FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1996704037> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1996704037 abstract "When a staff member at NASW Press called to ask whether I would like to respond to a critique of my article, Women and Human Services Giving (January 2000, pp. 27-38), I was excited. I hoped that invitation would be an opportunity to engage in a broader discussion on a very important and timely topic: role of philanthropy in U.S. social welfare policy. This was precisely reason that I was invited by President Clinton and Mrs. Clinton to participate in first White House Conference on Philanthropy, which was held in October of last year. After reading critique, I must confess that I am somewhat disappointed. Instead of a substantive discussion of where women's philanthropy fits in larger context of U.S. social welfare policy, Dr. Sun attempted to find some weakness in my statistical analysis, a critique that a close reading of article would have precluded. Although this focus may get a self-appointed quantitative expert into leading journal in social work profession, it is just sort of academic chatter that serious professionals in field find a waste of time. Let me deal with pettiness, then I'll return to more important discussion. Although acknowledging article's descriptions and discussion regarding issue's importance, historical background, past research, and method, Dr. Sun goes on to claim that I neither observed nor explained why was such a large discrepancy between total sample of 2,719 people and 293 cases selected as part of logistic regression analysis. Not so. A more than superficial reading of my Method section explains that [my] analysis used only those cases in which respondents indicated that they were household member most involved in deciding to which charities to give (p. 31). In a study of factors associated with charitable giving, I considered it best to use those cases most directly involved with charitable decision. This approach necessarily removed many less-involved cases from analysis. In addition, Table 3 on page 33 shows that 16 independent variables were used in logistic regression During analysis, cases with missing information on any of these 16 independent variables or dependent variable were omitted. Dr. Sun also is disturbed by my discussion of and commitment to charitable organizations in relation to women's giving. She stated that the variables of and organizational commitment are not significant predictors, according to logistic regression model. Very observant; I agree and never claimed otherwise. To further this nonexistent debate, Dr. Sun then quotes me while conveniently leaving out several important words from quote: First,... an important motivation for women donors indicated in this [study] ... is a concern for (p. 34). A thorough and fair reading of my Implications section includes following: The results of this analysis indicate that people giving to human services, in contrast to those who do not, are more likely to be women. They are also more likely to be white, have a higher income, and volunteer in human services. In addition, given previously discussed findings of earlier qualitative studies (Shaw & Taylor, 1995; Sublett, 1993) a nd chi-square results of this study, is that women are more committed to role of charitable organizations in society and believe that they have power to improve welfare of others. [As] stated, an important motivation for women donors indicated in this and earlier qualitative studies (Shaw & Taylor, 1995) is a concern for empowerment (p. 34). Notice that I am careful to begin this discussion stating that there is evidence of importance of organizational commitment and for women donors and reference earlier qualitative studies and my chi-square results. …" @default.
• W1996704037 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1996704037 creator A5059770664 @default.
• W1996704037 date "2001-01-01" @default.
• W1996704037 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W1996704037 title "Response to Sun" @default.
• W1996704037 doi "https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/46.1.83" @default.
• W1996704037 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11217497" @default.
• W1996704037 hasPublicationYear "2001" @default.
• W1996704037 type Work @default.
• W1996704037 sameAs 1996704037 @default.
• W1996704037 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W1996704037 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1996704037 hasAuthorship W1996704037A5059770664 @default.
• W1996704037 hasConcept C100243477 @default.
• W1996704037 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W1996704037 hasConcept C166957645 @default.
• W1996704037 hasConcept C16920402 @default.
• W1996704037 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W1996704037 hasConcept C181907467 @default.
• W1996704037 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W1996704037 hasConcept C2779343474 @default.
• W1996704037 hasConcept C39549134 @default.
• W1996704037 hasConcept C554936623 @default.
• W1996704037 hasConcept C95457728 @default.
• W1996704037 hasConceptScore W1996704037C100243477 @default.
• W1996704037 hasConceptScore W1996704037C144024400 @default.
• W1996704037 hasConceptScore W1996704037C166957645 @default.
• W1996704037 hasConceptScore W1996704037C16920402 @default.
• W1996704037 hasConceptScore W1996704037C17744445 @default.
• W1996704037 hasConceptScore W1996704037C181907467 @default.
• W1996704037 hasConceptScore W1996704037C199539241 @default.
• W1996704037 hasConceptScore W1996704037C2779343474 @default.
• W1996704037 hasConceptScore W1996704037C39549134 @default.
• W1996704037 hasConceptScore W1996704037C554936623 @default.
• W1996704037 hasConceptScore W1996704037C95457728 @default.
• W1996704037 hasLocation W19967040371 @default.
• W1996704037 hasLocation W19967040372 @default.
• W1996704037 hasOpenAccess W1996704037 @default.
• W1996704037 hasPrimaryLocation W19967040371 @default.
• W1996704037 hasRelatedWork W1565294254 @default.
• W1996704037 hasRelatedWork W1606559560 @default.
• W1996704037 hasRelatedWork W16899338 @default.
• W1996704037 hasRelatedWork W1971260943 @default.
• W1996704037 hasRelatedWork W2021714766 @default.
• W1996704037 hasRelatedWork W2035385536 @default.
• W1996704037 hasRelatedWork W2088635572 @default.
• W1996704037 hasRelatedWork W2095557372 @default.
• W1996704037 hasRelatedWork W2153329836 @default.
• W1996704037 hasRelatedWork W2280739429 @default.
• W1996704037 hasRelatedWork W2296177066 @default.
• W1996704037 hasRelatedWork W2341670253 @default.
• W1996704037 hasRelatedWork W2417465843 @default.
• W1996704037 hasRelatedWork W253593835 @default.
• W1996704037 hasRelatedWork W2559864739 @default.
• W1996704037 hasRelatedWork W2772243260 @default.
• W1996704037 hasRelatedWork W3114291421 @default.
• W1996704037 hasRelatedWork W315165733 @default.
• W1996704037 hasRelatedWork W36188312 @default.
• W1996704037 hasRelatedWork W54730385 @default.
• W1996704037 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1996704037 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1996704037 magId "1996704037" @default.
• W1996704037 workType "article" @default.