The New Jewish Leaders: Reshaping the American Jewish Landscape

Appendix

Appendix The Research Design The research team set out to learn the ways Jewish leaders in their twenties and thirties think about Jewish issues, organize programs for their peers, and are formed. Initially, the greatest challenge we faced was associated with the absence of basic information about the universe we were studying. As no national population study of American Jews has been conducted over the past decade, we lacked up-to-date information on the total numbers of Jews in this age group and the proportions who involve themselves in any form of Jewish activity. There is also no comprehensive directory of programs, initiatives, and organizations addressed to this age population. Although we amassed lists of programs and organizations reaching Jews in their postcollege decades, other gaps in knowledge have not been filled. We still lack reliable information about the universe of Jews in their twenties and thirties overall, and those involved in Jewish activities. This project, therefore, makes no claims about either the proportionate weight of younger Jews who participate in Jewish programs or the relative numbers of Jews and Jewish leaders in their twenties and thirties who participate in the programs of establishment organizations versus nonestablishment ones. Through the efforts of Tali Berkovitch, a graduate student in Jewish education at New York University, the team was able to compile several long lists: of organizations in which young Jews engage; of gatekeeper organizations that have direct links to and email addresses of the leaders of these organizations ; and of names of people in different parts of the country and in different types of organizations who seem to be playing a leadership role. During the half year before the project fielded a survey, all six members of the research team spoke at length with Jewish leaders. Collectively, over the course of the project, team members interviewed at least 250 young Jewish leaders of all kinds in different parts of the country. We interviewed rabbis of all denominations who work with Jews in their twenties and thirties ; cultural figures who are producing books, music, recordings, films, and art for this population; founders of social justice organizations, communes, 334 Appendix blogs, Internet sites, and independent minyanim; and significant numbers of young leaders active in mainstream Jewish organizations as volunteers and as founders of affinity groups for immigrant populations and others with particular traits and common interests. Some team members also attended events run by and for Jews in their twenties and thirties in order to observe the leaders in action. We then supplemented these types of data with sociological literature on trends within the general American population in this age group and also on the changing ways in which Americans are organizing themselves communally . To offer context, we drew upon historical literature on changing demography and youth cultures. And to capture regional variations, we were attentive to differences between the scene in the large coastal cities and the so-called heartland, as well as urban versus suburban differences. Based upon initial interviews and questions that we generated at our various team meetings, the six members of the research group collectively developed a survey instrument. This was circulated to our many lists and contacts, with the request that the recipients spread the instrument to their acquaintances. In time, we also fielded a version of the same survey to the membership lists of five different types of organizations, which yielded more responses from leaders and followers alike. Quantitative data were also gathered about which Jewish Internet sites are most often visited and serve as key connectors to other sites. By drawing upon different kinds of data—interviews, field observation, survey responses, and sociological and historical literature—we were able to cross-check our findings and inferences.Working as a team, we met every few months for two-day sessions at which we critiqued one another’s work and strove to understand the larger implications of our individual research projects . We also benefited from the perspectives of three outside consultants. ...