Hypothesis
The nature of the collegiate system within Durham University gives its students a strong college affinity leading to a sense of social identity and a inclination to bask in reflective glory and cut off reflected failure.
Objectives
- To asses the extent of a student college affiliation
- To assess the affects of a collegiate system a students sense of identity within the university
- To highlight possible occurrences of Basking in reflective glory, or cutting of reflective failure
Methodology
In order to meet the objectives the most suitable method of data collection involved the combination of questionnaires and interviewing, providing information directly from students in the two colleges. The information obtain will be kept confidential in order to respect of recipients privacy with the recipient also fully aware of the purpose of the research. Both time and available resources restrict the methodology.
Questionnaires
To meet the first two objectives a questionnaire aiming to test a student’s knowledge about their college and learn how the student views their college in respect to its activities and the other colleges. A pilot questionnaire will be carried out initially in order to assess the effectiveness in meeting the objective, indicating problem questions and drawing attention to potential communication problems in the question wording. In total 20 pilot questionnaires will be distributed personally to students that will be made fully aware of the purpose of the investigation, who on completion will be encouraged to suggest improvements or highlight problem areas.
One of the main advantages of a questionnaire is that the data obtained can be quantified, and can easily be both graphically compared and statistically analysed. This is a positivist approach, which allows generalisations and trends to be identified, justified and related to the base theory (Haralambos and Holborn. 2000), in this case to college affinity and social identity. Other advantages include the realistic way the questionnaire can be used to sample a large number of people without being either time consuming or expensive but also exhibits a limited level of research bias, if they are completed whilst the researcher is not present. Questionnaires prove a very uniform method of collecting data; each recipient answers exactly the same question, in the same order and therefore is a reliable method of fair sampling.
However there are also many disadvantages associated with questionnaires. The e-mail distribution, a form of postal questionnaire, may have the problem that very few people actually reply and often it is only those with an interest in the cause that will fill the questionnaire, creating biased results. In the case of college affinity may result in the students with a high affinity to their college providing the bulk of replies. Problems also arise if different respondents interpret a question in different ways (although this can be minimised if a pilot is carried out) for example if the questionnaire is distributed across a wide geographical range with different dialects. This is a major factor when distributing throughout the university as students apply from across the UK with international students that may speak limited English. A respondent to a questionnaire cannot answer questions that they are not asked, this means that the information obtained may not reflect the true opinion of the respondent, creating an answer that reflects what the researcher felt important, rather than the respondent. Parallel to this problem is that a questionnaire also restricts the depth of the respondent’s reply. Finally, there is also no guaranty that the respondent is telling the truth.
The questionnaire, once alteration based on the pilot feedback has been completed, will be e-mailed to every first year in both colleges, with the aim of receiving at least 25 back per college. The distribution via e-mail eliminates the potential effects of researcher bias, and also provides a method of reaching a large number of students taking little time and does not require the recipient to have to post back an answer.
Interviews
To obtain a more insightful response from the questionnaires, those who replied with an interesting, different or unusual response will be invited to an informal interview to elaborate on their reply. The aim is to interview at least four of the respondents. The interview will be kept short, at around a maximum of 5 minuets, take place in the Rocket Union, as it is both familiar and informal with the intention of keeping a relaxed atmosphere to the interview.
In effect interviews are the medium between more structured research methods, such as questionnaires, and in-depth methods, such as observation and are easily adaptable. In order to obtain a more in-depth and qualitative response, interviewing will allow the respondent to expand their responses but in a structured manor. The structured nature of the interview will allow a certain amount of quantitative analysis if answers can be coded, therefore some statistical comparison can take place. Answers given can potentially highlight new concepts or theories the researcher had not previously thought of, providing a major advantage over a questionnaire based method. This means that the interview method of acquiring data is highly flexible can does not have to follow a predetermined procedure, and can be as in-depth or superficial as the interviewer requires.
However this flexibility can create problems, and therefore be a disadvantage. This is due to the lack of regularity of each interview the un-uniform method of question delivery and question asking, therefore does not give each respondent the chance to reply to the same questions, in the same order having a major effect on their reply. This is a form of interviewer bias that can be very hard to prevent happening (Strauss and Corbin. 1990). Often even the presence of an interviewer can affect a persons ability give accurate or truthful answers, an interviewer also may direct the respondent towards an answer they want, rather than to an answer the respondent would have otherwise given. Practically an interview is more time consuming to conduct and to analysis than a questionnaire although less interviews will take place and they will be kept short.
The large number of total students with in the two Queens Campus colleges makes it imposable to sample every student therefore a smaller proportion is sampled; in our case the sample frame is the first years. The sample frame refers to the list of all relevant sampling units. However this raises the issue of reliability as the sample frame is not comprehensive. The interviews were sampled selectively, the sample frame provided by completion of the questionnaire. Again this is not a comprehensive frame but is ideal under the time restrictions of the research.
Analysis of the pilot questionnaire
The initial questionnaire consisted of 14 open questions, a factor that most respondents commented on. The general impression of the questionnaire was that it took a long time to fill in and required large amounts of writing. This resulted in the respondents giving little thought to their answers, in effect just writing anything. In some cases the longer questions were avoided completely; especially question 11, which were only answered by 9 of the 20 initial respondents. Therefore the questionnaire was revised to include a mixture of closed questions, with open question only where they could not be avoided: the final questionnaire consists of a total of 12 questions, 7 closed and 5 open. The use of closed questions is ideal when collecting quantitative data, which was one of the main advantages when deciding to use the questionnaire method.
Several of the initial respondents it transpired did not live in halls of residence throughout their first year, something that was assumed when writing the pilot questionnaire. It was suggested that this would be a major factor when considering a students affinity to their college. To account for this a question asking whether the respondent did live in halls was included in the final questionnaire.
The first few questions aim to assess how well the respondent knows the history behind their college, questions 3 to 5 concentrate on this. Questions 6 to 7 ask the respondent to rate their college against firstly all the colleges and secondly to the other Stockton college. Question 8 is designed to assess the effects of basking in reflected glory. Questions 9, 11 and 12 aims to investigate if and how the collegiate system may contribute to the resulting group social identity. For finial questionnaire see appendix 1.
Results
For graphical representation of the questionnaire results see appendix 2-8
- The method of distributing the questionnaire did not produce the response as initially was aimed for. To compensate for this, questionnaires were also distributed in the Rocket Union bar on the same day as the interviews took place. The researchers were not present whilst the questionnaires were answered although they were delivered to the respondents personally.
- The basis of the interviews was to allow respondents to expand on their replies to the questionnaire using a selective sample frame, however only two students that completed the questionnaire gave consent to an interview (see appendix 9 and 10 for transcriptions). The aim of carrying out an interview was to sample respondents that had contrasting answers and were in different situations. Respondent A is a first year that does not live in halls, but plays on a sports team while respondent B is a second year, and is also one of the four students that stated they lived out on the questionnaire, however did live in halls during their first year. Respondent B is also a member of sport teams.
Analysis
It became apparent on analysis of the questionnaire data that the majority of students did know the translation of the Latin on their college shields, although there were several respondents from both colleges that did not know. Identification of the achievements the historical figure each college is named after was, in the case of George Stephenson students, limited to that of their own college, with very few who were aware of the attributes of John Snow. However, almost every student in John Snow College was aware of both George Stephenson’s and John Snow’s achievements. This may however be a result of the Union Bar, which is named after George Stephenson’s locomotive steam train, The Rocket, and that Stockton is perhaps most famous for being the home to the first train route within the UK, from Stockton to Darlington.
Question 6 showed that no respondents, from both colleges, rated their college below good when compared to the remaining Durham Colleges, (see appendix, graph 2) while 76% of the respondents stated that their college was better than the other Stockton College (see appendix, graph 3). On explanation for this the replies were generally quite vague and short with answers ranging from “it rocks” and “we are better at football” to “an excellent sense of community”. No respondent stated that his or her college was worse than the other Stockton College.
68% of the respondents stated in question 8 that they felt extremely proud when their college was associated with something positive and 18% said they would be considerably proud; compared to 12% who said that they not would be affected (see appendix, graph 4). This shows a high similarity with the number of college activities a respondent took part in (question 10); 88% of the respondents took part in at least 4 out of the 6 activities, compared to 86% of the respondents that took some pride in their colleges achievements (see appendix, graph 6). This perhaps indicates that those students that take a greater involvement with their college’s activities show a greater sense of reflected glory when their college is associated with a positive event.
This can be further backed up with the replies to question 9 (see appendix, graph 5), which showed that only 6% of the respondents did not mind if the collegiate system was abandoned. Strikingly it was the same 6% of respondents that stated that they did not take part in any of their college activities. Question 11 assessed where the respondent associated their position within the universities system: as a university member, or a college member. The replies showed that 84% of the respondents felt a greater association with their college than the university as a whole, while question 12 showed that only one respondent would consider changing to another college.
92% of the respondents that completed the questionnaire stated they were living in halls of residence; while of the four respondents that were not living in halls, two of them were mature students, one was a first year but living out and the remaining respondent being a second year that lived in halls during their first year. The pilot questionnaire highlighted this as major factor when assessing affinity to a college, as a student living out would not be exposed to the general college atmosphere, missing out on the rivalry and sense of loyalty. The respondent that stated they would be prepared to change college did not live in halls; although they did still state that their college was good in comparison to the remaining Durham Colleges.
On analysis of the interviews it can be seen that there are some fundamental differences between the ways the two respondents regard college activities in respect to the extent of college affinity. Respondent A states that,
“I don’t think I would be at all bothered about John Snow College if it wasn’t for the fact I play under the college name”
This suggests that without taking part in college activities the affinity to a college is small, although this is perhaps a result of not living within the halls. When compared to the replies given in the questionnaire, this concept is touched upon when a considering the number of activities a respondent participates in and the extent a respondent feels reflected glory when their college is associated with a positive event.
Contrasting this slightly is Respondent B, who when asked why George Stephenson was the better college stated:
“Well, you know, it has to be best, if you can’t defend your own college what’s the point in being in it?”
This statement perhaps indicates a mid way point between social identity and social comparison theory with the tendency to defend their college identity by positively comparing to John Snow. The respondent B then goes on to declare:
“It’s the competition that makes it so good. I love the rivalry”
Again highlighting the positive comparison aspect, this is often fulfilling the human need to boost self-esteem (Suls and Miller 1977). Respondent B is a member of 3 sports teams, which include two college teams, and one Durham team. The greater involvement within their college than respondent A perhaps explains the contrasting sense of inter-college competition. Respondent A, it seams, sees the competitive nature of the colleges as Stockton against Durham, for example stating that:
“…down at Stockton we have to join forces to beat the teams at Durham”
Respondent B appears to also perceive a sense of a Stockton versus Durham however the sense of rivalry between the two Stockton Colleges is not forgotten, stating:
“I always take great pleasure in beating those toffs in Durham, and oh yeah of course John Snow!”
There is a definite element of basking in reflective glory evident with both respondents. This again indicates the enhancing of self-esteem via comparison. Respondent A when asked if inter-college banter affects them replies:
“Sometimes the competitiveness is a good thing. The best part when we have taken the abuse and then we go on to win”
Showing very clearly that reflected glory is felt when associated with positive college achievement. Respondent B also recalled that after a victory over a Durham college in their first year, George Stephenson students:
“…went into the Hatfield college bar in all their George Stephenson gear and everything. It was great!”
Here taking the reflected glory to a greater level by actually presenting their success to members of the defeated college. This too inevitably increased self-esteem. Both respondents demonstrate the effect of cutting off reflected failure, to a certain extent, respondent A, especially, when asked if they were at the Durham campus would they exhibit college affinity to the same extent as they would at the Queens campus, stated:
“Not as much, especially if they are talking about Queens in a negative way”
Respondent B takes a different approach, although stating that they would not wear a college shirt after defeat they would, however also, if given abuse about Stockton stated that:
“When people in Durham slag of Stockton, especially Stephenson, it just makes you want to be in that college even more, you know to stick up for the Stocktoners”
This does not show so much the effect of cutting of reflected failure, but perhaps a greater affinity to their college in order to protect or even defend its name or perhaps the respondent’s social identity.
Critique
The validity of the data collected is restricted. To start, the questionnaires were not completed under the same environments, with 25 completed via e-mail and 25 completed in the Rocket Union. The obvious difference is the effects of location. In a pub environment the influence of others, such as friends, and the effects of alcohol may have altered a respondent’s answer. Recent events may have influenced the replies given, for example both the George Stephenson and John Snow Christmas balls took place that week with may have had an effect on the answers based on college affinity.
Similar location problems arise with respect to the interviews. The interviews were conducted in the presence of the respondent’s friends who may have unintentionally affected the respondent’s answers; for example egged them on a bit. There is also an issue with the interview sample size; only two respondents gave consent for an interview. This does not obviously represent the population as a whole, so therefore cannot be used to make generalisations.
The investigation was strongly influenced by time constrictions, which resulted in a rather small-scale analysis of the collegiate system. If the research was to be carried out again under different conditions it may be worthwhile comparing the two Stockton colleges social identity to some, or all, of the Durham colleges, who apply to a specific college on entry to the university. Other branches of further investigation could perhaps compare the affinity to a college between first years and third years. This might highlight the differences that time may add to college affinity but also perhaps the increasing pressure of course study that may lead to a greater affinity to a student’s course rather than their college. It may also be worthwhile to attempt different methods of data collection to assess the objectives created for this assignment. For example observation of crowds at inter-college sporting events, especially events between the two Stockton Colleges or observations at JCR meetings that highlight the aims of both colleges and whether the activities of the JCR have an effect on college members.
Conclusion
It can be seen that the collegiate system at Durham has resulted in a great sense of social identity to college membership; this is supported by the 84% of the respondents who stated they felt a greater association with their college than the university as a whole. Very few of the respondents thought the collegiate system at Durham was unnecessary, therefore suggesting that the majority of students do obtain a sense of social identity through college membership. By belonging to either George Stephenson or John Snow, although allocation is based on an unknown basis, still resulted in the belief that their college was superior to the other such as in the manor witnessed by Henri Tajfel and John Turner (1979) experiment when allocating school children into random groups.
There is also evidence that supports Cialdini’s concept of basking in the reflective glory of a college, which can be seen in the social comparisons made between the two colleges based upon college success such as sporting victories or better college socials. The social comparison is perhaps most apparent through the strong sense of competition between the two Stockton colleges, which perhaps is a result of the perceived isolation of the Stockton Campus from the Durham Campus. This isolation can be seen on another level when comparing sporting events against Durham colleges, where there is a tendency for the two Stockton Colleges to, in effect join forces, in order to triumph over the Durham College. Cutting off of reflected failure was not so clear cut however, with some respondents instead demonstrating a tendency to defend their college, perhaps to maintain a personal sense of social identity.
Conclusions made on analysis of the investigation however must be kept within the boundaries of the research methods. The sample frame was not sufficient to represent the population as a whole and therefore conclusions made cannot accurately be used to evaluate the research hypothesis. However the data collected does provide an indication to the extent of college affiliation and feeling of social identity associated with the collegiate system; perhaps indicating the most effective areas further study might be useful in order to assess the research objects accurately.
References
Tajfel, H and Turner, J.C. (1979). “An integrative theory of intergroup conflict.” In W.G. Austin and S.Worchel (eds.), The Social Psychology Of Intergroup Relations. (pp 33-47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole
Hogg, M. A and Abrams, D. (1988). Social Identifications: A Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations and Group Processes. London: Routledge
Tajfel, H., B, M., B, R, P., F, C. (1971) “Social categorisation and intergroup behaviour”. European Journal of Social Physiology, 1, 149-77
Hogg, M, A and Vaughan, G, M. (1998) Social Psychology. Hemel Hempstead. Prentice Hall Europe
Suls, J. M. and Miller, R. L. (eds.), (1977). Social Comparison Processes: Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives. Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
Cialdini, R. B. e. a., . (1976). "Basking in reflected glory: Three (football) field studies." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 366-375(34).
Haralambos, M and Holborn, M. (2000) Sociology, Themes and Perspectives. London: HarperCollins Publishers Limited
Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (eds.) (1997) Grounded Theory In Practice, Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage
