and thinking.

At its Barcelona meeting in 1997, the board discussed the main strategic purposes or guidelines to successfully continue our work and lead our Society into the 21st century. It developed a three-pronged strategy that involves developing resources for Third Sector research and teaching internationally; promoting interdisciplinary Third Sector research by overcoming artificial boundaries between various social science fields; and strengthening a process of mutually interactive problem solving among Third Sector scholars as well as between researchers and practitioners in the field. Together with you I would like to reflect upon what it means for the leadership and the membership of ISTR to establish such an international, interdisciplinary and interactive research community.

ISTR as an International Research Community

As part of the goal to establish itself as a truly international scholarly organization, ISTR is sponsoring the creation of regional networks of Third Sector researchers throughout the world. At the occasion of the second ISTR conference, held in 1996 in Mexico City, a large number of Latin American participants agreed on the need to create a regional forum. The first formal meeting of this network took place April 22 through 24, 1998 in Rio de Janeiro. The event, suggestively named "Rethinking the Public Space in Latin America: Civil Society Organizations," attracted over 100 participants from 7 Latin American countries. A few months earlier, 25 researchers from 10 African countries had gathered in Johannesburg and held the inaugural meeting of the "Civil Society Researchers in Africa" from December 6 to 7, 1997. It was the first time that researchers and practitioners from throughout the continent of Africa joined together in a collaborative effort to work on civil society issues. In the spring of 1998, an invitation was extended to European scholars to meet in Geneva at the occasion of the Third International Conference of ISTR and to discuss the creation of a European Third Sector Research Network. The idea is to raise the profile of Third Sector research in Europe and to offer an opportunity for discussing the impact of recent developments -- such as the creation of the European Monetary Union (EMU) -- on the local and social economy in the region.

The development of regional networks constitutes an interesting new perspective for both ISTR as an international organization and individual researchers with a common geographic, cultural, ethnic, linguistic and/or historical background. The purpose of regional networks is to promote the understanding of local nonprofit realities; to develop regionally sensitive research agendas; and to provide worldwide visibility for the emerging field of nonprofit studies. Regional networks enable researchers to draw from the organizational and financial resources of ISTR and at the same time to contribute from their own cultural perspective to a common base of knowledge. It is however a well-known fact that international umbrella organizations building on regional networks and chapters are sometimes exposed to the moral hazard of their members and may face a free rider problem that in the worst case could constitute an organizational threat. We are reminded here of what once was called -- although in a different context -- the "tragedy of the Commons." Conflicts easily arise around financial as well as membership issues, because regional chapters and their respective international umbrellas often draw from the same fiscal and human resources such as foundation subsidies and membership fees.

ISTR has to implement therefore an organizational policy which on the one hand facilitates participation in an international organization of scholars and on the other hand protects the financial and organizational interests of the umbrella organization. Our organizational policy has to emphasize that ISTR is an international organization built on individual membership and not an organization based on regional chapters. Participation or membership in a regional network should therefore not be seen as a substitute for a membership in ISTR, but rather as a first step towards a full fledged participation in the international umbrella. ISTR will however continue to sponsor regional networks of researchers and practitioners with a common cultural, ethnic, linguistic and/or geographic background. ISTR is interested in developing regional research agendas, by featuring at least one regional plenary during its biennial conferences; by encouraging regional contributions to its newsletter, Inside ISTR; and by publishing proceedings from regional workshops under the cover of ISTR Report, such as the one produced by the Latin American group with the compelling message: "El Sur También Existe" ("A Call From the South").

ISTR as an Interdisciplinary Research Community

A second trademark of ISTR is the interdisciplinarity of the research that is being conducted under the umbrella of our organization. Until relatively recently, societal phenomena in general, and those relating to our field of research in particular, have been dealt with in the framework of various but separate social science disciplines and therefore treated with "disciplinary imperialism." Based more on scholarly custom than on the general validity or utility of concepts, each discipline insisted in using only -- or mainly -- its own methods of analysis, irrespective of the probable utility of cross-disciplinary approaches to reach understanding of a complex reality. Over time however, especially scholars dealing with the reality of social life have become dissatisfied with disciplinary boundaries that were more artificial than intrinsic to the phenomena they studied. In the US, the "Gulbenkian Commission on the Restructuring of Social Sciences" recently recommended to "amplify the organization of intellectual activity" beyond the disciplinary approach still prevailing in most universities and other traditional institutions of research and teaching.

ISTR considers itself as an organizational platform for an interdisciplinary dialogue, enabling researchers to operate across the traditional disciplinary boundaries and to generate genuine innovation in conceptualizing voluntary action and not-for-profit institution building. Our members should however be reminded that the compartmentalization existing within social sciences will not be transcended by the mindless and superficial abolition of the existing division of labor between disciplines. As Jeremy Kendall notes in his thoughtful editorial in Voluntas (9/1), restructuring social sciences is an enormously challenging task that requires a painstaking process of theoretical labor. True interdisciplinary work aims at building bridges between the various specializations, by introducing innovative concepts such as Putnam's "Social Capital," Lohmann's "Commons," and by advancing new approaches, as did Anheier and Salamon in their paper on the "social origins" of Third-Sector institutions. Against the still prevailing resistance of many scholars, such constructs penetrate -- and fertilize -- social science disciplines that in most cases are still oriented towards explaining individual behavior, not towards understanding social action. Furthermore, a cross-disciplinary approach to Third- Sector research demands that we examine the spatial dimension and local contexts in which not-for-profit institution-building takes place. The local economy approach presented by our colleagues from the "Interdisziplinäre Forschungsgruppe Lokale Ökonomie" and the francophone concept of "services de proximité" constitute a refreshingly new way of conceptualizing the Third Sector. Last but not least, an interdisciplinary approach to civil society issues requires that the scholarly discipline of history be included among the social sciences. Often it is the historical contexts that teach us how institutions work and develop.

ISTR as an Interactive Research Community

The third distinctive feature of ISTR is its characterization as an interactive research community. Interaction has two different aspects: On the one hand, interaction between researchers and practitioners as well as other social problem-solvers contributes to producing what Lindblom and Cohen almost 20 years ago called "usable knowledge." On the other hand, interaction among researchers serves as an intellectual guidance system. It coordinates the complex process of scientific inquiry and provides to the community some kind of "collective rationality" superior to the rationality of the individual researcher or practitioner. However, in order to offset biases and parochialism, an interactive research community has to allow for mechanisms of mutual criticism. An interactive research community is not an "ivory tower" and does not encourage cliquishness, intellectual pork-barreling and other possible perversions as an acceptable behavior of its members.

ISTR's mission is to promote an interactive research community for the Third Sector through traditional as well as innovative means of communication. Since its establishment almost a decade ago, Voluntas has published some 200 academic articles, research notes, and conference reports, as well as a great number of book reviews. Recently, Kluwer Academic/ Plenum Publishers, the publisher of Voluntas, has announced the creation of a new nonprofit book series "Nonprofit and Civil Society Studies." Under the editorship of Helmut Anheier, this series will publish scholarly, policy and management related works of interest to a wide range of researchers, policy makers and practitioners. Inside ISTR and ISTR Report constitute other important instruments for developing our intellectual commons and for sharing knowledge in our field. In addition to these more traditional means of communication, new information technologies provide for a high-speed, low cost scientific communication. To address the need for ready access to information, ISTR is interested in developing a resource library of articles, papers, and abstracts from current or past international and regional conferences on the Internet.

Managing Complexity

Strengthening ISTR as an international, interdisciplinary and interactive research community constitutes a complex task. Managing this complexity requires that our Society take an innovative approach to organizational governance. Governance literature teaches us to distinguish between two fundamentally different types of organizations: network organizations and bureaucracies. Compared to bureaucracies, network organizations tend to have relatively horizontal, rather than vertical, lines of authority and communication. As a consequence, they rely more on collaborative than directive leadership for coordination. Network organizations are complex systems and constitute social wholes that function like a living organism. Bureaucracies are complicated systems or aggregates composed of several parts. Wholes are not made of parts.

Governance systems are related to the underlying form of the organization to be governed. Governing network organizations is quite different from governing bureaucracies. Traditional governance theories focus on bureaucracies. They deal with the ways in which organizations are controlled so that they may achieve their goals, survive and sustain themselves over time, and carry out their statutory responsibility. However, managing the complexity of a network organization requires a new form of organizational governance that does not rely on control. Network organizations cannot depend on authority relations and command; instead they must rely on the voluntary actions of members and their commitment to cooperate with each other.

ISTR as an international, interdisciplinary and interactive research community will best work if its members are able to set goals collaboratively rather than execute the pre-determined goals of its board or its executive officers. The mechanisms to coordinate our work must rely on commitment rather than authority: member-defined incentives, shared values, and self-coordination should govern our activities rather than control, direction and top-down influence from the executive level. This requires that mutual trust is being built among members. Trust takes time to develop. So does ISTR.

Antonin Wagner, president of ISTR, is professor of social policy at the University of Zurich and president of the Swiss Association of Social Policy.

In 1998, as the first step in ISTR's long-range planning initiative, the executive committee distributed membership surveys to assess member needs and desires. To this survey, 168 members responded, providing valuable information on the shared-and divergent-interests of our membership. The creative insight and constructive criticism of the respondents will be central to the planning process, and no doubt will benefit ISTR for years to come.

Membership

Overwhelmingly, respondents identified three primary motivating factors for joining ISTR: an interest in supporting Third Sector research and education (69%); the biennial conference (52%); and Voluntas (52%). At the same time, nearly a quarter of respondents recognized the newsletter as an inducement, and nearly one in five were encouraged to join by a colleague or mentor. Finally, others pointed to interests in networking, the organization's international focus, the content of Third Sector research, Third Sector involvement, and public problem solving as reasons for joining.

Membership Services

Voluntas topped the list of services valued by respondents, averaging over 2.5 on an integer scale of 0 to 3 in terms of importance ("3" = "very important; "2" = "somewhat important"; "1" = "not very important"; "0" = "not at all important"). Close behind the journal were the biennial conferences (averaging 2.5), the newsletter (averaging 2.3), and the membership directory (also averaging 2.3). Values placed on all services are displayed in the following chart:

Chart to be inserted.

While regional networks, occasional publications, the ISTR web site, the e-mail network, and affinity groups only averaged "somewhat important" or below, it is notable that a significant number of individuals - albeit a minority of respondents - rated each of these services "very important." Most strikingly, 57 respondents appraised regional networks as "very important," and even the lowest "very important" vote-getter, the web site, was given the highest rating by over one-sixth of the 168 respondents.

Respondents ranked the Membership Directory highest in terms of satisfaction at 2.5. After the directory, respondents indicated greatest satisfaction with the conferences (2.4), the newsletter (2.4), and Voluntas (2.4). Members appear to be least satisfied with regional networks (1.6) and affinity groups (1.6). In fact, of the individuals rating affinity groups as "very important," only one-fourth report a high level of satisfaction with this service.

Survey data also reveal that while a majority of respondents that highly value regional networks (53%) are very satisfied with such, nearly one in five report little or no satisfaction with them. Such a finding reaffirms the need to examine more than just aggregate data in an evaluation process; in order to identify specific areas for improvement, ISTR must understand why members are dissatisfied with particular services.

Dissatisfaction rates for those placing high value on the various services are displayed in the following chart:

Chart to be inserted

Membership Retention

The response to "How can ISTR best retain your membership?" varied dramatically among ISTR members. One in five respondents pointed to strong regional networks as a prerequisite for continued membership, and nearly one in four agreed that quality conferences are of critical importance. 18% of members identified specific elements of ISTR publications as imperative or indispensable.

Of those pointing to strong regional networks as a prerequisite for continued membership, over 25% reported dissatisfaction with the regional networks. 8% of those requiring quality conferences noted dissatisfaction with the conferences. These findings reaffirm the importance of uncovering the reasons for dissatisfaction with ISTR services - and with regional networks in particular.

More generally, other respondents pointed to the benefits of an enhanced organizational community, with improved logistical and substantive communications, greater commitment to information-sharing across fields of study and practice, and increased attention to research facilitation and resource-building. Still others expressed expectations for specific types of assistance, ranging from financial sponsorship, to academic fellowships, to grant-seeking and job-search support, to practitioner training, to individualized mentoring.

A strong 19% of respondents indicated a desire that ISTR "stay the course," needing only to maintain present standards in order to retain members. And a small but vocal few applauded current services, but agreed that ISTR must focus more on membership recruitment and retention through improved public relations and regular encouragement of member participation and feedback.

Activities

A large component of services and activities sought by respondents involved regional networks and/or regional issues. Members from developing countries - especially from Africa - exhibited especially strong eagerness for more regional meetings, workshops, and training sessions. A Dutch member, whose concerns were echoed by others, lamented that "the European regional network is nonexistent." One specific approach to strengthening regional networks involved the establishment of regional centers, for year- round networking purposes. Other recommendations emphasized more open and interdisciplinary exchange within and between networks, and discouragement of clique- and academic-dominated groups.

On another front, a number of respondents suggested ways to better facilitate members' research and enhance organizational resources. One plan entailed the development of a research database which could be accessed on-line by subject, author, or title. Along the same line, other responses encouraged development of on-line or print bibliographies. Still others advocated an enhanced web-based Membership Directory, arranged, for example, by member interests or regional network affiliation. Multiple respondents spoke on behalf of in-house publishing, speakers' bureaus or targeted symposia, and long-distance learning. And finally, members would be pleased if ISTR would define areas in which it would sponsor or encourage research.

Numerous members agreed that ISTR should take on a more proactive, dynamic role in communicating issues and developing projects. One such member observed: "there are so many case' studies reported without linkages to results' so that one hears what is going on' but without hearing effects/impacts." In that spirit, various respondents spoke for regular reviews of cutting-edge research, issues, and trends in both theory and practice, and others noted that the newsletter would be an ideal venue for routine, comprehensive examination of arising Third Sector issues and their impacts.

Appealing for increased leadership, one creative individual suggested that ISTR initiate a project every other year to benefit the country hosting the biennial conference; such a project, he implied, not only would provide a worthy public service but also would furnish ISTR members with a unique and valuable learning opportunity - encouraging them to make critical connections between research and practice. Other respondents too pointed to the merits of bridging the gap between the academic and the "real" worlds and their support for increased societal involvement on the part of ISTR (for example, outreach to developing nations).

A number of individuals voiced their desire for greater representation both in publications and at the conferences. For a smaller number of respondents, increased translation and attention to issues facing developing nations was the appeal. Overall, many members appear to be seeking a niche within one or more affinity groups, but are unaware of how to find or establish the appropriate group or groups.

Finally, some members look forward to greater international focus in ISTR's future. They recommend increased cooperation with other international organizations, as well as a renewed commitment to comparative research. Most individuals responding to the question, "Do you think there are any current activities that should be dropped or changed?" (32 out of 54) answered "no," however some suggested that the conference schedule/program be modified, that particular activities be strengthened, or that services not highly rated by the membership be dropped.

Website

While members collectively ranked the web site fairly low in terms of relative importance and somewhat satisfactory from a quality standpoint, most appear to agree: as much and as detailed information as possible should be available on the ISTR web site.

First and foremost, 122 out of 145 respondents (or 84%) would like to see conference abstracts and author contact information on the web site. 102 respondents (or 70%) would like to see Voluntas abstracts; 95 (or 66%) would like to see the conference program; and 77 (or 53%) would like to see the Membership Directory - preferably enhanced by topical arrangement, biographical profiles, and links to research and personal webpages. 67 respondents (or 47%) indicated that they would benefit from the posting of employment opportunities, and 51 (or 35%) requested that the newsletter be posted.

Additionally, numerous individuals pointed to the benefits of posting full conference papers, research and bibliographical information, regional and events announcements, and funding opportunities. Other recommendations included: the development of a mentor/contact network; the establishment of regular discussion groups; and the creation of a page with links to other Third Sector related sites.

Biennial Conferences

Nearly 70 percent of all respondents stated that they have, in fact, attended a biennial conference. 84 out of the 115 respondents answering (or 73%) attended the 1998 meeting; 47 (or 41%) attended the 1996 meeting; and 45 (or 39%) attended the 1994 meeting.

Networking topped the list of factors most important to respondents in deciding whether to attend a conference, averaging nearly 2.7 on the 0-to-3 integer scale. Ranking next were the overall cost of the conference, the quality of scholarship presented, and the topics of sessions and papers, all averaging 2.5 on the scale. The meeting theme and the timing of the meeting ranked next, both averaging 2.1, and finally, the appeal of the meeting site country ranked last at just over 1.8.

31% of respondents indicated a desire for more traditional sessions at the conference; 32% of respondents indicated a desire for more pre-conference workshops; and 33% of respondents indicated a desire for more new format sessions, such as poster and Internet sessions. Notably, 1998 conference attendees showed greater desire for more pre- conference workshops and new format sessions than did non-1998 attendees. (Pre- conference workshops were introduced for the first time in 1998.)

Conference Suggestions

More impressively, perhaps, 56% of respondents indicated a desire for regional network meetings at the conference. At the same time, a larger percentage of respondents (63%) who have never attended a conference pointed to such an interest in regional network meetings - perhaps suggesting that a greater regional emphasis on the conference agenda would produce new faces at the biennial conferences.

A wide range of responses was provided to the question, "How can the biennial conference better meet your needs?" Most respondents had something to say about how the conference could be improved. One in ten, for example, suggested the need for more formal discussion time at the conference, provided in the form of round tables, panel discussions, audience participation, etc. Others stated a desire for more informal discussion time. Nearly one in ten expressed a concern with conference costs; some advised, for instance, that the Geneva conference was too expensive to attend.

Many declared an interest in meeting with affinity groups at the conference, and as reflected previously, most affirmed that regional network meetings are a critical component of the conference. According to one respondent: "Regional networks could be strengthened by arranging a series of sessions focused on the Third Sector in that region. Thus there could be two topical foci to the conference: 1) thematic focus; 2) regional focus." In the words of another respondent, the conference should "focus on issues of general interest to all regions, and at the same time enable regional issues to be raised and discussed."

Generally, members conveyed an interest in coming-together at the conference, to learn as much as possible from each other about the Third Sector in different countries, and about others' particular experiences. Nevertheless, while many leave the conference feeling satisfied, apparently, others walk away feeling disconnected - disappointed that their interests were not shared by anyone they could locate, or that the program did not accommodate their particular needs. Some academics, for example, fear that their fields are not receiving sufficient attention, and many practitioners agree that ISTR is not doing enough to apply theory to the real world, or to help practitioners exchange information regarding implementation issues.

One concerned member requested that time be set aside at the conference for informal strategic discussions, regarding, for example, the roles of ISTR and academic research in society. Another individual suggested that members be given the opportunity to decide together on topics to be undertaken and presented at the next conference.

On a more logistical level, other responses pointed to the need to communicate sooner the details of the conference, including calls for papers, and to distribute programs with abstracts prior to the conference. One individual suggested that access to a copier be provided, and another asked for bigger-font name tags, showing the desired title of each member. And another requested that attendees be given structured opportunities to review the sessions.

Others advised a reduction in the number of parallel sessions, especially the number of sessions on similar topics. Numerous individuals requested improved plenary sessions. Setting a standard of polished presentations topped a number of people's lists of key priorities; according to one member, "workshops should not be disguised paper sessions." In general, quality concerns were on many members' minds.

Academic interests

63% of respondents indicated that their areas of interest are adequately covered at the conferences. At the same time, 74% of respondents indicating high conference satisfaction attested that their areas of interest are adequately covered there.

For respondents whose areas of interest are not adequately covered at the conferences, an extremely wide range of responses was provided. Most notably, individuals cited management, theory, and organizational studies as top areas of interest not covered by the conference. Others with declared interests in law and legal studies, philanthropy and fundraising, social economy, and history - did not believe these topics were adequately addressed.

Well over 50% of total respondents have submitted an abstract for the biennial meeting since 1994, with over 70% of individuals who have attended a conference responding in the affirmative.

Respondents showed most interest (42%) in a published volume of conference papers. A somewhat lesser number (37%) agreed to the current policy by request. And about one quarter of respondents would purchase papers on-line for a small fee. (One member expressed a concern that ISTR would seem hypocritical, not volunteering the information on-line free of charge.) Predictably, those individuals submitting abstracts were somewhat more likely than average to advocate a published volume of papers (53%).

Conference Sites

Top vote-getters for the five countries where you would like to see the next biennial conference take place were the United States and South Africa, each selected by approximately 35% of respondents. Behind them were Japan with 27%, Brazil with 26%, and Canada with 24%.

Of those who place a high value on the conference, South Africa is the desired location by a ten percent margin (42% to the United States' 32%); of those who place a low value on the conference, the U.S. is the desired location hands-down, selected by nearly two- thirds of respondents.

ISTR Newsletter, Inside ISTR

153 out of 164 respondents, or 93%, responded "yes," they utilize the newsletter. The research-in-progress section topped the scale, in terms of importance, receiving a 2.6 cumulative score on a 0-to-3 integer scale. Next in line were the calls-for-papers section, scoring nearly 2.5, the features articles, scoring 2.4, and the book-notes and announcements sections, both scoring just under 2.4. The regional/national associations section and the member-news section, while scoring less, at 2.1 and 2.0, respectively, were nevertheless highly rated by a significant number of individuals.

Finally, the president's column registered the lowest at 1.9, however at least one individual was quick to jump to its defense, explaining its importance to organizational morale and identity. (Consequently, an individual similarly remarked that introductory comments by the president at the biennial conference would contribute tremendously to a sense of organizational community.) See Part I of this ISTR Report.

Primarily, respondents indicated a desire for more membership contributions to the newsletter - that is, for a less top-down and more bottom-up publication; ISTR should encourage more debates and exchange of critical perspectives within the newsletter, according to these members. Moreover, some respondents requested the provision of regional network breakdowns and affinity group reports.

A strong contingent stated the need for more substantive reporting - for perhaps a regular comprehensive analysis of issues facing Third Sector practitioners and researchers, and of the cutting-edge advancements being made on both fronts. A few individuals would propose a less internally-focused newsletter; one stated that ISTR should "strip away the pomp and circumstance," getting down to business more quickly and effectively. Others recommended greater attention to current Third Sector research.

Additionally, respondents requested the listing of funding opportunities and the introduction of donors. Some commented on the need for more timely delivery, suggesting, perhaps, electronic communication as a solution to the lagged-mail dilemma. And some requested a less glossy, less cluttered presentation. Finally, practitioners expressed a desire to read more case studies on action and community development, as opposed to research.

Voluntas

84% of respondents subscribe to Voluntas. Respondents valued articles most, collectively rating them 2.8 on a 0-to-3 integer scale. Next, they valued book reviews at 2.5, special issues at 2.4, and abstracts at 2.3. All four sections of the journal therefore ranked fairly high in terms of importance.

According to survey results, the journal adequately covers the interests of two-thirds of members. Respondents reported that Third Sector theory, developing countries, management, and organizational studies are the top areas of interest inadequately covered by the journal. Other areas inadequately addressed appear to include: law and legal issues, political theory, activism, economics/finance, social policy, multi-sectoral research, community-based issues, health, the African Third Sector, public/private issues, and cultural anthropology.

In response to what kind of changes would make Voluntas better meet your needs, numerous individuals noted a need for increased attention to developing countries. Others requested more translation. Still others reported that timely delivery would be of great benefit, and that perhaps an electronic version, in addition to the paper version, would solve the problem of slow international mail. A number of people indicated a desire to see the journal published more frequently and at lower cost, and some pointed to quality improvements that should be made.

Practitioners recommended significant inclusion of participatory research in the journal, while others advised that the editorial board consider everyone's interests in putting together Voluntas, including undergraduates, beginning post-graduates, and nonacademic practitioners. Finally, more than a few individuals pointed to the need for more reader- friendly presentation of material.

Nearly three-quarters of respondents responded that "yes," they would like to see Voluntas on-line. 27% of respondents indicated that they currently consult on-line scholarly journals.

Other Publications

Over 70% of respondents indicated that they use the Membership Directory. Respondents state that the directory should be updated regularly, perhaps provide more choices of discipline as well as member biographies, and should include e-mail addresses.

Over two-thirds of respondents answered "yes" to the question, "Do you read ISTR Reports?" however numerous individuals indicated that they never received occasional reports. Respondents came to an overwhelming consensus on this question, with 96% agreeing that occasional reports are very worthwhile.

Elizabeth J. Farber received her B.A. in Economics and Studies in the Environment from Yale University and her M.A. in Policy Studies from The Johns Hopkins University. She has worked as a researcher, writer, editor, and consultant for various projects related to public problem solving, and has a special interest in the Third Sector's potential to "nurture goodwill for the public good." Currently, she is employed as a legislative/fiscal analyst in the Office of the County Auditor, Baltimore County, Maryland.