First, we need to determine the criteria upon which the “ideal
size” should be determined. We have a lot of criteria from which to choose:
student satisfaction, retention, risk management infractions, academic
achievement and chapter operations, just to name a few. One could make the case
for using any combination of these criteria in an effort to determine the “ideal”
sorority size.
Based on the research that Josh Schutts, Sarah Cohen and
myself have conducted over the last year, I would suggest that the criteria
upon which this decision should be based can be simplified down to a single
variable: how women in a chapter think about sisterhood.
Last year at the AFA Annual Meeting, Josh and I presented
our research related to brotherhood to a standing room audience. The session
went great, and we had tons of questions and received a great deal of positive
feedback. After the session, representatives of two different NPC sororities
asked us if we would be interested in replicating our study and looking at how
women in sororities define and conceptualize sisterhood. We have engaged in
that work for the last year, presenting our findings at AFA this past December (check
out our slides here).
Women think about sisterhood in five distinct ways. I will
briefly summarize them here.
Sisterhood Based on Shared Social Experiences: Described as “surface
level sisterhood,” this is a sisterhood that revolves around doing fun things
together and always having someone to do something with. Women who think of
sisterhood in this way see themselves as the recipients of sisterhood whenever
they are doing something fun with their sisters. This type of sisterhood is
greatly tied up in the emphasis one places on the social standing of their
group, and women who joined their particular chapter primarily because of its
place in the social hierarchy are more likely to think of sisterhood along
these lines.
Sisterhood Based on Encouragement and Support: Women who
think of sisterhood in this way give and receive sisterhood through
demonstrations of support. “Sisters are
always there for you” and “My sisters encourage me when I’m feeling down” are
the most salient notions for women who see sisterhood in this way.
Sisterhood Based on Belonging: This schema of sisterhood involves a sense of
connection that goes beyond friendship. Women who think of sisterhood in this
way describe their sorority sisters as “family” and their sorority as their “home
away from home.” The connection is based on a sense of shared values and a
feeling of being appreciated and accepted despite one’s flaws.
Sisterhood Based on Accountability: When operating in this
schema, women understand that sisterhood is best demonstrated when sisters make
one another better women by holding one another to high standards based upon
shared expectations.
Sisterhood Based on Common Purpose: The highest notion of
sisterhood, women operating in this schema understand the “bigger picture” and
describe sisterhood as something transcending the individual and even the
chapter. They describe sisterhood as a connection, rooted in the ritual, to all
sisters past and present, and the nobility of working towards a common goal
together.
Unlike men, who describe brotherhood in a vary static way
(i.e. a chapter has a defined culture of brotherhood that does not change much
at the individual level over time), women describe sisterhood almost as a
developmental process. Women come into the sorority expecting and experiencing
the social aspects of sisterhood and, over time, grow and understand the more
evolved ideals of sisterhood.
One woman described this as the “the transcendence from a
sisterhood of selfishness to a sisterhood of selflessness.” You might
graphically depict this idea in a simple diagram:
Based on our research so far, it appears that there are
factors that both contribute to and inhibit this transcendence at the chapter
level. Having a chapter house, holding an office, and having a positive
experience with the standards process all appear to have positive influences on
this transcendence to higher levels of sisterhood.
Chapter size, it would appear, has a negative effect.
Josh, our statistical guru, subjected our data to a process
called ROC Curve Analysis (more on that here if you’re interested). We were
interested in seeing if chapter size had any perceivable impact on any of the
five different schema of sisterhood. The ROC Curve can be used to measure
inflection points, or a given point at which a set of data shifts in some
noticeable direction.
When we conducted the analysis, what we found was that there
was, in fact, an inflection point related to chapter size that significantly
predicted decreases in the last two schema (Accountability and Common Purpose).
In other words, at a certain chapter size, we can predict that individual
scores on both the Accountability and Common Purpose schema will begin to
decline, and the further beyond that number the size of the chapter grows, the
more noticeable the decline. As it turns
out, the number was exactly the same for both the Accountability and Common
Purpose Schema.
That number? 150.
When a sorority becomes larger than 150 members, it becomes
much more difficult for members to transcend from selfish levels of sisterhood
into the more evolved, selfless levels of sisterhood. In those chapters, most women remain stuck in a place where they see their sisters as a source of fun,
encouragement and support, remaining largely oblivious to the more advanced
notions of Accountability and Common Purpose. That is not to say that chapters
over 150 cannot achieve a place where most members transcend to higher levels
of sisterhood, but the data do suggest that as a chapter grows beyond 150, that
task becomes increasingly more difficult.
These findings, once published, will almost certainly have
implications for practice in our industry. What implications will this have on
expansion policies? Recruitment rules? Housing? Knowing that having chapters
larger than 150 is not ideal, how should campuses respond? How should national
organizations respond?
I do not propose that I have the answers to any of these
questions, but I am very much looking forward to the conversation.
