Abstract
In recent years, responding to new challenges and rising costs, local Jewish community studies have increasingly moved to eliminate a Random Digit Dial (RDD) component or functional equivalent thereof. Using the Jewish Community Study of New York 2011, this paper contrasts RDD respondents with those appearing on the expanded Federation lists (Fedlist) and Distinctive Jewish Name (DJN) respondents. The analysis demonstrates wide differences separating Fedlist from other respondents. Hence, conducting studies of the Jewish population that omit a significant RDD component are quite often deficient and distorted. They ignore and downplay important population groups. The biases are far from random, but systematic and overlapping, as many features of Jewish marginality are underplayed. Without sufficient caveats, such studies can also become deceptive and destructive. They are deceptive in that they feed and reinforce understandable yet misleading stereotypes of the Jewish population. All such studies need to be publicized with huge warning labels prominently displayed on the press releases and report. They are destructive in that they would seduce leadership into feeling self-satisfied in seeing a Jewish population that is relatively well-connected Jewishly and not all that needy socially and economically. Ideally, all Jewish community studies should contain a Random Digit Dialing component so as to allow “unknown” Jews to be known and visible. In the event that such is not the case, researchers should strongly and repeatedly reinforce the message that their results and analyses pertain only to those Jews most connected and most visible to the organized Jewish community.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The 2013 Pew study found that only 31% of all Jewish respondents belong to a synagogue, and only 18% belong to another Jewish organization. Among persons aged 50 to 64, 40% report at least one of these acts of affiliation, as contrasted with 27% among persons aged 30 to 39.
The 2013 Pew study found that only 31% of all Jewish respondents belong to a synagogue, and 18% belong to another Jewish organization. Among persons aged 50 to 64, 40% report at least one of these acts of affiliation, as contrasted with 27% among persons aged 30 to 39.
In some cases, institutions shared their lists with the researchers directly rather than transmitting them to the federation.
To be clear, while the New York study included no opt-in respondents, it stands to reason that the opt-in respondents — those who volunteered to take an online survey on Jewish subject matter — are probably at least as Jewishly engaged if not more so than those who derived from the so-called “Fedlist,” the amalgamated lists of contacts from a variety of Jewish communal institutions. In other words, it stands to reason that whatever gaps we find here between RDD respondents and Fedlist respondents are likely to be smaller than those reached by the RDD sampling frame and opt-in respondents.
References
Cohen, Steven M. 1988. A case study of an abbreviated demographic survey: The New Haven Jewish Population Mini-Study of 1987. Council of Jewish Federations and Welfare Funds (CJF). http://www.bjpa.org/Publications/details.cfm?PublicationID=325.
Cohen, Steven M., Jacob B. Ukeles, and Ron Miller. 2011a. Jewish Community Study of New York: 2011—Comprehensive report. Jewish Community Study of New York, UJA-Federation of New York. http://www.bjpa.org/Publications/details.cfm?PublicationID=14186.
Cohen, Steven M., Jacob B. Ukeles, Ron Miller, David Dutwin, and Robyn Rapoport. 2011b. Jewish Community Study of New York: 2011—Methodology report. Jewish Community Study of New York, UJA-Federation of New York. http://www.bjpa.org/Publications/details.cfm?PublicationID=18044.
Hartman, Harriet, and Ira M. Sheskin. 2013. Estimating the Jewish student population of a college campus. Journal of Jewish Communal Service. Jewish Communal Service Association of North America (JCSA), JPRO Network. http://www.bjpa.org/Publications/details.cfm?PublicationID=22112.
Kosmin, Barry, and Stanley Waterman. 1985. The use and misuse of distinctive Jewish names in research on Jewish populations. Jewish population studies (papers in Jewish demography). Avraham Harman Institute of Contemporary Jewry. http://www.bjpa.org/Publications/details.cfm?PublicationID=2741.
Sheskin, Ira M. 1998. A methodology for examining the changing size and spatial distribution of a Jewish population: A Miami case study. Shofar: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Jewish Studies. Midwest Jewish Studies Association. http://www.bjpa.org/Publications/details.cfm?PublicationID=5239.
Sheskin, Ira M. 2015. Comparisons of Jewish communities: A compendium of tables and bar charts. Berman Jewish DataBank. http://jewishdatabank.org/Studies/details.cfm?StudyID=777.
Acknowledgements
My thanks to several friends and colleagues who commented on an earlier version of this paper. Among them are Janet Aaronson, Matthew Boxer, David Dutwin, Harriet Hartman, Laurence Kotler-Berkowitz, Ron Miller, Len Saxe, Ira Sheskin, and Jack Ukeles.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cohen, S.M. Deficient, If Not Distorted: Jewish Community Studies That Totally Rely upon Known Jewish Households. Cont Jewry 36, 343–360 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12397-016-9187-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12397-016-9187-0