Chapter Invites Other Rhetorical Scholars And/Or Fundraising-Scholars to Build Upon the Work Begun in This Dissertation Study

Home , Fundraiser (The Office)

No magic, just rhetoric: Understanding major gift fundraising as a rhetorical genre

Todd W. Rasberry, M.Div.

A Dissertation

TECHNICAL COMMUNICATION & RHETORIC

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Approved

Sean Zdenek, Ph.D. Chair of Committee

Angela Eaton, Ph.D.

Rich Rice, Ph.D.

Peggy Gordon Miller Dean of the Graduate School

August 2011

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Things accomplished in life, especially the important things, are often attained with the help of important people who offer inspiring ideas, provide encouragement, and point the way when we get lost. I owe a debt of gratitude to far too many people for countless acts of support to thank them all. So, I offer a deep expression of gratitude to those whose names do not appear below for their words of encouragement, enduring interest, and willingness to hold me accountable for completing this work.

Those who have known me my whole life have played a particularly important role in paving the way for me to accomplish things I never thought possible. My dear mother, Dorothy, taught me that you can finish whatever you start by not putting off things that can and should be done today. My beloved father, Kent (1934-2005), modeled for me, through his own insatiable thirst for learning, how the quest for knowledge is among the noblest of pursuits. My sisters, Denise and Jeannie (1962- 2007), always seemed to find ways to be proud of their brother.

There are those whose life paths have only recently intersected with mine, but who have nonetheless influenced my direction in life. My mentor and friend in the fundraising profession, William Glenn Wehner (1941-2002), in 1997 took a chance and hired me for my first fundraising job at Texas Tech University. Jane L. Winer, dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at Texas Tech, encouraged me to consider a doctoral degree as part of my personal and professional development. Joyce Locke Carter, director of graduate studies in the Technical Communication and Rhetoric program, convinced me during our first visit that fundraising is rhetorical and I should pursue the degree in TCR. Sean Zdenek has served unfailingly as chair of my dissertation committee and provided insight, encouragement, direction, advice, and wisdom that are responsible for bringing me to successful completion of the requirements for the degree. Angela Eaton and Rich Rice, members of my dissertation committee, provided encouragement by remaining interested in the research contained

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011 in these pages. Amanda Barbour, my faithful research assistant, has helped me organize vast amounts of information and materials for future reference, made many trips to the library, organized book notes, transcribed data, and many other things to make writing this dissertation more manageable.

Finally, I want to thank my family. Blanche Overton, my wife, has served as a calming presence at times when I was riddled with anxiety from working full-time, going to class, conducting research, and writing the dissertation. And my daughters, Brettney and Keri, never complained when their father spent time studying, writing, and grumbling about looming deadlines.

Thank you all for giving of yourselves to help me reach this point in life‘s journey. While I can never repay you, I will endeavor to make the work begun here serve as a milestone and not an end point in my quest to live life to the fullest, to create new knowledge, and to contribute to making the world a better place.

iii

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... ii

ABSTRACT ...... vii

LIST OF TABLES ...... viii

LIST OF FIGURES ...... ix

I. MAJOR GIFT FUNDRAISERS, MAJOR GIFTS, AND THE FACE-TO-FACE VISIT ...... 1 Major gifts ...... 3 Major gift fundraisers ...... 4 The MGF/D face-to-face visit ...... 7 Major gift fundraisers in higher education ...... 8 Rationale for studying MG fundraising ...... 10 MG fundraising research on the rise ...... 10 Research questions ...... 12 The research objective and methodology ...... 14 Dissertation outline ...... 14 Conclusion ...... 15 Works cited ...... 16

II. WHY RHETORICAL THEORY AND MG FUNDRAISING GO TOGETHER: A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ...... 18 Defining lore ...... 19 The role of lore in shaping MG fundraising rhetorical practice...... 20 The role of anecdotal evidence in shaping MG fundraiser rhetorical practices ...... 22 ―High quality studies‖: existing fundraising research ...... 26 Rhetorical studies of fundraising artifacts...... 28 The lack of research as an opportunity ...... 33 Filling the gap ...... 34 Genre theory examined ...... 35 Limitations of Genre theory ...... 41 Works cited ...... 43

III. CONSTRUCTING A METHODOLOGY FOR EXAMINING MGF/D DISCOURSE ...... 49 The research objective...... 49 Definition of a MG, a MG fundraiser, and a MG donor ...... 50 Research methods overview ...... 51 Qualitative research methods ...... 52 Recruiting observation participants ...... 52 MGF/D face-to-face visit observations ...... 55 MG fundraiser and donor interviews ...... 59

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

Survey research method ...... 64 MG fundraiser and donor surveys ...... 64 Analysis of fundraising lore ...... 69 Conclusion ...... 70 Works cited ...... 72

IV. RECURRING DISCOURSE THAT FORMS A MGF/D GENRE ...... 74 Communicative purpose of the MGF/D face-to-face visit ...... 74 Fundraisers‘ purpose for the face-to-face visit...... 76 Donors‘ understanding of the face-to-face visit ...... 79 Donor advice for fundraisers ...... 82 The role of persuasion in the MGF/D relationship ...... 83 Fundraiser observation participants ...... 87 Recurring forms of discourse ...... 89 Logos: promoting the institution ...... 92 Pathos: creating expectation ...... 103 Ethos: sharing personal narrative ...... 112 Written and spoken rhetorical appeals compared ...... 127 The importance of recurring forms of discourse ...... 128 The MGF/D genre ...... 130 Works cited ...... 131

V. EMBODIED PRACTICE: FUNDRAISING LORE EXAMINED ...... 134 Analysis of fundraising lore ...... 134 Comparing practitioner lore and best practices ...... 142 MG fundraising and the ―ask‖...... 143 Conclusion ...... 146 Works cited ...... 148

VI. CONCLUSION: WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? ...... 149 Research objectives: findings and conclusions ...... 151 Recommendations for further research ...... 156 Implications for technical communication and rhetoric...... 160 Implications for genre theory ...... 160 Where I see my work going from here...... 161 Works cited ...... 163

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 165

APPENDICIES ...... 199 A. IRB EXEMPTION ...... 199 B. OBSERVATION SCRIPTS ...... 201 C. FUNDRAISER & DONOR INTERVIEW INFORMATION ...... 204 D. FUNDRAISER & DONOR SURVEY MATERIAL ...... 210

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

E. COMPILED LIST OF FUNDRAISING LORE ...... 223 F. ACTUAL LORE FUNDRAISERS ARE SHARING ...... 225 G. HOW LORE ASSISTS FUNDRAISERS ...... 232

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

ABSTRACT What fundraisers do is not magic. Fundraising is a rhetorical practice. Fundraisers persuade donors to give. How do fundraisers influence donors to make a financial contribution? Existing research examining the rhetoric of fundraising has focused on written artifacts such as solicitation letters, case statements, and proposals. A review of the literature reveals a void in empirical research examining what major gift fundraisers actually say (rhetorical practices) during face-to-face visits with donors. This dissertation explores major gift fundraising as a rhetorical genre; i.e. the fundraiser face-to-face visit with a donor is a recurring situation in which typified rhetorical discourse accomplishes social action. A blended methodology of observations, interviews, and surveys was used. Six major gift fundraisers visiting face-to-face with major gift donors were observed. Twelve interviews were conducted, six with major gift fundraisers and six with major gift donors. Eighty-nine fundraisers and eighty-two donors responded to survey questionnaires. Findings reveal that donors and fundraisers agree that the communicative purpose of the face-to-face visit is to build a relationship of trust between the fundraiser and donor that will eventually lead to a gift. Three significant forms of recurring discourse (promoting the institution, creating expectation, and sharing personal narrative) are examined that fundraisers use to influence donors to support the institution. Finally, the role of lore serves as wisdom or knowledge for professionals and becomes embodied practice which guides rhetorical choices.

vii

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

LIST OF TABLES 1.1 2010 charitable giving ...... 1 1.2 2009 advancement professionals by job ...... 9 5.1 Who is sharing lore? ...... 136

viii

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

LIST OF FIGURES 3.1 Blended methodology ...... 52 3.2 Blended methodology details - observations ...... 54 3.3 Blended methodology details - interviews ...... 60 3.4 Blended methodology details - surveys ...... 65 3.5 Blended methodology details - lore ...... 70 4.1 MGF/D recurring discourse ...... 90

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

CHAPTER 1

MAJOR GIFT FUNDRAISERS, MAJOR GIFTS, AND THE FACE-TO-FACE VISIT

Americans gave $290.89 billion to charities in 2010. Of that amount, individuals donated over $211.77 billion (72.8%), corporations contributed $15.29 billion (5.3%), foundations gave $41.00 billion (14.1%), and bequests accounted for $22.83 billion (7.8%) (see Table 1.1) (Center on Philanthropy 4).

2010 Charitable giving total = $290.89 billion

$250.00 $211.77 $200.00

$150.00

$100.00

$50.00 $41.00 $15.29 $22.83 $0.00 Individuals Corporations Foundations Bequests (72.80%) (5.26%) (14.09%) (7.85%) $ in billions

Table 1.1 2010 charitable giving

The 2010 charitable giving statistics lead to the following observations. First, Americans give hundreds of billions of dollars each year to charitable organizations, which suggests that fundraising is important in our culture. Second, individuals annually give more than all the other constituency types combined, and ―for the majority of givers, being asked is cited as a major reason for their charitable efforts‖ (Schervish and Havens, ―Social‖ 241).

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

Robert F. Hartsook, author and fundraising consultant, suggests that giving money away runs counter to human nature (3). Dean Hogue, a sociologist who studied giving patterns, claims that giving any amount of money away makes no sense from an individual economic point of view (37). Giving money away may run counter to human nature and personal economics, but people do give money away, and in the U.S. people give large sums of their money away each year. People give for many reasons: i.e. to extend one‘s self (e.g. feel connected to a person or organization), to express gratitude, to affect change, to establish reciprocity within a social group, to gain favor with an individual or group, or to avoid taxes.

An important reason people give their money away is that they are asked to give. Paul Schervish and John Havens interviewed millionaires and determined that association and dedication are two important factors that motivate a person to give; ―Being passionate about a cause and being associated with a charitable group help mobilize charitable giving across the financial spectrum‖ (―Millionaire‖ 92). Gil Clary and Mark Snyder argue that there is a functional approach to motivating a donor to give and fundraisers must ―attempt to understand the needs and goals of potential givers and then present the ways in which a donation will help them achieve these goals‖ (121). To persuade (influence) potential donors to take action (give their money), fundraisers must possess knowledge of human nature and have both tacit and explicit knowledge of the MG fundraiser and MG donor rhetorical situation (referred to hereafter as MGF/D rhetorical situation) (Hartsook xi).

What fundraisers do is not magic. In ancient Greece it was believed by some that rhetoric was the use of language to create illusions of truth; thus, rhetoric was considered magic (Covino 20). Later, rhetoric came to be understood as techne (technical) and not magic. Rhetoric is the skillful use of language to communicate or persuade. My first mentor in fundraising, William Glen ―Bill‖ Wehner, used to say, ―There is no magic to what we do.‖ Rhetoric as techne and Bill‘s advice about fundraising suggest that fundraising is not some mystery shrouded in the unexplainable. Rather, what fundraisers do can be understood and explained.

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

Fundraising in its different forms (solicitation letters, proposals, face-to-face visits) is communication with donors to persuade them to give their money.

Fundraising appeals share a certain intended action; i.e. to persuade a donor to give money. Yet each type of nonprofit fundraising (e.g. social service agency, political, or higher education) uses specific rhetorical appeals to accomplish its purpose. For example, a social service agency may appeal to a potential donor by asking him to help those who cannot help themselves, those who are marginalized in society or those who have fallen on hard times. Political fundraisers may appeal to changing laws that favor one group over another, appeal to the need for better representation, or make an appeal on the grounds of keeping one party in office. A university fundraiser might appeal to a potential donor‘s gratitude for the role her education has played in her success, appeal to an alum‘s interest in a specific program, or appeal to someone‘s desire to give away money to avoid paying higher taxes. The work of fundraisers is rhetorical because the various appeals are communication designed to motivate (persuade) a potential donor to give money to the cause or institution.

The rhetorical techniques used by major gift (MG) fundraisers during face-to- face visits with MG donors have largely gone unstudied. How MG fundraisers and MG donors understand persuasion within the fundraiser/donor relationship is not clear. In order to discover the actual rhetorical practices of fundraisers, it is necessary to observe MG fundraisers with MG donors during face-to-face visits. Applying genre theory to study the rhetorical practices of MG fundraisers during face-to face visits with MG donors will answer important questions related to how MG fundraisers persuade donors to give their money away.

Major gifts The fact that people in this country have large sums of money to give away and are persuaded to give has led to the creation of a specific niche within the fundraising profession known as major gift fundraising. Each institution determines the amount

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011 considered to be a major gift. There is no standard dollar amount across the fundraising profession. What qualifies as a MG typically is determined by the potential giving capacity of the donor pool. For example, at one university a MG may be $50,000 based on the potential of the donor pool from which gifts will be raised. However, another institution may determine that based on its donor pool a MG is $15,000. Some universities may determine that because different schools within the institution have different potential donor capacities, the amount that constitutes a MG should vary for each school. For example, the business school may set the amount for what constitutes a MG at $50,000, while the school of liberal arts may establish $10,000 as a MG. Determining the amount that constitutes a MG is rather arbitrary, yet establishing a minimum dollar amount allows MG fundraisers to identify the prospects on which they should focus their efforts.

Major gift fundraisers Fundraisers come from a variety of professional and educational backgrounds. Few people grow up aspiring to be a fundraiser. Most people find their way into the profession via another profession or career like ministry, law, home making, advertising/public relations, pharmaceutical sales, teaching, nonprofit management, journalism, and banking. Therefore, the education and experience that fundraisers bring to the profession is greatly varied. They learn how to raise money in a variety of ways; on the job training, from mentors, from workshop and books, and from mentors and colleagues. There are competency certification tests like Certified Fund Raising Executives (CFRE) that fundraisers may choose to complete, but few employers require any type of fundraising certification.

The most common way for a fundraiser to learn tacit and explicit knowledge of the MGF/D rhetorical situation is by observing experienced fundraisers. Fundraisers associate with and listen to mentors, attend workshops and conferences, and read books written by practitioners while on the job to learn how to raise money. Cynthia Davidson conducted a study examining how grant writers in nonprofit organizations learn their craft. Her research determined that the two most common ways grant

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011 writers learn to write successful grants are to attend grant writing workshops and to look at sample grants written by other grant writers (41).

MG fundraisers, like grant writers, learn their craft by observing seasoned professionals and by attending workshops taught by fundraising professionals who share best practices based on their own and others‘ experiences. Learning by observation and from what others say they do means the majority of fundraising literature is based on anecdotal evidence. Fundraising ―literature [is] based on personal experience and a tradition of learning by doing [that] has created a rich and continually evolving body of fund-raising lore‖ (Duronio and Loessin xiv). Fundraising lore serves as a collection of meta practices used by fundraisers for engaging potential donors. Professional literature related to MG fundraising is largely absent of academic studies that test lore. Moreover, fundraising literature lacks research that examines the rhetorical practices of MG fundraisers during face-to-face visits with donors.

MG (MG) fundraisers are typically hired full-time by institutions to spend their time with potential donors who have the capacity to make a MG. MG fundraisers move donors through a five-stage process (Hodge 4; Gignac and Wyman 6).

 Identification –An entity is recognized as a prospect for a gift. Prospects are identified in various ways: via prospect research, through another donor, by a chance encounter with a potential donor.  Qualification – Often the fundraiser‘s first opportunity to meet face-to-face with the prospective donor. The fundraiser attempts to ―discover‖ the donor‘s interest in the institution, determine the donor‘s capacity to give, and define the donor‘s inclination toward supporting the institution.  Cultivation –The fundraiser works to persuade the donor to make a gift. The majority of the visits between the fundraiser and the donor prospect are called cultivation.  Solicitation – Typically identified with the visit in which the fundraiser will make the ―ask‖ for a gift. Fundraising lore and those who write about MG fundraising consider solicitation to be the most important stage in the process. 5

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

 Stewardship – The fundraiser works to keep the donor informed of how the gift is making a difference. Stewardship is the stage in the process that circles back to the cultivation stage and begins the process for securing the next gift from the donor. Fundraisers are required to make a certain number of face-to-face visits with potential donors in each of the five stages and raise a specific amount in donations each year. However, there is no industry standard for how many face-to-face visits or how much a fundraiser must raise. Each institution determines performance goals for fundraisers.

MG fundraisers are expected to raise major gifts. The MG fundraiser is expected to focus her time and energy on MG donor prospects (i.e. persons who have the capacity to make a single gift in the amount of $50,000 or more in a single payment, or payable over three to five years). MG fundraisers typically have approximately seventy-five to 150 potential donors in a portfolio that contains persons to whom the fundraiser is assigned to cultivate, visit, solicit, and steward). MG fundraisers meet repeatedly face-to-face with potential MG donors in an attempt to create association and dedication for the purpose of persuading the donor to make a gift. MG fundraisers describe their work as establishing and maintaining a relationship with the donor for the purpose of eventually securing a gift. A MG fundraiser maintains a relationship with a MG donor in hopes of securing multiple gifts to the institution.

MG fundraising is essential to raising the large sums of money that many nonprofit institutions need and have grown accustomed to expect. Exactly what role MG fundraisers played in securing the almost $211 billion from individuals for charitable institutions in 2010 is not certain. However, it is clear that MG fundraising plays an important role for nonprofit institutions. While various types of fundraising (annual phone calling, direct mail, corporate and foundation relations, and planned giving) are important to the overall success of a fundraising operation, the pinnacle and driving force of higher education fundraising is MG fundraising.

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

MG fundraising provides the highest return on investment and lowers the cost of raising each dollar (Lindahl 43, Rooney 41). For example, a $1 million gift that takes seven face-to-face visits over a three-year period has a lower ―cost of raising a dollar‖ ratio than does a $100,000 gift raised with six face-to-face visits over the same period of time. MG fundraisers meet multiple times with a single MG donor in order to cultivate, solicit, and steward a gift. Annual gift fundraising does not afford the time to build and manage a relationship with a donor that is expected of MG fundraisers. An annual gift fundraiser will have many more donor prospects (hundreds or thousands) in a portfolio than a MG fundraiser, but each of those prospects may give only $25, $100, $500, or $1,000. It would take 1,000 potential donors each giving $1,000 to equal $1 million. A MG fundraiser will likely have several $1 million prospects in a portfolio at any given time. It is not uncommon for MG fundraisers to work with prospects who can give gifts of tens of millions of dollars to an institution. Because of the potential for raising large sums of money, MG fundraising is viewed as the pinnacle of the profession.

The MGF/D face-to-face visit Throughout our country‘s history, fundraisers have met face-to-face with donors in hopes of influencing them to give. Cutlip, in tracing the history of fundraising in this country, points out that Benjamin Franklin ―was a creative and highly successful fundraiser because he shrewdly planned his appeal and carefully catalogued his prospective donors. He would prepare a list of prospects for each cause and then personally call upon each one‖ (Cutlip 6). It was not until the 1820s that other means of raising money such as auctions, formal events and balls, fairs, and contests began to be used on a wide scale basis (Cutlip 7). These other means of raising money were appeals to larger groups of people and became known as mass appeals. Mass appeals resulted in more people giving to causes, but each gift was smaller than the gifts solicited face-to-face. Soon, charity fundraising efforts like Christmas Seals, YMCA, and relief societies of various kinds inundated potential donors with requests to give, which prompted new strategies for effective fundraising

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

(Cutlip 61). The need for building personal relationships with donors through face-to- face visits grew into what we now call major gift fundraising.

The most effective means of influencing a donor to make a gift is the face-to- face solicitation (Panas 15-16). It has been suggested that one of the most important skills a fundraiser can possess is the ability to convey why a person should part with their money (Hall). Thus, the MGF/D face-to-face rhetorical situation is a vital part of MG fundraising (Mixer 37).

Major gift fundraisers in higher education It costs money to raise money. The costs associated with managing and maintaining a fundraising organization can be significant. As a result, universities are increasingly pressured to determine how much of each dollar raised goes toward the costs of fundraising. The cost of raising a dollar is affected by many factors, including the number and type of staff hired to raise money, the institution‘s past success in raising money, the institution‘s potential donor pool, the stage of a capital campaign, and whether a major gifts program exists alongside an annual giving program (Sargeant, Jay and Lee 342-343). One way to hold down fundraising costs is to focus efforts on those activities that produce the highest return on investment.

A single university often employs a team of MG fundraisers. For example, each college or unit (library, athletics, centers or institutes) within a university might have their own MG fundraiser. Multiple MG fundraisers at a single university typically coordinate their efforts through a centralized fundraising organization. Advancement is the name given to the organization within colleges and universities that coordinates and integrates the activities of alumni relations, public relations, and development or ―fundraising,‖ and it is not uncommon for a college or university to invest millions of dollars each year in Advancement operations for the purpose of securing philanthropic gifts to support the mission of the institution.

MG fundraisers are commonplace on college and university campuses. In 2009, CASE (the Counsel for the Advancement and Support of Education) reported a

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011 membership of 1,704 institutions of higher education in the U.S. The 2009 CASE member institutions reported the total number of individuals working in all Advancement fields (administrative, prospect research, gift processing, accounting, data management, donor relations, public affairs, alumni relations, and development/fundraising) to be 40,049. Individuals with some kind of development (fundraising) responsibilities represented 41.9% (approximately 16,800) of Advancement professionals. The number of Advancement professionals whose jobs indicated fundraising, or for whom fundraising was of special interest, represents 30.2% (or 12,100 individuals) of all Advancement professionals (Goldman). This suggests that approximately 70% of the Advancement professionals at CASE member institutions are classified as fundraisers, and nearly half of those classified as fundraisers are related to MG fundraising. An average of 23.5 Advancement professionals are employed in each of the CASE member institutions (see Table 1.2).

2009 CASE advancement professionals by job 1,704 U.S. member colleges/universities 40,049 advancement professionals

MG fundraisers Advancement 12,100 services 11,149 30% 28%

Fundraisers 16,800 42%

Table 1.2 2009 advancement professionals by job

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

Rationale for studying MG fundraising Four factors guide the decision to narrow the focus of this study to MG fundraising. First, MG fundraising is the pinnacle of higher education Advancement. Advancement operations seek to raise the most money possible in a given fiscal year. All other Advancement efforts (public relations, marketing, annual giving, alumni relations, data management, accounting services, research) work together for the purpose of identifying, cultivating, soliciting, and stewarding MG donors for MG fundraisers. Existing research related to MG fundraising largely ignores the rhetorical practices of MG fundraisers. The pinnacle of a profession provides the area of most interest to practitioners for research examining the profession. Second, it is important to understand what takes place rhetorically between donors and fundraisers and how face-to-face visits influence donors to give away their money. Third, my higher education fundraising experience provides me with practical knowledge of the rhetorical practices involved in asking a person to give money. Practical knowledge helps me navigate the profession, know what is valued within the profession, and shorten the learning curve to learn the field of fundraising. And fourth, researchers wanting to study MG fundraising may find it difficult to negotiate their way into the MGF/D visit because of issues like donor confidentiality and pressure on fundraisers to produce results (raise large sums of money) over the desire to create theory or knowledge for the profession. Being a fundraiser provides me unprecedented access to the profession that makes it possible to negotiate my way into the MGF/D relationship, including relationships with professional fundraising colleagues who are now senior-level administrators at institutions of higher education, chief executives of fundraising organizations, and senior-level major gift officers.

MG fundraising research on the rise Over the past quarter century, fundraising research has been on the rise (Lindahl and Conley 91). The increasing number of studies examining fundraising can be attributed to five important factors.

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

First, higher education fundraising began to evolve as a profession some four decades ago, in the 1960s. As a profession evolves over several decades, a body of theory begins to emerge and research begins to create philosophical underpinnings that shape practice (Carbone 21). The level of ―professionalization‖ of a given profession may be ascertained by examining the ―body of information and theory comprising the field‘s knowledge base‖ and ―the degree to which theoretical knowledge is used by practitioners‖ (Carbone 21). If professional stature is associated ―with the breadth of knowledge and theory that guides practice in a professional field‖ (Carbone 23), then one way to produce new knowledge and encourage the evolution of theory is through research.

Second, the need to raise funds and the presence of fundraising professionals have increased on college and university campuses to the point that fundraising has become an accepted part of university culture. MG fundraisers have become commonplace among college and university administration. College and university chancellors and presidents understand that an increasing portion of their responsibility is to ensure the success of fundraising at the institution.

Third, the prominence of capital campaigns and the large sums of money campaigns raise have captured the attention of higher education administrators, alumni, and researchers. An important component of a capital campaign is making the case for funding. The case for funding found in publicity and marketing materials provide researchers a wealth of material to study. The prominence of capital campaigns, the wealth of material for study, and the large sums of money raised are capturing the attention of researchers who want to know how fundraisers practice their trade and why donors give.

Fourth, academics are motivated to study fundraising practices because they themselves must raise funds for their own research, departments, and programs. There is no reason to believe that fundraising will not continue to play a central role in the academy. As MG fundraising increases as a potential research agenda for academics,

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011 it is vital that the research findings are disseminated throughout the fundraising profession.

And fifth, Duronio, Loessin, Carbon, Lindahl, and Conley are among fundraising professionals who are also academics and who recognize the need for research applied to the fundraising profession. The majority of fundraisers have neither the academic training nor the time to devote to conducting research studies. The exception is what I call the fundraiser-scholar. The fundraiser-scholar is a fundraising professional who possesses skills in academic research methodologies. Fundraiser-scholars combine their training in research methodologies with their first- hand knowledge and experience of the fundraising profession to deepen understanding of fundraising. Fundraiser-scholars play an important role in paving the way for other academics to conduct research related to MG fundraising.

Research questions This dissertation identifies observable and explicable rhetorical practices of MG fundraisers with MG donors in higher education. The research conducted for this dissertation seeks to reveal how the MGF/D genre is identified by a specific action to be accomplished in a particular situation through recurring rhetorical practices (Miller 159). I argue that typified rhetorical discourse situated in the MGF/D face-to-face visited and used to create a relationship between the donor and fundraiser indicates the presence of a rhetorical genre.

The dissertation focuses on the rhetorical practices of MG fundraising. Given the ever-growing importance of philanthropic dollars to support all types of charitable institutions and the fact that universities invest large amounts of money in Advancement operations, we should expect and encourage academic research that leads to creating new knowledge to establish theory for the fundraising profession. Best practices should be based on empirical evidence rather than the self-reported practice of professionals.

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

The research for this dissertation centers on two questions that will provide empirical evidence for the rhetorical practices of MG fundraising:

1) Does the MGF/D face-to-face visit function as a spoken genre? If so, what forms of discourse recur during the MGF/D face-to-face visit? What rhetorical purpose do identifiable forms of recurring discourse serve within the context of the MGF/D genre?

2) What roles does lore play in shaping the rhetorical practices of fundraisers? And how is lore shared among the fundraising community?

Fundraising research conducted over the past twenty-five years is conspicuously devoid of rhetorical studies that explore the MGF/D face-to-face visit. Therefore, it is important that research studies examine MG fundraisers during face- to-face visits with MG donors to reveal actual rhetorical practices that can lead us to better understand fundraising.

Genre theory can help us understand ―complex patterns of repeated social activity and rhetorical performances arising in response to a recurrent situation‖ (Paré and Smart 146). Genre theory can help us know how MG fundraisers encounter, interpret, react to, and create particular discourse to influence donors to make a gift. Genres guide social action and help the rhetor (MG fundraiser) negotiate recurring social situations, such as face-to-face visits with potential MG donors (Miller 151).

Identifying a genre makes it possible to understand rhetorical features that should appear in a type of discourse allowing others who want to invent such discourse with a guide. The guide (genre) can then be used to not only identify discourse but to teach other how to construct a particular discourse. Moreover, identifying a MGF/D genre will provide practitioners theory for understanding the fundraising process as rhetorical. Understanding the MGF/D rhetorical process will provide a way for professionals to understand how rhetorical discourse leads to social action. A genre will provide new ways of teaching and instructing fundraisers in the practice of raising money.

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

The research objective and methodology MGF/D discourse takes place in the context of a relationship in which the rhetorical practices are verbal and happen face-to-face. Employing a range of research methods ensures that accurate data can be gathered to examine fundraising rhetoric. (Chapter 3 provides a detailed overview of the research methodology used). The research methods used in this dissertation include case studies through field observations of MG fundraisers during face-to-face visits with MG donors, interviews with MG fundraisers and MG donors, and survey questionnaires completed by MG fundraisers and MG donors.

Dissertation outline Chapter 2 (―Why rhetorical theory and MG fundraising go together: A review of the literature‖) reviews the literature and forms the basis for the research questions. A thorough review of existing rhetorical studies applied to fundraising reveals a lack of research examining the face-to-face visit.

Chapter 3 (―Constructing a methodology for examining MGF/D discourse‖) explains the methodology used to conduct the research for the dissertation. The rationale for choosing observations, interviews, and survey research methods is discussed. In addition, literature related to the various research methods is reviewed. Chapter 3 provides specific details for how each research method is used for gathering and examining the data.

Chapter 4 (―Recurring discourse that forms a MGF/D genre‖) presents the research findings and explains how the MGF/D genre represents typified rhetorical action. The findings reveal three significant recurring forms of discourse (promoting the institution, creating expectation, and sharing personal narrative) and examine the purpose of the recurring discourse. Suggestions are made for how genre theory can leverage important new insights for the MG fundraising profession to shape best practices.

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

Chapter 5 (―Embodied practice: fundraising lore examined‖) explores MG fundraising lore and why it is important to understand the purpose of lore within the profession. Research reveals how lore is shared and how fundraisers embody lore.

Chapter 6 (―Conclusion: Where do we go from here‖) concludes the dissertation by presenting the reader with implications of the research for the profession. In addition, this chapter invites other rhetorical scholars and/or fundraising-scholars to build upon the work begun in this dissertation study.

Conclusion Fundraising is an important and necessary part of the fabric of American culture. American modern fundraising, ―has its roots deep in the nation‘s history‖ (Cutlip 3). Fundraisers play an important role in securing necessary support for nonprofit institutions. Because fundraising is an accepted practice in our culture and is critically important to the institutions that depend on charitable contributions, it should be subject to careful examination by academics employing sound research methodology and theory.

MG fundraising in higher education continues to increase in importance on college and university campuses. The MGF/D relationship is the pinnacle of the fundraising profession. Applying rhetorical theory to MG fundraising will help us understand fundraising as rhetoric. Therefore, the need continues for scholars to find ways to create knowledge that informs our understanding of MGF/D discourse. Trained academic researchers within the fundraising profession (fundraiser-scholars) who understand the importance of rhetorical theory and the dynamics of the MGF/D relationship must be diligent in pointing out gaps in current research and begin making the case for why sound research is important to the profession. As a fundraiser- scholar, I want to ensure that research is conducted that explores the MGF/D face-to- face rhetorical situation.

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

Chapter 1 works cited Carbone, Robert F. An Agenda for Research on Fund Raising. Clearinghouse for Research on Fundraising. College Park: U Maryland, 1986. Print.

Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University. "The Annual Report on Philanthropy for the Year 2010 Executive Summary." Giving USA 2011.55. Mon. 20 Jun. 2011.

Clary, E. Gil, and Mark Snyder. "Motivations for Volunteering and Giving: A Functional Approach." New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising: Cultures of Giving II: How Heritage, Gender, Wealth, and Values Influence Philanthropy. Summer (1995): 111-24. Print.

Covino, William A. "Magic, Rhetoric, and Literacy an Eccentric History of the Composing Imagination." Albany: State University of NY P. 1994. Print.

Cutlip, Scott M. Fund Raising in the United States, Its Role in America's Philanthropy. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers UP, 1965. Print.

Davidson, Cynthia R. "Grant Writing and the Grant Seeking Process in the Non-Profit Sector." MA thesis. TTU, 2009. Print.

Duronio, Margaret A., and Bruce A. Loessin. Effective Fund Raising in Higher Education: Ten Success Stories. The Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1991. Print.

Gignac, Pamela, and Ken Wyman. "Prospecting for Major Gifts." Major Donors: Finding Big Gifts in Your Database and Online. Ed. Ted Hart. Hoboken NJ: Wiley, 2006. 1-19. Print.

Goldman, Rae. "Vice President, Advancement Resources." Washington, DC: CASE, 2009. Case membership statistics. Print.

Hall, Holly. "Wanted: Big-Gift Fund Raisers - Dearth of Senior-Level Applicants Is Taking a Major Toll on Charities." Chronicle of Philanthropy. April 22 1999. Print.

Hartsook, Robert F. Nobody Wants to Give Money Away! Wichita, KS: ASR Philanthropic Pub., 2002. Print.

Hodge, James M. "Gifts of Significance." Hank Rosso's Achieving Excellence in Fundraising. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2003. Print.

Hoge, Dean R., et al. Plain Talk About Churches and Money. Alban Institute Publication. Vol. AL 184. Bethesda, MD: Alban Institute, 1997. Print. 16

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

Lindahl, Wesley E., and Aaron Conley. "Literature Review: Philanthropic Fundraising." Nonprofit Management and Leadership. 13 (2002): 91-112. Print.

Miller, Carolyn R. "Genre as Social Action." Quarterly Journal of Speech 70 (1984): 151-67. Print.

Mixer, Joseph R. Principles of Professional Fundraising: Useful Foundations for Successful Practice. The Jossey-Bass Nonprofit Sector Series. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1993. Print.

Panas, Jerold. Asking: A 59-Minute Guide to Everything Board Members, Volunteers, and Staff Must Know to Secure the Gift. Medfield, MA: Emerson & Church, 2007. Print.

Paré, Anthony, and Graham Smart. "Observing Genres in Action: Towards a Research Methodology." Genre and the New Rhetoric. Eds. Aviva Freedman and Peter Medway. Bristol, PA: Taylor & Francis, 1994. Print.

Rooney, Patrick. "A Better Method for Analyzing the Costs and Benefits of Fundraising at Universities." Nonprofit Management and Leadership. 10.1 (1999): 39-56. Print.

Sargeant, Adrian, and Jürgen Kähler. "Returns on Fundraising Expenditures in the Voluntary Sector." Nonprofit Management and Leadership. 10.1 (1999): 5-19. Print.

Sargeant, Adrian, Elaine Jay, and Stephen Lee. "The True Cost of Fundraising: Should Donors Care?" Journal of Direct, Data and Digital Marketing Practice 9.4 (2008): 340-53. Print.

Schervish, Paul G., and John Havens. "The Mind of the Millionaire: Findings from a National Survey on Wealth with Responsibility." New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising.32 (2001): 75-107. Print.

Schervish, Paul G., and John J. Havens. "Social Participation and Charitable Giving: A Multivariate Analysis." Voluntas 8.3 (1997): 235-60. Print.

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

CHAPTER 2

WHY RHETORICAL THEORY AND MG FUNDRAISING GO TOGETHER: A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

According to fundraising experts, there are no magic words said a certain way to mysteriously extract money from an unwitting potential donor (Fredricks xv; Duronio 55; Hartsook 7). ―Instead, donors want authentic, one-to-one, personal contact that inspires and motivates them to support a cause. They want fundraising messages targeted to them that match the way they think and feel‖ (Ross and Segal xv). Rhetorical theory can help us understand the face-to-face transactions that form the basis of MG fundraising.

Rhetoric is a strategic use of communication to achieve specific goals (Kuypers 13). Humans communicate to make meaning. All forms of meaning making are persuasive (Benson xii-iii). Human action is dependent on meaning making. MGF/D discourse is the strategic use of oral communication for the purpose of making meaning to influence a potential donor to give money. MG fundraising is a rhetorical act. Therefore, it is important that rhetorical theory and rhetorical analytical methods are used to study MG fundraising for the purpose of creating knowledge and producing theory to understand better what fundraisers do and how they do it.

Studying MGF/D discourse as persuasion will lead to improved understanding of how fundraisers attempt to influence donors through language (Selzer 280-81). Rhetorical studies of MGF/D discourse can provide insight into the values, beliefs, and attitudes that shape and are conveyed through fundraising discourse. Specifically, understanding MGF/D discourse as a rhetorical genre will help us understand and articulate conventional rhetorical practices that MG fundraisers use to create a particular social action (Bazerman, Speech Acts 312). A full description of how genre theory is applied to MG fundraising will be explored in Chapter 4, ―Recurring discourse that forms a MGF/D genre.‖

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

Defining lore When we hear the term ―folklore‖ or ―lore‖ we tend to think of fairy tales or stories that are generally false (Dundes 1). However, lore reflects important learning, wisdom, or knowledge of people. Lore is determined as such based on the attitude toward it by the group or culture in which it is held as important knowledge (Ben- Amos 4-5). Literally, lore is the knowledge or teaching of a folk. In this way, lore functions as a public possession or the collective thought of a group (Ben-Amos 6). For something to become lore it must be a shared value, idea, or belief of many within a group or context, and therefore will lack any marks of individuality (Boatright 9). As a body of collective wisdom or knowledge of a group, lore ―serves to sanction the established beliefs, attitudes, and institutions, both sacred and secular, and it plays a vital role in education in nonliterate societies‖ (Bascom 290).

Nonliterate societies may be understood as groups that do not have a formalized way of teaching practice (Bascom 284). For example, obtaining a medical degree is a formalized way of learning to be a doctor and could therefore be defined as a literate or a formalized body of learned knowledge that is necessary to be considered a member of the group or profession. Fundraising, on the other hand, is absent of a formalized body of learned knowledge necessary for being considered a member of the profession and therefore could be considered a nonliterate profession.

Nonliterate professions or groups must have a way to identify themselves and teach knowledge and wisdom. Lore becomes the way behavior is acquired in these groups. Once lore is established within a group, the actions lore teaches (ways of speaking, acting, dressing, or believing) become identifying characteristics of the group (Savage 11-12). Therefore, lore is an important part of the culture of a given group of people because it reflects behavior ―which is patterned in conformity with certain approved norms‖ (Bascom 284).

One learns how to function within a profession by working through a progression of stages that begin with novice and work toward mastery. The novice stage of learning a profession includes sharing ―context free‖ information about what

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011 to do, theories about what the profession is and what a professional does, and rules of thumb for performing tasks as a professional (Dreyfus 177). The use of lore continues throughout the remaining stages of professional development as a means of shaping identity, expertise, and mastery. The context-free information (lore) is passed along through each of the stages, typically from those who have competence in or mastery of the profession to less experienced professionals.

Once a piece of advice or best practice becomes part of a body of lore, it cannot be easily dropped. It will appear in books, guides, lesson-plans, and handouts. While lore is important to practice, it does not provide knowledge based on scientific or theoretical findings to answer why or how a belief or piece of advice works. Because ―lore is situated, contradictory, and eclectic,‖ it has limitations and it can present contradictory theories (Babin 198, Gillespie xxi). Regardless, lore remains an important part of how we learn. Professional practitioners learn how to do their work through lore; ―Architect, gastroenterologist, accountant—they leaned to practice their trade through immersion in its lore, in the experience that masters can provide for apprentices in actual working situations‖ (Winterowd 221). Because lore emerges from best practices based on anecdotal evidence, it is an important means of sharing rhetorical practices and transmitting a set of core values or beliefs related to the practice of fundraising.

The role of lore in shaping MG fundraising rhetorical practice Understanding the role of lore and how it is shared within the rhetorical community of fundraising is essential to improving professional perceptions and practices (Pajares 307). Current fundraising knowledge is shaped by lore passed from one generation of fundraisers to the next (Duronio and Loessin xiv). Within a professional community, lore functions as wisdom or knowledge for practitioners, and serves a utilitarian purpose of guiding behavior for those within the community (Alford 474). Therefore, as lore is passed from one fundraiser to another and from one generation of fundraisers to the next, it becomes embodied practice. In this way, lore

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011 guides behavior even through a fundraiser may not understand why or how the action relates to fundraising (Grider 179).

In addition, lore serves an important role as an outward sign of the fundraiser‘s membership in the professional community. Embodied lore identifies the fundraiser as a practitioner, a member of the professional community.

The embodiment of lore goes beyond its utilitarian purpose of guiding practice and community identity. Lore also functions as persuasion. Lore serves to persuade members of the profession to operate within the course of the expected and to be prepared to better handle the unexpected (Abrahams 18). Lore serves an adaptive purpose by helping individuals understand how to function in the world, as well as helping them understand their place within that world. When lore is shared among fundraisers, practitioners gain a sense of confidence for the MGF/D situation. A fundraiser responding to the survey makes it clear that failing to embody lore will prevent success: ―If a fundraiser is not doing these things then they will most likely not be successful, or it will take much longer to meet goals.‖

Practitioners share lore in three primary forms: ritual, writing, and talk (North 29). All three forms are evident in fundraising practices. For example, fundraisers share lore as ritual practice. A common ritual practice is for less experienced fundraisers to accompany more experienced fundraisers on face-to-face visits. The veteran/rookie donor visit is a ritual designed to teach less experienced fundraisers what to do, and also serves as a rite of passage for fundraisers into the profession.

There is no shortage of writing on fundraising. The writings are typically books, trade magazine articles, PowerPoint slide presentations, and even workshop notes shared with colleagues. Written fundraising lore often comes in the form of self- reported stories of fundraising successes and best practices. These writings are not based on empirical evidence; instead, they contain anecdotal reports of what practitioners have experienced or believe to be true.

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

The fundraiser community is largely an oral culture in which fundraisers talk about what they know, what they have done, what they are doing, and what they plan to do. This communal knowledge is typically shared in the form of a narrative or story. An example of narrative lore is the story a mentor told me about soliciting a donor in which he asked for a gift that was half the amount needed for the project. The surprised donor pulled out a check and tore it in half declaring, ―Oh, I thought you were going to ask me for the whole amount for the project.‖ The story was intended to serve as a lesson for practitioners to always ask for what you need first. The assumption is that a fundraiser can always negotiate for a lesser amount, but he cannot negotiate for more after the ask is made.

Lore emerges from the experience of practitioners and their belief in the inherent sameness of situations. The belief in the inherent sameness of the MGF/D rhetorical situation assumes that embodied practice should be the same in all MGF/D situations. Therefore, lore becomes a set of persuasive beliefs within the community about how fundraisers should act during face-to-face visits with donors. Fundraisers reduce the infinite number of potential rhetorical situations into familiar bodies of knowledge (lore). In this way, lore shapes the rhetorical practices of fundraisers.

One of the ways fundraisers learn how to engage in rhetorical discourse is by learning lore. For example, the lore about asking for what you need first, and then negotiating down might be embodied in practice as the fundraiser asking for a larger gift than what they believe is the donor‘s capacity, and gauging her/his reaction. If the donor does not protest the amount, then the fundraiser avoided leaving money on the table.

The role of anecdotal evidence in shaping MG fundraiser rhetorical practices Fundraisers use rhetoric to persuade potential donors to support—ultimately in the form of a financial gift—the institution‘s mission. The mission of the institution is part of the larger rhetorical context of fundraising. The successful fundraiser crafts the

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011 rhetorical appeal in a way that not only fits the institution‘s mission but also connects to the potential donor‘s interests.

Fundraisers can find a wealth of anecdotal information on how to create a successful donor solicitation, but are left wanting when it comes to empirical evidence of what fundraisers actually say when visiting with a donor. Fundraisers sometimes refer to anecdotal evidence as ―conventional wisdom‖ (Matheny12). Conventional wisdom can leave fundraisers confused because of contradictions regarding what counts as accepted wisdom. Below are examples of commonly shared lore or conventional wisdom based on anecdotal evidence that inform fundraising practice.

There is a lack of consensus among those who write about fundraising regarding steps involved in a successful gift solicitation. Matheny outlines ten key elements of a successful major gift solicitation (33-34).

1) Develop a clear statement of purpose. 2) Understand the prospect‘s frame of reference. 3) Determine the prospect‘s mental set. 4) Ask open-ended questions. 5) Separate facts from inference. 6) Avoid faulty grammar. 7) Avoid jargon. 8) Monitor non-verbal communication. 9) Stay in the information-seeking mode. 10) Develop a list of exit responsibilities.

Other researchers have proposed different elements. Fredricks suggests four essential elements to any fundraiser solicitation: 1) the warm-up, 2) the actual ask, 3) the prospect‘s comments/concerns, and 4) the close and follow-up (34). The rhetorical components of a successful solicitation offered by Matheny and Fredricks illustrate a common but serious problem with the literature available to fundraisers: anecdotal evidence reflects disparities upon which claims about MGF/D discourse are based. Both Fredericks and Matheny derive their key ingredients and essential elements from their experience rather than from research conducted with participants during actual rhetorical situations.

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

Contact reports are another example of how lore sometimes provides conflicting information for fundraisers. A common practice across the fundraising profession is producing contact reports. A contact report is a detailed record of activity with a donor that contains important information intended to provide a history of the relationship between the donor and the institution. Fundraisers often complain about having to enter contact reports because of the time it takes to perform the task and the lack of agreement on when and what should constitute a contact report. One consultant insists that keeping detailed notes on donors and all information about all visits and correspondence with a donor will result in raising more money (Sharpe ―Moves‖). Sharp suggests the following items should be included in a contact report.

1. What is the name of the donor? 2. Where did the meeting or event take place? 3. On what date and at what time? 4. Who was present at the meeting or event (prospect, staff, volunteers, others)? 5. What information did you convey during the visit or event? 6. What happened during the meeting or event (comments, concerns, objections, questions)? 7. What materials did you distribute or leave behind, if any? 8. What is the next step? 9. Who will perform the next step? 10. When is the next step to be performed?

However, experienced fundraisers training a group of colleagues argue that ―contact reports are not intended to be the complete repository of all communications or interactions with a donor‖ (Seattle University 1). Their suggested rules of thumb to determine if a contact warrants a report are (a) did the donor give you information that will lead to a gift, and (b) if the donor told another fundraiser this information, would you want to know? The lack of an industry standard leave fundraisers unclear about why, when, and what should constitute a contact report.

Lore suggests that contact reports and an important part of MG fundraising. Before a contact report is necessary, fundraisers must first make face-to-face contact with a donor. Where should donors and fundraisers meet for their face-to-face visit?

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

Fundraisers typically are willing to meet the donor wherever they want so long as they can meet for a visit. One fundraising consultant suggests that ―donors cannot be relied upon to pick the best venue for a visit‖ (Sharpe ―Program‖). Donors often pick restaurants and coffee houses that are noisy and busy making it difficult to hear and filled with distractions that prevent the donor from concentrating on the matter at hand. Sharp suggests fundraisers offer alternative locations that are quieter with few distractions.

Fundraising lore clearly suggests that the face-to-face visit is the most effective means of securing very large sums of money from donors (Harris). The face-to-face meeting between the fundraiser and donor is ―about personal relationships and the credibility of the person in front of them—the cause comes second‖ (Andalo). Andalo compares the MGF/D relationship to a marriage where the couple shares common values. Building the relationship with a donor is the process known as cultivation or friend raising (Klein 1; Hartsook ―Closing‖ 68; Hartsook ―Gifts‖ 250; Matheny 48; Ross and Segal 115). Cultivation or relationship building is viewed by fundraiser as critical to success in MG fundraising. However, fundraisers are often accused of spending all their time cultivating donors and not ever getting around to asking for a gift; cultivation is ―a code word for procrastination‖ (Klein 2). Suggested techniques for cultivating donors vary widely. Fredricks suggests 20 steps necessary for good cultivation (10-11). Klein suggests four steps for cultivating a donor (3).

MG fundraising wisdom states the purpose of cultivating a relationship with a donor is to ultimately secure a monetary gift. Cultivation should lead to making the ask. Fundraising professionals are taught that donors give because they are asked (Hartsook ―Gifts‖ 222; Male; Panas 11). The concept of ―the ask‖ is described as a specific type of event that contains a question, is for a specific amount, and should result in the donor accomplishing a concrete desired action (Garecht). This understanding of what constitutes an ask is largely embraced across the industry and taught to MG fundraisers.

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

While conveying knowledge through sharing fundraising lore based on anecdotal evidence occurs across the profession in books, workshops, training sessions, and among colleagues, it is not the only information available to fundraisers. Research studies related to philanthropy and giving number in the thousands. Like other professions, fundraising research often goes unnoticed by professionals because much of the research does not focus on MG fundraising practices (Sutton). Therefore, fundraisers are left to rely on conventional wisdom, lore, and anecdotal evidence to reflect upon and understand practice. Studies addressing actual practices of MG fundraisers are more likely to capture the attention of practitioners.

Although there a large number of studies exploring fundraising, there are relatively few that examine the rhetorical practices of fundraising and fewer still that examine the rhetorical practices of fundraisers. Studies that do explore rhetorical aspects of fundraising focus on artifacts and not spoken discourse. Existing research related to fundraising is examined below and gaps in existing research are explored.

“High quality studies”: existing fundraising research Researchers and fundraiser-scholars do not identify rhetorical studies among those they consider ―high quality studies‖ for the fundraising profession that needs ―a greater base of substantive, objective research rather than a casual acceptance of anecdotal evidence‖ (Lindahl and Conley 91). A literature review of more than 500 academic studies from the social sciences related to philanthropy and giving does not mention the need for studying the rhetorical practices of fundraisers for understanding donor motivation (Bekkers and Wiepking 1). Fundraiser-scholars seem to place the highest value on research conducted in the fields of economics, clinical psychology, social psychology, anthropology, sociology, and marketing (Sargent and Woodliffe 275).

Calls for future research related to fundraising have not included rhetorical studies as an area of study. In 1985, at a seminar in Washington, D.C., Robert F. Carbone, professor of higher and adult education, challenged a group of scholars from

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011 academia and a group of fundraising professionals to take seriously an agenda for fundraising research (Carbone 25-6). Carbone called for research in four areas: (1) reviews of existing research studies, (2) philanthropy and the philanthropic environment, (3) the work of fundraisers and their professional activities, and (4) the management of fundraising (including content analysis of written fundraising materials).

Those conducting research exploring fundraising and philanthropy exclude from their lists of important or high quality studies research applying rhetorical theory, effectively muting the voices of rhetorical scholars. Rhetorical scholars such as Barton, Benoit, Bazerman, Bhatia, Connor and Wagner, Crismore, Davis, Dickerson, Goering, et al., House, Laurer, Ritzenhein, and Sullivan have conducted studies examining fundraising artifacts. Since rhetorical theory is the study of how humans communicate effectively and persuasively, rhetorical studies examining fundraising logically fit into any of the four areas of study identified by Carbone.

A number of factors may account for why rhetorical studies are not being included in reviews of fundraising research deemed to be high quality. Those reviewing fundraising literature may be unaware of existing rhetorical studies exploring fundraising. Reviewers may not understand how fundraising is a rhetorical practice; therefore, they are unsure how such studies contribute to knowledge about fundraising. Existing rhetorical studies may be overlooked because they do not examine MG fundraising practice. Conducting rhetorical studies that focus on MG fundraising practices and the face-to-face visit may aid in assisting others to see the importance of rhetorical theory for understanding fundraising. Until then, it is important to review existing rhetorical studies of fundraising and build on that knowledge. What follows is a review of existing rhetorical studies examining fundraising artifacts.

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

Rhetorical studies of fundraising artifacts Rhetorical scholars have been interested in studying fundraising and applying rhetorical theory to various types of fundraising discourse. These studies are important to helping us better understand how fundraising is rhetorical. But the current work of rhetorical scholars has not focused on the pinnacle of the profession, i.e. MG fundraising and the MGF/D face-to-face visit. Focusing their studies on rhetorical artifacts rather than spoken may be one reason rhetorical scholars were not included among the ―high quality studies‖ of Lindahl and Conley.

Rhetorical scholars are interested in the practice of fundraising and are conducting studies that examine the rhetoric of fundraising. Barton (1997), Bazerman (1997; 1998), Bhatia (1998), Connor and Wagner (1998), Davis (2002), Dickerson (2010), Goering, et al. (2009), House (1997), Lauer (1997), McCagg (1998), Myers (1997), Ritzenhein (1998), Schaffer (2002), and others have studied various fundraising materials to explicate how rhetoric functions within these materials. What follows is a review of the types of fundraising studies that rhetorical scholars have conducted, organized into three types: (1) the persuasive role of fundraising artifacts, (2) the written elements of fundraising artifacts, and (3) the visual rhetoric of fundraising artifacts.

Persuasive role of fundraising artifacts Rhetorical scholars have examined artifacts to understand how emotion and reason are incorporated into fundraising documents. Appeals to emotion in fundraising materials are based on representations of charity recipients as pitiful, while appeals to reason are based on representations of donors and organizations as sensible (Barton 5, 8). Some fundraising documents ―appeal to the emotions of shame and pride—by representing a social rupture in the need situation (something shameful) and social healing in the act of charity (something one could be proud of)‖ (Bazerman, ―Green Giving" 7). A study of reply cards contained in fundraising letters revealed frequent expressions of thanks and gratitude, pseudo-quotes and emotional language to reach into the donors‘ hearts and minds (Schaffer 280).

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

Rhetorical appeals to emotion and reason are intended to ―motivate individuals through symbolic action to behave in a desired way‖ (House 229). Fundraising texts that ask for money allow potential givers to imagine themselves in the role of benefactor and to advance personal values through giving (Bazermann, "Some Informal Comments" 20). Fundraisers who blindly focus on the desired outcome (purpose of the appeal) neglect ―the formal process in which the argument is adapted to the audience‖ (House 231).

Failing to understand the formal process of connecting with the donor will likely result in failure to secure a gift. The urge to focus on asking or securing the gift can lead to fundraising appeals that transfer information without making an emotional connection. A 2010 study of fundraising texts from American charities indicates that the majority of fundraising discourse focuses on transferring information which creates a message that lacks interpersonal involvement and feels detached rather than friendly and personal (Dickerson 40).

Fundraising lore teaches that donors make decisions to give based on strong emotional commitments to a cause or institution (Matheny 48). Therefore, we could expect to discover that fundraisers who make face-to-face visits communicate in ways that build or strengthen the emotional commitment of the donor to the institution. This is typically accomplished by fundraisers through establishing a relationship with the donor (Matheny 48).

Elements of written fundraising artifacts Determining the rhetorical elements of written fundraising artifacts helps us understand how fundraising is similar to and different from other forms of communication. Studies examining various fundraising materials can help understand better how rhetoric functions within fundraising.

Fundraising texts, according to Myers, appeal to both chronos (time as succession) and kairos (time as the ―right time‖) (Myers 124). Chronos is reflected in the way that fundraising texts seek to keep the material in the hands of potential donors long enough for them to read the appeal (the critical moment). Kairos is 29

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011 evoked in the grammatical appeal that now is the right time to make a gift (or to join, authorize, plan) (Myers 127). Time is an important factor in face-to-face fundraising. Fundraisers need to value the donor‘s time (chronos) when meeting face-to-face. Time is money for the donor. Also, fundraisers talk about knowing when the time is right (kairos) before asking a donor for a gift.

Another rhetorical element important to making meaning is orientation metaphors. Metaphors help us understand relationships through spatial orientation (Lakoff and Johnson 113). A 1998 study by McCagg of fundraising artifacts draws on the work of Lakoff and Johnson to explore how orientation metaphors create meaning and understanding. Examining the function and assumptions underlying common metaphors in fundraising letters and promotional materials suggests that the more is up/less is down spatial orientation is the central metaphor for understanding how all economies work (McCagg 41). Spoken fundraising discourse incorporates orientation metaphors to communicate success and growth and to indicate the value of the institution or program the fundraiser is discussing. A fundraiser might tell a donor that a program has moved ―up‖ in rankings to persuading the donor to think of the program as successful.

Fundraising documents arrange various rhetorical elements in sequence to create meaning or describe for the donor what to do. A content analysis of fundraising letters reveals that written appeals are based on Burke‘s scene-act ratio: ―an act (giving) is expected to follow from a clear and compelling description of a scene (situation)‖ (Ritzenhein 33). In this study, the artifacts arranged their persuasive arguments in the Monroe Motivated Sequence: attention step (reference the institution‘s high quality), need step (need of the organization), satisfaction step (arguments related to how giving will help meet needs), visualization step (talk about how ―your‖ gift matters), and the action step (asking for a gift) (Ritzenhein 32).

Fundraising appeals share common elements to make them rhetorically effective. Other types of discourse have distinctive elements that make them effective. Comparing fundraising artifacts to other types of discourse can reveal important 30

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011 similarities and differences to help us understand better the nature of our discourse. Bhatia found that although there are rhetorical similarities between fundraising discourse (direct mail fundraising letters, fundraising packages, fundraising advertisements, annual reports, and grant proposals) and corporate advertising, philanthropic discourse has a specific generic pattern. Community participation, a framework of social consciousness, voluntary action, and noncompetitive stance give fundraising discourse a distinctive generic integrity (Bhatia ―Generic Patterns‖ 95).

Authors of grant proposals follow generic prototypes that are very similar to sales letters and job applications. In a sales letter the writer promotes a service or product; in a job application the writer promotes abilities; and in the grant proposal the writer promotes an idea for funding (Connor and Wagner 59).

Political direct mail uses a three-part formula to craft an appeal for funding: the dramatic statement about an immediate threat to an existing value, actions the group will take on the donor‘s behalf to ensure a particular ―position‖ is undertaken or defended, and an emphasis on the person as opposed to the organization behind the appeal (Davis 40).

Knowing how rhetorical elements of fundraising artifacts are constructed and employed provides knowledge necessary for understanding how the elements persuade donors to take action. Understanding how persuasion works in fundraising artifacts can lead to more effective and efficient practices. For example, direct mail solicitation letters utilizing credibility appeals written with high levels of readability receive the most donations (Goering et al. 1-2).

These studies examining rhetorical elements lend to our understanding of fundraising as a rhetorical practice by examining various aspects of fundraising artifacts using different rhetorical theories and methodologies. The studies suggest that fundraising appeals have rhetorical characteristics which can distinguish them from other types of appeals. Yet, fundraising appeals share common social and cultural ideologies with other types of written rhetoric.

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

Visual rhetoric of fundraising Visual rhetoric is the study of how visual imagery communicates and creates meaning through sensory experience. Examples of visual artifacts include photographs, movies, paintings, sculptures, architecture, diagrams, charts, and Web pages. Some scholars argue that visual artifacts are not simply visual perceptions, but rather conventions of a particular culture (Scott 252).

Photos, colors, charts and tables are persuasive to readers. The use of visual rhetoric makes fundraising documents more persuasive than informative. However, visual rhetoric can easily misrepresent, omit, and distort by attempting to communicate a certain way (Crismore 70-71).

Philanthropic documents are shaped by a number of forces including subject, technology, graphic design, and rhetorical situation (audience, authors, production constraints) (Sullivan 137). For example, the kind of paper, ink, and envelope used in print will communicate a message to the audience (i.e. if it appears too expensive, it may work against the agency seeking funding). Visual rhetoric in an online setting presents different challenges. Some videos, images, colors, and texts may appear different to persons using different types of computers and some persons may be unable to view them. Fundraising professionals need to become aware of how visual rhetoric operates differently in print and in online settings and to be aware of how audiences may respond differently to each.

Rhetorical scholars examining visual imagery of fundraising artifacts have done important work that helps us identify types of visual rhetoric and understand the role imagery plays in a persuasive appeal. The role of visual imagery in face-to-face visits has yet to be explored. One can imagine how visual imagery is part of the face- to-face encounter. How the fundraiser dresses, sits, and gestures might communicate something different in various settings and across different cultures. Cultural assumptions are often made that ignore cultural differences (Lauer 104).

Visual rhetoric is important to written fundraising appeals. How particular visual rhetorical choices are made should be carefully considered, taking into account 32

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011 the purpose, audience, and medium. In addition, persons using visual images like photos or charts to create documents for non-profits should consider not only what is being communicated, but what is not being communicated.

The lack of research as an opportunity There is a lack of research that examines and explores the MGF/D face-to-face rhetorical situation. The lack of existing research examining MG fundraising may provide researchers and opportunity and motivation for conducting research. First, fundraising professionals are divided regarding the role of rhetoric in the profession. Surveys conducted with fundraisers for this study (see Chapter 5) reveal almost half (42%) do not understand the practice of raising money as persuasion. Fundraisers who do not think fundraising is persuasive overwhelmingly defined persuasion as ―coercion,‖ ―twisting someone‘s arm,‖ or ―convincing someone to do something they would not otherwise do.‖ Fundraisers who view persuasion negatively believe their work is necessary for donors to give; however, they clearly do not understand the role of rhetoric. If almost half the profession does not understand the role of rhetoric in fundraising, then how can rhetorical studies be deemed valuable by practitioners? This may serve as good news to rhetorical scholars. Scholars have an opportunity to influence and shape the profession through studies that help practitioners understand fundraising as rhetorical.

Second, unlike other professions (law, medicine, ministry, teaching), there is no formal course of study or degree fundraisers are required to have that trains and prepares them for the practice of their profession. There is no industry mechanism or natural ―classroom‖ for teaching, evaluating, improving, and/or shaping the rhetorical practices of major gift fundraisers. Thus, there is no formal setting for academic research to be introduced and discussed with practitioners. Fundraising professionals learn their craft by observing other professionals, through on the job training, and through workshops taught by peers. The training focuses on best practices based on anecdotal evidence and lore shared among practitioners. The profession is wide open for researchers to create new ways for their work to shape the profession. Among the

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011 ways that researchers might shape the profession include consulting with fundraising organizations (e.g. Advancement operations on campuses, professional fundraising organizations), presenting at fundraising conferences, and publishing in fundraising magazines and journals.

Third, there is a lack of existing research examining MG fundraising. Rhetorical scholars who have studied fundraising have largely focused their research on written artifacts, leaving a clear gap in research that explores the rhetorical discourse of the MGF/D face-to-face visit. Given the importance of the face-to-face visit in MG fundraising and the importance of the fundraiser in constructing meaning in the context of the face-to-face visit, the work of rhetorical scholars has the potential for helping us understand fundraising in new ways.

These three opportunities may help motivate scholars to look at MG fundraising as an important area for study. The next section examines the focus of fundraising research over the past twenty-five years.

Filling the gap Existing studies examining written artifacts conducted by rhetorical scholars are an important first step to help us understand what fundraisers actually do with donors and how persuasion works to influence donors to give. The studies reveal important findings related to the rhetorical practices of fundraising. However, the existing research focuses on solicitation letters, brochures, Web pages, case statements, grant proposals, direct mail solicitations, and annual reports. If MG fundraising is the pinnacle of the fundraising profession, then the face-to-face visit is arguably the most important rhetorical situation to be studied. This dissertation addresses the identified gap that exists in the current fundraising research: specifically, the lack of research that applies rhetorical theory to the MGF/D face-to-face visit.

Unlike written fundraising artifacts, the face-to-face encounter allows the fundraiser to communicate with words, body language, tone, and style, and to immediately interpret responses. Some of the rhetorical techniques used in the face-to-

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011 face visit are shared with written appeals. For example, recall that written artifacts incorporate metaphors using UP as MORE and DOWN as LESS, and a fundraiser might craft an appeal by stating the university is moving ―up‖ in rankings, thus persuading the donor to view the university positively and as more valuable. Visual rhetoric is also an important component of the face-to-face appeal (e.g. how a fundraiser is dressed). If the fundraiser is dressed professionally, a donor may be persuaded to think the represented institution follows the highest professional standards.

Face-to-face appeals offer the fundraiser opportunities that written appeals do not. The human factor of building a relationship is considered by donors and fundraisers to be the communicative purpose for the face-to-face visit. Different methods of communication, such as written, telephone, and face-to-face carry different levels of obligation. For example, with a written solicitation received in the mail, a donor can say no by simply throwing it in the trash without ever having to speak to another human being. A telephone appeal changes the dynamic because the donor will have to articulate to the person asking for a gift the reason for their unwillingness to give (e.g. this is not a good time, I am unable, I already gave). The face-to-face encounter is declared by fundraisers and donors as the most effective means of soliciting a gift. This assumption is based on the fundraiser‘s ability to build ethos with the donor. In addition to building trust, the face-to-face encounter allows the fundraiser to consider responses from the donor and immediately craft an appeal tailored to a donor‘s particular values, interests, and needs.

The MG fundraising face-to-face appeal represents a specific type of rhetorical moment. To better understand this rhetorical moment, let us now review genre theory.

Genre theory examined Defining genre is an important first step to being able to identify the existence of a MGF/D genre and its purpose. According to Miller, genres guide social action (i.e. genre is used to accomplish social action) and help us understand and negotiate

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011 social situations through typified rhetorical action (i.e. genre is identified by the action it is intended to accomplish). Paré and Smart interpret genre as ―a complex pattern of repeated social activity and rhetorical performances arising in response to a recurrent situation‖ (146). Russell argues that genre is an important analytical category,

defined not in terms of formal features but in terms of typified rhetorical actions based in recurrent social situations. Researchers use qualitative and historical methods to trace the ways people create, appropriate, and recreate dynamic genres to mediate a wide range of social practices. (224) Scholars agree that a genre is a form of social knowledge, a way of constructing meaning through recurring social situations identifiable through rhetorical discourse intended to accomplish a specific action. Because comparable rhetorical situations recur, comparable responses to those rhetorical situations also recur. Comparable rhetorical situations contain recurring forms of discourse. The recurring discourse is intended to accomplish a specific action making it possible for a rhetor to create meaning by understanding how to rhetorically participate in a social situation. Benson argues that genres are the ―underlying forms that make thought possible‖ (Benson xviii). Kain and Wardle suggest that genres help members of a community create, interpret and use knowledge (115). Kain refines the idea by stating that genres ―are mediated by our affiliations with communities and our involvement in contexts‖ (379).

Rhetorical action that falls outside the generic situation can create confusion, seem senseless, be deemed inappropriate, and leave one feeling outside of the meaning community. For example, recognizing rhetorical discourse as a funeral eulogy provides us a guide to create meaning. We have an idea of what to expect, as well as what not to expect within the context of the eulogy. The eulogy genre indicates similarities in form and strategy for the audience to create meaning.

Genres govern discourse without our always being aware of their presence or how they create meaning. We study genre to help us determine how to make sense of the world, how meaning is created, and how we exchange knowledge about the world.

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

Genre theory helps us understand the way people interact and use different strategies and conventions for negotiating rhetorical situations (Giltrow 155). Recurring situations make genres possible; genres make recurring situations meaningful.

Rhetors may have different rhetorical purposes within any given rhetorical situation (Benoit, ―Criticism" 181). For example, a MG fundraiser meeting face-to- face with a potential MG donor (this constitutes the MGF/D rhetorical situation) might have a number of different purposes for visiting with the donor. A MG fundraiser might visit a donor to discover information about the donor, to recruit the donor to serve as a volunteer, to address a particular concern the donor has with the institution, or to ask the donor for a gift to the institution. While the MG fundraiser may have different rhetorical purposes for the face-to-face visit, the fundraiser‘s rhetorical activity serves to build a relationship with the donor in an attempt to move them toward making a gift. Miller argues that the rhetor‘s purpose plays a critical role in understanding genre as a communicative tool that guides (both enabling and constraining) social action. A genre guides rhetorical discourse within a particular social context, making it possible for communication to be understood and rhetors to make meaning by their rhetorical choices. The rhetor‘s purpose ―makes sense‖ in a given rhetorical situation because the genre establishes anticipated patterns of meaning. In turn, an understanding of the genre prevents different rhetorical purposes within a recurring rhetorical situation from being reduced to kinds or types of categories of discourse. Genre contains discourse and helps make meaning by focusing on the action the genre is intended to accomplish.

MG fundraisers can have various rhetorical purposes (reasons for meeting with the donor) working within the MGF/D genre. Regardless of the stated rhetorical purpose(s), there is one intended social action to be accomplished; the fundraiser wants the donor‘s support for the institution. For example, when a MG fundraiser meets face-to-face with a potential donor for the purpose of asking the donor to serve on the executive board, the fundraiser‘s intention is for the donor, as a board member, to ultimately make a gift to support the institution. The donor may even ask

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011 specifically, ―What is my volunteer service on the board going to cost me?‖ The various stated purposes for discourse (meeting with a donor) have meaning because the discourse takes place within a genre.

Fundraising discourse is described as ―one of the most dynamic forms of language use […] It is a form of discourse in which form-function correlation is rather difficult to establish‖ (Bhatia "Generic Patterns‖ 100). Bhatia argues that categorizing fundraising discourse is difficult because of what he terms a large variety of ―creative options‖ that fundraising discourse can take. Bhatia suggests that the study of a rhetorical genre should be grounded or contextualized in specific rhetorical context or situation ("Genre Analysis‖ 282).

Given the ―creative options‖ that fundraising discourse can take, research to establish a MGF/D genre must find a recognizable rhetorical context or situation (Bhatia, ―Analyzing Genre" 13). In the context of the MGF/D situation, it is important to establish the rhetorical action to be accomplished or the communicative purpose of the genre. Those who write about fundraising, as well as donors and fundraisers themselves, identify the communicative purpose as building a relationship between the fundraiser and donor (described further in Chapter 4).

Even with a shared communicative purpose, no two rhetorical situations will be identical. Genres are constantly evolving; they are by their very nature ―destabilized.‖ Kain calls this connectedness of rhetorical situations ―intertextuality‖ (113). Koschmann describes ―intertextuality‖ as the interweaving into a current rhetorical situation what has been written, said, and thought (2). ―Intertextuality‖ is a way of reminding those who draw on genre theory that no rhetorical situation is isolated from neighboring rhetorical situations. Stated another way, there is no single MG fundraising rhetorical situation that can be universally applied across the profession. Genres contain ―complex and evolving sets of choices about discourse that participants in activities must effectively and constantly manage‖ [italics mine] (Kain 379).

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

Within a particular rhetorical context, discourse is mediated through its relationship to and with prior discourse (Briggs and Bautnan 147). Take for example a children‘s bedtime story that occurs repeatedly at bedtime. Each time the book is read, the words on the pages do not change but the intertextual dynamics change depending on who reads the book, what took place before bedtime, the parent and/or the child‘s motivation for reading the book, as well as countless other factors. Thus, each time the story is read the recurring rhetorical situation of the bedtime story is different. Arguably the fact it is a bedtime story does not change. The bedtime story genre is identifiable by the intended action to be accomplished (preparing to go to sleep) through typified rhetorical discourse (a story read aloud followed by the goodnight wishes of the parent) that is situated in a recurring social situation (at bedtime with the child in bed and the lights dimmed). The genre has meaning for the family; i.e. it signals to both the child and the parents that sleep will follow the activity.

The bedtime story analogy can be applied to MG fundraising. The ―intertextual‖ dynamics of the MGF/D genre suggest that no two visits are the same (even if the same fundraiser and donor meet for additional visits in the same place). Each time a fundraiser meets with a donor, something is different. Time between visits has passed, the potential donor has experienced other charitable solicitations, the donor has made/is making other charitable contributions, changes occur in the lives of the MGF and/or donor, changes occur at the institution, the economy changes, and a donor‘s wealth (or perceived wealth) can change the dynamics of each visit. However, even with the ever-changing ―intertextual‖ dynamics, the MGF/D genre is identifiable by the action to be accomplished (support for the institution) through rhetorical discourse (typified forms of discourse) situated in a recurring social situation (face-to- face visit).

The action of the donor is influenced by the ability of the fundraiser to make meaning (to help the donor interpret meaning) through rhetorical discourse in the context of a social construct (the face-to-face visit). Recurring situations are social constructs; ―What recurs is not a material situation (a real, objective, factual event) but

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011 our construct of a type‖ (Miller 157). A genre does not consist of a series of acts in which certain rhetorical forms recur. A genre is defined by recognizable forms of rhetorical discourse bound together by an internal dynamic or ―synthetic core in which certain significant rhetorical elements, e.g., a system of belief, lines of argument, stylistic choices, and the perception of the situation, are fused into an indivisible whole‖ (Campbell and Jamieson 21). A rhetorical genre ―is given its character by a fusion of forms not by its individual elements‖ (Campbell and Jamieson 21). Therefore, a genre is identifiable by the specific rhetorical action to be accomplished through typified rhetorical discourse situated in a recurring social context. The genre helps us see beyond the individual forms and provides a means of understanding how the forms work together to create a rhetorical act. A MGF/D genre should have identifiable recurring discourse used to accomplish a rhetorical action (support for the institution) situated in a social context (face-to-face visit).

Recurring discourse is important to identifying a genre. A genre examines what is said or conveyed by the rhetor. However, what is left unsaid in rhetorical situations can also reveal shared knowledge of the specific use of a genre (Giltrow 130). The more immersed a community is in the practice of a rhetorical genre, the more likely that leaving things unsaid becomes a way of creating mutual understanding. In these discourse communities, to say what is assumed may sound inappropriate or even be confuse meaning. For example, MG fundraisers typically do not start the face-to-face rhetorical visit with the donor by stating, ―I am here to ask you for a gift.‖ It is assumed that the fundraiser intends at some point to solicit the donor for a gift to support the institution. Leaving talk about money out of a conversation becomes a way of creating mutual understanding about the right time to talk about (or ask for) a gift. What a fundraiser chooses not to say can also reveal important insight into how genre influences rhetorical choices. For example, a fundraiser may use a euphemism like ―opportunity‖ rather than ―need‖ to refer to funding priorities. A fundraiser might state, ―There is an opportunity to name the great hall, the largest public gathering space in the new building, for a gift of $1 million,‖

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011 and avoid references to need (i.e. ―We still need $2 million to complete the funding for our new building.‖). This allows the fundraiser to appeal to what she may assume is the donor‘s desire to take advantage of opportunities when they come along. Giltrow refers to these types of shared generic conventions as ―background knowledge‖ (155).

Genres provide ―background knowledge‖ that enables people to function with a level of expectation in rhetorical situations. Genre conventions help us typify rhetorical situations because the conventions establish correlations or cohesions within the social context. Once rhetorical action is typified, recurrence is established. Recurrence suggests resemblances that enable us to predict how to negotiate social realities. The recurring MGF/D rhetorical situation (face-to-face visit) provides insight into how the MGF/D genre assists fundraisers in making meaning (through recurring discourse) for the purpose of motivating a specific action (making a gift to the institution). Understanding why a particular convention functions as it does can be important to understanding the genre.

Understanding genres provides important insight into how we make meaning and communicate to accomplish rhetorical action. However, as with any theory used to understand a complex phenomenon like human discourse, there are limitations to what a single theory can teach us.

Limitations of Genre theory It is important to understand not only the benefits of genre theory, but also the limitations. Reducing a rhetorical exigence into components ―destroys it as a rhetorical and social phenomenon‖ (Miller 157). Benoit agrees that traditional genre theories (Aristotelian) that solely focus on form and type have inherent limitations. Traditional genre theory ―oversimplifies the production of rhetorical discourse by highlighting a single factor in the inherently complex rhetorical event‖ ("Genre Theory" 178). However, Benoit cautions that the rhetorical situation should not be singled out or privileged as the single source for what takes place in a rhetorical genre. He argues that the rhetor and her/his persuasive intent (Burkean scene, rhetoric, act, purpose, and

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011 agency) also influence the rhetorical responses. Even though he believes there are potential pitfalls to defining genre as social action, Benoit identifies three important reasons for applying generic analysis to recurring rhetorical situations. First, generic descriptions help build rhetorical theory that can then be used to describe rhetorical practices of a particular genre. Second, systematic generic descriptions can lead to the invention of particular types of discourse. And third, generic descriptions can be used to evaluate and understand other instances of a particular genre ("Rhetorical Criticism" 85).

Although there are limitations to genre theory, it has much to offer in our understanding of MG fundraising. Building rhetorical theory, inventing types of discourse, and understanding rhetorical practices are good reasons for applying genre theory to MG fundraising discourse. A blended research methodology of observations, interviews, and surveys is used to explore actual rhetorical practices of fundraisers. Detail of the blended methodology is discussed in Chapter 3 followed by a discussion of the findings.

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

Chapter 2 works cited Abrahams, Roger D. "Personal Power and Social Restraint in the Definition of Folklore." The Journal of American Folklore. 84.331 (1971): 16-30. Print.

Alford, Violet. "Why Do We Study Folklore." Folklore. 64.4 (1953): 473-483. Print.

Andalo, Debbie. "How to Get Ahead in Major Gift Fundraising: Trust, Transparency and a Good Relationship with the Giver Are Key to Getting That Big Charity Donation." guardian.co.uk. Guardian News and Media Limited (2011). Web. 20 Jul. 2011.

Babin, Edith H., and Kimberly Harrison. Contemporary Composition Studies: A Guide to Theorists and Terms. Westport, CT: Greenwood P, 1999. Print.

Barton, Ellen. "Troubling Binaries in the Rhetoric of Fund-Raising." Written Discourse in Philanthropic Fund Raising: Issues of Language and Rhetoric. Vol. #98-13. Indianapolis: Indiana Center for Intercultural Communication and Center on Philanthropy, 1997. 1-16. Print.

Bascom, William R. "Folklore and Anthropology." The Journal of American Folklore. 66.262 (1953): 283-290. Print.

Bazerman, Charles. "Green Giving: Engagement, Values, Activism, and Community Life." New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising. 22 (1998): 7-22. Print.

---. "Some Informal Comments on Texts Mediating Fund-Raising Relationships: Cultural Sites of Affiliation." Written Discourse in Philanthropic Fund Raising: Issues of Language and Rhetoric. Vol. #98-13. Indianapolis: Indiana Center for Intercultural Communication and Center on Philanthropy, 1997. 17- 26. Print.

---. "Speech Acts, Genres, and Activity Systems: How Texts Organize Activity and People." What Writing Does and How It Does It: An Introduction to Analyzing Texts and Textual Practices. Eds. Charles Bazerman and Paul Prior. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2004. 309-39. Print.

Bekkers, René, and Pamala Wiepking. "Generosity and Philanthropy: A Literature Review." SSRN eLibrary (2007). Web. 8 Jul. 2010.

Ben-Amos, Dan. "Toward a Definition of Folklore in Context." The Journal of American Folklore. 84.331 (1971): 3-15. Print.

Benoit, William. "Beyond Genre Theory: The Genesis of Rhetorical Action." Communication Monographs. 67 (2000): 178-92. Print.

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

---. "Generic Rhetorical Criticism." The Art of Rhetorical Criticism. Ed. Jim A. Kuypers. Boston: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon, 2005. 85-106. Print.

Benson, Thomas W. Landmark Essays on Rhetorical Criticism. Landmark Essays. Vol. 5. Davis, CA: Hermagoras P, 1993. Print.

Bhatia, Vijay K. Analyzing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings. Applied Linguistics and Language Study. NY: Longman, 1993. Print.

---. "Applied Genre Analysis: Analytical Advances and Pedagogical Procedures." Genre in the Classroom: Multiple Perspectives. Ed. Ann M. Johns. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2002. Print.

---. "Generic Patterns in Fundraising Discourse." New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising. 22 (1998): 95-110. Print.

Boatright, Mody C. ―Folklore in a Literate Society.‖ Inside the Classroom (and Out): How We Learn Through Folklore. Ed. Untiedt, Kenneth L. Denton, TX: UNT P, 2005. 2-9. Print.

Briggs, Charles L., and Richard Bautnan. "Genre, Intertextuality, and Social Power." Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 2.2 (1992): 131-72. Print.

Campbell, Karlyn K., and Kathleen H. Jamieson. Form and Genre: Shaping Rhetorical Action. Kansas Conference on Significant Form in Rhetorical Criticism. Falls Church, VA: Speech Communication Association, 1978. Print.

Carbone, Robert F. An Agenda for Research on Fund Raising. Clearinghouse for Research on Fundraising. College Park: U Maryland, 1986. Print.

Clark, Dave. "Is Professional Writing Relevant? A Model for Action Research." Technical Communication Quarterly. 13.3 (2004): 307-23. Print.

Connor, Ulla, and Lilya Wagner. "Language Use in Grant Proposals by Nonprofits: Spanish and English." New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising. 22 (1998): 59-74. Print.

Crismore, Avon. "Visual Rhetoric in an Indiana University Foundation 'Annual Report'." Written Discourse in Philanthropic Fund Raising: Issues of Language and Rhetoric. Vol. #98-13. Indianapolis: Indiana Center for Intercultural Communication and Center on Philanthropy, 1997. 65-100. Print.

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

Davis, James P. "The Rhetoric of Direct Mail, or New Uses for Junk Mail." Journal of American & Comparative Cultures 25.1-2 (2002): 38-42. Print.

Dickerson, Frank C. "The Way We Write Is All Wrong: Fixing the Broken Discourse of Fundraising." The Nonprofit Quarterly. Spring (2010): 40-45. Print.

Dreyfus, Stuart E. "The Five-Stage Model of Adult Skill Acquisition." Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 24.3 (2004): 177. Print.

Dundes, Alan. Interpreting Folklore. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1980. Print.

Duronio, Margaret A. "The Fund Raising Profession." Critical Issues in Fund Raising. Ed. Dwight Burlingame. NY: Wiley, 1997. 37-57. Print.

Fredricks, Laura. The Ask: How to Ask for Support for Your Nonprofit Cause, Creative Project, or Business Venture. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2010. Print.

Garecht, Joe. "What Is a Fundraising Ask?" The Fundraising Authority (2010). Ed. Garecht, Joe. Web. 19 Jul. 2011.

Gillespie, Paula. "Beyond the House of Lore: WCenter as Research Site." Writing Center Research: Extending the Conversation. Ed. Paula Gillespie, et al. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2002. 39-52. Print.

Giltrow, Janet. "Genre and the Pragmatic Concept of Background Knowledge." Genre and the New Rhetoric. Eds. Aviva Freedman and Peter Medway. Bristol, PA: Taylor & Francis, 1994. Print.

Goering, Elizabeh M., et al. "Persuasion in Fundraising Letters: An Interdisciplinary Study." Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. 20.10 (2009). Print.

Grider, Sylvia. "Passed down from Generation to Genration: Folklore and Teaching." The Journal of American Folklore. 108.428 (1995): 178-185. Print.

Hartsook, Robert F. Closing That Gift! How to Be Successful 99% of the Time. Wichita, KS: ASR Philanthropic, 1999. Print.

---. How to Get Million Dollar Gifts and Have Donors Thank You! Wichita, KS: ASR Philanthropic, 1999. Print.

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

Hartsook, Robert F. Nobody Wants to Give Money Away!. Wichita, KS: ASR Philanthropic Pub., 2002. Print.

House, Robert G. "A Critical Perspective on Fund Raising Communication: Genre in Search of Rhetoric." Library Management. 18.5 (1997): 229. Print.

Kain, Donna J. "Constructing Genre: A Threefold Typology." Technical Communication Quarterly. 14.4 (2005): 375-409. Print.

Kain, Donna J., and Elizabeth Wardle. "Building Context: Using Activity Theory to Teach About Genre in Multi-Major Professional Communication Courses." Technical Communication Quarterly. 14.2 (2005): 113-39. Print.

Klein, Kim. "Donor Cultivation: What It Is and What It Is Not." Grassroots Fundraising Journal (1999): 1-3. Print.

Koschmann, Timothy. "Toward a Dialogic Theory of Learning: Bakhtin's Contribution to Understanding Learning in Settings of Collaboration." Proceedings of the 1999 Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning. Palo Alto, CA: International Society of the Learning Sciences, 1999. Print.

Kuypers, Jim A. The Art of Rhetorical Criticism. Boston: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon, 2005. Print.

Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: U Chicago P, 1980. Print.

Lauer, Janice. "Fund-Raising Letters." Written Discourse in Philanthropic Fund Raising: Issues of Language and Rhetoric. Vol. #98-13. Indianapolis: Indiana Center for Intercultural Communication and Center on Philanthropy, 1997. 101-08. Print.

Lindahl, Wesley E., and Aaron Conley. "Literature Review: Philanthropic Fundraising." Nonprofit Management and Leadership. 13 (2002): 91-112. Print.

Male, Richard. "10 Top Fundraising Tips." RMA (2010). Ed. Male, Richard. RMA and Associates. Web. 20 Jul. 2011.

Matheny, Richard E. Major Gifts: Solicitation Strategies. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: Council for Advancement and Support of Education, 1999. Print.

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

McCagg, Peter. "Conceptual Metaphor and the Discourse of Philanthropy." New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising. 22 (1998): 37-48. Print.

Miller, Carolyn R. "Genre as Social Action." Quarterly Journal of Speech. 70 (1984): 151-67. Print.

Myers, Greg. "Wednesday Morning and the Millennium: Notes on Time in Fund- Raising Texts." Written Discourse in Philanthropic Fund Raising: Issues of Language and Rhetoric. Vol. #98-13. Indianapolis: Indiana Center for Intercultural Communication and Center on Philanthropy, 1997. 121-34. Print.

Pajares, M. Frank. "Teachers' Beliefs and Educational Research: Cleaning up a Messy Construct." Review of Educational Research. 62.3 (1992): 307-32. Print.

Panas, Jerold. Asking: A 59-Minute Guide to Everything Board Members, Volunteers, and Staff Must Know to Secure the Gift. Medfield, MA: Emerson & Church, 2007. Print.

Ritzenhein, Donald N. "Content Analysis of Fundraising Letters." New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising. 22 (1998): 23-36. Print.

Ross, Bernard, and Clare Segal. The Influential Fundraiser: Using the Psychology of Persuasion to Achieve Outstanding Results. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2009. Print.

Russell, David R. "Writing and Genre in Higher Education and Workplaces: A Review of Studies That Use Cultural--Historical Activity Theory." Mind, Culture, and Activity. 4.4 (1997): 224-37. Print.

Savage, Cynthia. ―Folklore 101.‖ Inside the Classroom (and Out): How We Learn Through Folklore. Ed. Untiedt, Kenneth L. Denton, TX: UNT P, 2005. 10-15. Print.

Schaffer, Deborah. "Just Say Yes! The Rhetoric of Charitable-Contribution Reply Forms." Journal of American & Comparative Cultures. 25.3-4 (2002): 276-81. Print.

Scott, Linda M. "Images in Advertising: The Need for a Theory of Visual Rhetoric." The Journal of Consumer Research 21.2 (1994): 252-73. Print.

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

Selzer, Jack. "Rhetorical Analysis: Understanding How Texts Persuade Readers." What Writing Does and How It Does It: An Introduction to Analyzing Texts and Textual Practices. Eds. Charles Bazerman and Paul Prior. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2004. 279-308. Print.

Sharpe, Alan. "Moves Management Key to Major Gift Fundraising." Sharpe Tips (2009). Ed. Sharpe, Alan. Web. 19 Jul. 2011.

Sharpe, Alan. "Major Gift Fundraising Program Lessons." fund$raising cyberzine (2010). Ed. III, Daeane R. Brengle. Belding, MI. Web. 19 Jul. 2011.

Sullivan, Patricia. "Visual Rhetoric: Issues for Print...And Beyond." Written Discourse in Philanthropic Fund Raising: Issues of Language and Rhetoric. Vol. #98-13. Indianapolis: Indiana Center for Intercultural Communication and Center on Philanthropy, 1997. 135-41. Print.

Sutton, Dianna L. "Debunking the Myths in Fundraising Lore." Keysnews.com. Web, 19 Jul. 2011.

Winterowd, W. Ross. The English Department: A Personal and Institutional History. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois U P, 1998. Print.

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

CHAPTER 3

CONSTRUCTING A METHODOLOGY FOR EXAMINING MGF/D DISCOURSE

The field of technical communication and rhetoric has long embraced the need for research methodology that is ―well-planned, coherent, and systematic, and that lends rigor and validity to our research‖ (Blakeslee and Spilka 76). Focusing on conclusions before designing a sound methodology is an error that we are careful to avoid. Without sound methodology, research conclusions are not trustworthy (Goubil- Gambrell 583). Both qualitative and quantitative methodologies are accepted ways of conducting research in the field of technical communication and rhetoric (Creswell 4). Both methodologies have a distinct role to play in gathering empirical data. Qualitative research is descriptive in nature. Quantitative research is used to establish cause-and-effect relationships.

This dissertation uses a blended methodological approach by combining observations, interviews, and surveys of both fundraisers and donors to explore answers to the research questions related to MG fundraising discourse. Combining methodologies makes it possible to minimize the limitations of any single method. Each methodology lends itself to examining a different aspect of MG fundraising rhetoric. Because this is one of the first research studies to examine the rhetorical practices of MG fundraisers during face-to-face visits with MG donors, it is important to collect both qualitative and quantitative data.

Let me now turn to the specific research design of this dissertation. What follows is a detailed outline of the research methods and the rationale for choosing each method.

The research objective The research for this dissertation focuses on the rhetorical practices of MG fundraisers in higher education. Choosing higher education as my research focus was important for the following reasons. First, according to the Center for Philanthropy at

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

Indiana University, educational institutions in the U.S. are second only to religious organizations in the amount of money raised each year (6). The large amount of money raised for education each year and the number of institutions competing for those dollars means that MG fundraising in higher education should be studied to better understand what fundraisers do. Second, most, if not all, colleges and universities have a full-time fundraiser, or team of fundraising professionals, responsible for raising support. Higher education fundraising organizations typically cost millions of dollars to operate; thus, we should know all we can about the practice of fundraising for the purpose of improving practice. Third, fundraisers are not immune to a positivist world view that favors quantitative research findings (Firestone 16). In fact, fundraisers are accustomed to quantitative demographic studies and trend charts. Qualitative research has important contributions to make to the profession, particularly when exploring the rhetorical practices of MG fundraisers with MG donor during face-to-face visits. And finally, my fifteen years of professional experience as a MG fundraiser in higher education provides a foundation upon which this study‘s research questions were designed.

Two research questions shaped how I gathered data. Carefully designing research methodologies to conduct observations, interviews, and surveys made it possible to:

 Observe the actual rhetorical practices of MG fundraisers  Find out first-hand from fundraisers and donors how they perceive the role of persuasion to work during the face-to-face visit  Explore the role of fundraising lore in shaping the rhetorical practices of MG fundraising

Definition of a MG, a MG fundraiser, and a MG donor A MG fundraiser, for purposes of this study, is defined as a person who:

 Currently works as a fundraiser in higher education  Has a minimum of five years of MG fundraising experience in higher education

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

 Is required to make face-to-face visits with donors  Has personally solicited a major gift in a face-to-face setting The accepted industry standard when applying for a MG fundraising position in higher education is a minimum of five years of professional experience in fundraising. While such standards can be used to limit applicant pools, conceptually five years of experience provides practitioners time to learn and understand the concepts of fundraising and gain experience with identification, cultivation, solicitation, and stewardship of donors. For purposes of this study, five years of experience includes responsibility for and participation in face-to-face visits with potential major gift donors and personally soliciting a potential donor for a MG.

This study defines a major gift as $15,000 or more, which can be in the form of a single payment or a pledge payable over three to five years. Because MG fundraising draws on different solicitation strategies than does annual gift solicitation or corporate/foundation gift solicitation, it is important to set the amount of a MG high enough to exclude most annual gift amounts but not so high as to exclude smaller schools or institutions from the study.

Finally, a MG donor for this study is identified as a person who has the capacity to make a gift of $15,000 or more. To qualify as a major gift donor for this study, the person will have made a MG at some point or have the capacity to make such a gift in a single payment, or a pledge over a three- to five-year period.

Texas Tech University gave Internal Review Board (IRB) approval to study human subjects for this dissertation (see Appendix A). Interview and observation participants agreed to participate and be audio recorded by verbally giving consent. Survey participants agreed to participate by completing the survey.

Research methods overview Figure 3.1 (Blended Methodology) represents the research methodologies used for this dissertation. Explained below is a rationale for using each method and details regarding how each method was employed.

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

Observations Interviews Fundraisers' face-to-face visits Major Gift Fundraisers with Donors Major Gift Donors

Rhetorical Practices of Major Gift Fundraisers

Survey Questionnaire Examining Lore Major Gift Fundraisers Fundraiser Survey Questions Major Gift Donors

Figure 3.1 Blended methodology

Qualitative research methods Qualitative research methodologies provide researchers the opportunity to observe situations as they actually are. The observations and interviews in this dissertation are a case study. The case study is a type of qualitative research and often is conducted within the fields of rhetoric and technical communication. The case study is primary research designed to gather data about a small group of people or an individual (Goubil-Gambrell 587). Participants in a qualitative study are often selected based on availability. Ideally, participants are selected because they are believed to be representative of a larger group, however, there is no statistical assurance that this is so (Goubil-Gambrell 588).

Observation and oral interviews were the qualitative methods used in this study. Details describing the observations and interviews are described below.

Recruiting observation participants MG fundraiser participants were found by using convenience sampling. First I contacted fundraisers I knew to explain the nature and importance of my research, and to solicit their willingness to participate. Some of those gave names of their colleagues who I did not know, and I also contacted them. I also contacted MG fundraisers whom I met during the time I was conducting research for this dissertation. The five 52

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011 fundraisers who participated in the observations were from five different institutions. The names of the fundraisers, donors, and universities have been changed to protect their identities (see Figure 3.2).  Laura is a fundraiser at South Central University, which is a private research institution in the southwest located in a metropolitan area and has approximately 11,000 students.  Josh is a fundraiser at Metro University, which is a public research institution located in a metropolitan area. The University has approximately 25,000 students. Josh was observed twice with two different donors.  Kerry is a fundraiser at State University. The University has approximately 16,000 students and is a public research institution in the south. The University is located in a suburb of a metropolitan area.  Geoffrey is a fundraiser at Smith University. Smith is a private research institution in a metropolitan area with approximately 6,000 students.  Kip is a fundraiser at Green University, a private research institution in a rural location in the south. Green has approximately 15,000 students.

Each of the universities offer both graduate (masters and doctoral) and undergraduate degrees. Each university houses multiple schools (i.e. liberal arts, engineering, business) with their own dean and development professional(s). These universities provide a variety of types, sizes, locations and cultural settings from which to examine MG fundraisers, MG donors, and fundraising data. Details of the six observations and analysis of the interactions between the fundraisers and donors is examined in Chapter 4.

Four of the five fundraisers observed for this study were men. Only one woman fundraiser participated in the observation portion of the study. More than half of the fundraisers in higher education are women (Conry 73; Taylor 7). The more-or- less equal distribution of women MG fundraisers did not help secure, despite repeated attempts, additional women fundraiser observation participants. I personally contacted (face-to-face, by telephone, or e-mail) twenty-one women MG fundraisers to

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011 participate in the observation portion of my research. Only three of the twenty-one turned down the opportunity to participate, with one citing time restraints, another conveyed a lack of visits with MG donors, and one had another person (the university president) accompanying her on upcoming donor visits.

Observations Interviews Fundraisers' face-to-face visits with Donors Major Gift Fundraisers Priscilla Laura & David Calvin Josh & Jerry/Lonnie Martha Kip & Danny Simon Geoffrey & Dr. Brown Betty John Kerry & Reggie Major Gift Donors Janet Bill Donna Stan Kathy Rhetorical Practices Jack of Major Gift Fundraisers

Survey Questionnaire Major Gift Fundraisers 89 respondents Examining Lore 72 fully completed Fundraiser Survey Questions Major Gift Donors 82 respondents

76 fully completed

Figure 3.2 Blended methodology details - observations

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

The remaining eighteen women fundraisers agreed to participate, and it was just a matter of finding the right time with the right donor. However, only five of those 18 responded to my repeated attempts via e-mail and phone calls to schedule an actual observation. Each time, the fundraiser said she would find an observation participant, but none of them followed through on scheduling an observation appointment. I endeavored to be persistent in attempting to schedule women fundraiser observation participants without harassing. I sought guidance from the one woman participant, and she was unable to provide any insight regarding why other women fundraiser were not willing to participate. After thirteen months of numerous attempts to secure additional women fundraisers for observation, I determined, in consultation with my dissertation chair, that this challenge could lead to future research opportunities.

Were the women fundraisers reluctant to participate in the observations because a man was asking them? Might they have felt that I would be judging their performance? Were the women reluctant to tell me they were not interested in participating in the observation? If so, this may explain why the women initially agreed to participate but did not follow through. Might women fundraisers be more protective of their relationship with donors? Allowing an outsider to observe may have been seen as an intrusive dynamic that would adversely impact the visit. One male fundraiser refused to participate because he viewed recording a donor visit as inappropriate.

It should be noted that only one of the donor observation participants was a woman, a widow. However, the fundraisers chose the donor participants. Why more women donors were not chosen by fundraisers to participate in the observations is a subject for future studies.

MGF/D face-to-face visit observations As previously stated in Chapter 2, rhetorical analysis examining fundraising has been conducted by rhetorical scholars, but that research is largely limited to written artifacts and visual imagery. Books and articles written by fundraising

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011 practitioners related to the rhetorical practices of MG fundraisers during face-to-face visits with MG donors are grounded in anecdotal evidence. Empirical evidence from academic disciplines related to the MGF/D face-to-face visit does not currently exist. Therefore, a first step to fill this gap was to observe MG fundraisers with MG donors.

A logical place to begin gathering data to understand the actual rhetorical practices of MG fundraisers is observing the face-to-face visit. It is not easy to secure an invitation to observe the rhetorical practices of MG fundraisers with donors. MG fundraisers closely guard the donor relationship from any activity that, in their view, might negatively affect a donor‘s willingness to make a gift. However, the willingness of both fundraisers and donors to participate in research projects should increase as MG fundraisers begin to appreciate the value of research for the profession. Fundraiser-scholars (i.e. fundraisers trained in academic research methodology) have an opportunity to pave the way for other researchers by conducting studies and creating methodologies that provide access to MG fundraising. It is important that initial studies by fundraiser-scholars enable fundraisers to perceive the value of academic research for the profession.

The decision was made to conduct four to six observations because it was unclear how many fundraisers would agree to be observed. Four to six observations would likely produce ample data for examination. Six observations were conducted with five MG fundraisers during a face-to-face visit with a MG donor. One of the MG fundraisers was observed twice with different MG donors. Observing one fundraiser twice provided an opportunity to determine if recurring forms of discourse were used by a single fundraiser with different donors. Video recording was eliminated as an option to document the face-to-face visits because of the required set-up time that would have disrupted the natural flow of the visit. And initial conversations with fundraisers about my research indicated few were willing to allow video recording. The observations were audio recorded with donor and fundraiser consent, and a transcript of each observation was produced.

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

The duration of the face-to-face observations ranged from thirty-five to ninety minutes, with the average observation lasting sixty-two minutes. The MG fundraisers were all members of the Council for Advancement and Support of Education (CASE) institutions. Fundraisers who met the established criteria were selected based on their willingness to be observed during a MG donor visit (see observation script in Appendix B). Observing a MG fundraiser with a MG donor during an actual face-to- face visit provided the most reliable way to gather data related to the actual rhetorical practices of fundraisers (Lauer 108).

The presence of a research observer in a natural setting often affects in unknown ways both the situation and participant interaction. However, with careful planning and preparation it is possible to limit the effects of the research observer‘s presence by carefully positioning oneself in a location that minimizes being noticed, limiting movement during the observation, curtailing the amount of writing done during the observation, and acting naturally to avoid causing others to feel anxious.

I worked with each MG fundraiser participant prior to the observation to select a MG donor visit to observe. The fundraiser had sole discretion in selecting the MG donor who fit the established criteria previously described. The fundraiser was responsible for contacting the donor to ask about her/his willingness to participate in the observation. A script inviting a donor to participate was provided to the fundraisers (see Appendix B). The six donor participants were at different stages of the solicitation process (identification, qualification, cultivation, solicitation, stewardship). Even though there are currently no specific industry standards that determine or define when a donor is actually at a particular stage of the process, the MG fundraisers made informal determinations about the stage of the solicitation process for each of the MG donors who participated in the observations.

The MG fundraiser who had the relationship with the donor determined the donor to participate in the research observation and how to use the script I provided. It was important for me as the researcher to reassure the MG fundraiser that s/he would remain in control of the relationship with the donor, and I stressed that my goal was to 57

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011 observe what s/he would normally do if I were not present. Prior to each observation I discussed with the MG fundraiser the following items:

1. I briefly explained my research to the fundraiser and the purpose of observing the visit. (―I am observing you with a donor to study what MG fundraisers say during face-to-face visits with donors. I want to know how persuasion functions in the MGF/D relationship.‖) 2. We carefully choreographed the date, time, and place of the face-to-face visit, and agreed in advance whether we would travel together to the donor‘s location or meet on-site. 3. I reassured the fundraiser I would remain as inconspicuous as possible to limit my impact on the visit. 4. We reviewed how to proceed once the visit began, with the fundraiser speaking to the donor first and introducing me. 5. The fundraiser would remind the donor of their discussion about participating in a research study. I would then thank the donor and briefly describe my research. (―Thank you for allowing me to observe your visit today. I am studying what MG fundraisers actually say during face-to-face visits with donors. This is research for my dissertation.‖) I would then answer any questions. 6. I asked the MG fundraiser to tell me the purpose of the face-to-face donor visit. 7. I articulated exactly how I would ask the donor‘s permission to audio record the observation (―With your permission, I would like to audio record the visit today for later reference and study. Please know that the recording will be used solely for the purpose of this study and both of your identities will remain anonymous. May I audio record the visit?‖). 8. I then allowed the fundraiser to ask me any questions, or express concerns about the observation procedure. Discussing these items before the observation established a rapport with the MG fundraisers. A script (Appendix B) was provided to the fundraisers to aid in their understanding of the research objective and observation process.

At the completion of the face-to-face visit, I requested permission from the donor and fundraiser to ask brief clarifying follow-up questions. In addition, I 58

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011 obtained permission to contact the donor and fundraiser by phone or e-mail at a later time if I had additional questions. I ended each observation by reminding the participants they would remain anonymous and that the data would be used solely for the purposes of this research study (see Appendix B).

The audio recordings, field notes, and follow-up questions were transcribed by a paid research assistant. I then analyzed the data using NVivo qualitative analysis software to identify complex patterns and relationships. The software made analyzing lines of code more visible, manageable, and transparent by providing a way to compare, link, extract, combine, and store all research texts (transcripts, field notes, survey responses) and audio files. Methods used for coding different types of data are explained in the chapters related to specific findings.

MG fundraiser and donor interviews Following qualitative methodology, I conducted oral interviews with six MG donors (three women and three men) and six MG fundraisers (three women and three men) (Figure 3.3). I chose not to interview the MG fundraisers and MG donors who participated in the observations as a way of expanding the data collected.

Fundraiser interview participants  Priscilla is the vice president for Advancement at a public university foundation in the upper Midwest. The university has approximately 30,000 students. She has been a fundraiser in higher education for a total of nineteen years and in her current position at the foundation for seven months. She was the assistant vice president at the foundation for eighteen months before moving into her current position. Prior to becoming a fundraiser, Priscilla was working on her Master‘s degree when a mentor at the university encouraged her to consider development as a profession.  Calvin is the vice chancellor of University Advancement for a public institution in the southern U.S. The university has six campus locations across the state with approximately 40,000 students system wide. He has been in higher education fundraising for fifteen years and in his current position for two years. Calvin entered the fundraising profession after graduate school. His first fundraising job was at his alma mater making

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

phone solicitations to alumni. He was very successful and his boss at the time encouraged him to pursue a fundraising career.

Observations Interviews Fundraisers' face-to-face visits with Major Gift Fundraisers Donors Priscilla Calvin Laura & David Martha Josh & Jerry/Lonnie Simon Kip & Danny Betty Geoffrey & Dr. Brown John Major Gift Donors Kerry & Reggie Janet Bill Donna Stan Kathy Rhetorical Practices Jack of Major Gift Fundraisers

Survey Questionnaire Major Gift Fundraisers 89 respondents Examining Lore 72 fully completed Fundraiser Survey Questions Major Gift Donors 82 respondents

76 fully completed

Figure 3.3 Blended methodology details - interviews

 Martha is the director of development and alumni relations at a public university in a large metropolitan area. The university where Martha works is part of a large university system with multiple institutions. Martha is the

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

fundraiser for one of the schools at her university. She has been a fundraiser for twelve years and in her current position for two years. Martha entered the fundraising profession after a fifteen-year career in marketing. As a regional director of a large marketing firm, she did a great deal of travel. When her mother became ill, she began looking for another profession. A friend gave her a job fundraising for a local arts agency, which started her career as a fundraiser.  Simon is the vice president for development at a small public university in the South, which has approximately 12,000 students. Simon has been a fundraiser in education for twenty years, and in his current position for three months. However, he worked for three years in development at this same university a decade ago. Simon‘s father was a fundraiser in higher education. His father influenced his decision to enter the profession after graduation from college.  Betty is the senior development director at a private university in the Midwest that has approximately 11,000 students. She has been in her current position for two years, and in the fundraising profession for a total of fifteen years. Her entire fundraising career has been in higher education. Prior to becoming a fundraiser, she worked in advertising and marketing. A friend encouraged her to consider fundraising as a career move.  John is the vice president for development at a large public university system in the South. The university system has over 60,000 students state wide. He has been in his current position five years, and in higher education fundraising for 28 years. During his senior year in college, he was part of his school‘s stewardship initiative in which students called donors to thank them for their gifts to the institution. He enjoyed the experience and was hooked on fundraising. Donor interview participants  Janet was a singer prior to taking over the family business. Her family has always considered philanthropy its obligation to make the world a better place. She has made a number of multi-million dollar gifts to institutions including her church, universities, social agencies and arts agencies that she feels are important to the enrichment of society.

 Bill is retired from a medical-related company for which he began working after graduating from college, and later purchased the business. After selling the company, he began to make large gifts to causes that he

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

believed were good for the community. He has made a few multi-million dollar gifts to support the development of young adults and to a local hospital, but the majority of his gifts have been six-figure amounts to a wide range of institutions, including his alma mater.

 Donna, the vice president for a large investment firm, gives through a local community foundation. Because she grew up in a family that moved often due to her father‘s work, affordable housing is one of her philanthropic interests. She also supports the performing arts and a university that she and her husband attended. Donna has made numerous six-figure gifts to the philanthropic causes about which she and her husband are passionate.

 Stan is the owner of a large chemical company that services the oil industry, and is the second generation of the family to manage the company. He supports educational institutions, his children‘s private school, his university, and his church. He also supports local social service agencies in his community. He has made numerous six-figure gifts to philanthropic causes.

 Kathy is a clergywoman in a mainline denomination. Her father was a partner in a large accounting firm. She and her husband sold for several billion dollars a high-tech company in the late 1990s. Because she is very private about her giving and gives anonymously, I am unsure of the size of her philanthropic gifts.

 Jack owns an oil company, and it is not uncommon for him to make multi- million dollar gifts to charities. He supports local social service agencies, his church, and educational institutions. Jack is very careful to make sure an agency or institution to which he plans to give is fiscally sound and truly in need of his support. Interview participants were chosen based on convenience sampling. Fifteen fundraisers were contacted to find the six willing to be interviewed. Nine donors were contacted to find six willing to be interviewed. I had met each of the interview participants at least once prior to asking them to participate in the interview. The interviews were designed to gather data related to the rhetorical practices of fundraisers during face-to-face visits. I correlated the interview information with the observation data and used NVivo software for analysis.

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

Two pilot interviews were conducted to test the potential of the questions for eliciting the desired information. The two pilot interviewees, a MG fundraiser and a MG donor, were persons I know and have worked with who expressed an interest in my research. Those who took the pilot tests were not interviewed as part of the study. The pilot test interviews resulted in minor changes to the questions that improved clarity. The highest ethical standards were observed and all participants gave their informed consent through voluntary participation.

The open-ended interview questions for both fundraisers and donors are included in Appendix C. Five donor interviews were conducted by telephone and one face-to-face. Two fundraiser interviews were conducted face-to-face and four via telephone. The interview began with me reading a brief statement introducing the research, assuring the participants‘ anonymity, explaining how the interview information would be used, and requesting permission to audio record. The interview questions were read to participants exactly as written, and clarifying questions were asked during the interviews. Follow-up questions were for the purpose of probing deeper into participant responses. The audio recordings of the interviews were transcribed by a research assistant and I analyzed the data using NVivo software.

The qualitative interview questions were carefully constructed as a listening device for the purpose of obtaining rich descriptions of the MG fundraiser and MG donor perceptions ―in order to interpret the meaning of the described phenomenon‖ (Kvale and Brinkmann 3). Questions were designed so as not to lead the participants toward preconceived answers. I occasionally made summary statements to ensure that I correctly heard what was being said and to elicit further comment. The audio recording made it possible to consider the interviewee‘s tone of voice, pauses, sighs, and what the participants did not say during the interviews. The research interviews were analyzed to identify possible rhetorical moments that fundraisers and donors perceive as important and/or unimportant during face-to-face visits.

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

Survey research method Surveys provide a limited amount of information from a large group of people and are useful for discovering what a larger population thinks (Driscoll). The design of a survey instrument provides a quantitative and/or qualitative description of some fraction of the population and seeks to discover common relationships across the it, making it possible to generalize findings from a sample of responses to a larger population (Creswell 156).

Survey questionnaires were created for both fundraisers and donors (see Appendix D) as a means of understanding how both groups perceive the role of rhetoric in fundraising (Figure 3.4). Development of the survey questionnaires was guided by data from the observations and interviews with MG donors and MG fundraisers. It was important to create a survey questionnaire that appealed to the interest of the participants, while at the same time collected the desired data (Groves, Presser and Dipko 4). The purpose of the survey was to broaden the base of data relating to the rhetorical practices of major gift fundraising and to explore perceptions of how fundraisers learn their profession, as well as the role lore plays in conveying knowledge among fundraising professionals. The survey methodology used in this study is detailed below.

MG fundraiser and donor surveys The donor and fundraiser surveys were constructed using a pay-for-use survey software provided by an online vendor, Survey Methods (surveymethods.com). Survey Methods made it possible to create and launch the surveys from the same platform. In addition, I was able to analyze the survey data at any time during the process. All of the interview participants (both fundraisers and donors), as well as all five of the fundraisers who participated in the observations took the survey. Additional survey respondents were solicited in the following ways.

Non-probability convenience sampling was used to invite persons attending the CASE District IV Development Conference (held March 29 - April 1, 2010 in Austin, Texas) to complete an online survey (see fundraiser invitation in Appendix D).

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

Survey Questionnaire Major Gift Fundraisers 89 respondents Examining Lore 72 fully completed Fundraiser Survey Questions Major Gift Donors 82 respondents

76 fully completed

Figure 3.4 Blended methodology details - surveys

Conference attendees were Advancement professionals employed at institutions of higher education of varying types, sizes, and geographic locations in the South. Surveying the CASE District IV membership during its district annual meeting ensured that the target population possessed the knowledge to provide the information

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011 desired. Fundraisers at the CASE conference seemed to be the most likely population willing to provide the information requested. CASE members possessed the fundraising experience that would make it possible for them to recall desired information or predict the information (Rossi, Wright and Anderson 290). My experience in higher education fundraising and membership in CASE District IV made it possible to personally identify with participants and design a questionnaire that would provide a dialogue (as opposed to a monologue) with respondents (Labaw 9- 10). Questions were designed to minimize misinterpretations and elicit the most natural reply possible (Rossi, Wright and Anderson 201).

Volunteer sampling was also employed to recruit survey participants. I recruited a colleague attending the CASE conference to assist with handing out flyers to conference participants during meal times and in the halls between sessions. The flyer (see fundraiser flyer in Appendix D) invited participants to a website to take the survey. Conference participants who gave me their business cards were sent an e-mail soon after the conference inviting them to complete the survey.

An e-mail invitation was sent to other fundraisers I knew at institutions of higher education throughout the country. These persons were asked to forward the invitation e-mail to their colleagues.

Of the approximately 250 fundraising professionals solicited to participate in the survey, eighty-eight were sent e-mails via Survey Methods (see fundraiser Survey Methods e-mail invitation in Appendix D) and the remainder were solicited via flyers. A total of eighty-nine fundraisers took the survey: 33 of the respondents took the survey as a result of being invited by flyer and 56 respondents responded as a result of an e-mail invitation. Of those fundraisers taking the survey, seventy-two participants fully completed it (26 via web deployment and 45 via e-mail deployment); and seventeen participants partially completed the survey (seven via web deployment and 10 via e-mail deployment). The median response time for completing the survey was seventeen minutes. Of the fundraisers who provided demographic information (seventy-three of 89 respondents), 54% were women and 46% were men; 90% were 66

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

Caucasian, 3% Hispanic, 1% Native American, and 6% identified as other; the respondent average age was 44 (the oldest was 68 and the youngest was 27). Of the respondents, 92% (eight-two respondents) identified themselves as actual fundraisers. Over half (59%) of the fundraisers reported being in the profession less than ten years and 4% have been fundraisers for more than thirty years. The largest percentage (63%) of respondents had been in their current position less than five years, and no one had been in their current position more than fifteen years.

Volunteer sampling was used to invite MG donors to respond to the survey. The list of potential respondents was composed of donors whom I knew, or had met, during my fifteen-year fundraising career. Additional donor names were provided by colleagues and by donors who participated in the interviews. Potential respondents were recruited either by receiving an e-mail invitation or flyer (see Donor invitations in Appendix D). Potential donor respondents who received an e-mail or flyer were asked to forward the information to persons they knew who might be willing to complete the survey.

Approximately 200 donors were solicited to participate in the survey: 110 were invited via Survey Methods e-mail, and ninety were invited via the flyer to take the survey via web deployment. A total of eighty-two donors responded to the survey. All of the donor respondents received the Survey Methods e-mail. Of the eighty-two respondents who took the survey, 76 fully completed it, six partially completed it, and one opted out. The median response time for donors taking the survey was nine minutes. Of the donors who provided demographic information (seventy-seven of 82 respondents), 35% were women and 65 % were men; 90% were Caucasian, 1% Hispanic, 1% Native American, 1% African American, and 7% identified as other. The respondent average age was 60 (the oldest was 95 and the youngest was 37).

Using features of the survey software, fundraiser and donor participants were allowed to take the survey one time. Restricting access to the survey prevented any person who may have received multiple invitations from taking the survey more than once. In addition, allowing respondents to take the survey only once prevented persons 67

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011 who may not have remembered completing the survey from taking it again. A negative effect of this feature was that persons who logged out before answering all the survey questions were prevented from logging back in to complete the questionnaire.

Fundraisers and donors who failed to respond after three weeks were sent a reminder e-mail. A total of three reminder e-mails, spaced three weeks apart, were sent to potential respondents. The surveys were open to respondents for a total of twenty-four weeks.

To ensure the efficiency and effectiveness of the surveys, three pretests of both surveys were conducted using a speak-aloud protocol, where participants were asked to read the questions aloud and say whatever they were thinking and feeling as they read and answered the questions. Three MG fundraiser and three MG donor that I know and who expressed an interest in my research took the survey pretests. Different donors and fundraisers were used to pretest the interviews and surveys, and these six persons were not invited to participate in the actual data collection. Pretest results were used to modify the questions to ensure the intent of each was communicated clearly.

The surveys included closed and open-ended questions, Likert scale questions, and multiple choice questions. Respondent demographic information was collected. Skip-logic was employed to ensure that respondents fit the profile/criteria for providing accurate information to specific sets of questions.

The two survey instruments collected respondents‘ descriptions of the rhetorical practices used by fundraisers. The questions provided respondents the opportunity to qualify their answers or to explain their opinions. Biased questions were avoided allowing the survey instrument to adequately represent the constructs under examination (construct validity) (Hinkin 105).

Because behavior reported in surveys is not the same as actual behavior, the survey data was combined with data collected from the observation and interviews (Sapsford 48). The surveys reinforced the observation and interview findings. Survey

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011 research methodology allowed me to obtain a composite profile of rhetorical practices of the fundraising population.

The size of the sample population was important for controlling the margin of error of the surveys. A sample size of 100 fundraisers and 100 donors was decided upon using a margin of error equation (Ferber et al. 4). A survey sample of 100 participants produces a margin of error of 10%.

Analysis of fundraising lore The role of lore as a means of informing and guiding practice is explored in Chapter 5 (Embodied practice: fundraising lore examined). Quantitative and qualitative research methodologies were applied to determine the perceived role of lore, how lore is shared, why fundraisers share lore, and how lore functions as embodied practice.

For this study, fundraisers who responded to the survey were identified as members of a certain group: i.e. respondents were all fundraisers in higher education who had either learned lore in the profession and/or shared lore with colleagues. The fundraiser survey contained a set of questions designed to gather both quantitative and qualitative information related to lore.

I conducted a pretest with five former fundraiser colleagues asking them to share any fundraising lore they had learned in the profession. The ability to articulate lore they had learned led to inclusion of survey questions related to lore (Figure 3.5). The compiled list of lore from the five fundraisers pretests is found in Appendix E.

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

Observations Interviews Major Gift Fundraisers Fundraisers' face-to-face visits with Donors Priscilla Laura & David Calvin Josh & Jerry/Lonnie Martha Simon Kip & Danny Betty Geoffrey & Dr. Brown John Kerry & Reggie Major Gift Donors Janet Bill Donna Stan Kathy Rhetorical Practices Jack of Major Gift Fundraisers

Survey Questionnaire Major Gift Fundraisers 89 respondents Examining Lore 72 fully completed Fundraiser Survey Questions Major Gift Donors 82 respondents

76 fully completed

Figure 3.5 Blended methodology details - lore

Conclusion The combination of the qualitative and quantitative research methods (observations, interviews, and surveys) allowed me to triangulate data. The blended research methodology makes for a much richer understanding of the rhetorical practices of MG fundraising. The next chapter will reveal the research findings related

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011 to genre theory. Chapter 5 will then explore the role of lore in shaping the rhetorical practices of fundraisers.

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

Chapter 3 works cited Blakeslee, Ann M., and Rachel Spilka. "The State of Research in Technical Communication." Technical Communication Quarterly. 13 (2004): 73-92. Print.

Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University. "The Annual Report on Philanthropy for the Year 2010 Executive Summary." Giving USA 2011.55. Mon. 20 Jun. 2011.

Conry, Julie C. "Gender and Pay Equity in the Fundraising Workforce: Implications for Practice and Policy." New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising. 19 (1998): 73-92. Print.

Creswell, J. W. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. London: Sage, 2003. Print.

Creswell, John W. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Method Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2003. Print.

Driscoll, Dana Lynn. "Conducting Primary Research". 2006. The Owl at Purdue: Free Writing Help and Teaching Resources. Open 24/7. Ed. Karl Stolley. Lafayette: Purdue U. Web. 23 Sept. 2009.

Ferber, Robert, et al. What Is a Survey? Washington: American Statistical Association, 1980. Print.

Firestone, William A. "Meaning in Method: The Rhetoric of Quantitative and Qualitative Research." Educational Researcher. 16.7 (1987): 16-21. Print.

Goubil-Gambrell, Patricia. "A Practitioner's Guide to Research Methods." Technical Communication Quarterly. 39.4 (1992): 582-91. Print.

Groves, Robert M., Stanley Presser, and Sarah Dipko. "The Role of Topic Interest in Survey Participation Decisions." Public Opinion Quarterly. 68.1 (2004): 2-31. Print.

Hinkin, Timothy R. "A Brief Tutorial on the Development of Measures for Use in Survey Questionnaires." Organizational Research Methods. 1.1 (1998): 104- 21. Print.

Kvale, Steinar, and Svend Brinkmann. Interviews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing. Los Angeles: Sage, 2009. Print.

Labaw, Patricia J. Advanced Questionnaire Design. Cambridge: Abt Books, 1981. Print. 72

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

Mixer, Joseph R. Principles of Professional Fundraising: Useful Foundations for Successful Practice. The Jossey-Bass Nonprofit Sector Series. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1993. Print.

Rossi, Peter H., James D. Wright, and Andy B. Anderson. Handbook of Survey Research. Quantitative Studies in Social Relations. NY: Academic P, 1983. Print.

Sapsford, Roger. Survey Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1999. Print.

Taylor, Martha A. "Women Development Officers: Finding Success and Satisfaction in a Career of Service." New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising. 1998.19 (1998): 7-26. Print.

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

CHAPTER 4

RECURRING DISCOURSE THAT FORMS A MGF/D GENRE

The findings described in this chapter are the result of research guided by the following research questions: Does the MGF/D face-to-face visit function as a spoken genre? If so, what forms of discourse recur during the MGF/D face-to-face visit? What rhetorical purpose do identifiable forms of recurring discourse serve within the context of the MGF/D genre?

The MGF/D face-to-face visit is a recurring situation that is fully rhetorical and connects intention (building a relationship between the donor and fundraiser) to social action (the donor making a gift) (Miller 153). Applying genre theory to the MGF/D face-to-face situation revealed three significant recurring forms of discourse intended to motivate a donor to take action. The three recurring forms of discourse are promoting the institution, creating expectation, and sharing personal narrative. The recurring discourse makes specific types of rhetorical appeals: promoting the institution is a logical appeal to reason (logos); creating expectation uses emotion to stir the imagination (pathos); sharing personal narrative indicates trust has been established between the fundraiser and donor (ethos) (Bizzell and Herzbert 31). The research findings are explored in the remainder of this chapter.

Communicative purpose of the MGF/D face-to-face visit A rhetorically sound genre is centered on an action it is intended to accomplish (Miller 151). What is the action to be accomplished in the face-to-face visit? A MG fundraiser may articulate any number of purposes for visiting a potential MG donor. Fundraising experts identify five stages that constitute a process for securing a gift; identification, qualification, cultivation, solicitation, and stewardship (see pages 5-6). The stages are intended to guide fundraisers through a process of meeting a donor for the first time, securing a gift, and stewarding the donor toward the next gift. These stages are often referred to as the ―purpose‖ for a visit with a donor, but in reality the

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011 stages function to indicate where the donor is in a process intended to move her/him toward a gift.

The MGF/D communicative purpose (or action to be accomplished), as articulated by both donors and fundraisers, is to build a relationship. While the communicative purpose of the MGF/D face-to-face visit fits within the stages of securing a gift, fundraisers do not articulate their understanding of what they do in terms of the industry stages. Interview participants (six fundraisers and six donors) stressed the importance of building and strengthening the relationship between the fundraiser and donor. The fundraiser is understood by the donor to be a representative of the institution. The assumption of the donor is that the fundraiser (i.e. institution) wants money. Surprisingly, all twelve interview participants agree that the communicative purpose of the face-to-face visit is to build a relationship, not to raise money. However, both donors and fundraisers admit that securing a gift is a desired action of the MGF/D relationship. Goering describes this act of relationship building as ―establishing a partnership between a community and an organization‖ ( 287-88). The results of examining fundraising lore (see Chapter 5) suggests that the MGF/D relationship is key to MG fundraising and that fundraisers should take time to nurture the relationship with a donor. Interviews with fundraisers and donors suggest that regardless of the stage (identification, qualification, cultivation, solicitation, or stewardship) in the fundraising process, the understood communicative purpose of the face-to-face visit is to establish or strengthen a relationship between the donor and the fundraiser (who represents the institution). Donors understand the relationship to function as a way to create emotional engagement. Fundraisers understand the purpose of the relationship as that of establishing ethos. While one might argue the relatively close connection (arguably interdependence) between establishing trust and emotional engagement, it is interesting that donors and fundraisers articulate the purpose of the relationship in different terms, suggesting they value different aspects of the relationship.

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

Fundraisers’ purpose for the face-to-face visit To determine the communicative purpose of the face-to-face visit or the action to be accomplished in the genre, I analyzed the interview transcripts expecting that the fundraisers would identify the purpose as securing a gift. I found that all six fundraisers said the purpose was to establish or build a relationship with the donor. Fundraiser John thinks the donor‘s relationship with the institution should span across a number of fundraisers. JOHN: It’s a long-term relationship because you want the person [donor] to have a relationship with your institution even after you’re [the fundraiser] is gone.

Priscilla describes the purpose of the face-to-face visit as creating ―connection‖ between the donor and the fundraiser.

PRISCILLA: You’ve got to develop a personal connection.

Calvin broadened the importance of relationships at the university level to include any relationship the donor may have with a person from the institution. He was describing how he asks questions to get donors talking about their interests and passions.

CALVIN: The key to a face-to-face visit is getting them started talking. Whether it’s them talking about family, experiences at the university…what relationships they’ve made at the university.

When asked how the face-to-face visit differs from other ways of communicating with and soliciting a donor for a gift, Simon, a MG fundraiser, made it clear that the face-to-face visit is a more effective means of persuasion. For Simon, the face-to-face visit is the pinnacle of MG fundraising.

SIMON: [The face-to-face visit is] taking it [relationship] to a higher level. There's a philosophy in fundraising: people give to people. And that's where you get to know somebody. Develops trust. Body-language is involved. I would

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

say…if it's any other kind of fundraising [other than face-to-face], it is sort of a formality.

For Simon, face-to-face fundraising is the only real or serious (legitimate) form of major gift fundraising.

Martha stresses that a relationship with the donor is the most important reason a donor gives.

MARTHA: Well, the relationship is the primary reason you get money. It has to be a worthy cause. But, unless that relationship exists with you [the fundraiser] or someone else in your institution, it probably will never happen.

According to three of the fundraisers, then, an important motivation for the face-to-face visit with the donor is to build trust. They clearly articulate that trust is established during the face-to-face visit and is necessary to securing a gift.

Betty speaks of the MGF/D relationship in terms of friend raising, i.e. creating a connection between the fundraiser (institution) and the donor.

BETTY: My purpose? Meet people, friend raising, educating, and with the hope of soliciting in the end.

Friendship suggests a relationship established on some form of trust (ethos). The character (or perceived character) of the fundraiser is important. Betty understands ―friend raising‖ as necessary for securing a gift. Thus, establishing ethos becomes the purpose of the relationship between the donor and fundraiser.

Simon speaks specifically about the role of trust in the MGF/D relationship and how trust precedes asking for a gift. Why should a fundraiser meet face-to-face with a donor?

SIMON: To get to know them. Build a relationship. Develop trust. Eventually, make the ask in person.

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

For both Simon and Betty, the ―ask‖ comes after the relationship has been established and trust developed. The ―ask‖ is defined as a particular visit when the fundraiser asks the donor to consider a gift to support a specific purpose (Fredricks 10).

John describes the MGF/D relationship as healthy or unhealthy, depending on the level of trust between the fundraiser and donor. He references ―scorched earth‖ or ―slash and burn‖ fundraising (unhealthy fundraising) as that which is only concerned with securing a gift.

JOHN: I think you send signals with your conversation, with your relationship about what's important to you. And so, I'm not interested in scorched-earth fundraising or slash-and-burn fundraising. I'm interested in healthy fundraising as relational; that you're at a point where the donor picks up the phone, later on, and engages you in a conversation about a gift.

John describes a healthy relationship, established through the credibility of the fundraiser, as one in which the donor initiates a conversation about a making a gift. The healthy MGF/D relationship is guided by the fundraiser‘s concern and care for the donor; thus, any conversation about a gift to the institution is made possible by the fundraiser‘s care and concern for the donor (i.e. the relationship).

John‘s discussion of care and concern for the donor suggests the fundraiser is an advocate for the donor within the institution, and is expected to advocate for the donor even if it puts her in conflict with the institution. Fundraisers are expected to represent the donor‘s interests above the institution‘s need for funding. Survey results related to fundraiser lore (explored in Chapter 5) refer to donor advocacy in terms of creating trust. Fundraiser survey respondents stated: ―Make them [the donors] feel that you are not just a fundraiser, but a friend and confidant that they can trust.‖ ―You have to be HONEST [sic] always even if you don't have the best news about your organization, or interest rates on their [endowment] investment, or whatever—you have to be HONEST [sic] about it.‖ Fundraisers are aware that donor advocacy sometimes means painting a picture of the institution that is less than flattering. Being

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011 honest with the donor is an important factor in establishing and maintaining a trusting relationship.

Fundraisers responding to the survey were asked to describe the most important role of a fundraiser in the face-to-face visit with a donor. Of the eighty-nine respondents, seventy-two wrote in a description of the role of the fundraiser. I coded the seventy-two descriptions into six categories by reading through the lines of code and grouping them by thematic similarity. Categories emerged from the lines of code. Three categories consisted of 87% of the responses; 1) Build a relationship (39%), 2) Guide the donor (33%), and 3) Inform the donor (15%). Respondents were then asked what they through motivated donors to give. Of the eighty-nine respondents, seventy- one wrote in an answer which I coded into ten categories using the same method described above. Four categories accounted for 90% of the responses; 1) Commitment to the institution (51%), 2) Relationship with the fundraiser (17%), 3) Desire to help (12%), and 4) Involvement/Commitment to the institution (10%). Fundraisers make face-to-face visit with prospective donors to build a relationship and motivate them to give.

Donors’ understanding of the face-to-face visit Creating an emotionally rich interaction between the fundraiser and donor is understood as an important factor motivating the donor to give away money (Dickerson, ―The Way We Write" 40). Donor interview participants support the idea that an emotional connection is important when deciding to give money away. The donor interview participants had each been visited face-to-face by a fundraiser(s) numerous times. Two of the donors suspected having been visited hundreds of times by fundraisers. One donor said she had been visited only once or twice by a professional fundraiser. When asked why they think fundraisers want to visit them face-to-face, all six of the donors stated that it is harder to say ―no‖ when asked for a gift face-to-face. Kathy elaborated that the face-to-face visits allow the fundraiser to limit misunderstanding the donor.

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

KATHY: I think it’s [the face-to-face visit] like any kind of communication, the closer you can get to somebody, the less chance you have of having misunderstanding.

Bill suggests that MG fundraising done any way other than face-to-face would be inappropriate.

BILL: Well, I think if you’re asking for a major amount of money, I would think it would be a little awkward [if you did not ask face-to-face] otherwise. Jack suggests that there is statistical evidence that face-to-face fundraising is a more effective type of fundraising.

JACK: If you look at the statistics of personal visits, I’ve seen some analysis that say[s] that on a personal visit, seventy percent of the people contacted will give about fifty percent of the asked for amount. The donor interview participants were clear about the importance and role of the relationship with the fundraiser. The following donors stressed the importance of the emotional context of the MGF/D face-to-face relationship. JANET: Because I think that human interaction on a one-to-one basis is becoming, in our generation and beyond, a very precious gift of time and it's a very valuable commodity. That you [the fundraiser] would come and say,‖ I'm coming to your office‖ or ―I'm coming to your home and I'd like to spend a half hour with you,‖ that's a gift of your [the fundraiser‘s] life, your time, your day. And I think that any time you get in front of someone there is an emotional element that can be accessed, that cannot be done on the telephone, through e- mail, through a written letter. The ask is just not as personal or as intimate…as when you are in front of someone face-to-face presenting some sort of a compelling reason for making that gift.

Janet views the face-to-face visit as a personal gift of the fundraiser to the donor. For her, the face-to-face encounter communicates a deep level of emotional self-giving that she values in the MGF/D relationship.

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

Bill talked about the importance of the donor having a ―warm feeling‖ to make a donation.

BILL: You know if it's [asking for a large gift] sort of impersonal, if it's done by telephone or by letter. Well, you better be sure there's a good warm feeling from them [the donor] to be interested in making a donation. Otherwise, I just think personal relationships in business or what have you is the thing to do.

The personal relationship with the fundraiser is a key factor for Bill in creating that warm feeling. While the presence of the warm feeling will not guarantee the donor will make a gift, Bill makes it clear that the absence of the warm feeling created during the MGF/D face-to-face visit almost guarantees a donation will not be offered.

Stan stressed the enthusiasm of the fundraiser as an important emotional element persuading the donor.

STAN: To me relating looks like somebody that's enthusiastic about their job, can project a positive image of the institution, of what it [the institution] is and where it's going…and then you can always say, once you have a face-to-face contact, if you have an issue you have somebody to fall back on.

Stan suggests that the face-to-face relationship is vital to creating an emotional connection that makes future visits possible. If the donor and fundraiser establish the emotional connection, then the relationship becomes reciprocal. The donor can then contact the fundraiser to ask for something.

These donors agree that a fundraiser‘s expression of emotion (energy, enthusiasm, confidence, excitement) during the face-to-face visit motivates an emotional response (positively, enthusiastically, feel honored, feel indebted) from the donor. These findings are consistent with Ross and Segal‘s suggestion that engaging a donor at an emotional level influences the donor to feel passion for a particular cause. Donor Stan‘s comment about the fundraiser‘s enthusiasm supports Ross and Segal‘s finding that the fundraiser‘s emotional engagement is a reflection of her/his commitment to the cause for which money is being raised (15). Fundraising lore

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011 shared by fundraiser respondents stresses that successful fundraisers ask the donor questions that reveal ―what they [the donor] like [programs, students, faculty, facilities] and feel strongest about.‖ The concept of asking questions to determine the donor‘s interest aligns respondents with the industry process known as cultivation (Hartsook ―Closing‖ and ―Gifts‖, Klein 1999, Matheny 1999, Ross and Segal 2009).

Donor advice for fundraisers Donor interview participants were asked the most important thing a fundraiser should communicate to a potential donor during a face-to-face visit. All six donors talked about the importance of the fundraiser establishing a connection between the cause to be supported and the donor‘s interest.

Donna, Janet, and Kathy advise the fundraiser to communicate how the gift will connect to the donor‘s interest.

DONNA: Recognition of [the donor‘s connection to the cause] is probably the most important thing [a fundraiser can communicate].

JANET: There is a need that perhaps you can help us with.

KATHY: I believe it is important [for the fundraiser] to show commitment to a cause, a belief in a cause. How well do they know what they are talking about?

Stan and Bill advise the fundraiser to convey information in a positive way about how the funds will make a difference and will be used.

STAN: I think it is important to have a positive story where you know that the money you’re potentially going to donate is going to be put to good use.

BILL: If it’s a worthy cause, I think the fundraiser ought to be able to present it…tell the people what he feels like the money will be used for.

Bill‘s suggests that the fundraiser should articulate how the donor‘s gift will make a difference.

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

Jack is the only donor who advised the fundraiser to coach donor volunteers to ask. When asked what role the fundraiser should play in a solicitation with a volunteer, he makes clear, ―Strictly inter-organizational.‖

JACK: That would mean coaching the people who are actually going to be doing the fundraising, the techniques and strategies of personal solicitations.

Donors who responded to the survey were asked what advice they would give fundraisers who make face-to-face visits. Of the eighty-four donor respondents, eighty answered questions related to what fundraisers should communicate during the face- to-face visit. Of the eighty donors who wrote in an answer, 91% (seventy-five donors) indicated having been visited face-to-face by a fundraiser, and 71% (fifty-seven) indicated they were major gift donors. The average number of times a fundraiser visited each respondent face-to-face was 11.5. Of those eighty donor respondents, seventy-four wrote in advice for fundraisers. The advice totaled eighty-one lines of code. I coded the lines into six categories of advice that emerged from the data by finding common themes in the lines of code. The six categories are: 1) be honest, 2) don‘t push the donor, 3) build a relationship, 4) get donor involved, 5) provide information, and 6) listen.

Donors‘ advice to fundraisers regarding what is important to communicate is consistent with the communicative purpose of building a relationship with the donor. Fundraisers can passionately communicate the value of the donor‘s gift. The donor tends to believe the fundraisers who effectively communicate trust.

The role of persuasion in the MGF/D relationship Donors and fundraisers agree that people give to people, i.e. the relationship is important to raising major gifts. The fundraiser functions as the personification of the institution for which money is being sought. The donor‘s gift is not a gift for the fundraiser; it is a gift to the institution. But the fundraiser, as the person who represents the institution, makes the gift possible.

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

How do fundraisers and donors perceive the role of persuasion in the MGF/D relationship? Fundraiser and donor survey respondents were asked whether they thought fundraisers persuade donors to give. The results indicate that fundraisers and donors are divided on their understanding of the role of persuasion in fundraising.

Of the donors who responded, 70% (fifty-six of the eighty respondents) said fundraisers persuade donors to give. However, 60% of the donors (thirty-three of the fifty-five respondents) indicated a fundraiser did not influence their final decision to make a major gift. Respondents shared seventy-one lines of code indicating what motivated their last gift. I coded the seventy-one lines into seven categories of motivating factors. The categories emerged from the lines of code. Three motivating factors consumed 80% of responses: Belief in/Commitment to the cause (42%), Desire to help (22.5%), and Involvement with/Connection to the institution (15.5%). Donor respondents were provided a definition of persuasion as ―influencing one to take a specific action‖ and then asked again, based on this definition, if they thought fundraisers persuaded donors to give. The results indicate only 2.5% (two donors) changed their opinion.

The six donor interview participants were asked what they consider before making a gift. Using the categories that emerged from the survey responses above, four donors indicated belief in/commitment to the institution or cause motivated their last gift, one said previous involvement/connection with the institution, and one was motivated by her desire to help others. Donor interview participants were also asked what a fundraiser can do to influence their decision to give. Their suggestions were categorized into the following three suggestions that emerged from their answers. Five of the donors provided multiple suggestions for what a fundraiser can do to influence a donor. First, the fundraiser should know the donor‘s interests/passions for giving. Second, the fundraiser should be honest and genuine with the donor in all aspects of the process. And third, the fundraiser should establish a relationship with the donor before asking for a gift.

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

Of the fundraisers who responded to the survey, 41% (thirty of the seventy- three respondents) do not believe fundraisers persuade donors to make a gift. This is likely due to how they define persuasion. Fundraiser respondents were asked to write a definition of persuasion. Fundraiser definitions suggest that some fundraisers have a misconception of the role of rhetoric (persuasion). Examples of fundraiser definitions of persuasion included ―twist arms,‖ ―force a donor to do something against their will,‖ and ―coercion.‖ One fundraiser referred to persuasion as ―selling,‖ which may imply something negative. Another fundraiser said, ―You have not done your job if you have to persuade. Persuade means the donor does not have enough data and/or interest to invest in the gift opportunity and you have not met the donor‘s needs.‖ Fundraiser-scholars need to take advantage of the opportunity to educate the profession on the meaning and use of rhetorical theory. If fundraisers understand their work as rhetorical, they potentially will be provided with new ways of approaching their work.

The six fundraiser interview participants were asked what they thought the most important thing a fundraiser should communicate to a donor during a face-to- face visit. Two fundraisers said that the most important thing a fundraiser should communicate to the donor during a face-to-face visit is gratitude.

JOHN: Gratitude for allowing the fundraiser in the home or office. I mean appreciation for taking time to see the fundraiser. Number two, another level of gratitude if the person is already a donor, acknowledging their support and saying thank you.

MARTHA: If they have given before, they need to know what was done with their money and how it was useful and how it helped…Thank them again, you can’t thank them too many times.

Two fundraisers indicated that determining the donor‘s interest was the most important communication task of the face-to-face visit.

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

BETTY: I connect or interconnect what I know about the department, and I go in with homework on donor so at least I know that the donor has, let’s say the donor has an athletic bent. The donor is a runner and interested in health, I choose this department [Physiology] to talk about. I go in knowing something about the donor. I ask about what they have been doing.

PRISCILLA: I would think that good fundraisers, the things that they need to leave essentially with that donor are, ―we’re interested in you; we’re willing to learn more about you; we want to know what you’re interested in.‖

One fundraiser indicated information and one fundraiser indicated trust were the most important things a fundraiser should communicate during a face-to-face visit.

CALVIN: I think the most important thing is, that they communicate is, basically communicating what’s going on at the institution. I think it’s always to give, to communicate what’s happening.

SIMON: Need to convey that, I was gonna say trust. You need to convey somehow that you are listening. In order to develop trust, you gotta make sure they understand you’re listening to them.

Donor and fundraisers‘ understanding of what is most important to communicate during a face-to-face visit is closely aligned with knowing the donor‘s interest/passions for giving. The donors‘ suggestion to be honest/genuine and build a relationship is reflected in what the fundraisers say about building trust and showing gratitude. Sharing information about the institution was not a suggestion made by donors, but was something a fundraiser thought was important.

Fundraising is rhetorical. Fundraisers persuade (influence) donors to take action by engaging in discourse that donors expect in order to create meaning. The remainder of this chapter will examine actual MGF/D rhetorical practices to determine whether a MGF/D genre exists. The communicative purpose (action to be accomplished) of establishing a relationship should reveal typified rhetorical discourse that can be identified in the MGF/D face-to-face recurring situation.

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

Fundraiser observation participants Josh is the most experienced of all the fundraiser observation participants with approximately 30 years in the profession. The majority of his experience is in MG fundraising. He has served as a vice president for advancement at three different colleges/universities. At the time of the observation, Josh is in his third year as vice president at Metro University. I observed Josh twice with two different donors, Jerry and Lonnie, who are both alumni of the university and serve on the university‘s development council. Josh met with Jerry to talk about his next gift to the university. This type of visit is considered a cultivation call because it is an attempt to move the donor toward making a gift. The meeting with Lonnie was intended to clarify confusion related to a pledge commitment he made to the university, thus considered a stewardship call because the purpose is to take care of details related to a gift already pledged to the university. Both meetings took place in the offices of the donors. It was the second face-to-face meeting with Jerry. It was the fourth face-to-face meeting with Lonnie. However, Josh had occasion to encounter both donors several times at development board meetings and university events. The meeting with Jerry lasted approximately thirty-five minutes, and Lonnie‘s meeting was approximately one hour.

Kip is a MG fundraiser for a school at Green University, with approximately six years of MG fundraising experience. The observation took place in the office of the donor, Danny, who is not a university alumnus. The two met through Kip‘s former development job at another university. Danny lives close to the university where Kip currently works. The observed visit was approximately the eighth time (combined between both institutions) Kip and Danny have met face-to-face. Danny served on the Technology Intern Entrepreneur (TIE) advisory board of Kip‘s school, and Kip wanted to assess Danny‘s interest in having his company be a corporate sponsor for the TIE program. This type of visit is considered an assessment call because the fundraiser is attempting to judge the donor‘s level of interest in making a gift. The visit lasted about seventy-five minutes.

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

Geoffrey has been a fundraising professional in higher education for approximately fifteen years, including the last four years at Smith University as director of development and gift planning. The university is three years into a five- year capital campaign. Geoffrey met with university alumna Dr. Brown over lunch, which was their second time to meet face-to-face and lasted approximately one hour and thirty minutes. Dr. Brown recently informed the university that she intended to make a planned gift, and at this meeting Geoffrey delivered to her a ―statement of acceptance‖ form that would provide the university information about the planned gift, thus allowing it to be counted in the capital campaign. This is a solicitation call because Geoffrey is attempting to secure Dr. Brown‘s signature granting permission to count the gift in the campaign.

Kerry is a MG fundraising professional at State University, where he is a school-based director of development. He has six years of MG fundraiser experience and is in his third year at the university. The observation was Kerry‘s fourth face-to- face meeting with Reggie, which took place in Reggie‘s office for about seventy-five minutes. Reggie made an $80,000 pledge to the university to take advantage of a matching gift opportunity. The purpose of the visit was for Kerry to deliver an endowment agreement for Reggie to review, sign, and take home for his wife‘s signature. This is a stewardship visit because it is intended to take care of details related to a gift the donor has already made to the university.

The observation with Laura, a school-based MG fundraiser at South Central University, took place at a Starbucks coffee house near the campus. Laura has five years of experience in fundraising. The donor is David, a recent alumnus of the MBA program at Laura‘s school, and a member of the school‘s alumni board. Laura met with David to assess his inclination to give to the school, and explored ways to get David more engaged. This type of visit is considered an assessment call, and is Laura‘s first time to meet with David face-to-face, which lasted approximately forty minutes. She previously visited with David during alumni board meetings, but never in the context of the MGF/D face-to-face visit.

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

Recurring forms of discourse A genre does not consist of a series of acts in which certain rhetorical forms recur. Genres are composed of many recognizable forms of rhetorical discourse bound together by an internal dynamic or ―synthetic core in which certain significant rhetorical elements, e.g., a system of belief, lines of argument, stylistic choices, and the perception of the situation, are fused into an indivisible whole‖ (Campbell and Jamieson 21). A rhetorical genre ―is given its character by a fusion of forms [and] not by its individual elements‖ (21). A genre should make it possible for a rhetor to engage in meaningful discourse in a recurring social situation and accomplish a desired social action. For example, a MGF/D genre should make it possible for fundraisers and donors to engage in rhetorical discourse in meaningful ways because there is an identifiable action (building a relationship that will lead to financial support for the institution) that fuses the discourse into an indivisible whole. In the context of the recurring social situation of the face-to-face visit, recurring forms of discourse should be fused together by the shared purpose of the relationship (to establish ethos and create an emotional connection), all of which is intended to motivate the donor to make a gift.

Observing six MGF/D face-to-face visits revealed three significant forms of discourse: promoting the institution, creating expectation, and sharing personal narrative. The three recurring discourse forms fit into the rhetorical proofs of pathos, ethos, and logos; thus appealing to the emotional, ethical, and logical senses (see figure 4.1 MGF/D recurring discourse). Aristotle, the father of rhetoric, was interested in how to understand rhetoric and make it usable (Bizzell and Herzberg 30). Aristotle suggested that rhetorical arguments should appeal to reason (logos), emotion about the subject (pathos), and trust in the speaker‘s character (ethos) (Bizzell and Herzbert 31).

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

Logos Promoting the institution

Ethos Pathos Sharing personal Creating narrative expectation

Figure 4.1 MGF/D recurring discourse

Responses by donors and fundraisers to interview and survey questions reveal a number of appeals—e.g. appeals to trust, credibility, emotions, passion, and reason— that play a critical role in the art of fundraising and suggest that fundraising is a rhetorical act. Rhetorical acts combine elements of ethos, pathos, and logos in different forms and in different ways. The consideration of the interplay of these three rhetorical proofs in fundraising brings into focus how the fundraising process is a rhetorical act (Gottweis 237). Pathos, ethos, and logos provide a way to differentiate between elements of argumentation based on emphasis of the rhetorical appeal. The Aristotelian rhetorical proofs provide a way of understanding the rhetorical discourse of fundraisers and donors in the face-to-face visit.

Placing recurring fundraising discourse into the rhetorical proofs of logos, pathos, and ethos invites critique. However, placing the three forms of discourse into the persuasive appeals was the result of examining how each form of discourse was used within the context of the face-to-face visits I observed. In addition, I drew upon

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011 my own fifteen years of experience as a MG fundraiser to help me express these significant, identifiable, recurring forms of discourse in terms of the rhetorical proofs.

These three forms of discourse were not the only ones coded. To code the data, I first read through all the observation transcripts to become familiar with the data. I then went back over the transcripts and began putting similar discourse into nodes based on what I thought the fundraiser was trying to communicate. Similarities in the discourse were based on the words, concepts, and ideas that fundraisers were using. For example, ―breaking the ice‖ was identified as rhetorical discourse used to begin the conversation with the donor during the visit. ―Cracking the door for follow-up‖ included rhetorical discourse intended to pave the way for the next visit with the donor. ―Fundraiser agrees to get information for the donor‖ was a verbal commitment by the fundraiser to provide specific information to the donor. Next, I began reviewing the nodes and discourse to eliminate any similarities and refine the node names. This coding scheme placed fundraiser and donor discourse into fifty-six nodes. I then focused on those nodes that had references across all six observations. This reduced the number of nodes from fifty-six to six. I then divided the six nodes into the rhetorical proofs of pathos, ethos, and logos based on what I deemed to be the fundraiser‘s intent. I then eliminated three of the six because they served as transitions in the conversation and not significant discourse. The three nodes I eliminated were ―refocusing the conversation,‖ ―transition to giving talk,‖ and ―engaging the donor.‖ The three remaining forms of discourse were deemed rhetorically significant based on their intended use to persuade the donors and the fact each consistently occurred across all six observations used by different fundraisers during the face-to-face visit with different donors.

These three forms of rhetorical are not unique to the MGF/D face-to-face visit. Promoting, sharing personal stories, and creating expectation are types of rhetorical discourse used to communicate in many different types settings. For example, one might argue that both a campus tour for prospective students and their parents and a MGF/D face-to-face visit both include discourse that promotes the institution and

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011 creates expectation. However, the rhetorical situation (what the rhetor and audience understand to be occurring) and the intended action to be accomplished are different.

An important distinguishing factor of genres is the intended social action. According to Miller‘s definition of genre, ―the situation contributes to the character of rhetorical discourse‖ and genres represent typified rhetorical action (151, 153).

The social action to be accomplished by the campus tour is to recruit students to attend the school. The social action to be accomplished by the face-to-face visit with a donor is support for the institution. The intended action to be accomplished in a rhetorical context makes it possible for tour guides and student, fundraisers and donors to create meaning through recurring discourse. Recurring forms of discourse by themselves do not indicate a genre; rather, the action to be accomplished situated in a recurring situation ―seeks to explicate the knowledge that practice creates‖ (Miller 155). The fusion of intended action, social situation, and recurring discourse identify a genre and give discourse meaning (Miller 159).

Logos: promoting the institution Promoting the institution is a significant recurring form of discourse that occurs during MGF/D face-to-face visits. The rhetorical strategy is used as a means of persuading donors by conveying facts. These facts are meant to advance the status of the institution in the mind of the donor. Appealing to the donor‘s sense of logic is important because MG donors view their philanthropy to the institution as an investment; people want to invest in institutions that are successful and have a plan for continued success and future growth (Hall 194).

Fundraiser Josh uses the rhetorical strategy of promoting the institution with donor Jerry. Josh tells Jerry about the increased enrollment at the university, conveying that the increase is an indication of the institution‘s success.

JOSH: I don't know if you've seen all of our news, but you know the enrollment, for the first time in the university's history, went up from fall to spring.

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

JERRY: Yup.

JOSH: Which is, in fact I've never…I was gonna say, in thirty-five years of doing this, I've never been at a place where that's happened before. And freshmen apps are up something like 40% over last fall. It's [the increase in enrollment and applications] amazing.

JERRY: (Agreeing) Yes.

Jerry asks Josh what might account for the increase in applications.

JOSH: I think it's a lot of things coming together. I think it's the economy for one thing. But I also think the tier-one thing and the visibility we're getting through program one [a state program to promote tier-one institutional status among non-flagship schools in the state] and just our communication efforts. It's really beginning to take hold and all of the sudden [our university] is being seen more as a destination institution than just,‖ I can’t go off [to school], so I'll go to [our university].‖

Josh uses inductive logic when stating that in all of his thirty-five years of fundraising he has never witnessed growth in enrollment like this institution is experiencing. The statistical evidence shared by the fundraiser via promoting the institution is an important rhetorical strategy to turn enrollment numbers into proof of success.

Josh continues using the logical appeal as a rhetorical strategy with Jerry, but shifts the focus from enrollment to the issue of parking on campus. Parking is often a delicate subject for fundraisers to discuss because on-campus parking experiences can mar a donor‘s visit to the campus. However, Josh uses parking issues on the campus to promote the institution. The university began a construction and expansion project that eliminated a parking lot. Josh suggests to Jerry that the loss of the parking lot should be seen as a sign of the institution‘s growth and expansion. Jerry saw a presentation about the construction and expansion project at a development board meeting a few months prior to Josh‘s visit.

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

JOSH: We'll actually start moving dirt on that project [special events center project] probably in May…We're building the park south of it and that whole development on the eastern side is taking away some parking…Well, you deal with this stuff so you know what it's like. He [the VP for administration and campus operations] went through this presentation where flipping through phase one, phase two, phase three, phase four, phase five, and the way we're having to move [parking] lots around…The big thing we're trying to do, you know we have a shuttle system now and we're trying to really communicate about that and stress the importance of students considering it as an option. We're doing differential pricing, so if you park in one of the remote lots that's served by the shuttle, you get cheaper parking than if you just have regular parking. The shuttle runs like every eight minutes or so and so it's fairly convenient; and frankly, if you drive around looking for a parking place [the shuttle] may be faster in some cases…So for about the next two plus years we're gonna be moving the chess pieces around to accommodate everybody, at the same time that we're increasing enrollment.

The potential for Jerry to be frustrated about the elimination of the parking lot was countered by the fundraiser making the claim that the inconvenience of losing the parking lot to make way for new construction was a measure of success and growth of the institution. Josh suggests that the university has already solved the parking issue for students by providing cheaper parking and shuttle transportation that will be quicker than parking in the eliminated lot.

Interestingly, Josh continues by referencing parking issues that existed on the campus when Jerry was a student.

JOSH: (sarcastically) So it's, you know, I'm sure parking was never an issue when you were a student there, no more than it is an issue now.

JERRY: (Jerry Laughs.) It was. [Meaning parking was an issue when he was a student.]

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

Josh appeals to logic when he suggests this because if Jerry was able to manage university parking issues successfully as a student, then current students can, too. Josh inductively argues that Jerry should view the current parking issues as a reasonable trade-off for success and growth of his alma mater.

During his visit with Lonnie, Josh again uses the rhetorical appeal of promoting the institution, addressing two issues, research and fundraising, as a means of making a logical appeal. Josh begins the rhetorical maneuver by stating the importance of being recognized as a research university.

JOSH: You know we're one of the seven emerging research universities that have been identified by the state.

Josh goes on to explain the process for obtaining research status. Lonnie then responds.

LONNIE: All within reach, though. Or is it?

JOSH: Well, they’re all within reach, but not immediately. I think we’re at least ten years off from getting there. This is a long process.

LONNIE: (Laughing) You’ll be retired by then.

JOSH: Well, that is just the nature of what we are dealing with.

Josh then explains to Lonnie how the university is accomplishing important steps that will make it possible to be recognized as an emerging research university.

JOSH: The university is making good progress…for instance, in the area of doctorates, they [the state] want you [the university] to produce two hundred PhDs a year. Well, we're pushing one-fifty now, so we're not really that far away.

Josh continues by highlighting the fundraising requirements necessary for being recognized as an emerging research university, and the progress the university is making towards obtaining them.

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

JOSH: We're making progress there [in raising funds to qualify as an emerging research university]. We're having a good year fundraising, which is going to, over time, obviously get us there [get the institution recognized as an emerging research university] in terms of endowment. In terms of new gifts and pledges this year, the last numbers I saw were nearly 120% above last year's [fundraising] total.

LONNIE: (Surprised) Where’s that all coming from?

JOSH: Just various places. We’ve had several commitments.

Josh uses inductive logic to convey to Lonnie that the institution is experiencing growth and success, arguing that successful universities are emerging research universities. The university is increasing the number of doctoral degrees it grants, and it has increased the amount of money raised; therefore, the university is moving towards research-one status. Josh is persuading Lonnie to conclude that moving closer to research-one status means the university is successful, even though the university has not yet, and might not ever, obtain research-one status.

It is interesting to note that during the exchange Lonnie seems to accept, without question, what Josh tells him regarding the amount of money raised as an indication of growth and success of the university. Josh is not specific about the amount of money raised or how the dollars were raised. Josh simply states that the university is 120% above where it was last year. Lonnie does not question the accuracy of Josh‘s statement, does not ask how much was raised last year, how much ―120% more‖ this year equals in actual dollars, or how much more needs to be raised to reach the state‘s expected goal for research-one status. He only asks the source of the increased funding. Lonnie‘s acceptance of what Josh says about the percentage of money raised may be a factor of Lonnie‘s lack of curiosity or it could be an indication of a dynamic of the MGF/D genre, i.e. ethos of the fundraiser (a subject explored later in this chapter). Research outside the scope of this study would need to be conducted to explore the possible causes of a donor‘s unquestioned acceptance of what a

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011 fundraiser communicates.

Fundraiser Kip found an interesting way of promoting the institution to Danny. Recall that Danny is not an alumnus of the institution where Kip works. Rather, Kip recruited Danny to serve on the Technology Intern Entrepreneur (TIE) Program advisory board at the school of business. Danny‘s interest and connection with the university is through his interest in the TIE Program.

Kip manages to make a logical appeal for the program by highlighting the commitment of another board member whom Danny respects. Through this rhetorical strategy, Kip argues deductively that successful people are on the TIE board and they commit to supporting the program.

KIP: Well, you know Jan Smith?

DANNY: I love her, she’s awesome.

DANNY: She [Jan Smith, the other board member whom Danny respects] is phenomenal. She's going to land on her feet [referring to leaving a job and starting another].

DANNY: Oh, absolutely.

KIP: She's going to stay on [the board] and John [another person Danny knows] is going to stay on.

Kip‘s stated intention for the face-to-face meeting is to explore Danny‘s interest in being a corporate sponsor for the TIE Program. Kip promotes the TIE program by suggesting to Danny that successful people, i.e. people that Danny admires, serve on the TIE board. Kip continues to promote the board by telling Danny that Jan Smith, the board member Danny admires, is supporting the program. Therefore, the logical conclusion for Danny to make is that if he wants to be like Jan, whom he admires, he should support the program. Good people, like Jan, support the program; thus, Kip is promoting the institution (program) to Danny by making a logical appeal.

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

KIP: So the ETF [funding source] that she [Jan Smith] is connecting us with…are a group of firms. To receive this money, you have to have partnered with a university. Meaning, you have given money to, you have a contract with, you have anything associated with a university. And so what she's trying to do is what she did with her old company…that was associated with [another university]. I would assume that whatever company she starts to go with next, I assume [our university] will become [the university] relationship [for the company].

Kip promotes the institution by inferring that if Danny admires the other board member (Jan Smith) as a successful business woman, and she is willing to sponsor the program as a board member, then Danny should support the program financially if he wants to be like her.

Geoffrey promotes the institution to Dr. Brown by calling to her attention the appointment of a new dean to her school.

GEOFFREY: Well, we have a new humanities dean coming on board in July.

DR. BROWN: I did see that, I read the brochure that came out the other day.

GEOFFREY: This new guy [the new faculty member hired to be department chair], he's young.

DR. BROWN: Yes, I noticed that.

GEOFFREY: His specialty is Spanish and Portuguese and Central America.

DR. BROWN: I found it a little bit surprising. I think it's really nice, and he's been over at [another university in the state]?

GEOFFREY: Right. Went there [the other university] from Yale. So he's been around. I think maybe with this international push that they've had, they think this will add…to that program.

Geoffrey makes a logical appeal by suggesting that the new dean is a good addition to the university, thus a sign of good things happening at the institution. The fundraiser 98

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011 argues that the previous jobs the dean has held at Yale and another university in the state, along with his Central American academic focus, are evidence of the university‘s commitment to success. Inductive reasoning suggests that Dr. Brown should recognize the success of the institution based on her school‘s new dean.

Laura, fundraiser for a school of business at a private university, uses the rhetorical strategy of promoting the institution with an MBA alumnus. She picks up on a comment David made regarding how he has stayed close with former classmates.

DAVID: A few months later I was sitting in class with the rest of my classmates who, you know, I am still really good friends with.

LAURA: Good! I hear that a lot from the executive program alums, that for the full-time and the professional alums, it's your study-group, and really, the entire classes of those MBA groups, they really stay in touch.

DAVID: We do. In fact, we're having a get-together out in one of my study- group member's house, tomorrow.

LAURA: Oh, good!

DAVID: So you know, we're very close.

The fact that the various groups ―really stay in touch‖ allowed Laura to suggest that the classmate relationships and friendships reflect the excellence of the program.

Laura asked David about the value of the education he received in the program, which he praises and specifically mentions the value of the international trip that is part of the degree.

LAURA: Right. And you may have heard this, but we're pretty unique in that we actually include that [international trip] as part of our MBA programs. There's a lot of schools that don't do that. So, I'm glad to hear that was impactful for you.

DAVID: Yeah, I mean that was really the big thing, you know, to be able to go over there and talk to corporations, and talk about the joint ventures and how 99

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

they are structured, and how they work. And it just definitely helped me because I'm in the process now of talking to some companies over in China about two of their joint ventures.

LAURA: Right. Well, and I think we saw that we have to have a global impact, we have to have a global curriculum, or we're going to be behind the times with other schools.

DAVID: Absolutely!

Laura promoted the institution when she argued that the graduate program at her school is ―unique‖ because of the international trips. She inductively suggests that the international trip makes the program successful, even though she admits that the program at her school is not the only school to offer these experiences for students.

Laura then turns to promoting the institution through conveying a story about how a program at her school, Big Venture Forum, helps young entrepreneurs start their own companies. David started his own business three years prior to beginning the MBA program.

LAURA: You know, there's a gentleman who went through the Big Venture Forum. He was not a student, but a friend of the university. His family is a friend of the university, and he had a business plan that he needed help with. [The director of Big Venture Forum] helped him with the business plan and then submitted it to the Big Venture Forum, and he got capital. And he has actually paid the Venture back, and plus interest. He is now a donor to the university. He is a great example of how the program works.

DAVID: (Agreeing) Great example.

Laura uses the rhetorical strategy to connect with David‘s entrepreneurial interest. She logically demonstrates to David that the institution helps entrepreneurs like David. Therefore, if David wants to help other entrepreneurs, then he should support the school.

100

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

Kerry, the fundraiser for the school of management at a public university, stresses to Reggie that the business school moved quickly from receiving accreditation to being ranked in the top fifty business schools in the country.

KERRY: And it [the school of management] was a startup in a highly technical engineering-focused school.

REGGIE: Yeah.

KERRY: And then, all of the sudden…you know, I was surprised to learn that we [the school] only received our AACSV accreditation in, I think, 2003 or 2004. And you're [the school] not eligible for rankings until you're accredited. So, between then [2003 or 2004] and just this short period of years [2010], we've been able to crack into the top fifty. But it does get a lot harder to move up now because these programs are so good.

REGGIE: Sure.

Kerry promotes the institution by highlighting the speed with which the program went from accreditation to being nationally ranked. Inductively, Kerry is arguing that the speed and national ranking translates into a successful program, and uses the quick success of the program to argue the case for support that is now necessary for it to continue to move up in the national rankings. Kerry is arguing that moving up represents something good or more (McCagg 41).

Later in the conversation, Kerry refers to a recent newspaper article about the school. He calls to Reggie‘s attention the fact that, in Kerry‘s opinion, the university is often highlighted in the local media. The fact that the university is located in a large metropolitan area with many public and private institutions of varying sizes makes media attention for the school a logical opportunity for Kerry to suggest it as a sign of success.

KERRY: I was talking to Tom Brown (another board member of the school)… He said, ―You know, I can hardly open up the newspaper these days and not

101

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

read something about [the university]. I never used to notice that.

REGGIE: Right, that’s very different.

KERRY: You know, there's always something about [the university in the media].

Finally, Kerry turns to admission scores for the MBA program as a sign of the institutions‘ success and growth.

KERRY: The [GMAT score] averages have gone up for the last seven years. With the GMAT scores…just the rankings alone are a lot for looks, you know, a fashion show, beauty contest, whatever, popularity contest. But they make a difference, and drive students to come here. I think we have sixty-eight in our in-coming MBA class, which is the largest yet. So, it's good, growth is. We're growing faster than the university.

REGGIE: (Satisfied) Okay.

Kerry inductively makes his logical appeal by pointing out to Reggie the school‘s growth in the number of students wanting to enter the program is a sign of success, as is the fact that the business school is out-pacing the growth of the university. Even though the GMAT scores are ―for looks,‖ Kerry suggests that the rise in the average scores of applicants is an indication of the school‘s success. Based on the success of the institution, Reggie is encouraged by Kerry to conclude that the institution is worthy of his investment.

MG donors want to invest in institutions that are successful, growing, getting better, and have a plan for continued success and future growth (Hall 194). Promoting the institution is an important rhetorical strategy used by the fundraisers observed in this study to persuasively illustrate success and growth by taking information about the institution and crafting it into a logical appeal intended to connect with the values of the donor.

102

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

Pathos: creating expectation Another form of discourse that occurred across all six observations is creating expectation. Creating expectation is used by the five fundraisers observed to appeal to the donor‘s sympathies and imagination to persuade the donor to embody (feel) anticipation that something exciting or good was happening or going to happen. The importance of the emotional appeal in fundraising cannot be overstated. Fundraising experts Barton, Dickerson, Fredricks, and Ross and Segal maintain that the decision to make a major gift is based on the donor‘s emotional connection to the cause (Fredricks 14-15; Ross and Segal 15; Dickerson, ―Hand-Personalized Mail" 1; Barton 5, 8). Once a donor is emotionally compelled to make a gift, only then does the donor engage in the rational decision about details of the gift (i.e. how much to give and how it fits into the donor‘s financial plans). Creating expectation is a recurring rhetorical strategy used by fundraisers to take abstract information and turn it into a tangible and imaginative experience (pathos) for the donor. Josh uses the rhetorical technique of creating expectation to make the construction project at the university a palpable experience for Jerry.

JOSH: It is exciting to see it [new events center] and it's gonna be…I don't think even people that know about it truly recognize how transformational that whole…

JERRY: Yeah, I mean for one thing it's an opportunity to be like all the other colleges where you have an events center or a gymnasium where you can really focus your athletics and some intramural and some some high school, but also be able to attract events and speakers, performances and the like.

JOSH: Yeah, well it's exciting. It clearly will be a new era.

In the above exchange, Josh attempts to persuade Jerry to think about the construction of the events center as transformational by emotionally framing the construction and cost of the center as vital to the university‘s future, even claiming that the center will

103

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011 usher in a new era at the institution. Thus, the intent is for Jerry to have high expectations and feel pride for what the events center will accomplish for the institution‘s success, growth, and well-being. Similarly, fundraising documents appeal to the emotion of pride as a means of creating social healing (Bazerman 7). Josh continues with his appeal to pathos by referring to another construction project on the campus.

JOSH: You've seen at least the beginnings of the construction [referring to the new engineering complex]. Well, it's up of course and you can see it from [the freeway], which is kind of amazing. It's [the engineering complex] the new front door of the campus. But until you actually go through it [tour the building], you really don't grasp, at least I didn't, how massive it really is. It's a couple hundred thousand square feet or so. So we're about to enter a really completely new era.

Josh‘s rhetoric about the construction of the new engineering complex creates expectation that the building will serve as a new front door to the campus, or a re- orientation of the whole campus, by saying the massive size of the building makes it visible from the freeway. While the campus entrance has not officially changed, Jerry is encouraged to view (emotionally) the new complex in a larger, transformative context. The complex is more than just a building; it is the beginning of a new era for the institution. Josh attempts to transform bricks and mortar into an imaginative experience for Jerry. Josh does not explain or provide proof for how the construction of the events center and the engineering complex will transform the institution and usher in a new era. Nor does Jerry ask Josh to explain how the construction will be transformative. Jerry seems to accept Josh‘s imaginative explanation that the construction projects will usher in a new era and transform the institution in some way. During a face-to-face visit between Josh and Lonnie, Josh begins to explain plans for the university‘s next capital campaign. Lonnie is a member of the university development board. Josh uses the rhetorical strategy of creating expectation to convey

104

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011 to Lonnie that the work of raising money for the campaign will be monumental and that the success of the university depends on the help of the development board members.

JOSH: I would envision, I hope that we could do a feasibility study next spring…and the reality is we'll probably start counting, well, if this five million dollar commitment occurs, we would start counting then. I mean, basically we're going to start counting whenever the first big gift comes in. And we're going to be working by, I hope, middle of next year, in a very intensive way towards raising some major leadership gifts.

Later in the conversation, Josh returns to the subject of the capital campaign and the role of the development board.

JOSH: A few people will be rotating off [the board], but we're eventually moving the board to…we're hoping to get it up to fifty people by, not this fall, but next fall

LONNIE: (Taken aback) Big board.

JOSH: Yeah, it's gonna be a big board, we've got a lot of work to do.

Creating expectation as a rhetorical strategy is used to create emotional responses of various kinds. In this case, Josh is preparing Lonnie, as a board member, to expect the capital campaign to be ―a lot of work,‖ and that Lonnie should be prepared for the hard work that lies ahead. Lonnie acknowledges that a development board of fifty people is a ―big board.‖ Not only will Lonnie be expected to give, but he will be expected to help solicit others to give. Lonnie will need to know there is a lot of work to do, but the hope is he will be excited and motivated about helping move the university forward by helping to raise money. Kip‘s purpose for meeting with Danny, a member of the TIE Program board, is to assess his willingness to be a corporate sponsor of the program. Danny‘s participation on the board is important for him to consider making a gift to the

105

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011 program. After inquiring whether Danny plans to attend the next board meeting, Kip works to create expectation regarding the meeting.

KIP: This one [board meeting] actually is shaping up to be a really good meeting because I think we've got a good agenda…we're hopefully going to have a print piece ready. You know, all the things that we were tasked with doing between the two board meetings, I think we’ll have those wrapped up. So, I think we’re moving in the right direction.

DANNY: I think you’re right to question what we’re doing with the board…because the people you’ve got on the board don’t invest their time lightly.

Creating expectation (emotional energy) regarding the board meeting is important to ensure that Danny, who is not an alumnus of the institution, will feel compelled to attend and participate. Kip strategically creates expectation during the face-to-face visit with Danny as a way of ensuring Danny‘s participation, which the fundraiser believes is vital to inclining the donor to be a corporate sponsor. Geoffrey, while meeting with Dr. Brown over lunch, hopes to secure her signature on a planned gift agreement. He begins creating expectation around a story about faculty in her former school. The fundraiser uses the strategy to talk about the resignation of a beloved faculty member as department chair of the school. Dr. Brown‘s admiration of the faculty member creates an emotional connection.

GEOFFREY: He got a nice award, did you hear about that? Outstanding Faculty Member, they just awarded it this past week.

DR. BROWN: (Excited) Oh, really?

GEOFFREY: Yeah, he's been there [at the institution] forty some-odd years and he's been dean twice now, I guess.

106

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

The appeal is intended to encourage Dr. Brown to emotionally connect with the beloved faculty member at the school. Positive emotions translate into decisions to support the institution. Geoffrey attempts to persuade Dr. Brown to sign the planned gift agreement. After walking Dr. Brown through the projected numbers and tax implications of her planned gift, Geoffrey begins to create expectation around how the gift will be recognized by the university. Her planned gift will make her a member of the planned giving society at the university, ensuring that she will be invited to special events.

GEOFFREY: …Yeah, with that one, that I sent you [referring to a sample planned giving workup that Dr. Brown has brought with her], you’ll notice it says it’s just an estimate and totally revocable. But it's hard to count those kinds of things [planned gifts] in campaigns, but we want to recognize people who've done that [made a planned gift], so.

DR. BROWN: Well, if you have a pen.

GEOFFREY: I do, I've got one here.

Geoffrey never asks Dr. Brown to sign the documents, although that is the reason for his visit. She asks him for a pen during his explanation of the numbers related to the trust. Dr. Brown then begins to talk about receiving invitations to events at the university.

DR. BROWN: I get these things [invitation letters] as if I am a member of this [planned giving society].

GEOFFREY: They're usually nice events. This year, we're going to have [one of our faculty members] who is the executive director [of the] the global health initiative at [the university]. She's going to be our keynote speaker. They [faculty working in the global health initiative] actually work a lot with the Engineers Without Borders and that kind of thing. If you're in the neighborhood, it might be an event worth attending.

107

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

DR. BROWN: Right, I don't know when…Thank you. Oh, this is yours [referring to the pen she borrowed].

Creating expectation through offering to recognize a donor for a gift is often used as a rhetorical technique for securing a gift. Dr. Brown‘s membership in the university‘s planned giving society will mean that she receives special recognition. While she is already receiving invitations to special events on campus, membership in the planned giving society will ensure she is invited to those special events. Geoffrey knows that Dr. Brown‘s gift is revocable, and she can take back her gift if she so desires. Providing proper follow-up with the donor on a regular basis is a way to keep the donor of the planned gift involved with the university, and hopefully persuade her not to revoke the planned gift. Kerry uses the recurring discourse of creating expectation to talk about the establishment of a development committee for the school. Kerry asks Reggie to serve on the committee. Kerry creates expectation by appealing to Reggie‘s emotion toward committee service, saying that Reggie is a model donor and alumnus.

REGGIE: What else is going on fundraising wise?

KERRY: Well, we're just trying to do more of it. You were at the last advisory council meeting. And that's something I wanted to talk to you about…you heard me mention the creation of the development committee. You recall me mentioning that, a new committee? And I would like to have you think about joining. I would like to have you, as an alum, and certainly as a model donor, serve on that committee.

REGGIE: I can do it.

KERRY: (Jokingly) You're the chair.

REGGIE: I am not too proud to beg [ask other people to give to the school].

KERRY: Good. We want to have that committee be pretty active in helping us.

108

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

Kerry creates the expectation that the development committee will be an active part of the school‘s development efforts. Rhetorically, the fundraiser‘s appeal to pathos serves to frame the important role Reggie will play in the school as a development committee member. (It is not clear if Reggie believes he was asked to be the chair of the committee. No further conversation about chairing the committee took place.) David is a new alumni board member of the school where Laura works as a fundraiser, and she attempts to create expectation via an emotional response from David when informing him of news about the school.

LAURA: I meet a lot of interesting people, as you can imagine. And I met a gentleman the other day who said, ―If you ever run across anyone who has a business and they're looking for investor,‖ and I went…

DAVID: (Excited) You should introduce us.

LAURA: This is meant to be, isn't it? So I'll make sure, get his name and number, and get you guys together. Well, the reason why I wanted to get together today, I try to reach out to all of our alumni board members and executive board members as much as possible.

DAVID: Right.

LAURA: You are a new alumni board member.

DAVID: Yes, proud new alumni board member.

LAURA: That's right. So, it's easy to make you think this is just, how we do things, right?

DAVID: (Agreeing) It is.

LAURA: So, it's really my job to make sure that you're well informed about what we have going on at school at the university. And find out maybe some additional ways you'd like to be involved, if at all.

First she tries to emotionally engage David by mentioning that she met someone who invests in new businesses and offering to introduce the two of them. Then she appeals 109

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011 to the donor‘s emotion by mentioning that his new role on the alumni board is an opportunity to become involved in new ways. Laura continues her appeal to pathos with David by turning to the rankings for the MBA program, of which David is an MBA alumnus. She rhetorically paves the way for his support of the program by making clear that alumni giving impacts the school‘s ability to move up in the rankings.

LAURA: Our MSA program for accountants is coming on, coming on board as being very highly ranked as well, so that's doing very well. That's a program that's growing quite big. With your accounting background, you might have some interest there.

DAVID: Absolutely.

LAURA: Our BBA program is always ranked in the top fifty. There's obviously a lot more BBA programs than there are MBA programs. So, we're okay with not being in the top twenty right now. But, good to know that your Executive program holds strong.

DAVID: (Disappointed) Yeah, it's [the school‘s Executive MBA program} a good one. I think it should be higher, but hey.

LAURA: We're working on it. You help with that. That's one thing that alumni giving does, it helps us bring up those numbers, and involvement, and where our alumni go, and alumni having jobs, things of that nature really affect that ranking. So, you're doing everything that you can.

DAVID: Okay, good. Glad to help.

Laura creates an emotional response from David when she mentions the school‘s rankings. Though he immediately feels that the rankings for the MBA program are too low, his response does not appear to be grounded in any knowledge of what determines rankings. Rather, his response seems to be a heartfelt reaction based on his positive feelings for the school.

110

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

Laura also makes sure to point out to David that by simply having a good job and making annual gifts he is helping the school‘s ranking. Though a bit surprised, immediately he is glad he can help the school this way. Again, Laura strategically creates expectation with the donor by discussing renovation plans for the school‘s existing computer lab, which currently stands unused by students because of the outdated computer technology, difficulty in finding the lab‘s location in the basement of a building, unattractive outdated interior, and the simple lack of need for another computer lab on campus. She explains the impact of the renovation and what David can expect to see upon completion. Her hope is that he will become excited (an emotional response) about the changes. The expectation is that the renovation will have a good result for the school.

LAURA: And that will be now, a training room, because everyone has their own computers now.

DAVID: I noticed you guys have all Macs in there now.

LAURA: And nobody uses them. We're gonna train some of our undergraduates and graduate students on alternative and classic management and things of that nature. So that room will be turned into a training room. We’re gonna re-orient the entrance to the business library so it's more part of the fabric of that area, you know, that area down there by [the coffee shop]… We're gonna brighten it up, lighten it up. One of my MBA friends jokes that that's where he liked to nap between classes. So we don't really want any napping going on.

DENNIS: (Smiling) It’s a good napping area, is what it is.

Here again is an example of a fundraiser attempting to make changes in a building a palpable sign of the institution‘s success and growth. The examples above illustrate how MG fundraisers use the rhetorical strategy of creating expectation (i.e. what has happened or what is going to happen or what is hoped will happen) to persuade donors to emotionally respond and build expectation

111

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011 that good things are happening/will happen at the institution. The fundraiser‘s rhetoric is not necessarily based in fact (logic), but in a belief (emotion) that something indicates something else. For example, the construction of a new facility may not usher in a new era at the institution, but it is believed to be so important that it changes everything. Donors seem willing to believe the fundraisers and emotionally adopt the fundraiser‘s promotion of the institution.

Ethos: sharing personal narrative The MGF/D genre also facilitates the establishment of ethos (a trusting relationship) making it possible for the donor to trust the fundraiser‘s appeal to emotion. The ethos of the fundraiser is important for a MG donor to trust the rhetorical responses of the MG fundraiser. As a result, donors and fundraisers develop a more intimate relationship that can lead to an exchange of deeply personal narratives. Sharing personal narrative was the most surprising to me of the three forms of recurring discourse. As a fundraiser, I knew donors shared personal stories, but I was unaware of how sharing personal narrative functioned rhetorically in the MGF/D face- to-face visit.

Telling stories about what happens in one‘s life is one of the earliest forms of communication learned (Langellier's 243). Moreover, personal narrative is a way that individuals conceive of themselves. By telling stories of our experiences and our actions we seek to identify with others and create meaning for our own existence (Stivers 408). People being interviewed rarely share personal stories with the interviewer unless they feel a shared identity with the interviewer (Langellier 252). A shared identity or personal connection with the fundraiser is necessary before a donor will share a personal narrative. If a donor is willing to share a personal narrative with the fundraiser, it is a likely indication that the relationship has evolved to a level of trust where personal matters can be discussed. Discussion of one‘s finances is a personal matter, and sharing personal narrative should indicate that a level of trust has been reached that makes it more appropriate to discuss a donor‘s finances in the context of making a gift.

112

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

In close relationships, trust is dyadic and can be measured ( Larzelere and Huston 602-03). Self-disclosure correlates positively with dyadic trust. Thus, trust is a catalyst for self-disclosure, and sharing personal narrative is a form of self-disclosure. Moreover, stories about self are ways in which a person makes her/himself intelligible in a social world. Sharing a personal narrative about oneself (self-narrative) is a means of identifying oneself to others. ―Telling of the story is not so much the act of an independent individual as the result of a mutually coordinated and supportive relationship‖ (Gergen and Gergen 40). Sharing a story about oneself is an indication that a relationship based on ethos exists between the one telling the story and the person to whom the story is told. The relationship is characterized as a supportive one. The storyteller wants to be known by, and fit into, the social world of the listener (Gergen and Gergen 40). A donor who shares a personal narrative with a fundraiser may well be indicating an interest in assimilating into the culture of the institution, which the fundraiser represents.

We tend to believe people whom we trust and respect, and trust and respect are important factors in the MGF/D relationship. Before a potential donor will hand over money, s/he must be satisfied that the institution will use the funds in a responsible way and according to the gift‘s intended purpose. Although the fundraiser does not manage the funds or control the spending of funds, it is the fundraiser whom the donor comes to trust as s/he is viewed as a representative of the institution. If the donor trusts the fundraiser, the donor will likely trust the institution. The MGF/D genre conveys authority upon the fundraiser as a representative of the institution. The donor‘s willingness to view the fundraiser as an authority is in large part contingent on whether or not the donor believes the fundraiser is worthy of respect. If the donor likes the fundraiser, then respect usually follows.

Ethos is established in the MGF/D genre in many ways including through tone and style of the fundraiser‘s message, how the fundraiser handles donor questions, how quickly and thoroughly the fundraiser fulfills her/his promises to the donor, the extent to which the donor perceives the fundraiser to be an expert in the field, as well

113

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011 as what others may say about the fundraiser. The ethos of the fundraiser can only be established and built through a relationship with the donor, which occurs as the fundraiser meets face-to-face with the donor.

An examination of the nature of trust in the buyer-seller relationship revealed four important characteristics of sustainable sales: likability (the person buying finds the seller friendly, nice, and pleasant to be around), similarity (belief that the seller shares values and interests with the buyer), frequent contact with the seller (ability to observe the seller across a variety of situations), and length of the relationship (buyer believes the seller‘s investment in the relationship increases with time) (Doney and Cannon 40-41). These characteristics apply to fundraising as well. If a fundraiser is perceived as having good sense, good moral character, and goodwill, then trust typically exists in the MGF/D relationship, and the fundraiser‘s case for support is at its most effective for persuading the donor to make a gift (Doney and Cannon 41).

But how does a fundraiser know when ethos has been established? What indicates that trust and respect exists between the fundraiser and donor? During the MGF/D face-to-face visit, are there rhetorical clues that may indicate that an important level of trust and respect has been granted by the donor to the fundraiser? Until now the literature related to MG fundraising has been void of discussions related to rhetorical practices to help a fundraiser identify and recognize ethos. I offer sharing personal narrative as a recurring form of discourse that indicates ethos has been established between the donor and fundraiser. Sharing personal narrative is defined for this study as sharing a story or experience that conveys intimate, and often personal, attitudes and emotions. During each of the six observations, the donors shared a story about a personal experience. Each story reveals something private and personal about the fundraiser.

Sharing personal narratives is not typical in every rhetorical situation. Sharing personal narrative is indicative of the trust that one would expect to encounter between close friends or as part of a pastoral visit (another area with which I have practical experience). By sharing a personal narrative, the donor reveals to the 114

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011 fundraiser personal experiences through first-person narrative based on real incidents the donor has encountered (Langellier 252). The donors share personal feelings that make her/him emotionally vulnerable to the fundraiser, and this emotional vulnerability displayed by the donor is an indication of a personal connection (trust) with the fundraiser. Sharing personal narrative is an indication of ethos because it only occurs after the donor and fundraiser have entered into a trusting relationship. The following stories are examples of personal narratives shared by each of the six donors who participated in the observations.

Jerry’s trip with his daughter: Upon entering the office, Josh asked Jerry how he has been doing. Jerry remarked that he has just returned from Canada where he and his eldest child, a daughter, had spent four days watching the Winter Olympic Games.

JERRY: (Moved almost to tears.) She and I have not ever gone anywhere by ourselves. She is leaving for college in the fall and this was our chance to spend time together as father and daughter. Daddies and daughters have a special relationship, especially when your first baby is getting ready to go off to school.

JOSH: Wow! I bet that was exciting.

JERRY: (Holding back the emotion.) It was an amazing trip. It was an amazing time with my daughter. I will never forget it.

This was Josh and Jerry‘s second face-to-face visit, although they had spent time together at board meetings and during events at the university.

JERRY: We [Jerry and his daughter] spent time together watching the games, eating, and nothing got in our way. She is an amazing young lady. We have not spent that much time together, just she and I without her sister and brother around, since she was a little girl.

115

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

Jerry‘s story about the trip with his daughter to the Winter Olympics seems to indicate that Jerry trusts Josh to understand the personal significance of the event. Moreover, his willingness to reveal the intimate emotions of his father/daughter story suggests a level of comfort and trust he feels toward Josh. The level of trust displayed by Jerry in sharing a personal narrative should be an indication that personal matters can be discussed between them.

David is a new father: At the end of her meeting with David, Laura asks if he has any questions or comments. Before David can answer, Laura asks about his new baby.

LAURA: How’s your new baby doing?

DAVID: (Leaning back in his chair, there is an obvious change in his demeanor from casual to serious.) The baby is awesome, growing like crazy. He is awesome.

After a brief inquiry and explanation about how David‘s wife was doing, David continues sharing the personal narrative about his son, and begins to reflect on how being a new father has changed his life.

LAURA: Proud papa.

DAVID: Definitely a proud papa, father, and you know it's one of those things. I used to hear people talk about it, you know, this is gonna be the best experience you ever had. You never fully understand what that means until it actually happens.

LAURA: Absolutely. And it just gets better, let me tell you. My daughter's thirteen months. Every day is better and better…I think for my husband, it becomes more real and more, you know, engaging as she gets older.

As he shares the personal narrative of fatherhood, David‘s voice cracks with emotion.

DAVID: (Emotionally.) Yeah, because, like right now…I know he recognizes me and all that, but he's just still trying to figure out this new world.

116

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

Everything is new to him. Like this wall, this pillow right here is new. I mean, he will sit here and stare at this thing for a good five minutes, and then look back at you. Okay, I don't know what that is, but he will sit there and stare you down. Like, he will. And he's like the most serious, intense kid I've ever seen. Why are you so serious? And he will be like, he'll stare you straight in the eyes, too. And I'm like, okay, you win.

The emotional and intimate feelings David shares likely reveal his trust (ethos) in the fundraiser. The narrative indicates that the donor is invested in the relationship with the fundraiser (and thus the institution the fundraiser represents); thus, the fundraiser may logically expect David to continue his service on the alumni board and his annual financial support.

Dr. Brown’s son: Geoffrey greets Dr. Brown and she begins to reminisce about their last visit, which she determines was at her fiftieth reunion on the campus. She tells Geoffrey that she has spent three months traveling Europe with friends and returned two days before a major hurricane hit her area. Geoffrey asks if she stayed with her son.

DR. BROWN: No, went up to there…but he has too many dogs in the house and I can't...not working for me. But anyway, it was kind of really interesting year and I think that's when I ran into you. Everyone's portfolio [financial investments] had collapsed.

The refusal to stay with her son because of the dogs led to a later narrative about her relationship with her only child. After further conversation about her trip to Europe and how difficult it was to keep up with what was happening with the U.S. markets, Geoffrey asks about grandchildren.

GEOFFREY: Are there grandchildren in the future?

DR. BROWN: (With a disappointed tone in her voice.) I just have the one son, and they have no children, and I guess they won't. That is, it's their business. My older sister has five children and they are the most amazing children, and

117

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

now [her sister has] seven or eight great-grandchildren. And my younger sister has twins, boy-girl twins, and the girl is married to a widower who had four daughters, so there's this young woman, married when she was forty-two years old, and got seven grandchildren. It has been a joy for her.

Dr. Brown‘s personal narrative is a candid window into her relationship with her childless son and her lack of grandchildren. Her narrative communicates a palpable sense of disappointment that her son and daughter-in-law are providing her no grandchildren as she speaks with joyful envy about her sister‘s grandchildren and great-grandchildren. She seems quite comfortable sharing her personal story with Geoffrey and the feelings associated with her narrative. She obviously trusts him with her clear sense of disappointment regarding her son and daughter-in-law‘s decision to not have children.

Lonnie remembers his father: During the face-to-face meeting with Lonnie, the conversation turns to their children. Josh explains to Lonnie how he and his wife were re-adjusting their lives because their son recently moved back into the house after returning from active duty in Iraq.

JOSH: Well, I'm hoping my son's going to [go back to college], but that remains to be seen. But anyway, it's interesting to have him back. He tells me these interesting things like, I don't know, if he still has these flashbacks or not but he would be asleep somewhere and it's strange to hear him say this, but he said, ―I'll hear it [combat noises].‖ The first time he heard it he thought it was happening. He heard this voice, ―Incoming! Incoming!‖ And then it would be quite a while and then this other voice saying, ―All clear, all clear.‖ Just like the recording they heard over in Baghdad.

The story told by Josh is an example of the fundraiser sharing a personal narrative with the donor. The MGF/D genre seems to allow the fundraiser a context for trusting the donor. What is unclear from the research in this study is how one‘s personality might influence his willingness to share personal narrative. Regardless, it is clear that

118

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011 the MGF/D genre facilitates a level of trust between fundraisers and donors that makes it possible for both to share personal narrative. Further research might explore the ethical dimensions of fundraisers sharing personal narrative with donors.

Josh‘s personal narrative about his son‘s war experience is the catalyst for Lonnie to launch into a personal narrative about his family experience. It did not appear that Josh was sharing personal narrative as a way to consciously entice or manipulate Lonnie into trusting him, it seemed to naturally flow in the conversation that appeared to be that of two friends talking about family life and experience.

Lonnie and his family immigrated to the U.S. after the fall of Saigon, Vietnam in April 1975. As Lonnie begins sharing his personal narrative, the intensity in his voice changes and he struggles for a way to begin.

LONNIE: One of my people, my dad has friends, my dad's foxhole, a grenade hit the foxhole next to him. But, he [Lonnie‘s dad] was injured from it, as well during the Vietnam War [his father suffered other injuries as a South Vietnamese soldier during the war]. And there are friends of the family who still to this day, in the middle of the night, will wake up running, physically running. And they'll wake up.

JOSH: Jeez, I can't imagine.

Lonnie then focuses his personal narrative on his father whom he credits as an important source of motivation for what he has accomplished in life.

LONNIE: You know, my parents never had the benefit of higher education. My father and mother I don't think finished high school. I think my father had maybe a tenth grade education, and then he went to a trade, journalism. He never went to a college…When I was growing up my dad. I would say my dad, when it comes to education or being my career counselor or being my education counselor, I was relying on, you know, whether it's somebody at the school to kind of guide me through, he'd sit on the sidelines and not say much because he knew I was in good hands. But I also sensed that he had an

119

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

inferiority complex as well in that respect. Imagine telling him that I got into law school. When law school does a good job of planting the seed of doubt in your mind, you know, doubt about your ability, whether or not you want to go through this, if it's worth it…My dad had a way of inspiring me in odd ways; [Lonnie wipes a tear from his eye] inspiring me because when I went to [the university Josh represents], he basically told me, ―You're not going to graduate. Don't worry about it.‖ He goes, ―You'll go early and get a head start and go as far as you can, run as far as you can, but I don't expect you to get to the finish line.‖ So, in a way, it was setting the bar real low…So that, you know, I got finished applying to law school and he would come over to me and I'd come home during the semester break or something and he'd tell me the exact same thing, ―Hey, you graduated from college, which is much better than I ever did. And you know all your siblings, you've raised the bar. Your siblings and your children can never say that they don't have an excuse not to.‖ And then, you know, he said, ―You know, look at our neighbors, whether it's this or Jones or whatever, their entire generation, six generations, their kids don't even, aren't even college graduates, and you're thinking about law school.‖ ―Don't, don't even think about it, just do it and if you get it, it's a bonus.‖

Lonnie discusses his feelings of inadequacy after graduating law school, taking the bar, and practicing law with colleagues who attended Ivy League schools. Lonnie feels others had opportunities to broaden their worldview that he did not have. He continues the narrative by referring to how important his father‘s advice was to him.

LONNIE: I said, ―You know, Dad, I don't think it's working. I don't think I have the worldly view they've experienced‖…My dad sat me down and he said, ―There's only one failure in life and I want you to get through your skull at this point. There’s only one failure in life and that's death. You don't got to do anything except die in this world. So, when I was in a foxhole and things were flying everywhere, to me, failure at that point in time was death. Here, what are you running from? Get back out there and don't tell me you're going to

120

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

quit‖. So there are times when he…there were times where he kind of coaxed you along. And you know, from his world, he basically said, ―You know I'm not an educated guy, but I can tell you what you're doing is easy compared to the battlefields.‖ Think about that.

Lonnie entrusts Josh with an important part of his family‘s heritage. Even though Lonnie speaks with pride about his father, he reveals the tenderness and respect of his father‘s memory. Entrusting Josh with the narrative indicates ethos in the MGF/D relationship.

Reggie’s cancer: At the end of the meeting, Reggie agrees to sign the endowment agreement establishing an endowed faculty position, and agrees to secure his wife‘s signature on the document. The meeting had gone on fifty-eight minutes when Kerry asks the donor how he is doing. Reggie begins to convey his recent experience with prostate cancer.

REGGIE: No, I'm feeling great. I'm a hundred percent better. I had, uh, a prostate removed a month, couple months ago.

Kerry is unaware of Reggie‘s cancer and is surprised to learn he recently has had surgery to remove his prostate.

REGGIE: Well, it was a very early stage, so I caught it at the time where the cancer was of the stage that it's only contained inside the prostate, and it had not spread. So, I elected to go and have it removed, which is, you know, pretty serious surgery, pretty delicate surgery and everything. But no, I'm a hundred percent back as far as stamina and energy and everything like that. I'm way, way ahead.

Kerry asks Reggie if he had been feeling ill or had any symptoms that lead to the diagnosis and surgery.

KERRY: You feel better than you did before?

121

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

REGGIE: I didn't feel anything. No, there's no symptoms you know? Fortunately, it was just a PSA test. I don't know, do you take a PSA test when you do your physical? And there's an antigen that's in the bloodstream that is if you have cancer in your prostate, the antigen increases and they can measure it, and that's what the PSA test does. So I had, two to four is the range of PSA test that's kind of normal. And mine usually hit two and a half. And as you age, it slowly goes up. You know, because that's kind of the pattern?

Reggie then tells Kerry sobering facts about his personal experience with prostate cancer.

REGGIE: I'll tell this just to guys just so they know I learned a lot, not what I wanted to learn, but I learned a lot here. I go to the urologist and he says, ―Well, you know, you're young and prostate cancer grows so slow. You know, four is still really a low number. You can just take a PSA test every six months and we can watch it for a while.‖ And I said, ―You know, well, how serious?‖ or something. And he said, ―The odds are that if you do nothing, absolutely nothing, and you never go to a doctor again, the odds are ninety percent that in ten to fifteen years you'll see no effect. Now, there’s a ten percent that you'll have cancer racking through your body. So, you know, that's kind of what the odds are.‖ Do you take a PSA test when you take your physical?

KERRY: Well, is that in blood work?

REGGIE: That’s in blood work, yes. Probably costs you thirty bucks.

KERRY: But you have to ask them to do it?

REGGIE: Yeah. I have to do it.

The narrative continues with a detailed explanation of how Reggie educated himself by reading about prostate cancer and the risks associated with having a prostate biopsy. He confesses that he believes it was his education as an engineer that led him

122

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011 to dig deeper into the facts about prostate cancer. The decision to have the biopsy was a result of Reggie having educated himself about the realities of living with cancer.

REGGIE: You know, I'm an engineer. You give me a box, I take it apart and see how it works. I'm just not comfortable knowing that something’s in there and is growing. I don't know if it's serious or not, and there's a way to find out. But, I take a little risk to find out. So I go ahead and take the biopsy, and they found it. There was cancer. It was early stage…You don't really die of prostate cancer, it goes out into your liver and all, it's [the prostate] just a petri dish where it starts and blasts out. And those other things are what'll kill ya. So, bleeding is [a risk of the biopsy procedure]. They go in through your colon with a probe into the prostate and pull out some cells. And if they happen to hit a vein in the colon then you just bleed.

Reggie continues by justifying to Kerry his decision to have the radical surgical procedure as opposed to radiation therapy.

REGGIE: So I go ahead and take it out. And then you got to decide on treatment options. I'm sorry, I'm preaching. The two main paths, treatment options, are surgically have it [prostate] removed, and there's several ways to have it removed. Or have radiation. Now, the difference, you know, is surgery's tougher than radiation on your body, more invasive and you know harder to recover from…If you have radiation, you can't have surgery after that because it destroys the consistency of it [the prostate]. And you can't have two rounds of radiation. So, to me, it's like one shot versus two. The surgery is, I get two shots. If the first one doesn't kill this thing like we expect it will, I've got another wildcard to lay down and finish it.

The personal narrative ends with the good news of Reggie‘s quick recovery and restoration to health after the surgery.

123

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

REGGIE: It went by really fast. I mean, I'm amazed because it's supposed to be six months before you get back to your normal stamina and everything. I'm two months down the road and doing fine. I'm running and everything like that.

The details of Reggie‘s personal narrative seem to indicate ethos in the relationship with Kerry. The story even contains moments when Reggie shares advice with the young fundraiser regarding health issues. Reggie seems to trust that Kerry will value his story, and appears to hope that the intimate details of the prostate cancer narrative will be meaningful in the context of their relationship.

If Reggie trusts Kerry with the information about his cancer, then one might conclude that he is willing to trust Kerry as a representative for the institution. Reggie gave money to the institution prior to signing an endowment agreement. It stands to reason that Reggie trusts Kerry. The personal narrative seems to reinforce the level of trust that exists in the MGF/D relationship.

Danny’s lingering resentment: Kip had just begun his face-to-face visit with Danny, and less than ten minutes into the conversation, Danny begins sharing a personal narrative that is clearly laced with old resentments. Kip asks Danny if he has been back to his alma mater (the institution at which Kip used to work) for any football games.

DANNY: No. Actually I'm still pretty irritated with the double-E department up there.

KIP: (Completely surprised.) Really?

DANNY: I always have been. I haven't given them a dime. They really irritated me my senior year. Dr. Jones [a favorite professor of Danny‘s] was unceremoniously booted out of the double-E department, and they took his grant money because of some interim dean that was up there.

The lines in Danny‘s face begin to deepen as he describes his encounter with the interim dean. His voice noticeably intensifies as he continues.

124

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

DANNY: I went to see him [the interim dean]. I went and talked to the interim dean and I said, ―Listen, you fix this or I am not going to give you a dime, and I'm going to make sure all my buddies know about it.‖ And so, the better part of my senior class hasn't donated any money too.

KIP: Who was the dean at the time?

DANNY: I don’t remember. Dr. Jones has since called me and given me crap for this, but I was immensely loyal to the man.

Danny provides details that seemed to be burned into his mind and appear to invoke emotions that one would expect from someone experiencing the event as if it had recently happened. Danny points his finger at the table as the narrative continues.

DANNY: (Intensely.) Um, there was a, he [Dr. Jones] had gone out with Senator Brown and a couple of other people and had secured a line-item in the national budget for the Solar Power Project. And you know how politics go in Washington D.C. They wanted to kill [the line item for the solar power project]. You know, when the new administration came in, they wanted to kill any kind of a line-item budget that they could. So they went out and cut this deal with the interim dean and said, ―Listen, if you will give us permission to cut this out of the budget, we will give you the following.‖ And he [the interim dean] was dumb enough to believe them. And so, he killed the line-item budget. And Jones just totally raised the dickens over the whole thing. And he was unceremoniously booted out— I think he left.

Kip no longer works for Danny‘s alma mater; he works for a different institution and the fact that Kip has no current connection to Danny‘s alma mater suggests that the story is not intended to serve as a complaint for the fundraiser to take back to the school. Rather, Danny‘s recollection of the events regarding his favorite professor serves as a personal narrative in the context of the MGF/D genre. Danny apparently believes Kip to be trustworthy; thus, he is willing to share with Kip his

125

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011 personal experience that led to a decision to take an action—to withhold support from his alma mater.

The MGF/D genre is a context that enables the establishment of ethos between the fundraiser and donor. Sharing personal narrative is understood as the willingness to convey personal experiences and seems to indicate trust between the donor and fundraiser.

Sharing personal narrative, in the context of the MGF/D genre, is not limited to a single story. Occasionally, a donor may share several personal narratives in the context of the face-to-face visit. For example, Dr. Brown shared several personal narratives with Geoffrey (the story about her trip to Europe, a story about her life-long girlfriends with whom she continues to have sleepovers, and the story about her lack of grandchildren). The six observations in this study provide clear examples of how sharing personal narratives vary regarding subject matter and the intensity of the emotions they evoke in the person sharing them.

Fundraisers can be taught to listen for sharing personal narrative as a way to understand what is taking place during the face-to-face meeting. Sharing personal narrative can be an indication that ethos has been established in the MGF/D relationship. Ethos enables the donor to feel comfortable discussing personal matters, including finances and philanthropy once ethos is established.

The fundraisers in this study did not use the donor personal narrative as a transition to talk about finances. In follow-up conversations with the fundraisers who participated in the observation, I asked why they thought the donor shared a story (personal narrative) with them. The fundraisers overwhelmingly viewed the telling of personal narrative as an indication of the donor‘s trust or an indication that the donor ―liked‖ the fundraiser. When asked if personal narrative might serve any other role in the MGF/D face-to-face visit, none of the fundraisers concluded sharing personal narrative as an indication of anything important, i.e. that the donor might be willing to talk about a gift or finances. Being unaware of sharing personal narrative as an

126

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011 indication of ethos suggests that fundraisers are not conscious of the rhetorical dynamics at work in the MGF/D face-to-face visit. Sharing personal narrative seems to flow naturally in the conversation situated in the MGF/D genre. Helping fundraisers be aware of and understand recurring forms of discourse may lead to more effective and efficient forms of fundraiser/donor communication.

Written and spoken rhetorical appeals compared Existing rhetorical studies examining fundraising have focused on artifacts rather than the MGF/D face-to-face visit. However, there are some important similarities between fundraising rhetorical appeals in written documents and spoken discourse. Fundraisers craft appeals to emotion (pathos) and reason (logos) when meeting face-to-face with donors to motivate them to view the institution as successful and growing (Bazerman 1998, House 1997, Schafer 2002). Fundraisers seek to determine the values of the donor and then articulate how supporting the institution aligns with those values (Bazerman 1997).

Some persuasive elements of written fundraising discourse are present in face- to-face discourse. Fundraisers appeal to both chronos and kairos (Myers 1997). Building a relationship with a donor takes a succession of visits with a donor (chronos) until the time is right to ask for something from the donor (kairos). Orientation metaphors that relate up as more and down as less are common in spoken fundraising discourse (McCagg 1998). For example, fundraisers talk about moving up in rankings as a way of conveying progress, growth, and success. The findings suggest there are similarities between written and spoken fundraising.

Face-to-face fundraising appeals seem to fit Burke‘s scene-act ratio (Ritzenhein 1998). Fundraisers expect the act of giving to following making a clear and compelling case for support. Likewise, spoken appeals align with the Monroe Motivated Sequence of:

 action step (the fundraiser presents the institution‘s high quality),

127

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

 need step (presenting an opportunity or need for funding based on the donor‘s interests),  satisfaction step (articulating how the gift will be used)  visualization step (information about why the gift matters)  action step (asking the donor for something).

The steps to securing a gift are dependent on appeals to creditability (ethos). Goering et al. (2009) suggest that direct mail solicitation that use credibility appeals are most effective. MG fundraisers articulate the important of establishing credibility and trust with a donor before a gift will be received.

The correlations between written and spoken fundraising discourse suggest that there are fundamental elements that make fundraising appeals identifiable and persuasive. Even though MG fundraising shares elements with written discourse, the face-to-face visit distinguishes MG fundraising from other types. MG fundraising discourse is situated in the MGF/D face-to-face visit.

The importance of recurring forms of discourse It is striking and significant that these three recurring forms of MGF/D face-to- face discourse consistently occurred during visits made by five different fundraisers who had varied years of experience. The recurring discourse occurred during face-to- face visits with different stated goals for visiting with the donor.

A genre represents typified rhetorical action when it is situated in a recurring social context (Miller, 157). The MGF/D face-to-face visit is understood by fundraisers and donors as a recurring social situation in which the action to be accomplished is the establishment and nurturance of a relationship for the purpose of securing support for the institution. Within the context of the face-to-face visit, fundraisers use typified rhetorical discourse to accomplish the intended rhetorical action. The discourse helps the fundraiser and donor make meaning that leads to major gifts to the institution. The MGF/D genre is thus leveraged on support for the institution (action to be accomplished) made possible through the face-to-face visit

128

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

(recurring social situation) by promoting the institution, creating expectation, and sharing personal narrative (typified rhetorical discourse). The MGF/D genre establishes a context for the donor and fundraiser to make meaning in the face-to-face rhetorical situation.

At the moment the fundraiser identifies herself to the donor, the MGF/D genre is initiated. At that moment, the donor interprets the situation and constructs a type (fundraiser/donor situation) for making meaning (Miller, ―Genre‖ 157). The type or situation is a social construct that provides rhetorical purpose and serves as a kind of social knowledge by which the donor and fundraiser can create meaning together. One element of lore shared among fundraising professionals cautions that a fundraiser should never conceal their identity as a fundraiser or that their intention is to secure funding. Fundraisers claim the reason for identifying oneself to a donor is to establish credibility. Rhetorically, it is a ―socially recognizable way of making intentions known‖ (Miller 157). Once the fundraiser identifies himself (rhetorically), the MGF/D genre is initiated. Identifying oneself as a fundraiser is important for the purpose of identifying the MGF/D genre so a donor and fundraiser can participate in making meaning and accomplish a particular action (a gift to support the institution).

The findings serve to fill a void in the literature on fundraising and reveal significant forms of recurring discourse that indicate a MGF/D genre. Promoting the institution, creating expectation, and sharing personal narrative are significant forms of recurring discourse that play an important, persuasive role in the context of the MGF/D face-to-face situation. The three forms of discourse are occurring in complex and inter-related ways during a single face-to-face visit and work together to persuade a donor to take action. As is the danger with any attempt to describe human action, it appears less complex than is the case, when in reality human action is a multi-layered and complex activity. Yet, it is worth the risk to study the complexity of MG fundraising discourse so we can understanding better the rhetorical practices of MG fundraising.

129

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

Fundraiser Josh was observed twice with different donors to determine if he used similar forms of rhetorical discourse with different donors. The findings reveal that Josh did use similar recurring forms of discourse with different donors. Josh was observed using all three (promoting the institution, creating expectation, and sharing personal narrative) forms of recurring discourse with both donors he visited. The fact that Josh used similar forms of recurring discourse with two donors and the other fundraisers observed also used similar recurring discourse suggests that these forms are commonly known and used among fundraising professionals.

The MGF/D genre Empirical data reveals how typified rhetorical discourse (promoting the institution—logos, creating expectation—pathos, and sharing personal narrative— ethos) situated in a recurring social situation (the MGF/D face-to-face visit) shapes rhetorical action (support for the institution). The three significant recurring forms of discourse identified within the MGF/D genre function as persuasive appeals intended to motivate a donor to act.

130

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

Chapter 4 works cited Barton, Ellen. "Troubling Binaries in the Rhetoric of Fund-Raising." Written Discourse in Philanthropic Fund Raising: Issues of Language and Rhetoric. Vol. #98-13. Indianapolis: Indiana Center for Intercultural Communication and Center on Philanthropy, 1997. 1-16. Print.

Bazerman, Charles. "Green Giving: Engagement, Values, Activism, and Community Life." New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising. 22 (1998): 7-22. Print.

Bizzell, Patricia, and Bruce Herzberg. The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2001. Print.

Dickerson, Frank C. "How Hand-Personalized Mail Boosts Direct Mail Response: The Impact of Paratextual Variables on Response & ROI." The Written Voice. (2009). Web. 31 Aug. 2009.

---. "The Way We Write Is All Wrong: Fixing the Broken Discourse of Fundraising." The Nonprofit Quarterly. Spring (2010): 40-45. Print.

Doney, Particia M., and Jospeh P. Cannon. "An Examination of the Nature of Trust in Buyer-Seller Relationships." The Journal of Marketing. 61.2 (1997): 35-51. Print.

Fredricks, Laura. The Ask: How to Ask for Support for Your Nonprofit Cause, Creative Project, or Business Venture. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2010. Print.

Garecht, Joe. "What Is a Fundraising Ask?" The Fundraising Authority (2010). Ed. Garecht, Joe. Web. 19 Jul. 2011.

Gergen, Kenneth J., and Mary M. Gergen. "Narrative and the Self as Relationship." Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. 21.1 (1988): 17–56. Print.

Goering, Elizabeh M. "Framing Matters: Communicating Relationships through Metaphor in Fundraising Texts." Discourse in the Professions: Perspectives

131

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

from Corpus Linguistics. Eds. Ulla Connor and Thomas Albin Upton. Philadelphia: J. Benjamins Publ., 2004. Print.

Goering, Elizabeh M., et al. "Persuasion in Fundraising Letters: An Interdisciplinary Study." Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. 20.10 (2009). Print.

Gottweis, Herbert. "Rhetoric in Policy Making: Between Logos, Ethos, and Pathos " Handbook of Public Policy Analysis: Theory, Politics, and Methods. Eds. Frank Fischer, Gerald Miller and Mara S. Sidney. Boca Raton, FL: CRC/Taylor & Francis, 2007. 237-50. Print.

Hall, Peter Dobkin. "Philanthropy as Investment." History of Education Quarterly 22.2 (1982): 185-203. Print.

Hartsook, Robert F. Closing That Gift! How to Be Successful 99% of the Time. Wichita, KS: ASR Philanthropic, 1999. Print.

---. How to Get Million Dollar Gifts and Have Donors Thank You! Wichita, KS: ASR Philanthropic, 1999. Print.

House, Robert G. "A Critical Perspective on Fund Raising Communication: Genre in Search of Rhetoric." Library Management. 18.5 (1997): 229. Print.

Klein, Kim. "Donor Cultivation: What It Is and What It Is Not." Grassroots Fundraising Journal (1999): 1-3. Print.

Langellier, Kristin M. "Personal Narratives: Perspectives on Theory and Research." Text and Performance Quarterly. 9.4 (1989): 243-76. Print.

Larzelere, Robert E., and Ted L. Huston. "Dyadic Trust Scale: Toward Understanding Interpersonal Trust in Close Relationships." Journal of Marriage and Family. 42.3 (1980): 595-604. Print.

Matheny, Richard E. Major Gifts: Solicitation Strategies. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: Council for Advancement and Support of Education, 1999. Print.

McCagg, Peter. "Conceptual Metaphor and the Discourse of Philanthropy." New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising. 22 (1998): 37-48. Print.

Miller, Carolyn R. "Genre as Social Action." Quarterly Journal of Speech. 70 (1984): 151-67. Print.

Myers, Greg. "Wednesday Morning and the Millennium: Notes on Time in Fund- Raising Texts." Written Discourse in Philanthropic Fund Raising: Issues of

132

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

Language and Rhetoric. Vol. #98-13. Indianapolis: Indiana Center for Intercultural Communication and Center on Philanthropy, 1997. 121-34. Print.

Ritzenhein, Donald N. "Content Analysis of Fundraising Letters." New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising. 22 (1998): 23-36. Print.

Ross, Bernard, and Clare Segal. The Influential Fundraiser: Using the Psychology of Persuasion to Achieve Outstanding Results. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2009. Print.

Schaffer, Deborah. "Just Say Yes! The Rhetoric of Charitable-Contribution Reply Forms." Journal of American & Comparative Cultures. 25.3-4 (2002): 276-81. Print.

Stivers, Camilla. "Reflections on the Role of Personal Narrative in Social Science." Signs. 18.2 (1993): 408-25. Print.

133

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

CHAPTER 5

EMBODIED PRACTICE: FUNDRAISING LORE EXAMINED

―Lore,‖ ―folklore,‖ and ―belief‖ are often used interchangeably to talk about the rhetorical practices of transmitting to other members of a profession a set of oral perceptions and judgments. Stephen North identifies lore as ―the accumulated body of traditions, practices, and beliefs in terms of which Practitioners understand how [to do their professional work]‖ (22). Lore is ―experience that has been expressed, circulated, imitated, sustained and confirmed by repetition, achieving canonical status as ‗common sense‘ through its range of cultural distribution and its staying power‖ (Phelps 869). Lore, by its very nature, is pragmatic. Lore is knowledge about what to do. Lore is knowledge about embodied practice. Lore is an important body of practitioner knowledge that emerges from experience and is concerned with what has worked, is working, or what might work to help professionals do their job.

This chapter examines fundraising lore based on responses by fundraisers and donors to interview and survey questions. The findings are anchored around six fundraiser survey questions related to lore and the perceived role lore plays within the fundraising community (see Appendix D, Section III questions 19-24). The results will explore how lore functions to embody practice and create rhetorical knowledge in the profession.

Analysis of fundraising lore The fundraiser survey included six questions about fundraising lore. The survey questions listed below are followed by an analysis of the respondents‘ answers.

1. During your fundraising career, has anyone ever passed along to you ―rules of thumb‖ or ―sage advice‖ or ―lore/beliefs‖ about fundraising? Question 19 presented survey respondents with the option of answering either yes or no. If a respondent answered no to question 19, the skip logic of the survey took them past the rest of the questions related to fundraising lore.

134

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

Of the eighty-nine respondents who took the survey, eighty answered question 19. Of the respondents who answered, approximately 81% (sixty-five respondents) reported that someone had shared fundraising lore with them during their fundraising career. Approximately 19% (fifteen respondents) reported no one had ever shared lore with them. Sharing lore seems to be a common experience for the majority of respondents.

Among the respondents who reported that no one had ever passed along to them fundraising lore, six reported being in the profession fewer than five years, and six respondents reported being in the profession between five and fifteen years. It is possible that a fundraiser could be at an institution with no other fundraising professionals and therefore not hear fundraising lore. We do not know if the twelve respondents who report never having heard lore identified stories about fundraising experiences told to them by other fundraisers as lore. While it is possible for a fundraiser to have never had lore shared with them, the majority of respondents to this survey indicate that sharing embodied practice is a common way for fundraisers to advise, teach, and communicate best practices.

2. Thinking about the last person you recall sharing with you ―rules of thumb‖ or ―sage advice‖ or ―lore/beliefs‖ about fundraising, what was your relationship with the person(s) at the time? Question 20 is an open-ended question providing respondents who answered yes to question 19 the opportunity to identify their professional relationship with a person who shared with them fundraising lore. Of the sixty-five respondents who answered yes to question 19, sixty-one identified the relationship of the person who shared lore with them (see Table 5.1).

The results suggest that sharing lore is most common among both peer-to-peer fundraiser relationships and boss-to-employee relationships. The pattern of sharing lore to talk about embodied practice happens within other relationships as well (see Table 5.1). The fact that lore is shared across many different fundraiser relationships would suggest that lore plays an important role within the professional community. As

135

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011 lore is shared among and between various professional relationships within the fundraising profession, it is intended to inform practice and shape beliefs among practitioners.

Relationship of the person sharing lore with the fundraiser % of respondents relationship 29% colleague/peer 22% boss/supervisor 7% mentor 5% subordinate/employee 5% consultant/trainer 1% donor/volunteer Table 5.1 Who is sharing lore?

Fundraisers were asked to list the ways they learned to do their job. The responses totaled 138 lines of code which indicated five categories for how fundraisers learned to do their job: 1) Watching/accompanying another fundraiser (41%), 2) Workshops (29%), 3) Trial and error (17%), 4) Books/articles (12%), and 5) Stories (1%). Responses of fundraisers who participated in the interviews align with those of survey respondents.

JOHN: Practice, practice, practice. You can even practice with your colleagues, you can even practice with your spouse, you just get comfortable with asking.

SIMON: Watching someone else do it.

MARTHA: Visit with other fundraisers.

Donors were asked to list how they thought fundraisers learned to do their job. The responses totaled 69 lines of code which indicated six categories: 1) Trial and error (44%), 2) Model behavior of another fundraiser (30%), 3) Workshops (19%), 4) Innate (4%), 5) Adopting best practices (1%), and 6) Join a professional organization (1%). Examples of donor interview participants‘ answers support the survey findings.

136

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

DONNA: A lot of it, I know, comes from experience. And it comes from working alongside people who have been doing it a long time.

STAN: I think part of it is intuitive…I suspect that in larger organizations that there are programs to help potential, you know, fundraisers.

KATHY: Probably end up trying some things and having them fail. Probably from talking to people who have done a good job in the past and have kind of mastered the craft.

Donors and fundraisers indicate that learning by observation and trial and error are the most common ways practitioners learn the trade. Observing others and repeated practice represent ways lore become embodied practice.

3. What are some of the ―rules of thumb‖ or ―sage advice‖ or ―lore/beliefs‖ that you can recall having heard/learned during your fundraising career? Question 21 is an open-ended question asking respondents to write down lore they recalled. The question did not ask participants to limit their response to lore they believed to be important, useful, or with which they agreed, but only to share lore they could recall. Phrasing the question this way made it possible to determine if lore is shared among fundraising professionals and how widely the practice of sharing lore is among those who responded to the survey. It is not within the scope of this study to examine why individual fundraisers may or may not think a particular embodied practice shared in the form of lore is or is not important. Question 21 is carefully phrased to examine if sharing lore is an actual rhetorical practice of the fundraising profession and to determine if there are recurring concepts that are being passed along as lore.

Of the sixty-five respondents who answered that someone had shared lore with them during their fundraising career, sixty-one wrote in at least one ―rule of thumb‖ or piece of ―sage advice‖ or ―lore/belief.‖ The responses were coded into the following twelve categories from a total of 158 lines (or 158 different rules of thumb or lore/belief) of code:

137

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

1) be honest 2) nurture a relationship 3) ask for a gift 4) visits add zeros to the gift 5) listen to the donor 6) do your homework before the ask 7) get out the door and visit someone 8) say ―thank you‖ 9) engage the donor 10) no always means maybe 11) do what you say you‘ll do 12) ask for more than they expect Each of the twelve categories had multiple responses, from a minimum of three examples of lore to a maximum of twenty-four. Appendix F presents the lore reported from the survey question.

The categories of be honest and nurture a relationship were the most consistent lore shared by the fundraisers responding to the survey. Lore regarding relationships and ethos totaled approximately 40% of the 158 coded lines. Since the survey asked respondents to report lore they had heard, it cannot be assumed that all the respondents agree that the relationship with the donor or the character of the fundraiser is the most important lore. However, we can conclude that lore about the relationship with the donor and the ethos of the fundraiser is widely shared among fundraisers who responded to the question. The examples suggest that such lore becomes embodied practice.

A respondent capitalized the word ―honest,‖ which seems to suggest the fundraiser believes that ethos is important.

You have to be HONEST—always—even if you don’t have the best news about your organization or interest rates on their investment or whatever—you have to be HONEST about it. You only get one chance at integrity, so always be honest with the donor.

Never stay beyond the requested time unless the donor asks you to.

Ask the way you would like to be asked to do something important.

138

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

These examples support the research findings of the MGF/D observations discussed in Chapter 4 regarding the role that ethos plays in building a relationship with a donor in the context of the MGF/D genre.

The following bit of lore stresses that the fundraiser should identify herself to the donor.

Don’t hide that you are a fundraiser, because if they think you’re not and you ask for money, then they will be curious at least, betrayed and angry at worst.

This lore further suggests that the MGF/D genre is initiated at the time the fundraiser identifies herself as such to the donor (see pg. 121). The fundraiser conveying this lore argues that if a fundraiser ―hides‖ the fact they are a fundraiser and visits a donor, then the donor is unable to make meaning; i.e. the donor will feel betrayed.

The examples below indicate how lore is believed to help fundraisers be successful.

Be honest:

People give to people (especially ones they trust).

People give to people. It is my job to inspire and nurture that relationship in order to get a gift.

Fundraising is all about relationships.

Create the relationship first and the asking part will be the easy part.

Ask for a gift:

The number one reason people don’t give—they weren’t asked.

Gifts must be gone after, they aren’t just given.

Get out the door and visit someone:

Focus on getting out-the-door [of one‘s office to make donor visits]. Everything else is not as important [as making face-to-face visits].

Good things happen when you meet lots of people FTF [face-to-face].

139

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

You can’t milk a cow from a distance, you have to go see it, have a conversation, and ask!

Success in fundraising is all about the number of contacts.

No always means maybe:

Never accept no as the final answer.

No means not yet.

No means not now.

The first NO is hello.

These examples of lore express the more common values that fundraising participants embody. Lore reflects deeply held beliefs within the community that are expected to be followed and intended to become embodied practice. For example, fundraiser lore supports earlier claims that the communicative purpose of the MGF/D face-to-face visit is to establish or strengthen the relationship between the fundraiser and donor. Lore that claims ―no means not yet‖ would suggest to fundraisers that they should find ways to determine what issues (program, amount, or timing) are keeping the donor from making the gift. A rhetorical technique taught to fundraisers is to ask questions when a donor says no: ―What would have to change in order for you to make the gift?‖

The findings suggest the rhetorical practice of sharing lore has a deeply rooted place in the professional fundraising community because it serves an important role of teaching values that are intended to shape rhetorical practices. The value fundraisers place on the practice of sharing lore is explored below.

4. Have you ever passed along to another fundraiser any of the fundraising advice you listed above? Question 22 presented survey respondents the option of answering yes or no. Of the sixty-five respondents eligible to provide an answer, sixty-three participants answered the question. The vast majority of the respondents (89%) affirmed that they

140

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011 have passed along lore to another fundraiser. These findings are evidence that the practice of sharing lore is a significant one within the profession.

5. In your opinion, do fundraising ―rules of thumb‖ or ―sage advice‖ or ―lore/beliefs‖ assist fundraisers in doing their job? Question 23, another yes or no question, was answered by sixty-three of the possible sixty-five participants. Of those responding, fifty-three (93%) answered they believe lore assists fundraisers in doing their job. Respondents agree that lore instructs fundraisers in how to do their job.

6. In your opinion, how do fundraising ―rules of thumb‖ or ―sage advice‖ or ―lore/beliefs‖ assist fundraisers in doing their job? Fifty-five of the possible sixty-five respondents who were eligible to provide a response (question 24) answered the open-ended question by writing in their opinion. The opinions of the fifty-five respondents were coded into six nodes (found in Appendix G). The number of responses makes it clear that fundraisers believe the primary value of lore is providing guidelines for doing their work or teaching them how to raise money. The second most commonly reported benefit of lore is providing a set of universally applicable truths that fundraisers should apply.

The following examples of respondent comments are evidence that lore is believed to provide important guiding principles for success in raising money.

They [lore] can give the fundraiser direction – a path for success.

They are reminders of things we all know – sometimes we need those ―oh yea‖ moments.

They guide fundraiser’s thinking as s/he goes about his/her job.

We can learn from others’ experience.

The following examples convey how fundraising lore is understood to function as a teaching tool.

It speeds up their learning curve.

141

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

Helps them [fundraisers] avoid making some of the mistakes others have made.

Rules of thumb allow a new fundraiser to simply avoid the pitfalls that other fundraisers have personally experienced.

As in any other profession, it helps to learn from more experienced people.

Respondents suggest that lore also provides universal truths that can be applied across diverse rhetorical situations.

There are some foundations to fundraising that never change. They are fundamentals.

I consider them pearls of wisdom from more experienced fundraisers.

They are essential attributes.

The idea of ―universal truths‖ indicates an assumed sameness in the rhetorical situations fundraisers encounter. One respondent suggests that while no two situations are identical, these universal truths are applicable across the spectrum of fundraiser/donor visits.

No two situations are identical; however, there are some simple things that don't always come naturally. So, having someone point out those things can be a subtle validation that your instincts are accurate.

The idea of a common fundraising situation enables lore to be a tool for teaching embodied rhetorical practice. The absence of an assumed common fundraising situation would render lore meaningless to practitioners. Understanding the role of lore provides additional insight into how the face-to-face visits function as a recurring situation in which typified rhetorical action takes place.

Comparing practitioner lore and best practices Fundraising lore comes from a variety of places and is shared among a variety of different types of relationships within the profession. Lore is based on anecdotal evidence and personal experience and reflects knowledge in the form of wisdom or beliefs about fundraising. Therefore, differences in what is deemed important can be

142

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011 expected. However, should all fundraisers share a set of core values or knowledge about fundraising?

The findings in this study suggest there is both agreement and disagreement on what constitutes shared knowledge. Those who write about major gift fundraising often talk about steps or key elements of a successful MG solicitation (Fredricks 2010, Matheny 1999). The MG fundraiser participants in this study did not talk about steps when discussing lore related to MG solicitation. Those writing about best practices seem to focus objective (numbered) processes, while practitioners sharing lore focus on more subjective (relationships) experiences.

What does seem to be agreed upon by within the profession is the importance of credibility (ethos). Those who write about best practices and fundraiser themselves articulate that the most important aspect of MG solicitation is building a relationship based on credibility (honesty) of the fundraiser (Andalo 2011). Another area of agreement in the profession is the importance of cultivation. The most effective way to build a relationship between a fundraiser and donor is face-to-face. Embodied knowledge suggests that MG fundraising should include a face-to-face ask. However, the industry definition of the ask seems disconnected from the actual practice of MG fundraisers (Hartsook 1999, Male 2011, Panas 2007).

MG fundraising and the “ask” The ask is considered an important rhetorical moment in MG fundraising. Fundraising authors and workshop leaders talk about the importance of the ―ask‖ and techniques for how it is accomplished. ―It is my belief that anyone involved with a nonprofit…needs to know how to ask for money. Cultivation is everything you do up to the Ask‖ (Fredricks 10). Fundraisers are taught to think of the ―ask‖ as the crescendo of fundraising. The ―ask,‖ widely accepted across the industry, is the specific event or moment when the fundraiser asks the donor, in the form of a question, to consider a monetary gift of a certain size for a specific cause (Garecht).

143

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

When asked during interviews to describe an ―ask,‖ the fundraisers described a specific moment when they would ask for an amount for a specific purpose.

JOHN: You’re straight-forward with them. ―Todd, we’d like for you to consider a gift of $25,000 to help us do xyz.‖ Eventually you gotta ask them, ―Will you give us a gift?‖ ―Will you consider a gift? Will you partner with us?‖

John phrased his ask to me in terms of a statement and not a question. When he began talking about the concept of the ask, he stated questions. Simon, Betty, and Martha talked about the ―ask‖ in the form of a question.

SIMON: Would you consider?, do you like the idea of?, and fill in the blank.

BETTY: I really am at the point where I ask people specifically for donations to help facilitate.

MARTHA: I tend to have a less direct approach. I read the body language, and if I can see them thinking, ―I don’t want you to ask me for money,‖ I don’t. Sometimes I just come right out and ask them if they would give this and tell them what the need is.

Unlike the fundraisers above, Calvin does not ask by posing a question. Calvin‘s description of asking is framed in terms of telling the donor how the gift will help. In his description, he does not indicate that he makes a specific ―ask.‖

CALVIN: I talk about transforming the institution. We spend a long time talking about how this can transform the lives of students.

The only fundraiser to articulate a different philosophy for the ―ask‖ is Priscilla. She talked about something she calls a ―permission-based‖ fundraising model.

PRISCILLA: I go at this maybe in a little bit different way. I get to a point where I say, ―Are you ready to move forward with this?‖ So it’s really not an ask of, ―Would you give a million dollars for this.‖ I engage their [the donor‘s] permission to move to the conversation to the next level. And eventually, then

144

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

the question is, ―Okay, its sounds like this is what you’re comfortable doing. Are you ready to move forward with this?‖

The fundraisers did agree on the importance of making sure the donor is ready to have the conversation about a gift. It was not clear how the fundraiser knew when the donor was ready.

Fundraisers who responded to the survey were asked to describe the words they used to make their last ―ask.‖ Sixty-four of the eighty-nine respondents wrote in an answer. The responses were coded into four categories; 1) traditional ask (47%), 2) ask with no dollar amount (16%), 3) statement with a dollar amount (20%), and 4) statement with no dollar amount (17%). The majority of fundraisers (53%) use a variation on the accepted industry definition of the ―ask‖ as a question posed to the donor for a specific amount for a specific purpose intended to result in concrete action by the donor (Garecht). Some fundraisers (37%) did not ask a question at all, but rather made statements. For example, one respondent wrote, ―I hope you will consider a gift of $50,000 to name a space in the new Institute.‖ Others made statements that did not include a dollar figure.

Each of the MG fundraisers observed during this study made an ―ask,‖ but not necessarily for money. Two fundraisers asked for signatures on documents (Kerry and Geoffrey), one asked for permission to change the status of an existing pledge (Josh), and one asked about programs of interest (Josh). Only one fundraiser (Kip) asked about the donor‘s willingness to be a corporate sponsor, but no specific dollar amount or designation was mentioned. And one donor asked about how a gift already made should be designated.

Findings reveal the industry concept of the ―ask‖ does not reflect the rhetorical practices of how fundraisers go about soliciting gifts from donors. The observations in this study revealed each of the fundraisers asking the donor for something, but not a single ask was for a particular amount for a specific program. No one would argue that fundraisers must know how to ask a potential donor for money. However, the research

145

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011 in this study begs the question, should the ―ask‖ be narrowed to the moment when a fundraiser actually articulates words for a specific gift amount for a specific purpose? Does such a narrow definition of the process of ―asking‖ leave out much of what fundraisers do? Should fundraisers be taught to include an ―ask‖ (i.e. ask to attend an event; ask for permission to send information; ask to consider service on a board; ask to come back to visit) as part of every donor visit? Would a new definition of ―ask‖ give fundraisers another rhetorical strategy to move a donor toward a monetary gift? If a donor becomes accustomed to saying yes to the different ―asks‖ made by the fundraiser, would the donor be more inclined to say yes when the fundraiser ―asks‖ for a MG? Would fundraisers be more successful at raising money if they were taught to include an ―ask‖ in every visit? Might including an ―ask‖ in every visit mean that the crescendo of asking for a MG is avoided and replaced with a gradual, consistent, and natural progression toward the donor making a gift?

The possibility of broadening our understanding of the ―ask‖ should be explored and studied further. While it is outside the scope of this study, fundraising participants were observed ―asking‖ in a way that encourages us to rethink our understanding of the ―ask.‖

Conclusion Fundraisers believe lore to be an important part of learning how to do their job and be successful. The ―rules of thumb,‖ ―sage advice,‖ ―lore/beliefs,‖ are, as one respondent put it, ―easy to remember, make sense, [and] have proven [to be] true based on experience.‖ Fundraiser experience is transmitted as lore. Thus, lore is an important body of practitioner knowledge.

The actions (rhetorical practices) of fundraisers are influenced by lore. The MGF/D genre contains conventional forms of discourse that appear in recurring situations and which fundraisers learn as lore. Comparable responses, or conventional forms of discourse, arise in similar, recurring situations. The rhetorical responses are learned in various ways such as from previous situations with similar elements, from

146

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011 the perceived effects rhetorical actions have on people, and from knowledge gained from sharing lore (embodied practices among professionals). Sharing lore provides fundraisers with recognizable forms of discourse (purpose and motive) bound together by the internal dynamics of a situation (Miller 152).

147

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

Chapter 5 works cited Andalo, Debbie. "How to Get Ahead in Major Gift Fundraising: Trust, Transparency and a Good Relationship with the Giver Are Key to Getting That Big Charity Donation." guardian.co.uk. Guardian News and Media Limited (2011). Web. 20 Jul. 2011.

Fredricks, Laura. The Ask: How to Ask for Support for Your Nonprofit Cause, Creative Project, or Business Venture. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2010. Print.

Garecht, Joe. "What Is a Fundraising Ask?" The Fundraising Authority (2010). Ed. Garecht, Joe. Web. 19 Jul. 2011.

Hartsook, Robert F. How to Get Million Dollar Gifts and Have Donors Thank You! Wichita, KS: ASR Philanthropic, 1999. Print.

Male, Richard. "10 Top Fundraising Tips." RMA (2010). Ed. Male, Richard. RMA and Associates. Web. 20 Jul. 2011.

Matheny, Richard E. Major Gifts: Solicitation Strategies. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: Council for Advancement and Support of Education, 1999. Print.

Miller, Carolyn R. "Genre as Social Action." Quarterly Journal of Speech. 70 (1984): 151-67. Print.

North, Stephen M. The Making of Knowledge in Composition: Portrait of an Emerging Field. Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook Publishers, 1987. Print.

Panas, Jerold. Asking: A 59-Minute Guide to Everything Board Members, Volunteers, and Staff Must Know to Secure the Gift. Medfield, MA: Emerson & Church, 2007. Print.

Phelps, Louise Wetherbee. "Practical Wisdom and the Geography of Knowledge in Composition." College English. 53.8 (1991): 863-85. Print.

148

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

CHAPTER 6

CONCLUSION: WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

Fundraising is an important subject for study and research because of the increasing importance of raising money to support the mission of colleges and universities. Today, publicly funded education is more accurately described as publicly assisted education (St. John and Parsons 10-11).

In 1980, state and local appropriations provided just fewer than half the revenues received by public colleges and universities. By 2000, this had declined to 35%. The share of revenues received from the federal government decreased from 13 to 11%. Tuition and fees received from students and their families increased from 13% of total revenues in 1980 to 18% in 2000. (Heller and Rogers 102) With the costs of education increasing and public funds to support education decreasing, students are facing rapid increases in tuition that make it difficult for a growing number of families to bear the burden of a college education (Rizzo 3). Attempts to hold down tuition costs result in institutions having fewer dollars to pay faculty salaries, fund programs, and maintain facilities. As a result, fundraising is more vital than ever to higher education. Providing scholarships and financial aid for students, paying faculty salaries and funding new faculty positions, renovating buildings and constructing new facilities, creating new programs and centers or institutes, and funding research initiatives demand an effective and efficient Advancement program to raise private dollars.

Motivation to conduct research on MG fundraising does not have to be driven by the need to support the academic missions of the institution, although it is a worthy motive. Research into MG fundraising has the potential to serve a common good in our society. Americans give hundreds of billions of dollars to charitable causes each year. In 2010, almost $300 billion was donated to charitable causes in the US. Individuals gave 73%, or $212 billion out of their own pockets (Center on Philanthropy 4). With philanthropy being such an important part of our culture,

149

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011 researchers have the opportunity to serve the common good by conducting studies that create new knowledge for understanding better what fundraisers actually do, how fundraisers do it, and why certain techniques work for raising money while others do not.

Besides serving the institutional mission and common good, research on MG fundraising will benefit the profession by building theory. Some scholars question whether fundraising is actually a profession as defined by characteristics that distinguish occupations from professions (Caboni, ―Professionalization" 78, 91) (Caboni, ―Normative Structure" 339). Some consider fundraising an emerging profession, ―an occupation that has moved steadily along the professional continuum; a profession with the potential to attain greater professional stature‖ (Carbone, Fundraising 46). One indication of a profession is the existence of a body of basic knowledge known by practitioners, and currently ―[t]he fundraising profession lacks a substantial knowledge base from which to derive professional status‖ (Caboni, ―Normative Structure" 340).

So, who will determine what constitutes the basic knowledge of the fundraising profession? What kinds of research are needed to create the knowledge base of the fundraising profession? Caboni calls for research that focuses on the ―professional characteristics of the ideal of service‖ as a way to build knowledge of and for the profession ("Normative Structure" 340). Research that lends to basic knowledge for understanding fundraising is critical, especially during difficult economic times. Creating knowledge that can assist MG fundraisers to be more effective and efficient demands a new generation of researchers from many disciplines.

The discipline of technical communication and rhetoric can and should add to basic knowledge for the fundraising profession. Because fundraising is rhetorical, rhetorical scholars have an opportunity (one might argue an obligation) to shape basic knowledge for the fundraising profession. Fundraisers seek to influence potential donors to take action. Yet, scholars who call for research to examine fundraising 150

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011 repeatedly neglect to include in their lists of possible studies the research of rhetorical scholars (Carbone, Agenda 26).

Without rhetorical studies of fundraising, the profession will not have basic knowledge that helps practitioners better understand what they do as communicative acts embedded in important and recurring rhetorical situations. Without rhetorical scholarship shaping best practices for MG fundraisers, MG fundraising professionals will continue to lack important knowledge for understanding the role of persuasion in fundraising. What is at stake, beyond creating knowledge for the fundraising profession, is the potential to be more effective and efficient in raising money for institutions that make the world a better place.

Research objectives: findings and conclusions Rhetorical scholars have conducted research exploring fundraising artifacts such as solicitation letters, campaign case statements, websites, and brochures. Rhetorical scholars have examined various written elements of fundraising artifacts, explored how these elements function within solicitation documents, studied how persuasion works in fundraising documents, and observed persuasive appeals of visual elements (Barton, Bazerman, Bhatia, Crismore, Connor and Wagner, Davis, Dickerson, Gasman, Goering et al., House, Lauer, McCagg, Ritzenhein, Schaffer, Sullivan). However, MG fundraising has not been the subject of studies conducted by rhetorical scholars. Up to this point, the MGF/D face-to-face visit, the most frequent and most important type of encounter between MG fundraisers and donors, has remained largely a mystery shrouded in unsubstantiated, self-reported anecdotes.

The research for this dissertation provides empirical evidence to answer the following research questions.

151

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

2) What roles does lore play in shaping the rhetorical practices of fundraisers? And, how is lore shared among the fundraising community?

How does the MGF/D face-to-face visit function as a spoken genre? In ―Genre as Social Action,‖ Carolyn Miller suggests that genres are a means of understanding how ―we encounter, interpret, react to, and create particular texts‖ (151). Genres guide social action and provide rhetorical clues to help us negotiate our world. Recurring social situations provide a context for helping us make meaning, understand, and participate in our world. Observing MG fundraisers during face-to-face visits with MG donors revealed how this particular recurring social situation functions as a genre that both typifies rhetorical practices of fundraisers and donors and provides a social context for understanding the desired action.

The MGF/D genre provides fundraisers and donors a context in which subjects that may be considered inappropriate to discuss in other contexts are appropriate within the MGF/D face-to-face situation. For example, fundraisers and donors openly discuss personal and intimate matters (sharing personal narrative) in the context of the MGF/D genre. Interviews with fundraisers and donors reveal that the communicative purpose of the MGF/D face-to-face visit is to establish and cultivate a relationship that will involve trust and emotion for the purpose of securing a gift for the institution. The MGF/D genre provides a context for developing and giving meaning to the relationship. This is an important finding for the practice of MG fundraising because fundraisers now have empirical evidence for understanding that MG fundraising is a rhetorical practice intended to motivate a donor to make a gift by establishing a relationship in the context of a recurring social situation (face-to-face visit).

Understanding the MGF/D genre as a recurring social situation is important for two reasons. First, the MGF/D genre provides new insight for understanding what fundraisers do during face-to-face visits. Second, the MGF/D genre reveals how trust (ethos) and emotional connections are rhetorically established as part of the communicative purpose (relationship) of the face-to-face visit.

152

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

What recurring (typified) forms of discourse occur during the MGF/D face-to- face situation? Three significant forms of recurring discourse were identified as part of the MGF/D genre: promoting the institution, creating expectation, and sharing personal narrative. Each recurring form of discourse makes a specific type of rhetorical appeal: promoting the institution is a logical appeal to reason grounded in facts and basic knowledge about the fundraiser‘s institution; creating expectation uses emotion to stir the imagination (pathos); sharing personal narrative indicates an important level of trust between the fundraiser and donor (ethos). The stated purpose (identification, qualification, solicitation, or stewardship) as articulated by the fundraisers for each of the visits was different, but the typified forms of discourse remained consistent across all six observations.

What rhetorical purpose does each identifiable form of recurring discourse serve? Each form of discourse creates meaning and understanding between the fundraiser and donor and aides in establishing trust in the relationship. These forms of appeals are effective because MG donors often view their philanthropy as an investment, and investors want to put their money where they are most likely to get the highest return (they want to support successful and growing institutions). In fundraising, the return on investment is a good feeling.

Promoting the institution is a logical appeal crafted by the fundraiser and relying on facts as a means of persuasion. By quoting statistics, referring to news articles, and drawing attention to school or program rankings, the fundraiser attempts to promote or elevate the status of the institution in the mind of the donor.

Creating expectation is a way for the fundraiser to appeal to the emotion of the donor. Fundraising experts consistently maintain that the decision to make a gift is based on the donor‘s emotional connection to the cause (Fredricks 14-15; Ross and Segal 15; Dickerson, ―Hand-Personalized Mail" 1). Fundraisers create expectation by taking abstract information and working to turn it into tangible and imaginative experiences (pathos) for the donor. For example, the fundraiser crafts a message that suggests a new building will usher in a new era for the institution. As a result, the 153

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011 donor becomes emotionally invested in the building, seeing it as more than bricks and mortar but as the beginning of something new, wonderful, and almost unimaginable— a new era. Or, a fundraiser casts vital significance on an upcoming board meeting because of the impact the board‘s decisions will have on the future of the institution. As a result, the donor becomes excited about attending and looks forward to making decisions that will shape the future of the institution. Or, an endowment report, delivered by a fundraiser, becomes a symbol of the university‘s fiscal reliability and represents the return on the donor‘s investment. As a result, the donor feels a sense of accomplishment and satisfaction for having made the decision to invest. Creating expectation is a way of emotionally engaging the donor to increase the likelihood of securing a gift for the institution.

Sharing personal narrative emerges when ethos between the fundraiser and donor has evolved in the MGF/D relationship. A donor‘s personal narrative is defined as sharing a story or experience that conveys intimate and often personal attitudes and emotions. Examples of personal narratives from the research participants include a father‘s last trip with his eldest daughter before she goes off to college; a man‘s journey through prostate cancer, surgery, and treatment; a young father reflecting on how the birth of his first child has totally changed his outlook on life; and an aging mother grieving that her only child will have no children. Donor personal narratives often involve the display of intense emotions. The donor willingly conveys the narrative and emotions to the fundraiser as if the donor is talking with a family member or close friend. Interestingly, fundraisers often share their own personal narrative with donors. Sharing intimate, personal, and emotional stories is not typical in many business conversations. Researchers have found that people being interviewed rarely share personal stories with the interviewer unless a shared identity with the interviewer is established (Langellier 252). A shared identity or personal connection with the fundraiser is necessary before a donor will share a personal narrative. The MGF/D genre enables shared identity and personal connection. Fundraisers might be taught to listen for donors‘ personal narratives as an indication that trust (ethos) has

154

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011 developed in the relationship, and a donor who shares a personal narrative may be more willing to discuss other types of personal matters, like finances, with the fundraiser.

The three recurring forms of discourse support the argument that fundraising is rhetorical. Teaching fundraisers to understand MG fundraising as a rhetorical practice could very well lead to new methods for teaching the practice of fundraising.

The findings also reveal that fundraisers learn the art of fundraising through lore. Exactly how does lore function in the fundraising profession, and how is lore shared among the fundraising community? Understanding lore related to the rhetorical community of fundraising is essential to improving professional perception and practices (Pajares 307). Lore is shared in three primary forms: ritual, writing, and talk (North 29). Fundraisers share embodied practice through ritual. A common ritual practice is for less experienced fundraisers to accompany more experienced fundraisers during face-to-face visits with donors as a means of on-the-job training. This ritual serves as both a teaching tool for new fundraisers and a rite of passage into the profession. Writings by fundraisers are a means of passing along lore as stories, best practices, and ―how-to‖ instructions. However, lore is largely passed on orally when fundraisers talk about what they know, what they do, how they do it, and what they experience. The overwhelming majority of survey respondents (89%) passed along lore to another fundraiser. Oral transmission of lore is typically conveyed in the form of narrative or stories.

Fundraisers participating in this study share professional wisdom or knowledge by passing along lore. As lore is passed from one fundraiser to another or from one generation of fundraisers to the next, it becomes embodied practice. The fundraiser embodies lore by incorporating values and beliefs into practice. The fundraiser believes the lore to be important without always understanding how or why.

But the embodiment of lore goes beyond its obvious utilitarian purpose of guiding the practice of fundraisers. Lore also serves to persuade members of the

155

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011 profession to follow accepted patterns of behavior and provides them the means for dealing with the unexpected (Abrahams 18). Lore helps individuals define and understand the world (context) in which they function.

Finally, the embodiment of lore defines the fundraiser‘s place within the professional community by providing him with a professional identity. One participant stated, ―[Lore] help[s] to create a camaraderie, a club, if you will. There's a sense of belonging and a strength that comes from some ‗inside knowledge.‘ Sharing lore is a way of being a fundraiser.

The embodied practice of fundraisers represents closely held beliefs that could serve as a research agenda. Research that examines closely held beliefs will capture the attention of the profession and shape professional practice. Leaving lore untested means the fundraising profession will continue to be subject to circumstantial wisdom to guide the high-stakes job of raising money.

Recommendations for further research Fundraising as a profession is increasingly captivated with predictive modeling, demographic profiles of donors, and metrics to measure outcomes against activity. The fundraising profession lacks a solid body of qualitative, rhetorical studies. Fundraising is rhetoric, not magic. Yet there are no existing studies, outside this dissertation, to help MG fundraisers understand what they do as rhetoric. Therefore, fundraising remains cloaked in mystery and magic because it is not understood as rhetorical. Rhetorical studies can produce basic knowledge about why, what, when, and how fundraisers make rhetorical choices. Knowing how persuasion works in MG fundraising will equip fundraisers with tools to understand what they do. In turn, fundraisers will likely become more effective and efficient in the important task of raising money.

The research in this dissertation may serve as a heuristic for future research that explores the rhetorical practices of MG fundraising. Let me turn to possible research studies for other rhetorical scholars.

156

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

First, this study has identified the rhetorical practices of MG fundraisers during face-to-face visits with donors. Because of the participation of only one woman fundraiser in the observations, future studies should be conducted with women MG fundraisers. The information could then be compared and contrasted with the findings of this study to determine the similarities and differences in rhetorical practices of women and men fundraisers, as well as what might account for any differences in rhetorical practices of men and women.

Second, the current study focused on MG fundraisers. An expanded study might include fundraisers who solicit annual gifts, planned gifts, and corporation and foundation gifts, as well as those who solicit volunteer participation. Are there differences in the rhetorical practices of fundraisers based on the size or type (annual gift, major gift, planned gifts, corporate and foundation gifts) of gift being solicited? If so, what are those differences?

Third, my dissertation focused on the rhetorical practices of MG fundraising in higher education. The rhetorical practices of both MG and non-MG fundraisers at institutions other than higher education, such as hospitals, social service agencies, and political campaigns, should be studied. An assumption exists that fundraisers, regardless of the type of institution for which they solicit funds, use the same rhetorical strategies when meeting face-to-face with donors. Empirical research could provide important data to reveal the rhetorical practices across the profession regardless of the type of institution. Such findings could lead to important best practices for fundraisers based on the type of nonprofit for which donations are being solicited.

Fourth, the rhetorical practices of volunteers, presidents, deans, and faculty who solicit funds for nonprofit institutions are worthy of examination. Are the rhetorical practices used by volunteers who solicit contributions different from those of professional fundraisers? Understanding if and how the rhetorical practices of volunteers may differ from professional fundraisers could produce knowledge that reveals a genre or sub-genre. The rhetorical practices of university presidents, vice 157

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011 presidents, deans, or faculty who solicit donors face-to-face may reveal new recurring forms of discourse that could lead to training or coaching institutional leaders.

Fifth, the rhetorical dynamics of team fundraising is an area that remains unexplored. The professional fundraiser often includes another person (colleague, volunteer, president/vice-president, dean, faculty member) on a donor visit. How does the addition of another person change the rhetorical dynamics of a MGF/D face-to- face visit? What rhetorical strategies do fundraisers employ when another person attends the face-to-face visit with a donor? What are the recurring forms of discourse, and how are these forms similar to and different from those used when a fundraiser is alone?

Sixth, the role of space and its impact on fundraising should be examined. For example, how does the location of the face-to-face meeting affect rhetorical choices? What influence does the setting (office, conference room, restaurant, coffee shop, campus building, or sporting event stadium) have on the donor‘s perception of the institution‘s need for support?

Seventh, further research related to lore could be conducted to expand our basic knowledge. For example, what form does sharing lore take when transmitted within a university Advancement office? The researcher could compare the effects of lore across a number of Advancement offices. How do persons who teach fundraiser workshops incorporate lore? Understanding how lore is shared among professionals and translated into embodied practice will provide insight into on-the-job training.

Eighth, this study examined the rhetorical practices of MG fundraisers with MG donors during face-to-face visits, but we do not yet understand what rhetorical practices are used to secure an appointment with a potential donor. Before the MGF/D face-to-face visit can occur, the appointment must be secured, which is often a challenge. What rhetorical practices are being used to get the appointment? Are some rhetorical practices for securing an appointment more effective than others? How does the type of donor (a new donor that has never been visited, an alumni of the

158

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011 institution, a non-alum, a person who is already a donor) affect the rhetorical practices of securing an appointment?

Ninth, rhetoric is the ideal discipline to research contact reports, which constitute the recorded memory of fundraisers regarding what took place during the face-to-face visit. The reports are a record for future use. Fundraisers are instructed, albeit inconsistently, to include details about what was said during the visit, information about the donor‘s personal life and finances, indications of what the donor might be interested in supporting, and possible next steps. Because there is no industry standard for how to write a contact report (i.e. what should be included in the contact report, techniques for capturing what happened during the visit, and tips for writing an effective report), much more can be learned by studying the rhetorical practices of preparing such reports. Who is reading contact reports and for what purpose? What is the most effective use of contact reports for helping fundraisers do their jobs? Little is known regarding the use of contact reports across the industry.

Finally, rhetorical scholars might explore how fundraisers compose and use notes, letters, and e-mails to donors as part of MG fundraising rhetorical practices. How do fundraisers use e-mails, follow-up letters, and other types of electronic communication to communicate with donors? Are there recurring rhetorical practices across the various types of correspondence with donors? How do fundraisers choose which type of communication to use? What factors determine if and when a fundraiser will correspond with a donor?

These ten suggested areas for future research by no means exhaust the potential research possibilities of MG fundraising. They are recommended as a way for rhetorical scholars to pick up where this study ends. I hope this dissertation along with the recommendations above serve as an invitation to and inspiration for other rhetorical scholars to study MG fundraising.

159

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

Implications for technical communication and rhetoric Technical communication (TC) does not describe a pre-existing reality as if looking through a window (Miller, ―Humanistic Rationale" 7; Rutter 25; Foss 5). Rather, technical communicators actively create versions of reality and attempt to persuade others to see reality in a certain way. Thus, technical communication is fundamentally rhetorical. MG fundraisers actively create versions of reality and attempt to persuade donors that reality is in fact a certain way. Thus, MG fundraisers are technical communicators who create and present discourse in the context of a rhetorical situation to elicit a particular response.

The MGF/D face-to-face visit is an important rhetorical situation in which professional communication occurs. Technical communication, as a discipline, seeks to understand the nature of rhetorical situations in which rhetors create discourse (Bitzer 1). MG fundraising is a complex rhetorical situation of persons, objects, events, and relationships to which TC scholars can apply their academic training.

The research of this dissertation contributes new theory to the field of TC in the form of identifiable recurring forms of discourse that occur in the context of the MGF/D face-to-face rhetorical situation. This new knowledge gives us another perspective for thinking about and understanding MG fundraising. The new knowledge suggests that fundraising practitioners create reality through certain recurring forms of discourse that occur in the context of the MGF/D face-to-face visit.

Implications for genre theory Genre theory is valuable ―because it emphasizes some social and historical aspects of rhetoric that other perspectives do not‖ (―Genre‖ 151). Genre theory aids our participation in cultural realities by helping us understand how we make meaning. Genre theory provides a perspective for understanding how discourse occurs in similar situations by explaining the relationship between genre, situation, and purpose (Benoit 88). The MGF/D face-to-face visit has been identified as an important recurring social situation with typified rhetorical action. The MGF/D genre was studied across a number of different occurrences (inductive research). Five MG fundraisers were

160

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011 observed during face-to-face visits with donors, with a total of six observations conducted. Three significant forms of recurring discourse were identified (promoting the institution, creating expectation, and sharing personal narrative). All the observation participants used the three recurring forms of discourse during face-to- face visits with donors.

Building on the work of Miller and others, this dissertation has demonstrated that the MGF/D face-to-face visit is a recurring rhetorical situation with similar structures and elements that represent typified rhetorical action (Miller, ―Genre‖ 159). The application of genre theory to the MGF/D face-to-face visit supports the idea that a rhetorical situation is a product of our socialization (how we understand and make meaning). The MGF/D genre is initiated the moment a fundraiser identifies herself to a donor.

Fundraisers are not necessarily conscious of the MGF/D genre or how recurring forms of discourse are used as a means of creating reality. Examining MG fundraising as a rhetorical genre has provided a new perspective and deeper awareness of MG fundraising. There is no magic to fundraising, just rhetoric.

Where I see my work going from here Opportunities for future research related to the rhetorical practices of MG fundraising stand to benefit practitioners and build grounded theory for the profession. The need for fundraiser-scholars (i.e. those who are experienced in fundraising and trained in academic research methodologies) should not be overlooked. This dissertation was possible, in part, because of the unprecedented access that I as a fundraiser-scholar have with MG fundraising professionals. Fundraisers closely control access to the MGF/D rhetorical situation. As a fundraiser, I benefit from a working knowledge of the profession, how to approach fundraisers, and why the trust of donors is valued so highly. This is in no way meant to discourage scholars who are not fundraisers from studying MG fundraising. Scholars should be encouraged to reach out to fundraiser-scholars to gain access to the profession. Scholars need to be

161

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011 reminded that Advancement programs and fundraisers are within reach at virtually every college and university in the country. Scholars should begin today to establish relationships with fundraisers on their campuses. Research exploring MG fundraising will not only be an interesting area of research for TCR scholars; it will benefit the institutions we serve by helping fundraisers better understand what they do. I hope to capture the imagination of other rhetorical scholars to study fundraising by publishing in academic journals and presenting at conferences.

Finding ways to share with fundraisers the results of this study is an important next step. It is my hope that this study will expose fundraisers to the value of academic research and encourage them to provide researchers access to MG fundraising situations. Teaching workshops at professional fundraising conferences is an effective way to transfer my research into embodied knowledge and best practices. A professional goal of mine is to find or create opportunities to teach courses at institutions that offer degrees related to fundraising. Further, I would like to teach TC or rhetoric courses when opportunities arise.

My passion to continue working as a fundraiser and to conduct academic research is driven by my belief that education makes the world a better place. I want to continue to raise money to support the mission of higher education, as well as conduct research that can positively impact the fundraising profession. As a fundraiser-scholar, I intend to pursue both passions.

162

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

Chapter 6 works cited Abrahams, Roger D. "Personal Power and Social Restraint in the Definition of Folklore." The Journal of American Folklore. 84.331 (1971): 16-30. Print.

Benoit, William. "Generic Rhetorical Criticism." The Art of Rhetorical Criticism. Ed. Jim A. Kuypers. Boston: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon, 2005. 85-106. Print.

Bitzer, Lloyd F. The Rhetorical Situation. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State UP, 1968. Print.

Caboni, Timothy C. "The Normative Structure of College and University Fundraising Behaviors." Journal of Higher Education. 81.3 (2010): 339-65. Print.

---. "Toward Professionalization: Fund Raising Norms and Their Implications for Practice." The CASE International Journal of Educational Advancement. 4.1 (2003): 77-92. Print.

Carbone, Robert F. An Agenda for Research on Fund Raising. Clearinghouse for Research on Fundraising. College Park: U Maryland, 1986. Print.

---. Fundraising as a Profession. Clearinghouse for Research on Fundraising. College Park: U Maryland, 1989. Print.

Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University. "The Annual Report on Philanthropy for the Year 2010 Executive Summary." Giving USA 2011.55. Mon. 20 Jun. 2011.

Dickerson, Frank C. "How Hand-Personalized Mail Boosts Direct Mail Response: The Impact of Paratextual Variables on Response & ROI." The Written Voice. (2009). Web. 31 Aug. 2009.

Foss, Sonja K. Rhetorical Criticism: Exploration & Practice. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland P, 1989. Print.

Fredricks, Laura. The Ask: How to Ask for Support for Your Nonprofit Cause, Creative Project, or Business Venture. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2010. Print.

Heller, Donald E., and Kimberly R. Rogers. "Shifting the Burden: Public and Private Financing of Higher Education in the United States and Implications for Europe." Tertiary Education and Management 12.2 (2006): 91-117. Print.

Langellier, Kristin M. "Personal Narratives: Perspectives on Theory and Research." Text and Performance Quarterly. 9.4 (1989): 243-76. Print.

163

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

Lindahl, Wesley E. "The Major Gift Donor Relationship: An Analysis of Donors and Contributions." Nonprofit Management and Leadership. 5.4 (1995): 411-32. Print.

Miller, Carolyn R. "Genre as Social Action." Quarterly Journal of Speech. 70 (1984): 151-67. Print.

---. "A Humanistic Rationale for Technical Writing." College English. 40.6 (1979): 610-17. Print.

North, Stephen M. The Making of Knowledge in Composition: Portrait of an Emerging Field. Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook Publishers, 1987. Print.

Pajares, M. Frank. "Teachers' Beliefs and Educational Research: Cleaning up a Messy Construct." Review of Educational Reserach. 62.3 (1992): 307-32. Print.

Rizzo, Michael J. "A (Less Than) Zero Sum Game? State Funding for Public Education: How Public Higher Education Institutions Have Lost." Cornell U, 2004. Print.

Ross, Bernard, and Clare Segal. The Influential Fundraiser: Using the Psychology of Persuasion to Achieve Outstanding Results. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2009. Print.

Rutter, Russell. "History, Rhetoric, and Humanism: Toward a More Comprehensive Definition of Technical Communication." Central Works in Technical Communication. Eds. Johndan Johnson-Eilola and Stuart A. Selber. NY: Oxford UP, 2004. 20-43. Print.

Sargeant, Adrian, Elaine Jay, and Stephen Lee. "The True Cost of Fundraising: Should Donors Care?" Journal of Direct, Data and Digital Marketing Practice. 9.4 (2008): 340-53. Print.

St. John, Edward P., and Michael D. Parsons. Public Funding of Higher Education: Changing Contexts and New Rationales. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 2004. Print.

164

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abrahams, Roger D. "Personal Power and Social Restraint in the Definition of Folklore." The Journal of American Folklore 84.331 (1971): 16-30. Print.

Alford, Violet. "Why Do We Study Folklore." Folklore. 64.4 (1953): 473-483. Print.

Allen, Lori, and Dan Voss. Ethics in Technical Communication: Shades of Gray. NY: J. Wiley, 1997. Print.

Allen, Mike, and Raymond W. Preiss. "Comparing the Persuasiveness of Narrative and Statistical Evidence Using Meta-Analysis." Communication Research Reports 14.2 (1997): 125-31. Print.

Anderson, Albert. Ethics for Fundraisers. Indianapolis: Indiana UP, 1996. Print.

Andreoni, James. "Toward a Theory of Charitable Fund-Raising." The Journal of Political Economy 106.6 (1998): 1186-213. Print.

Austin, J. L. How to Do Things with Words. The William James Lectures, 1955. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1962. Print.

Baake, Ken. "Archaeology Reports: When Context Becomes an Active Agent in the Rhetorical Process." Technical Communication Quarterly 12.4 (2003): 389- 403. Print.

Babin, Edith H., and Kimberly Harrison. Contemporary Composition Studies: A Guide to Theorists and Terms. Westport, CT: Greenwood P, 1999. Print.

Bailey, Carol A. A Guide to Qualitative Field Research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge P, 2007. Print.

Bakhtin, Mikhail M., Michael Holquist, and Caryl Emerson. Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. University of Texas Press Slavic Series. Vol. 8. Austin: UT P, 1986. Print.

Bardram, Jakob E. "Plans as Situated Action: An Activity Theory Approach to Workflow System." Proceedings of the Fifth Conference on European

165

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work. Lancaster, UK: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1997. 17-32. Print.

Barton, Ben F. and Marthalee S. Barton. "Ideology and the Map." Central Works of Technical Communication. Eds. Johndan Johnson-Eilola and Stuart A. Selber. NY: Oxford UP, 2004. 232-52. Print.

Barton, Ellen. "Discourse Methods and Critical Practice in Professional Communication: The Front-Stage and Back-Stage Discourse of Prognosis in Medicine." Journal of Business and Technical Communication 18 (2004): 67- 111. Print.

---. "Troubling Binaries in the Rhetoric of Fund-Raising." Written Discourse in Philanthropic Fund Raising: Issues of Language and Rhetoric. Vol. #98-13. Indianapolis: Indiana Center for Intercultural Communication and Center on Philanthropy, 1997. 1-16. Print.

Bascom, William R. "Folklore and Anthropology." The Journal of American Folklore. 66.262 (1953): 283-290. Print.

Bazerman, Charles. "Green Giving: Engagement, Values, Activism, and Community Life." New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising. 22 (1998): 7-22. Print.

---. Handbook of Research on Writing: History, Society, School, Individual, Text. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2007. Print.

---. "Systems of Genres and the Enactment of Social Intentions." Genre and the New Rhetoric. Eds. Aviva Freedman and Peter Medway. Bristol, PA: Taylor & Francis, 1994. 79-101. Print.

Bazerman, Charles, Paul A. Prior, and NetLibrary Inc. What Writing Does and How It Does It an Introduction to Analyzing Texts and Textual Practices. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2004. Print.

166

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

Beaufort, Anne. "Operationalizing the Concept of Discourse Community: A Case Study of One Institutional Site of Composing." Research in the Teaching of English 31.4 (1997): 486-529. Print.

BeckyW. "Major Gift Fundraising: Facts and Opinions from a Recovering Fundraising Consultant." techsoup.org. TechSoup Global (2009). Web. 20 Jul. 2011.

Bekkers, René, and Pamala Wiepking. "Generosity and Philanthropy: A Literature Review." SSRN eLibrary (2007). Web. 8 Jul. 2010.

Ben-Amos, Dan. "Toward a Definition of Folklore in Context." The Journal of American Folklore. 84.331 (1971): 3-15. Print.

Benoit, William. "Beyond Genre Theory: The Genesis of Rhetorical Action." Communication Monographs 67 (2000): 178-92. Print.

---. "Generic Rhetorical Criticism." The Art of Rhetorical Criticism. Ed. Jim A. Kuypers. Boston: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon, 2005. 85-106. Print.

Benson, Thomas W. Landmark Essays on Rhetorical Criticism. Landmark Essays. Vol. 5. Davis, CA: Hermagoras P, 1993. Print.

Berkenkotter, Carol, and Thomas N. Huckin. Genre Knowledge in Disciplinary Communication: Cognition, Culture, Power. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1995. Print.

Berkenkotter, Carol, and Doris Ravotas. "Genre as Tool in the Transmission of Practice over Time and across Professional Boundaries." Mind, Culture & Activity 4.4 (1997): 256-74. Print.

Bhatia, Vijay K. Analyzing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings. Applied Linguistics and Language Study. NY: Longman, 1993. Print.

---. "Applied Genre Analysis: A Multi-Perspective Model." IBÉRICA 4 (2002): 3. Print.

---. "Applied Genre Analysis: Analytical Advances and Pedagogical Procedures." Genre in the Classroom: Multiple Perspectives. Ed. Ann M. Johns. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2002. Print.

---. "Discourse of Philanthropic Fund-Raising." Written Discourse in Philanthropic Fund Raising: Issues of Language and Rhetoric. Vol. #98-13. Indianapolis:

167

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

Indiana Center for Intercultural Communication and Center on Philanthropy, 1997. 27-44. Print.

---. "Generic Patterns in Fundraising Discourse." New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising. 22 (1998): 95-110. Print.

Billig, Michael. "Whose Terms? Whose Ordinariness? Rhetoric and Ideology in Conversation Analysis." Discourse & Society 10.4 (1999): 543-58. Print.

Bitzer, Lloyd F. The Rhetorical Situation. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State UP, 1968. Print.

Bizzell, Patricia, and Bruce Herzberg. The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2001. Print.

Black, Edwin. Rhetorical Criticism: A Study in Method. Madison: U Wisconsin P, 1978. Print.

Blackler, Frank. "Knowledge and the Theory of Organizations: Organizations as Activity Systems and the Reframing of Management." Journal of Management Studies 30.6 (1993): 863-84. Print.

Blakeslee, Ann M., and Rachel Spilka. "The State of Research in Technical Communication." Technical Communication Quarterly 13 (2004): 73-92. Print.

Boatright, Mody C. ―Folklore in a Literate Society.‖ Inside the Classroom (and Out): How We Learn Through Folklore. Ed. Untiedt, Kenneth L. Denton, TX: UNT P, 2005. 2-9. Print.

Bolter, Jay David. Writing Space: Computers, Hypertext, and the Remediation of Print. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2001. Print.

Bolter, J. David, and Richard Grusin. Remediation: Understanding New Media. Cambridge: MIT, 2000. Print.

Bond, Sharon. "U.S. Charitable Giving Estimated to Be $307.65 Billion in 2008." Giving USA Foundation (July 2009). Print.

Boster, Franklin J., Thomas A. Fediuk, and Michael Ryan Kotowski. "The Effectiveness of an Altruistic Appeal in the Presence and Absence of Favors." Communication Monographs 68.4 (2001): 340-46. Print.

168

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

Boyle, Richard, and Phillip Bonacich. "The Development of Trust and Mistrust in Mixed-Motive Games." Sociometry 33.2 (1970): 123-39. Print.

Brady, Ann. "Rhetorical Research: Toward a User-Centered Approach." Rhetoric Review 23.1 (2004): 54-74. Print.

Brasseur, Lee E. "Contesting the Objectivist Paradigm: Gender Issues in the Technical and Professional Communication Curriculum." Central Works of Technical Communication. Eds. Johndan Johnson-Eilola and Stuart A. Selber. NY: Oxford UP, 2004. 475-89. Print.

Briggs, Charles L., and Richard Bautnan. "Genre, Intertextuality, and Social Power." Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 2.2 (1992): 131-72. Print.

Brumberger, E. "The Rhetoric of Typography: The Persona of Typeface and Text." Technical Communication Quarterly 50.2 (2003): 206-23. Print.

Buckland, M.K. "What Is a "Document"?" Journal of the American Society for Information Science 48.9 (1997): 804-09. Print.

Buller, David B. "Distraction During Persuasive Communication: A Meta-Analytic Review." Communication Monographs 53.2 (1986): 91-114. Print.

Burgchardt, Carl R. Readings in Rhetorical Criticism. State College, PA: Strata Pub., 2005. Print.

Burlingame, Dwight F. "Critical Issues for Research." Critical Issues in Fund Raising. Ed. Dwight Burlingame. NY: Wiley, 1997. 256-59. Print.

Burlingame, Dwight F., James M. Hodge, and Indiana University Center on Philanthropy. "Developing Major Gifts." New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising. 16 (1997). Print.

Burton, Gideon O. "The Forest of Rhetoric: Silva Rhetoricae." Provo, UT. Brigham Young U. Web. 22 Jul. 2009.

Caboni, Timothy C. "Editorial." International Journal of Educational Advancement 5.2 (2005): 104-05. Print.

---. "The Normative Structure of College and University Fundraising Behaviors." Journal of Higher Education 81.3 (2010): 339-65. Print.

169

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

---. "Toward Professionalization: Fund Raising Norms and Their Implications for Practice." The CASE International Journal of Educational Advancement 4.1 (2003): 77-92. Print.

Cacioppo, John T., and Richard E. Petty. "The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion." Advances in Consumer Research 11 (1984): 673-75. Print.

Campbell, Donald Thomas, Julian C. Stanley, and N. L. Gage. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Chicago: R. McNally, 1966. Print.

Campbell, Karlyn K. "The Ontological Foundations of Rhetorical Theory." Philosophy and Rhetoric 3.2 (1970): 97-108. Print.

Campbell, Margaret, and Amna Kirmani. "Consumers' Use of Persuasion Knowledge: The Effects of Accessibility and Cognitive Capacity on Perceptions of an Influence Agent." Journal of Consumer Research 27.1 (2000): 69-83. Print.

Carbone, Robert F. An Agenda for Research on Fund Raising. Clearinghouse for Research on Fundraising. College Park: U Maryland, 1986. Print.

---. Fundraising as a Profession. Clearinghouse for Research on Fundraising. College Park: U Maryland, 1989. Print.

Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University. "The Annual Report on Philanthropy for the Year 2010 Executive Summary." Giving USA 2011.55. Mon. 20 Jun. 2011.

Charles, Mirjaliisa. "Business Negotiations: Interdependence between Discourse and the Business Relationship." English for Specific Purposes 15.1 (1996): 19-36. Print.

Charmaz, Kathy. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis. London: Sage, 2006. Print.

Charney, Davida. "Empiricism Is Not a Four-Letter Word." College Composition and Communication 47.4 (1996): 567-93. Print.

Charney, Davida H. "Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Research." Research in Technical Communication. Eds. Laura J. Gurak and Mary M. Lay. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2002. Print.

170

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

---. "How Writing Quality Influences Readers' Judgments of Resumes in Business and Engineering." Journal of Business and Technical Communication 6.1 (1992): 38-74. Print.

Chung-Hoon, Tanise L., Julie M. Hite, and Steven J. Hite. "Searching for Enduring Donor Relationships: Evidence for Factors and Strategies in a Donor/Organization Integration Model for Fund Raising." International Journal of Educational Advancement 6.1 (2005): 34-53. Print.

Clark, Dave. "Is Professional Writing Relevant? A Model for Action Research." Technical Communication Quarterly 13.3 (2004): 307-23. Print.

Clark, Gregory. "Ethics in Technical Communication: A Rhetorical Perspective." ACM SIGDOC Asterisk Journal of Computer Documentation 18.3 (1994): 5- 10. Print.

Clark, Katerina, and Michael Holquist. Mikhail Bakhtin. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard UP, 1984. Print.

Clark, Scott. Japan, a View from the Bath. Honolulu: U Hawaii P, 1994. Print.

Coe, Richard M., Lorelei Lingard, and Tatiana Teslenko. The Rhetoric and Ideology of Genre: Strategies for Stability and Change. Research and Teaching in Rhetoric and Composition. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, 2002. Print.

Conger, Jay A. "The Necessary Art of Persuasion." Harvard Business Review 76.3 (1998): 84-97. Print.

Connor, Ulla. "Comparing Research and Not-for-Profit Grant Proposals." Written Discourse in Philanthropic Fund Raising: Issues of Language and Rhetoric. Vol. #98-13. Indianapolis: Indiana Center for Intercultural Communication and Center on Philanthropy, 1997. 45-64. Print.

Connor, Ulla, and Lilya Wagner. "Language Use in Grant Proposals by Nonprofits: Spanish and English." New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising. 22 (1998): 59-74. Print.

171

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

Connors, Robert J. "The Rise of Technical Writing Instruction in America." Central Works in Technical Communication. Eds. Johndan Johnson-Eilola and Stuart A. Selber. NY: Oxford UP, 2004. 3-19. Print.

Conry, Julie C. "Gender and Pay Equity in the Fundraising Workforce: Implications for Practice and Policy." New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising.19 (1998): 73-92. Print.

Converse, Jean M., and Stanley Presser. Survey Questions: Handcrafting the Standardized Questionnaire. Beverly Hills: Sage, 1986. Print.

Cook, Colleen, Fred Heath, and Russel L. Thompson. "A Meta-Analysis of Response Rates in Web- or Internet-Based Surveys." Educational and Psychological Measurement 60.6 (2000): 821-36. Print.

Cook, W. Bruce, and W. F. Lasher. "Toward a Theory of Fund Raising in Higher Education." Review of Higher Education 20.1 (1996): 33-52. Print.

Corbin, Juliet M., and Anselm L. Strauss. "Grounded Theory Research: Procedures, Canons, and Evaluative Criteria." Qualitative Sociology 13.1 (1990): 3-21. Print.

Covino, William A. "Magic, Rhetoric, and Literacy an Eccentric History of the Composing Imagination." Albany: State University of NY P. 1994. Print.

Creswell, John W. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Method Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2003. Print.

Cronin-Jones, Linda L. "The Effectiveness of Schoolyards as Sites for Elementary Science Instruction." School Science and Mathematics 100.4 (2000): 203-11. Print.

Curti, Merle Eugene, and Roderick Nash. Philanthropy in the Shaping of American Higher Education. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers UP, 1965. Print.

Curtin, Richard. "Changes in Telephone Survey Nonresponse over the Past Quarter Century." Public Opinion Quarterly 69.1 (2005): 87-98. Print.

172

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

Cutlip, Scott M. Fund Raising in the United States, Its Role in America's Philanthropy. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers UP, 1965. Print.

Davidson, Cynthia R. "Grant Writing and the Grant Seeking Process in the Non-Profit Sector." MA thesis. TTU, 2009. Print.

Davis, James P. "The Rhetoric of Direct Mail, or New Uses for Junk Mail." Journal of American & Comparative Cultures 25.1-2 (2002): 38-42. Print.

Dayton, David D. "Electronic Editing in Technical Communication: A Survey of Practices and Attitudes." Technical Communication Quarterly 50.2 (2003): 192-205. Print.

Denzin, Norman K., and Yvonna S. Lincoln. Handbook of Qualitative Research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2000. Print.

DeTienne, Kristen Bell, and G. Stoney Alder. "Developing Winning Proposals." Mechanical Engineering 116.6 (1994): 65. Print.

Devitt, Amy J. "Generalizing About Genre: New Conceptions of an Old Concept." College Composition and Communication 44.4 (1993): 573-86. Print.

---. Writing Genres. Rhetorical Philosophy and Theory. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 2004. Print.

Dickerson, Frank C. "An Examination of the Impact of Paratextual Variables on Response and ROI in Direct Mail Fund-Raising Campaigns: If Your Envelope Doesn‘t Get Opened, Then It Really Doesn't Matter What You Put Inside!" The Written Voice (2009). Web. 31 Aug. 2009.

---. "Examples of Linguistic Structure in Right & Wrong Fund-Raising Discourse: Help Send Carley to Camp Versus Help Ameliorate Economic Asymmetry." The Written Voice (2009). Web. 31 Aug. 2009.

---. "How Hand-Personalized Mail Boosts Direct Mail Response: The Impact of Paratextual Variables on Response & ROI." The Written Voice (2009). Web. 31 Aug. 2009.

---. "The Way We Write Is All Wrong: A Profile of and Prescription for Fixing the Broken Discourse of Fund Raising." DMA (Direct Marketing Association) Journal of the Nonprofit Federation 12.3 (September 2009): 16-22. Web. 31 Aug. 2009

173

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

---. "The Way We Write Is All Wrong: Fixing the Broken Discourse of Fundraising." The Nonprofit Quarterly. Spring (2010): 40-45. Print.

Dillman, Don A. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. NY: Wiley, 2000. Print.

Dixon, John. "Writing in Response to Each Other." Learning and Teaching Genre. Eds. Aviva Freedman and Peter Medway. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers, 1994. 143-56. Print.

Dobrin, David N. "What's Technical About Technical Writing?" Central Works of Technical Communication. Eds. Johndan Johnson-Eilola and Stuart A. Selber. NY: Oxford UP, 2004. 107-23. Print.

Doheny-Farina, Stephen. "Writing in an Emerging Organization." Central Works of Technical Communication. Eds. Johndan Johnson-Eilola and Stuart A. Selber. NY: Oxford UP, 2004. 325-40. Print.

Dombrowski, Paul. "Can Ethics Be Technologized? Lessons Form Challenger, Philosophy, and Rhetoric." IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 38.3 (1995): 146-50. Print.

---. "Ethics and Technical Communication: The Past Quarter Century." Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 30.1 (2000): 3-30. Print.

---. Ethics in Technical Communication. The Allyn & Bacon Series in Technical Communication. Ed. Joseph Opiela. Boston: Longman, 2000. Print.

---. "The Evolving Face of Ethics in Technical and Professional Communication: Challenger to Columbia." IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 50.4 (2007): 306-19. Print.

---, Ed. Humanistic Aspects of Technical Communication. Amityville, NY: Baywood Publishing, 1994. Print.

Doney, Patricia M., and Joseph P. Cannon. "An Examination of the Nature of Trust in Buyer-Seller Relationships." The Journal of Marketing 61.2 (1997): 35-51. Print.

Dragga, Sam. "Ethical Intercultural Technical Communication: Looking through the Lens of Confucian Ethics." Technical Communication Quarterly 8.4 (1999): 365-81. Print.

174

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

---. "Is It Ethical? A Survey of Opinion on Principles and Practices of Document Design." Technical Communication Quarterly 43.1 (1996): 29-38. Print.

---. "A Question of Ethics: Lessons from Technical Communicators on the Job." Technical Communication Quarterly 6.2 (1997): 161-78. Print.

Dreyfus, Stuart E. "The Five-Stage Model of Adult Skill Acquisition." Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 24.3 (2004): 177-81. Print.

Driscoll, Dana Lynn. "Conducting Primary Research". The Owl at Purdue: Free Writing Help and Teaching Resources. Open 24/7. Ed. Karl Stolley. Lafayette: Purdue U. Web. 23 Sept. 2009.

Driskill, Linda. "Understanding the Writing Context in Organizations." Central Works in Technical Communication. Eds. Johndan Johnson-Eilola and Stuart A. Selber. NY: Oxford UP, 2004. 55-69. Print.

Dundes, Alan. Interpreting Folklore. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1980. Print.

Durack, Katherine T. "Gender, Technology, and the History of Technical Communication." Central Works in Technical Communication. Eds. Johndan Johnson-Eilola and Stuart A. Selber. NY: Oxford UP, 2004. 35-43. Print.

Duronio, Margaret A. "The Fund Raising Profession." Critical Issues in Fund Raising. Ed. Dwight Burlingame. NY: Wiley, 1997. 37-57. Print.

Duronio, Margaret A., and Bruce A. Loessin. Effective Fund Raising in Higher Education: Ten Success Stories. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1991. Print.

Duronio, Margaret A., and Eugene R. Temple. Fund Raisers: Their Careers, Stories, Concerns, and Accomplishments. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1997. Print.

Eastman, Charles L. "Philanthropic Cultures of Generational Archetypes." New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising: Cultures of Giving II: How Heritage, Gender, Wealth, and Values Influence Philanthropy. Summer (1995): 137-50. Print.

Engestrom, Yrjo, Reijo Miettinen, and Raija-Leena Punamaki-Gitai. Perspectives on Activity Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1999. Print.

Faber, Brenton. "Intuitive Ethics: Understanding and Critiquing the Role of Intuition in Ethical Decisions." Technical Communication Quarterly 8.2 (1999): 189- 202. Print.

175

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

Famiglietti, Armanda. "Improving the Quality of Grant Proposals - A Grantmaker's Perspective." Journal of the Society of Research Administrators 29.3/4 (1998): 21. Print.

Ferber, Robert, et al. What Is a Survey? Washington, DC: American Statistical Association, 1980. Print.

Fernsler, Terrance. "A Workbook to Make Grants Easier." Nonprofit World 14.6 (1996): 52-53. Print.

Firestone, William A. "Alternative Arguments for Generalizing from Data as Applied to Qualitative Research." Educational Researcher 22.4 (1993): 16-23. Print.

---. "Meaning in Method: The Rhetoric of Quantitative and Qualitative Research." Educational Researcher 16.7 (1987): 16-21. Print.

Fisher, Walter R. "Genre: Concepts and Applications in Rhetorical Criticism." Western Journal of Speech Communication 44.4 (1980): 288-99. Print.

Flowerdew, Lynne. "An Integration of Corpus-Based and Genre-Based Approaches to Text Analysis in Eap/Esp: Countering Criticisms against Corpus-Based Methodologies." English for Specific Purposes 24.3 (2005): 321-32. Print.

Forman, Janis, and Jone Rymer. "The Genre System of the Harvard Case Method." Journal of Business and Technical Communication 13.4 (1999): 373-400. Print.

Foss, Sonja K. Rhetorical Criticism: Exploration & Practice. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland P, 1989. Print.

Foss, Sonja K., Karen A. Foss, and Robert Trapp. Contemporary Perspectives on Rhetoric. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland P, 1985. Print.

Foss, Sonja K., and Cindy L. Griffin. "Beyond Persuasion: A Proposal for an Invitational Rhetoric." Communication Monographs 62.1 (1995): 2-17. Print.

Fredricks, Laura. The Ask: How to Ask for Support for Your Nonprofit Cause, Creative Project, or Business Venture. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2010. Print.

176

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

Freedman, Aviva. "'Do as I Say': The Relationship between Teaching and Learning New Genres." Genre and the New Rhetoric. Eds. Aviva Freedman and Peter Medway. London; Bristol, PA: Taylor & Francis, 1994. Print.

Freedman, Aviva, and Christine Adam. "Learning to Write Professionally." Journal of Business and Technical Communication 10.4 (1996): 395. Print.

Freedman, Aviva, Christine Adam, and Graham Smart. "Wearing Suits to Class: Simulating Genres and Simulations as Genre." Written Communication 11.2 (1994): 193-226. Print.

Freedman, Aviva, and Peter Medway. Genre and the New Rhetoric. London; Bristol, PA: Taylor & Francis, 1994. Print.

---. "New Views of Genre and Their Implications for Education." Learning and Teaching Genre. Eds. Aviva Freedman and Peter Medway. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook, 1994. 1-24. Print.

Fritz, Joanne. "Through the Roof! Trends in Philanthropy for 2008: Giving USA Publishes Report for 2008". Web. 8 Apr. 2009.

Gaines, Robert N. "De-Canonizing Ancient Rhetoric." The Viability of the Rhetorical Tradition. Eds. Richard Graff, Arthur E. Walzer, and Janet Atwill. Albany: State U NY P, 2005. 61-73. Print.

Garecht, Joe. "What Is a Fundraising Ask?" The Fundraising Authority (2010). Ed. Garecht, Joe. Web. 19 Jul. 2011.

Gasman, Marybeth. "Rhetoric Vs. Reality: The Fundraising Messages of the United Negro College Fund in the Immediate Aftermath of the Brown Decision." History of Education Quarterly 44.1 (2004): 70-94. Print.

Gergen, Kenneth J., and Mary M. Gergen. "Narrative and the Self as Relationship." Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 21.1 (1988): 17–56. Print.

Gignac, Pamela, and Ken Wyman. "Prospecting for Major Gifts." Major Donors: Finding Big Gifts in Your Database and Online. Ed. Ted Hart. Hoboken NJ: Wiley, 2006. 1-19. Print.

Gillespie, Paula. "Beyond the House of Lore: WCenter as Research Site." Writing Center Research: Extending the Conversation. Ed. Paula Gillespie, et al. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2002. 39-52. Print.

177

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

Giltrow, Janet. "Genre and the Pragmatic Concept of Background Knowledge." Genre and the New Rhetoric. Eds. Aviva Freedman and Peter Medway. Bristol, PA: Taylor & Francis, 1994. Print.

Glenn, Cheryl. Rhetoric Retold: Regendering the Tradition from Antiquity through the Renaissance. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1997. Print.

Goering, Elizabeth M. "Framing Matters: Communicating Relationships through Metaphor in Fundraising Texts." Discourse in the Professions: Perspectives from Corpus Linguistics. Eds. Ulla Connor and Thomas Albin Upton. Philadelphia: J. Benjamins, 2004. Print.

Goering, Elizabeth M., et al. "Persuasion in Fundraising Letters: An Interdisciplinary Study." Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 20.10 (2009). Print.

Goldman, Rae. "Vice President, Advancement Resources." Washington, DC: CASE, 2009. Case membership statistics. Print.

Goodale, Toni K. "Teaching Volunteers the Art of Asking." Fund Raising Management 17.11 (1987): 32-8. Print.

Goubil-Gambrell, Patricia. "A Practitioner's Guide to Research Methods." Technical Communication Quarterly 39.4 (1992): 582-91. Print.

Graff, Richard, Arthur E. Walzer, and Janet Atwill. The Viability of the Rhetorical Tradition. Albany: State U NY P, 2005. Print.

Greenfield, James M. "Costs and Performance Measurements." Critical Issues in Fund Raising. Ed. Dwight Burlingame. NY: Wiley, 1997. 165-77. Print.

Grider, Sylvia. "Passed down from Generation to Genration: Folklore and Teaching." The Journal of American Folklore. 108.428 (1995): 178-185. Print.

Gross, Alan G. "The Rhetorical Tradition." The Viability of the Rhetorical Tradition. Eds. Richard Graff, Arthur E. Walzer, and Janet Atwill. Albany: State U NY P, 2005. 31-45. Print.

Gross, Alan G., and Arthur E. Walzer. Rereading Aristotle's Rhetoric. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 2000. Print.

Groves, Robert M., Stanley Presser, and Sarah Dipko. "The Role of Topic Interest in Survey Participation Decisions." Public Opinion Quarterly 68.1 (2004): 2-31. Print.

178

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

Gruber, Sibylle, et al. "Writing4practice in Engineering Courses: Implementation and Assessment Approaches." Technical Communication Quarterly 8 (1999): 419- 40. Print.

Gurak, Laura J., and Mary M. Lay. Research in Technical Communication. Contemporary Studies in Technical Communication. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2002. Print.

Haas, Molly Flaherty. "How Writers in Nonprofit Organizations Develop Grant Proposals." New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising. 22 (1998): 49-58. Print.

Hafner, John C., and Patti M. Hafner. "Quantitative Analysis of the Rubric as an Assessment Tool: An Empirical Study of Student Peer-Group Rating." International Journal of Science Education 25.12 (2003): 1509-28. Print.

Hager, Mark A., et al. "Getting What We Pay For: Low Overhead Limits Nonprofit Effectiveness." Nonprofit Overhead Cost Project (2004). Web. 2 Feb. 2010.

---. "Response Rates for Mail Surveys of Nonprofit Organizations: A Review and Empirical Test." Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 32.2 (2003): 252- 67. Print.

---. "The Pros and Cons of Financial Efficiency Standards." Nonprofit Overhead Cost Project (2004). Web. 2 Feb. 2010.

---. "The Quality of Financial Reporting by Nonprofits: Findings and Implications." Nonprofit Overhead Cost Project (2004). Web. 2 Feb. 2010.

---. "What We Know About Overhead Costs in the Nonprofit Sector." Nonprofit Overhead Cost Project (2004). Web. 2 Feb. 2010.

---. "Who Raises Contributions for America's Nonprofit Organizations?" Nonprofit Overhead Cost Project (2004). Web. 2 Feb. 2010.

Hager, Mark A., Patrick M. Rooney, and Thomas H. Pollak. "How Fundraising Is Carried out in Us Nonprofit Organizations." International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing 7.4 (2002): 311-24. Print.

Hall, Holly. "Wanted: Big-Gift Fund Raisers - Dearth of Senior-Level Applicants Is Taking a Major Toll on Charities." Chronicle of Philanthropy (April 22, 1999). Print.

179

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

Hall, Peter Dobkin. "Philanthropy as Investment." History of Education Quarterly 22.2 (1982): 185-203. Print.

Hamer, Lynne. ―Folklore in Schools and Multicultural Education: Toward Institutionalizing Noninstitutional Knowledge.‖ The Journal of American Folklore 113.447 (2000). 44-69. Print.

Hamilton, Mark A., John E. Hunter, and Michael Burgoon. "An Empirical Test of an Axiomatic Model of the Relationship between Language Intensity and Persuasion." Journal of Language and Social Psychology 9.4 (1990): 235-55. Print.

Hardcastle, John. "With Genre in Mind: The Expressive, Utterance, and Speech Genres in Classroom Discourse." Learning and Teaching Genre. Eds. Aviva Freedman and Peter Medway. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook, 1994. 31-46. Print.

Harding, Sandra G. Feminism and Methodology: Social Science Issues. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1987. Print.

Harkin, Patricia. "Bringing Lore to Light." Pre/Text: An International Journal of Rhetoric 10.1-2 (1989): 55-67. Print.

Harkin, Patricia. "Research as Lore." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication (45th, Nashville, TN, March 16-19, 1994). Print.

Harkin, Patricia. "The Postdisciplinary Politics of Lore." Contending with Words: Composition and Rhetoric in a Postmodern Age. Eds. Patricia Harkin and John Schilb. NY: MLA, 1991. 124-38. Print.

Harner, Sandi. "STC's First Academic Salary Survey, 2003." Technical Communication Quarterly 13 (2004): 45-48. Print.

Harrell, Jackson, and Wil A. Linkugel. "On Rhetorical Genre: An Organizing Perspective." Philosophy and Rhetoric 11.4 (1978): 262-79. Print.

Harrison, Teresa M. "Frameworks for the Study of Writing in Organizational Contexts." Central Works of Technical Communication. Eds. Johndan Johnson-Eilola and Stuart A. Selber. NY: Oxford UP, 2004. 255-67. Print.

Hart-Davidson, William, James P. Zappen, and S. Michael Halloran. "On the Formation of Democratic Citizens: Rethinking the Rhetorical Tradition in a Digital Age." The Viability of the Rhetorical Tradition. Eds. Richard Graff,

180

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

Arthur E. Walzer, and Janet Atwill. Albany: State U NY P, 2005. 125-40. Print.

Hartman, C. R. ―How to Write a Proposal." Dun and Bradstreet, Inc. D & B Reports 42.2 (1993): 62. Print.

Hartsook, Robert F. Closing That Gift! How to Be Successful 99% of the Time. Wichita, KS: ASR Philanthropic, 1999. Print.

---. How to Get Million Dollar Gifts and Have Donors Thank You! Wichita, KS: ASR Philanthropic, 1999. Print.

---. Nobody Wants to Give Money Away! Wichita, KS: ASR Philanthropic, 2002. Print.

Hartung, Kris K. "What Are Students Being Taught About the Ethics of Technical Communication? An Analysis of the Ethical Discussions Presented in Four Textbooks." Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 28.4 (1998): 363-84. Print.

Haswell, Richard. "NCTE/CCCC's Recent War on Scholarship." Written Communication 22.2 (2005): 198-223. Print.

Herndl, Carl G. "Teaching Discourse and Reproducing Culture." Central Works of Technical Communication. Eds. Johndan Johnson-Eilola and Stuart A. Selber. NY: Oxford UP, 2004. 220-31. Print.

---. "Writing Ethnography: Representations, Rhetoric, and Institutional Practices." College English 53.3 (1991): 320-32. Print.

Hinkin, Timothy R. "A Brief Tutorial on the Development of Measures for Use in Survey Questionnaires." Organizational Research Methods 1.1 (1998): 104-21. Print.

Hodge, James M. "Gifts of Significance." Hank Rosso's Achieving Excellence in Fundraising. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2003. Print.

Hoge, Dean R., et al. Plain Talk About Churches and Money. Alban Institute Publication. Vol. AL 184. Bethesda, MD: Alban Institute, 1997. Print.

181

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

Holman, David. "A Dialogical Approach to Skill and Skilled Activity." Human Relations 53.7 (2000): 957-80. Print.

Holquist, Michael. Dialogism: Bakhtin and His World. NY: Routledge, 1990. Print.

House, Robert G. "A Critical Perspective on Fund Raising Communication: Genre in Search of Rhetoric." Library Management 18.5 (1997): 229. Print.

"How to Write Winning Proposals: Kiss (Keep It Simple, Sweetie)." Nonprofit World 14.5 (1996): 54. Print.

Hunt, Shelby D., Richard D. Sparkman, Jr., and James B. Wilcox. "The Pretest in Survey Research: Issues and Preliminary Findings." Journal of Marketing Research 19.2 (1982): 269-73. Print.

Johnson, Martha, Centre International Development Research, and Institute Dene Cultural. "Lore Capturing Traditional Environmental Knowledge". [Yellowknife, N.W.T.]; [Ottawa, Ont.], 1992. Dene Cultural Institute; International Development Research Centre. Web, 3 Mar. 2010.

Johnson, Robert R. "Audience Involved: Toward a Participatory Model of Writing." Central Works in Technical Communication. Eds. Johndan Johnson-Eilola and Stuart A. Selber. NY: Oxford UP, 2004. 91-103. Print.

Johnson-Eilola, Johndan. "Relocating the Value of Work." Central Works of Technical Communication. Eds. Johndan Johnson-Eilola and Stuart A. Selber. NY: Oxford UP, 2004. 175-92. Print.

Johnson-Sheehan, Richard. Writing Proposals: A Rhetoric for Managing Change. The Allyn & Bacon Series in Technical Communication. Ed. Sam Dragga. 2nd ed. NY: Longman, 2001. Print.

Johnson-Sheehan, Richard, and Craig Baehr. "Visual-Spatial Thinking in Hypertexts." Technical Communication Quarterly 48.1 (2001): 22-30. Print.

Jonassen, David H. "Activity Theory as a Framework for Designing Constructivist Learning Environments." Educational Technology Research and Development 47.1 (1999): 61-79. Print.

Kain, Donna J. "Constructing Genre: A Threefold Typology." Technical Communication Quarterly 14.4 (2005): 375-409. Print.

182

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

Kaplowitz, Michael D., Timothy D. Hadlock, and Ralph Levine. "A Comparison of Web and Mail Survey Response Rates." Public Opinion Quarterly 68.1 (2004): 94-101. Print.

Kaptelinin, Victor. "Activity Theory: Implications for Human Computer Interaction." NATO ASI Series F Computer and Systems Sciences 129 (1994): 53-59. Print.

Kaptelinin, Victor, and Bonnie A. Nardi. "Activity Theory: Basic Concepts and Applications." Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Atlanta, GA: ACM NY, 1997. 158-59. Print.

Katz, Steven B. "The Ethic of Expediency." Central Works of Technical Communication. Eds. Johndan Johnson-Eilola and Stuart A. Selber. NY: Oxford UP, 2004. 195-210. Print.

---. "The Ethic of Expediency: Classical Rhetoric, Technology, and the Holocaust." College English 54.3 (1992): 255. Print.

Kelly, Kathleen S. "From Motivation to Mutual Understanding: Shifting the Domain of Donor Research." Critical Issues in Fund Raising. Ed. Dwight Burlingame. NY: Wiley, 1997. 139-62. Print.

Koehnecke, Dianne S. "Folklore and the Multiple Intelligences." Children‘s Literature in Education. 26.4 (1995): 241-247. Print.

Kim, Min-Sun, and John E. Hunter. "Attitude-Behavior Relations: A Meta-Analysis of Attitudinal Relevance and Topic." Journal of Communication 43.1 (1993): 101-42. Print.

Klein, Kim. "Donor Cultivation: What It Is and What It Is Not." Grassroots Fundraising Journal (1999): 1-3. Print.

Klein, Kim. Fundraising for Social Change. 4th ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2001. Print.

Knight, Charles A. "Satire, Speech, and Genre." Comparative Literature 44.1 (1992): 22. Print.

Koschmann, Timothy. "Toward a Dialogic Theory of Learning: Bakhtin's Contribution to Understanding Learning in Settings of Collaboration."

183

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

Proceedings of the 1999 Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning. Palo Alto, CA: International Society of the Learning Sciences, 1999. Print.

Kress, Gunther. "Genre as Social Process." The Powers of Literacy: A Genre Approach to Teaching Writing. Eds. Bill Cope and Mary Kalantzis. Vol. 30. Washington, DC: U Pittsburgh P, 1993. 1-37. Print.

Krosnick, Jon A. "Survey Research." Annual Review of Psychology 50 (1999): 537. Print.

Kryder, L. G. "Mentors, Models, and Clients: Using the Professional Engineering Community to Identify and Teach Engineering Genres." IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 42.1 (1999): 3-11. Print.

Kuutti, Kari. "Activity Theory as a Potential Framework for Human-Computer Interaction Research." Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human Computer Interaction. Ed. Bonnie A. Nardi. Cambridge: MIT P, 1995. 17-44. Print.

Kuypers, Jim A. The Art of Rhetorical Criticism. Boston: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon, 2005. Print.

Kvale, Steinar, and Svend Brinkmann. Interviews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing. Los Angeles: Sage, 2009. Print.

Labaw, Patricia J. Advanced Questionnaire Design. Cambridge: Abt Books, 1981. Print.

Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: U Chicago P, 1980. Print.

Langellier, Kristin M. "Personal Narratives: Perspectives on Theory and Research." Text and Performance Quarterly 9.4 (1989): 243-76. Print.

Larzelere, Robert E., and Ted L. Huston. "Dyadic Trust Scale: Toward Understanding Interpersonal Trust in Close Relationships." Journal of Marriage and Family 42.3 (1980): 595-604. Print.

Lasher, William F., and W. Bruce Cook. "Toward a Theory of Fund Raising in Higher Education." Review of Higher Education 20.1 (1996): 33-51. Print.

Lauer, Janice. "Fund-Raising Letters." Written Discourse in Philanthropic Fund Raising: Issues of Language and Rhetoric. Vol. #98-13. Indianapolis: Indiana

184

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

Center for Intercultural Communication and Center on Philanthropy, 1997. 101-08. Print.

Lay, Mary M. "Feminist Theory and the Redefinition of Technical Communication." Central Works of Technical Communication. Eds. Johndan Johnson-Eilola and Stuart A. Selber. NY: Oxford UP, 2004. 146-59. Print.

Lindahl, Wesley E. "The Major Gift Donor Relationship: An Analysis of Donors and Contributions." Nonprofit Management and Leadership 5.4 (1995): 411-32. Print.

Lindahl, Wesley E., and Aaron Conley. "Literature Review: Philanthropic Fundraising." Nonprofit Management and Leadership 13 (2002): 91-112. Print.

Ljungberg, Jan. From Workflow to Conversation. Gothenburg Studies in Informatics, Report 12. Goteborg, Sweden: Department of Informatics, Goteborg U, 1997. Print.

Locker, Kitty O. "Factors in Reader Responses to Negative Letters: Experimental Evidence for Changing What We Teach." Journal of Business and Technical Communication 13.1 (1999): 5-48. Print.

Lucaites, John Louis, Celeste Michelle Condit, and Sally Caudill. Contemporary Rhetorical Theory: A Reader. NY: Guilford P, 1999. Print.

Lunsford, Andrea A., and Lisa S. Ede. "On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric." Essays on Classical Rhetoric and Modern Discourse. Eds. Robert J. Connors, Lisa S. Ede and Andrea A. Lunsford. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1984. Print.

MacNealy, Mary Sue. "Research in Technical Communication: A View of the Past and a Challenge for the Future." Technical Communication Quarterly 39.4 (1992): 533-51. Print.

---. Strategies for Empirical Research in Writing. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1999. Print.

---. "Toward Better Case Study Research." IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 40.3 (1997): 182-96. Print.

Male, Richard. "10 Top Fundraising Tips." RMA (2010). Ed. Male, Richard. RMA and Associates. Web. 20 Jul. 2011.

185

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

Markel, Mike. "Ethical and Technical Communication: A Case for Foundational Approaches." IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 40.4 (1997): 284-98. Print.

---. "An Ethical Imperative for Technical Communicators." IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 36.2 (1993): 81-86. Print.

---. Technical Communication. 7th ed. NY: St. Martin's, 2004. Print.

Massi Lindsey, Lisa L., and Kimo Ah Yun. "Examining the Persuasive Effect of Statistical Messages: A Test of Mediating Relationships." Communication Studies 54.Fall (2003): 306-21. Print.

Matheny, Richard E. Major Gifts: Solicitation Strategies. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: Council for Advancement and Support of Education, 1999. Print.

Mayer, Roger C., James H. Davis, and F. David Schoorman. "An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust." Academy of Management Review 20.3 (1995): 709-34. Print.

McAlexander, James H., Harold F. Koenig, and John W. Schouten. "Building Relationships of Brand Community in Higher Education: A Strategic Framework for University Advancement." International Journal of Educational Advancement 6.2 (2006): 107-18. Print.

McCagg, Peter. "Conceptual Metaphor and the Discourse of Philanthropy." New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising. 22 (1998): 37-48. Print.

---. "Metaphorical Morality and the Discourse of Philanthropy." Written Discourse in Philanthropic Fund Raising: Issues of Language and Rhetoric. Vol. #98-13. Indianapolis: Indiana Center for Intercultural Communication and Center on Philanthropy, 1997. 109-20. Print.

Mikelonis, Victoria M., Signe T. Betsinger, and Constance E. Kampf. Grant Seeking in an Electronic Age. The Allyn & Bacon Series in Technical Communication. Ed. Sam Dragga. NY: Longman/Prentice Hall, 2004. Print.

Miller, Carolyn R. "Genre as Social Action." Quarterly Journal of Speech 70 (1984): 151-67. Print.

---. "A Humanistic Rationale for Technical Writing." College English 40.6 (1979): 610-17. Print.

186

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

Miller, Sharon L., Anthony T. Ruger, and Barbara G. Wheler. Great Expectations: Fund-Raising Prospects for Theological Schools. NY: Auburn Theological Seminary, 2009. Print.

Mirel, Barbara. "Writing and Database Technology: Extending the Definition of Writing in the Workplace." Central Works of Technical Communication. Eds. Johndan Johnson-Eilola and Stuart A. Selber. NY: Oxford UP, 2004. 381-93. Print.

Mixer, Joseph R. Principles of Professional Fundraising: Useful Foundations for Successful Practice. The Jossey-Bass Nonprofit Sector Series. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1993. Print.

Morgan, Robert M., and Shelby D. Hunt. "The Commitment-Trust Theory of Relationship Marketing." The Journal of Marketing 58.3 (1994): 20-38. Print.

Murphy, Thomas B. "Financial and Psychological Determinants of Donors' Capacity to Give." Understanding the Needs of Donors: The Supply Side of Charitable Giving. Eds. Eugene R. Tempel and Dwight Burlingame. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2001. 33-49. Print.

Myers, Greg. "Wednesday Morning and the Millennium: Notes on Time in Fund- Raising Texts." Written Discourse in Philanthropic Fund Raising: Issues of Language and Rhetoric Vol. #98-13. Indianapolis: Indiana Center for Intercultural Communication and Center on Philanthropy, 1997. 121-34. Print.

Nardi, Bonnie A. "Studying Context: A Comparison of Activity Theory, Situated Action Models, and Distributed Cognition." Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human Computer Interaction. Ed. Bonnie A. Nardi. Cambridge: MIT, 1996. 35-52. Print.

North, Stephen M. The Making of Knowledge in Composition: Portrait of an Emerging Field. Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook, 1987. Print.

Nowostawski, Mariusz, Martin Purvis, and Stephen Cranfield. "A Layered Approach for Modeling Agent Conversations." The Information Science Discussion Paper Series. Dunedin, New Zealand: U Otago, 2001. 1-8. Print.

O'Herlihy, Mary A., John J. Havens and Paul G. Schervish. "Charitable Giving: How Much, by Whom, to What, and How?" The NonProfit Sector: A Research Handbook. Eds. Walter W. Powell and Richard Steinberg. New Haven: Yale UP, 2002. 1-65. Print.

187

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

O'Keefe, Daniel J. "Justification Explicitness and Persuasive Effect: A Meta-Analytic Review of the Effects of Varying Support Articulation in Persuasive Messages." Argumentation and Advocacy 35.2 (1998): 61-75. Print.

Orbell, John M., Alphons J. C. van de Kragt, and Robyn M. Dawes. "Explaining Discussion-Induced Cooperation." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54.5 (1988): 811-19. Print.

Orlikowski, Wanda J., and JoAnne Yates. "Genre Repertoire: The Structuring of Communicative Practices in Organizations." Administrative Science Quarterly 39.4 (1994): 541. Print.

Ostrander, Susan A., and Paul G. Schervish. "Giving and Getting: Philanthropy as Social Relation." Critical Issues in American Philanthropy: Strengthening Theory and Practice. Ed. Jon Van Til. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1990. 67- 98. Print.

Ostrower, Francie. Why the Wealthy Give: The Culture of Elite Philanthropy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1995. Print.

Pajares, M. Frank. "Teachers' Beliefs and Educational Research: Cleaning up a Messy Construct." Review of Educational Research 62.3 (1992): 307-32. Print.

Panas, Jerold. Asking: A 59-Minute Guide to Everything Board Members, Volunteers, and Staff Must Know to Secure the Gift. Medfield, MA: Emerson & Church, 2007. Print.

Pearce, Barnett. "Trust in Interpersonal Communication." Speech Monographs 41 (1974): 236-44. Print.

"Persuasion". Wikipedia. Web. 5 May 2009.

Petty, Richard E., and John T. Cacioppo. "Source Factors and the Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion." Advances in Consumer Research 11 (1984): 668-72. Print.

Peytchev, Andy, et al. "Web Survey Design Paging Versus Scrolling." Public Opinion Quarterly 70.4 (2006): 596-607. Print.

188

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

Phelps, Louise Wetherbee. "Practical Wisdom and the Geography of Knowledge in Composition." College English 53.8 (1991): 863-85. Print.

Pickett, William L. "What Determines Fund-Raising Effectiveness?" CASE Currents 7.1 (1982): 22-25. Print.

Pope-Ruark, Rebecca. "Challenging the Necessity of Organizational Community for Rhetorical Genre Use: Community and Genre in the Work of Integrated Marketing Communication Agency Writers." Business Communication Quarterly 71.2 (2008): 185-94. Print.

Powell, Walter W., and Richard Steinberg. The Nonprofit Sector: A Research Handbook. New Haven: Yale UP, 2006. Print.

Preissle, Judith, and Margaret Diane LeCompte. Ethnography and Qualitative Design in Educational Research. Orlando: Academic P, 1984. Print.

Pribbenow, Paul. "And We Will Teach Them How: Professional Formation and Public Accountability." Critical Issues in Fund Raising. Ed. Dwight Burlingame. NY: Wiley, 1997. 3-17. Print.

Prince, Russ Alan, and Karen File. The Seven Faces of Philanthropy: A New Approach to Cultivating Major Donors. The Jossey-Bass Nonprofit Sector Series. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1994. Print.

Prince, Russ Alan, and Karen Maru File. "Philanthropic Cultures of Mind." New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising: Cultures of Giving II: How Heritage, Gender, Wealth, and Values Influence Philanthropy. Summer (1995): 125-36. Print.

Richards, Lyn, and Janice M. Morse. Readme First for a User's Guide to Qualitative Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2007. Print.

Riefer, David M. "Is 'Backwards Reading' an Effective Proofreading Strategy?" Perceptual and Motor Skills 73 (1991): 767-77. Print.

Ritchie, Susan. "Ventriloquist Folklore: Who Speaks for Representation?" Western Folklore. 52.2/4 (1993): 365-378. Print.

Ritzenhein, Donald N. "Content Analysis of Fundraising Letters." New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising. 22 (1998): 23-36. Print.

189

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

Rizzo, Michael J. "A (Less Than) Zero Sum Game? State Funding for Public Education: How Public Higher Education Institutions Have Lost." Diss. Cornell U, 2004. Print.

Rooney, Patrick. "A Better Method for Analyzing the Costs and Benefits of Fundraising at Universities." Nonprofit Management and Leadership 10.1 (1999): 39-56. Print.

Rooney, Patrick M., Kathryn S. Steinberg, and Paul G. Schervish. "A Methodological Comparison of Giving Surveys: Indiana as a Test Case." Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 30.3 (2001): 551-68. Print.

Ross, Bernard, and Clare Segal. The Influential Fundraiser: Using the Psychology of Persuasion to Achieve Outstanding Results. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2009. Print.

Rossi, Alice S. Caring and Doing for Others: Social Responsibility in the Domains of Family, Work, and Community. John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Mental Health and Development. Chicago: U Chicago P, 2001. Print.

Rossi, Peter H., James D. Wright, and Andy B. Anderson. Handbook of Survey Research. Quantitative Studies in Social Relations. NY: Academic P, 1983. Print.

Rosso, Henry A. Achieving Excellence in Fund Raising: A Comprehensive Guide to Principles, Strategies, and Methods. The Jossey-Bass Nonprofit Sector Series. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1991. Print.

Rotter, Julian B. "A New Scale for the Measurement of Interpersonal Trust." Journal of Personality 35.4 (1967): 651-65. Print.

Rude, Carolyn D. "The Report for Decision Making: Genre and Inquiry." Central Works in Technical Communication. Eds. Johndan Johnson-Eiloa and Stuart A. Selber. New York: Oxford UP, 2004. 70-90. Print.

Russell, David R. "Rethinking Genre in School and Society: An Activity Theory Analysis." Written Communication 14.4 (1997): 504-54. Print.

---. "Writing and Genre in Higher Education and Workplaces: A Review of Studies That Use Cultural-Historical Activity Theory." Mind, Culture, and Activity 4.4 (1997): 224-37. Print.

190

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

Rypstat, Anne. "Ethos and Social Action: Reasons and Methods for Stressing Praxis in the Writing Classroom." Radical Pedagogy 2002. Print.

Saldaña, Johnny. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2009. Print.

Sapsford, Roger. Survey Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1999. Print.

Sargeant, Adrian, Elaine Jay, and Stephen Lee. "The True Cost of Fundraising: Should Donors Care?" Journal of Direct, Data and Digital Marketing Practice. 9.4 (2008): 340-53. Print.

Sargeant, Adrian, and Jürgen Kähler. "Returns on Fundraising Expenditures in the Voluntary Sector." Nonprofit Management and Leadership 10.1 (1999): 5-19. Print.

Sargeant, Adrian, and Lucy Woodliffe. "Gift Giving: An Interdisciplinary Review." International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing 12.4 (2007): 275-307. Print.

Sarker, Suprateek, Francis Lau, and Sundeep Sahay. "Building an Inductive Theory of Collaboration in Virtual Teams: An Adapted Grounded Theory Approach." Proceedings of the 33rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - Vol. 7. IEEE Computer Society, 2000. Print.

Sauer, Beverly A. The Rhetoric of Risk: Technical Documentation in Hazardous Environments. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2003. Print.

Savage, Cynthia. ―Folklore 101.‖ Inside the Classroom (and Out): How We Learn Through Folklore. Ed. Untiedt, Kenneth L. Denton, TX: UNT P, 2005. 10-15. Print.

Schaffer, Deborah. "Just Say Yes! The Rhetoric of Charitable-Contribution Reply Forms." Journal of American & Comparative Cultures 25.3-4 (2002): 276-81. Print.

Schamber, Linda. "What Is a Document? Rethinking the Concept in Uneasy Times." Journal of the American Society for Information Science 47.9 (1996): 669-71. Print.

191

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

Schervish, Paul G. "Inclination, Obligation, and Association: What We Know and What We Need to Learn About Donor Motivation." Critical Issues in Fund Raising. Ed. Dwight F. Burlingame. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1997. 110-38. Print.

---. "Major Donors, Major Motives: The People and Purposes Behind Major Gifts." New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising: Developing Major Gifts (1997): 85-112. Print.

---. "The Material Horizons of Philanthropy: New Directions for Money and Motives." New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising 29 (2000): 5-17. Print.

---. The Modern Medici: Patterns, Motivations and Giving Strategies of the Wealthy: Boston College: Center on Wealth and Philanthropy, 2000. Print.

---. "The New Physics of Philanthropy: The Supply-Side Vectors of Charitable Giving, Part 2: The Spiritual Side of the Supply Side." The CASE International Journal of Educational Advancement 2.3 (2002): 221. Print.

---. "Philanthropy." Encyclopedia of Politics and Religion. Ed. Robert Wuthnow. Vol. I. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly. 600-03. Print.

---. "The Spiritual Horizons of Philanthropy: New Directions for Money and Motives." New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising. 29 (2000): 17-32. Print.

---. "Wherewithal and Beneficence: Charitable Giving by Income and Wealth." New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising: Cultures of Giving II: How Heritage, Gender, Wealth, and Values Influence Philanthropy. Summer (1995): 81-110. Print.

---. "Why Do People Give?" The Not-For-Profit CEO Monthly Newsletter 5.7 (1998): 1. Print.

Schervish, Paul G., John J. Havens and Platon E. Coutsoukis. Social Participation and Charitable Giving Revisited: Replication of a Multivariate Analysis. Presented at the 1998 annual meeting of the Association for Research on Nonprofit organizations and Voluntary Action, Seattle, Nov. 5-7, 1998. Print.

Schervish, Paul G., Platon E. Coutsoukis, and Ethan Lewis. Gospels of Wealth: How the Rich Portray Their Lives. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1994. Print.

192

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

Schervish, Paul G., John Havens, and Albert Keith Whitaker. "Philanthropy's Indispensable Ally." Philanthropy 19.3 (2005): 8. Print.

Schervish, Paul G., and John J. Havens. "Social Participation and Charitable Giving: A Multivariate Analysis." Voluntas 8.3 (1997): 235-60. Print.

Schervish, Paul G., Patrick Rooney, and Kathryn Steinberg. "Methodology Is Destiny: The Effect of Survey Prompts on Reported Levels of Giving and Volunteering." Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 33.4 (2004): 628-54. Print.

Schervish, Paul G. and John J. Havens. "The New Physics of Philanthropy: The Supply-Side Vectors of Charitable Giving." The CASE International Journal of Educational Advancement 2.2 (2001): 95. Print.

Scheuren, Fritz. What Is a Survey? 2004. Web. 13 Nov. 2009.

Schiappa, Edward. "Second Thoughts on the Critiques of Big Rhetoric." Philosophy and Rhetoric 34.3 (2001): 260-74. Print.

Schmidt, William C. "World-Wide Web Survey Research: Benefits, Potential Problems, and Solutions." Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers 29.2 (1997): 274. Print.

Schneider, Barbara. "Ethical Research and Pedagogical Gaps." College Composition and Communication 58.1 (2006): 70-88. Print.

Schryer, Catherine F. "Genre and Power: A Chronotopic Analysis." The Rhetoric and Ideology of Genre: Strategies for Stability and Change. Eds. Richard M. Coe, Lorelei Lingard and Tatiana Teslenko. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton, 2002. 73-100. Print.

Selber, Stuart A. "Beyond Skill Building: Challenges Facing Technical Communication Teachers in the Computer Age." Central Works of Technical Communication. Eds. Johndan Johnson-Eilola and Stuart A. Selber. NY: Oxford UP, 2004. 449-65. Print.

Selzer, Jack. "The Composing Processes of an Engineer." Central Works in Technical Communication. Eds. Johndan Johnson-Eiloa and Stuart A. Selber. NY: Oxford UP, 2004. 317-24. Print.

193

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

---. "Rhetorical Analysis: Understanding How Texts Persuade Readers." What Writing Does and How It Does It: An Introduction to Analyzing Texts and Textual Practices. Eds. Charles Bazerman and Paul Prior. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2004. 279-308. Print.

Sharpe, Alan. "Moves Management Key to Major Gift Fundraising." Sharpe Tips (2009). Ed. Sharpe, Alan. Web. 19 Jul. 2011.

Sharpe, Alan. "Major Gift Fundraising Program Lessons." fund$raising cyberzine (2010). Ed. III, Daeane R. Brengle. Belding, MI. Web. 19 Jul. 2011.

Sheppard, Blair H., Jon Hartwick, and Paul R. Warshaw. "The Theory of Reasoned Action: A Meta-Analysis of Past Research with Recommendations for Modifications and Future Research." Journal of Consumer Research 15.3 (1988): 325. Print.

Shotter, John. Cultural Politics of Everyday Life: Social Constructionism, Rhetoric and Knowing of the Third Kind. Buffalo: U Toronto P, 1993. Print.

Sims, Brenda R. "Linking Ethics and Language in the Technical Communication Classroom." Technical Communication Quarterly 2.3 (1993): 285-99. Print.

Slack, Jennifer D., David J. Miller, and Jeffrey Doak. "The Technical Communicator as Author." Central Works of Technical Communication. Eds. Johndan Johnson-Eilola and Stuart A. Selber. NY: Oxford UP, 2004. 160-74. Print.

Smart, Graham. "Genre as Community Invention a Central Banks' Response to Its Executives' Expectations as Readers." Writing in the Workplace New Research Perspectives. Ed. Rachel Spilka. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1998. 124- 40. Print.

Scott, Linda M. "Images in Advertising: The Need for a Theory of Visual Rhetoric." The Journal of Consumer Research 21.2 (1994): 252-73. Print.

Sparks, John R., and Charles S. Areni. "The Effects of Sales Presentation Quality and Initial Perceptions on Persuasion: A Multiple Role Perspective." Journal of Business Research 55.6 (2002): 517-28. Print.

Spears, Lee A. "Persuasive Techniques Used in Fundraising Messages." Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 32.3 (2002): 245. Print.

Spinuzzi, Clay. "Investigating the Technology-Work Relationship: A Critical Comparison of Three Qualitative Field Methods." Proceedings of IEEE

194

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

professional communication society international professional communication conference and Proceedings of the 18th annual ACM international conference on Computer documentation: technology \& teamwork. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE Educational Activities Department, 2000. Print.

---. "The Methodology of Participatory Design." Technical Communication Quarterly 52.2 (2005): 163-75. Print.

---. Tracing Genres through Organizations: A Sociocultural Approach to Information Design. Princeton, NJ: MIT P, 2003. Print.

St. Amant, Kirk "A Prototype Theory Approach to International Website Analysis and Design." Technical Communication Quarterly 14.1 (2005): 73-91. Print.

St. John, Edward P., and Michael D. Parsons. Public Funding of Higher Education: Changing Contexts and New Rationales. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 2004. Print.

Steinmann, Martin, Jr. "Rhetorical Research." College English 27.4 (1966): 278-85. Print.

Stivers, Camilla. "Reflections on the Role of Personal Narrative in Social Science." Signs 18.2 (1993): 408-25. Print.

Strelka, Joseph. Theories of Literary Genre. Yearbook of Comparative Criticism. Vol. 8. University Park: Pennsylvania State UP, 1978. Print.

Sudman, Seymour, and Norman M. Bradburn. Asking Questions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1982. Print.

Sullivan, Dale L. "Political-Ethical Implications of Defining Technical Communication as a Practice." Central Works of Technical Communication. Eds. Johndan Johnson-Eilola and Stuart A. Selber. NY: Oxford UP, 2004. 211- 19. Print.

Sullivan, Dale L., and Michael S. Martin. "Habit Formation and Story Telling: A Theory for Guiding Ethical Action." Technical Communication Quarterly 10.3 (2001): 251-72. Print.

195

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

Sullivan, Patricia, and James E. Porter, eds. On Theory, Practice, and Method: Toward a Heuristic Research Methodology for Professional Writing. NY: Oxford UP, 2004. Print.

Sutton, Dianna L. "Debunking the Myths in Fundraising Lore." Keysnews.com. Web, 19 Jul. 2011.

Swales, John M. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. The Cambridge Applied Linguistics Series. NY: Cambridge UP, 1990. Print.

Tardy, Christine M. "A Genre System View of the Funding of Academic Research." Written Communication 20.1 (2003): 7-36. Print.

Taylor, Martha A. "Women Development Officers: Finding Success and Satisfaction in a Career of Service." New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising 1998.19 (1998): 7-26. Print.

Tempel, Eugene R., and Indiana University Center on Philanthropy. Understanding Donor Dynamics: The Organizational Side of Charitable Giving. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2002. Print.

Tempel, Eugene R., Dwight Burlingame, and Indiana University Center on Philanthropy. Understanding the Needs of Donors: The Supply Side of Charitable Giving. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2001. Print.

Thralls, Charlotte, and Nancy Roundy Blyler. "The Social Perspective and Professional Communication." Central Works in Technical Communication. Eds. Johndan Johnson-Eilola and Stuart A. Selber. NY: Oxford UP, 2004. 124- 45. Print.

Tolman, Deborah L., and Mary Brydon-Miller. From Subjects to Subjectivities: A Handbook of Interpretive and Participatory Methods. Qualitative Studies in Psychology. NY: NY UP, 2001. Print.

Trees, April R., and Jody Koenig Kellas. "Telling Tales: Enacting Family Relationships in Joint Storytelling About Difficult Family Experiences." Western Journal of Communication 73.1 (2009): 91-111. Print.

Untiedt, Kenneth L. Ed. Folklore: In All of Us, in All We Do. Denton, TX: UNT P, 2006. Print. van Nostrand, Innes "A Quantitative Model for Evaluating Advancement Effectiveness." The CASE International Journal of Educational Advancement 4.2 (2003): 13. Print.

196

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

Van Til, Jon. Critical Issues in American Philanthropy: Strengthening Theory and Practice. The Jossey-Bass Nonprofit Sector Series. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass, 1990. Print.

Vergaro, Carla. "Discourse Strategies of Italian and English Sales Promotion Letters." English for Specific Purposes 23.2 (2004): 181-207. Print.

Wagner, Lilya, et al. Reprising Timeless Topics. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2005. Print.

Warwick, Mal, Ted Hart, and Nick Allen, eds. Fundraising on the Internet: The Ephilanthropyfoundation.Org Guide to Success Online. 2nd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2002. Print.

Waters, Richard D. "Applying Relationship Management Theory to Fundraising Process for Individual Donors." Journal of Communication Management 12.1 (2008): 73-87. Print.

Watt, James H., and Sjef A. van den Berg. Research Methods for Communication Science. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1995. Print.

Weisberg, Herbert F., Jon A. Krosnick, and Bruce D. Bowen. An Introduction to Survey Research, Polling, and Data Analysis. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1996. Print.

Wertsch, James V. Voices of the Mind: A Sociocultural Approach to Mediated Action. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1991. Print.

Winter, Paul A., and Eric W. Wright. "Vice President of Development Recruitment: The Effect of Applicant Institution Type." The CASE International Journal of Educational Advancement 4.2 (2003): 179-90. Print.

Winterowd, W. Ross. The English Department: A Personal and Institutional History. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois U P, 1998. Print.

Wollman-Bonilla, J. E. "Does Anybody Really Care? Research and Its Impact on Practice." Research in the Teaching of English 36 (2002): 311-26. Print.

Wolpert, Julian. "The Demographics of Giving Patterns." Critical Issues in Fund Raising. Ed. Dwight Burlingame. NY: Wiley, 1997. 75-80. Print.

Wuthnow, Robert. The Encyclopedia of Politics and Religion. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, 1998. Print.

197

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

Yates, Joanne, and Wanda J. Orlikowski. "Genres of Organizational Communication: A Structurational Approach to Studying Communication and Media." Academy of Management Review 17.2 (1992): 299-326. Print.

Yin, Robert K., Peter G. Bateman, and Gwendolyn B. Moore. "Case Studies and Organizational Innovation: Strengthening the Connection." Science Communication 6.3 (1985): 249-60. Print.

Zimmerman, Eugenia N. "On Definition and Rhetorical Genre" Genre and the New Rhetoric. Eds. Aviva Freedman and Peter Medway. Bristol, PA: Taylor & Francis, 1994. 125-32. Print.

198

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

APPENDIX A

IRB EXEMPTION

199

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

200

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

APPENDIX B

OBSERVATION SCRIPTS

Script to invite MG fundraiser participants I am writing a doctoral dissertation, under the direction of Dr. Sean Zdenek, who serves as the principle investigator. My research explores the rhetorical practices of fundraisers and the role of persuasion (i.e. what we as fundraisers actually say during face-to-face visits with donors). There is a lot of anecdotal evidence about the rhetorical practices of major gift fundraisers with donors, but there is no empirical evidence to confirm or reveal what actually takes place. Knowing what we as fundraisers actually do rhetorically is important if are to continue to shape the practice of major gift fundraising.

What I would like to do is observe the interaction of major gift fundraisers with donors to examine the actual rhetorical practices and see if a genre or pattern emerges. I am hoping that you will be a research participant and allow me to observe you interacting with a major gift donor. The major gift donor will be chosen by you. The information obtained from my observation will only be used for this research project and all participants will remain anonymous.

You and I will decide on the donor you will visit and I will observe. You will schedule an appointment at your convenience. When you make the appointment, you will ask the donor if s/he is willing to participate in the observation. I will provide you a script for inviting the donor to participate. Upon arrival at the donor visit, you will introduce me and I will briefly inform the donor of my research and her/his role during the observation. I will assure the donor that the information will only be used for the research project and that participants will remain anonymous. I will then ask permission to audio record the session for later playback and coding. I will then get her/his verbal consent and you will begin your visit. At the end of the visit, I would like to ask one or two clarifying questions but will leave it up to you to decide whether to allow them. I will then ask both of you for permission to contact you later if I have any follow-up questions. At that point I will end the recording and follow your direction.

Please know that I fully understand that you own the relationship with this important donor prospect. Therefore, you are in control at all times and I will follow your lead. Participation is voluntary and refusal to participate will not result in any penalty or loss. You may discontinue participation at any time without penalty or loss.

201

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

Dr. Zdenek or I will answer any questions you have about the study. For questions about your rights as a participant or regarding any issues you may have as a participant, you may contact the Texas Tech University Institutional Review Board for the Protection of Human Subjects, Office of Research Services, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas 79409. Or you can call (806) 742-3884.

Script for fundraiser to use to invite donor participant After the fundraiser’s business conversation with the donor, s/he can invite the donor to participate.

I am participating in a research project with a fundraiser who is writing a doctoral dissertation. His name is Todd Rasberry and he has been a fundraiser for fifteen years. He is exploring the role of persuasion in the fundraiser and donor relations. The best way to do that is for him to actually observe fundraisers and donors together. I have agreed to be a fundraiser participant, and I was wondering if you would be willing to participate by allowing Todd to accompany me on the visit?

He will simply sit and observe. He would like to audio record the visit, if you are agreeable. The information will only be used for this research project and all participants will remain anonymous. The research has the potential to help us better understand the fundraiser/donor relationship, as well as shape best practices.

Participation is voluntary and refusal to participate will not result in any penalty or loss. You may discontinue participation at any time without penalty or loss. Dr. Zdenek or I will answer any questions you have about the study. For questions about your rights as a participant or regarding any issues you may have as a participant, you may contact the Texas Tech University Institutional Review Board for the Protection of Human Subjects, Office of Research Services, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas 79409. Or you can call (806) 742-3884.

Script to be read at the beginning of observation visit to introduce study and obtain donor permission to record the visit Thank you for agreeing to participate in the observation. I am writing a doctoral dissertation, under the direction of Dr. Sean Zdenek, who serves as the principle investigator. My research explores the rhetorical practices of fundraisers and the role of persuasion (i.e. what we as fundraisers actually say during face-to-face visits with donors). There is a lot of anecdotal evidence about the rhetorical practices of major gift fundraisers with donors, but there is no empirical evidence to confirm or reveal what actually takes place. Knowing what we as fundraisers actually do rhetorically is important if are to continue to shape the practice of major gift fundraising.

202

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

What I would like to do today is simply sit back and be as inconspicuous as possible and let the two of you simply do what you would normally do. I will take a few notes. Participation is voluntary and refusal to participate will not result in any penalty or loss. You may discontinue participation at any time without penalty or loss. Dr. Zdenek, my dissertation chair, or I will answer any questions you have about the study. For questions about your rights as a participant or regarding any issues you may have as a participant, you may contact the Texas Tech University Institutional Review Board for the Protection of Human Subjects, Office of Research Services, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas 79409. Or you can call (806) 742-3884. Do you have any questions?

Are you willing to participate? With your permission, I would like to audio record for later playback and coding. The information will only be used for this research project and all participants will remain anonymous. May I audio record the session?

Begin audio recording the observation if permission is granted:

Script for conclusion of observation visit to obtain permission to ask follow-up questions At the end of the observation I will ask the fundraiser’s permission before asking any clarifying questions at that time.

May I ask both of you for permission to contact you later, either via e-mail or phone, if I have any follow-up questions?

Thank you.

203

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

APPENDIX C

FUNDRAISER INTERVIEW INFORMATION

Script for inviting fundraisers to participate in an oral interview I am writing a doctoral dissertation, under the direction of Dr. Sean Zdenek, who serves as the principle investigator. My research explores the rhetorical practices of fundraisers and the role of persuasion (i.e. what we as fundraisers actually say during face-to-face visits with donors). There is a lot of anecdotal evidence about the rhetorical practices of major gift fundraisers with donors, but there is no empirical evidence to confirm or reveal what actually takes place. Knowing what we as fundraisers actually do rhetorically is important if are to continue to shape and improve the practice of major gift fundraising.

Participation is voluntary and refusal to participate will not result in any penalty or loss. You may discontinue participation at any time without penalty or loss. Dr. Zdenek, my dissertation chair, or I will answer any questions you have about the study. For questions about your rights as a participant or regarding any issues you may have as a participant, you may contact the Texas Tech University Institutional Review Board for the Protection of Human Subjects, Office of Research Services, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas 79409. Or you can call (806) 742-3884. Do you have any questions?

Are you willing to participate in a 45 to 60 minute oral interview? If the person answers yes, I will begin the interview questions.

Fundraiser interview questions Interview #______Audio Recorded ______Date:______Start Time ______Location ______Fundraiser ______

Introduction: Thank you for agreeing to participate in my research by allowing me to conduct this interview. I am working on a research project that explores the rhetorical practices of fundraisers (i.e. what they say during face-to-face visits with donors).

204

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011 question that is not clear, please feel free to ask me to clarify. If there are any questions you prefer not to answer, you may simply tell me and I will move on. Your answers to the questions will remain anonymous and will only be used for the purpose of this research project. Your willingness to sit down with me and be interviewed serves as your consent. Your willingness to sit down with me and be interviewed serves as your consent.

May I audio record our interview for the purpose of creating a transcript of the interview for data analysis? (Begin recording if permission is granted.)

Let‘s begin. 1) If you can recall, describe for me how you wound up in the Advancement profession? 2) How long have you been working in the Advancement profession? 3) What is your current job title and how did you get your current job? 4) How long have you been in this position? 5) How many years of experience would you say you have in actually asking a donor for a major gift ($15,000 or more) in a face-to-face visit? 6) Describe your purpose for visiting a donor face-to-face. 7) Describe for me how you learned the techniques you use to ask a potential donor for a gift. 8) In as much detail as possible, describe for me the words you use when you ask a potential donor to make a gift? 9) Thinking about your last face-to-face visit with a donor, describe the visit. (purpose, setting, how the visit was arranged, what actually took place) 10) Thinking about that same visit, were you able to accomplish what you intended to accomplish? How do you know? 11) Thinking about that same visit, describe for me anything you remember that happened (or was said) that guided you to take a particular direction in the conversation? Let me change the line of questions for a moment. 12) Share with me what you think is the most important thing(s) a fundraiser should communicate to a potential donor during a face-to-face visit? 13) Define for me, in your own words, the phrase, ―the ask.‖ 14) Do you persuade potential donors to make a gift? 15) Describe for me what you think about the term persuasion when you hear it?

205

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

16) Let me show you a definition of persuasion from the dictionary (provide a card with the following definition: Persuasion is the act of inducing attitude changes and influencing a target market to action, by appealing to reason or emotion.). Given that definition of persuasion, do fundraisers persuade donors to make a gift? 17) What do you think would be the best way for fundraisers to learn how to ask a donor for a gift? 18) What is the best piece of advice another fundraising professional has shared with you about the fundraising profession? 19) Is there anything you would like to tell me about your fundraising experiences before we conclude our interview?

Thank you for your time and for the rich information you shared. Again, you will remain anonymous in the research findings. In closing let me ask, would be willing for me to contact you via telephone if I have clarifying questions that arise during my combing over the data of our interview?

End Time ______;

206

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

DONOR INTERVIEW INFORMATION

Script for inviting donors to participate in an oral interview I am writing a doctoral dissertation, under the direction of Dr. Sean Zdenek, who serves as the principle investigator. My research explores the rhetorical practices of fundraisers and the role of persuasion (i.e. what we as fundraisers actually say during face-to-face visits with donors). There is a lot of anecdotal evidence about the rhetorical practices of major gift fundraisers with donors, but there is no empirical evidence to confirm or reveal what actually takes place. Knowing what we as fundraisers actually do rhetorically is important if are to continue to shape and improve the practice of major gift fundraising.

Are you willing to participate in a 45 to 60 minute oral interview? If the person answers yes, I will begin the interview questions.

Donor interview questions Interview #______Audio Recorded ______Date:______Start Time ______Location ______Donor ______

What I would like to do is ask you some questions and have you simply answer them. There are no right or wrong answers. To ensure that I understand what you have said, I may summarize what I heard you say and ask you to elaborate. Likewise, if I ask a question that is not clear, please feel free to ask me to clarify. If there are any questions you prefer not to answer, you may simply tell me and I will move on. 207

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

Your answers to the questions will remain anonymous and will only be used for the purpose of this research project. Your willingness to sit down with me and be interviewed serves as your consent.

May I audio record our interview for the purpose of creating a transcript of the interview for data analysis? (Begin recording if permission is granted.)

Let‘s begin. 1) What things do you usually consider before you make a philanthropic gift? 2) Has a fundraiser ever visited you face-to-face? 3) Do you recall the last major gift (of $15,000 or more) you gave to a nonprofit or charity? Please describe the purpose of the gift. Did a fundraiser solicit the gift during a face-to-face visit? Would you be willing to share the amount of that gift? Recall for me as many reason(s) as you can for making that gift. 4) Thinking about that visit (or a time when a fundraiser visited you), describe for me what you remember about the visit. 5) Do you recall if the fundraiser asked you for a gift during the visit? If so, can you describe for me, to the best of your ability, how the fundraiser phrased the words to ask you for a gift? 6) Do you recall how many times the fundraiser visited you before s/he asked you for a gift? Let me change the line of questioning for a moment. 7) Why do you think the fundraisers wanted to visit you face-to-face? 8) What do you think is the most important thing a fundraiser can/should communicate with a donor during a face-to-face visit? 9) Do you believe fundraisers persuade donors to make a gift? 10) Let me show you a definition of persuasion from the dictionary (provide a card with the following definition: Persuasion is the act of inducing attitude changes and influencing a target market to action, by appealing to reason or emotion.). Given that definition of persuasion, do fundraisers persuade donors to make a gift? 11) How do you think fundraisers learn to ask a potential donor for a financial gift? 12) If you could give any advice to fundraisers who make face-to-face visits with donors, what would that be? 13) Is there anything you would like to tell me about your philanthropic experiences before we conclude our interview?

208

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

Stop Time ______;

209

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

APPENDIX D

FUNDRAISER SURVEY MATERIAL

Fundraiser flyer invitation to participate in an online survey

Be part of the future of fundraising! Take a fundraiser survey to help with a doctoral dissertation!

It only takes a few minutes.

Let your opinion and experience shape the future of fundraising.

Invite your colleagues to participate.

210

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

Survey methods fundraiser e-mail invitation to participate in an online survey

SUBJECT: Todd Rasberry asks, "Will you help with my dissertation research? Take a brief donor survey."

BODY: [CUSTOM-FIELD1], Will you help me with my doctoral dissertation research by taking a donor survey? It only takes approximately ten minutes to complete. Let your opinion and experience shape the future of fundraising.

Thank you, Todd Rasberry, Researcher

[SURVEY-LINK]

Fundraiser survey

A Fundraiser's Perspective of the Donor-Fundraiser Relationship INTRODUCTION: This survey is being conducted to study the perceptions of fundraisers regarding the donor-fundraiser relationship and the rhetorical practices of fundraisers. This survey is part of an extensive research study being conducted for a doctoral dissertation. All information gathered is anonymous and will be kept confidential.

Completing the survey assumes the respondent agrees to participate.

Thank you for participating and for helping to better understanding the practice of fundraising. Dr. Sean Zdenek, Principle Investigator Todd W. Rasberry, Researcher 214-484-3296

For questions about your rights as a participant or regarding any issues you may have as a participant, you may contact the Texas Tech University Institutional Review Board for the Protection of Human Subjects, Office of Research Services, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas 79409. Or you can call (806) 742-3884.

Page 1 - Section 1 of 4

1. What is your current job title?

211

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

2. Which of the following job responsibilities does your current job description include? (Check all that apply.)

If other, please specify Administration Advancement Services Annual Giving Alumni Relations Development Direct Mail Major Gift Solicitation Public Relations

3. In your current position, are you classified as a fundraiser?

Yes No (Skip Logic: If response is equal to NO; goto page 7)

Page 2 - Untitled

4. Thinking about your current job description, what dollar amount is considered a major gift?

Page 3 - Untitled 5. How many years of experience do you have as a professional fundraiser?

--Please Select— 6. How many years have you been in your current fundraising position?

--Please Select— QUESTIONS 5 & 6 Selections: less than 1 year 1 - 4 years 5 - 10 years 11 - 15 years 16 - 20 years 21 - 25 years 26 - 30 years

212

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011 more than 30 years 7. In your current fundraising position, do you make face-to-face visits with potential major gift donor prospects to solicit gifts of $15,000 or more? Yes No (Skip Logic: If response is equal to NO; goto page 7)

Page 4 – Section 2 of 4 8. Thinking about your current job description, approximately how man face-to-face visits with donor prospects are you expected to make a month? --Please Select— 9. Thinking about your current practice, on average how many face-to-face visits are you actually able to make a month? --Please Select-- QUESTIONS 8 - 9 Selections:

1 to 5 6 to 10 11 to 15 16 to 20 21 to 25 26 to 30 more than 30 10. What are the top three things that currently make it difficult for you to go on face- to-face visits with donor prospects? Page 5 - Untitled

11. Thinking about the last gift of $15,000 or more you can recall soliciting during a face-to-face visit, what was the amount of the gift for which you asked? (Do not use ―$‖ ―,‖ or ―.‖ And round up to the nearest dollar.) 12. Thinking about the last gift of $15,000 or more you can recall soliciting during a face-to-face visit, as accurately as possible write the words you used to phrase the ―ask.‖

213

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

13. Thinking about the last gift of $15,000 or more you can recall soliciting during a face-to-face visit, approximately how long did the visit last from start to finish?

-- Please select –

QUESTION 13 Selections:

10 to 20 minutes

20 to 30 minutes

30 to 40 minutes

40 to 50 minutes

50 to 60 minutes

More than an hour

14. List the ways you learned to ask a potential donor for a gift?

Page 6 – Untitled

15. On average, approximately how many hours a week do you spend on the phone with donors and donor prospects? (Include any and all types of phone calls.) 16. On average, approximately how many hours a week do you spend writing correspondence to donors? (Include all types of correspondence: e-mails, letters, notes, etc.) --Please Select— QUESTIONS 15 - 16 Selections:

0 to 4 hours 5 to 9 hours 10 to 14 hours 15 to 19 hours 20 to 24 hours 25 hours or more 17. Do you personally, as a fundraiser, send more paper or e-mail correspondence to your donors?

214

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

--Please Select— QUESTIONS 17 Selections:

I personally send more paper correspondence to my donors. I personally send more electronic correspondence to my donors. I send about the same amount of paper and electronic correspondence to my donors. 18. Thinking about the last e-mail correspondence you recall sending to a donor, what was the purpose(s) of that e-mail? (Check all that apply.) To set an appointment To thank the donor for a gift To thank the donor for allowing me to visit (either by phone or in person) To provide information to a donor as part of my follow-up To answer a donor‘s question To invite the donor to something To ask the donor a question To chat or touch base with the donor To negotiate with the donor To solicit the donor for a gift If other, please specify Page 7 - Section 3 of 4

19. During your fundraising career, has anyone ever passed along to you "rules of thumb" or "sage advice" or "lore/beliefs" about fundraising?

Yes No (Skip Logic: If response is equal to NO; goto page 10) Page 8 - Untitled

20. Thinking about the last person you recall sharing with you ―rules of thumb‖ or ―sage advice‖ or ―lore/beliefs‖ about fundraising, what was your relationship with the person(s) at the time? 21. What are some fundraising "rules of thumb" or "sage advice" or "lore/beliefs" that you can recall having heard/learned during your fundraising career?

215

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

22. Have you ever passed along to another fundraiser any of the fundraising advice you listed above?

Yes No 23. In your opinion, do fundraising "rules of thumb" or "sage advice" or "lore/beliefs" assist fundraisers in doing their job?

Yes No (Skip Logic: If response is equal to NO; goto page 10) Page 9 - Untitled

24. In your opinion, how do fundraising ―rules of thumb‖ or ―sage advice‖ or ―lore/beliefs‖ assist fundraisers in doing their job? Page 10 - Untitled

25. In your opinion, do fundraisers persuade donors to give?

Yes No 26. How do you define the term ―persuasion?‖ 27. In your opinion, what is the most important role(s) of a fundraiser in the fundraiser-donor relationship? 28. In your opinion, what is the most important factor(s) that motivates a potential donor to make a gift? Page 11 - Section 4 of 4

29. What is your age at the time of filling out this survey? 30. What is your Gender?

Female Male

If other, please specify 31. What is your race/ethnicity?

African American Asian Caucasian Hispanic

216

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

Native American If other, please specify Page 12 - Untitled

31. Did you have an occupation before entering the fundraising profession?

Yes No (Skip Logic: If response is equal to NO; goto page 14) Page 13 - Untitled

32. What was your occupation before becoming entering the fundraising profession? Page 14 - Untitled

33. Would you be willing to participate in a thirty-minute oral interview, conducted via telephone by the student writing the dissertation, to elaborate on answers to questions in this survey? (NOTE: Interview participants will remain anonymous in all published data and presentations related to this research.)

Yes No (Skip Logic: If response is equal to NO; goto END OF SURVEY) Page 15 - Untitled

34. Please provide your name in the space below so you may possibly be contacted to participate in a brief oral interview. 35. Please provide an e-mail address in the space below so you may possibly be contacted to participate in a brief oral interview. 36. Please provide a contact telephone number in the space below so you may possibly be contacted to participate in a brief oral interview.

Thank you for taking time to participate and share your opinions and experience!

Your input will lend to better understanding the rhetorical practices of fundraisers. Respectfully, Todd W. Rasberry, Researcher

217

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

DONOR SURVEY MATERIAL

Donor flyer invitation to participate in an online survey

Be part of the future of fundraising!

Participate in a research survey on fundraising as part of a doctoral dissertation!

It only takes a few minutes.

Let your opinion and experience shape the future of fundraising.

Invite others to participate.

218

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

Survey methods e-mail fundraiser invitation to participate in an online survey

SUBJECT: Todd Rasberry asks, "Will you help with my dissertation research by take a brief fundraiser survey?"

BODY: [CUSTOM-FIELD2], Be part of the future of fundraising. Take the fundraiser survey to help with a doctoral dissertation. It only takes a few minutes! Let your opinion and experience shape the future of fundraising. Thank you, Todd W. Rasberry, Researcher

[SURVEY-LINK]

Donor survey A Donor's Perspective of the Donor-Fundraiser Relationship INTRODUCTION: This survey is being conducted to study the perceptions of donors regarding the donor-fundraiser relationship and the rhetorical practices used by fundraisers. This survey is part of an extensive research study being conducted for a doctoral dissertation. All information gathered is anonymous and will be kept confidential.

Completing the survey assumes the respondent agrees to participate.

Thank you for participating and for helping to better understanding the practice of fundraising.

Dr. Sean Zdenek, Principle Investigator Todd W. Rasberry, Researcher 214-484-3296

Page 1 - Section 1 of 3

219

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

1. Has a professional fundraiser ever come to your home, office, or other arranged location to visit you one-on-one and face-to-face?

Yes No

(Skip Logic: If response is equal to NO, goto page 3)

Page 2 - Untitled

2. Approximately how many times has a professional fundraiser visited you face-to- face at your home, office, or other arranged location? 3. In your opinion, do fundraisers persuade potential donors to make a gift?

Yes No

Page 3 - Untitled

4. Persuasion is the act of inducing attitude changes and influencing a target market to action, by appealing to reason or emotion. Given this definition of persuasion, do fundraiser persuade donor to make a gift? Yes No

Page 4 - Untitled

5. Have you ever given or pledged a single gift of $15,000 or more to a college/university or charity/nonprofit? Yes No (Skip Logic: If response is equal to NO; goto page 9)

Page 5 - Untitled

6. Please list the name(s) or type(s) of organization(s) to which you made a gift or pledge of $15,000 or more.

Page 6 - Untitled

7. What was the approximate month and year of your last gift or pledge of $15,000 or more to a college/university or charity/nonprofit? 8. Thinking about your last gift or pledge of $15,000 or more to a college/university or charity/nonprofit, what factor(s) motivated you to make the gift?

Page 7 - Untitled

220

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

9. Thinking about your last gift or pledge of $15,000 or more to a college/university or charity/nonprofit, did a fundraiser's visit influence your decision to make the gift? Yes No (Skip Logic: If response is equal to NO; goto page 9) Page 8 - Untitled

10. What did the fundraiser say that influenced your decision to make the gift?

Page 9 - Section 2 of 3

11. In your opinion, what is the most important thing a fundraiser can say to a potential donor to influence the donor's decision to make a gift? 12. If you could advise fundraising professionals, what advice would you give fundraisers who make face-to face visits with potential donors? 13. How do you think fundraisers learn to ask a potential donor for money?

Page 10 - Section 3 of 3

14. What is your age at the time of taking this survey? 15. What is your gender?

Female Male

If other, please specify 16. What is your race/ethnicity?

African American Asian Caucasian Hispanic Native American If other, please specify Page 11 - Untitled

16. Would you be willing to participate in a thirty-minute oral interview, conducted via telephone by the student writing the dissertation, to elaborate on answers to questions in this survey? (NOTE: Interview participants will remain anonymous in all published data and presentations related to this research.)

221

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

Yes No (Skip Logic: If response is equal to NO; goto END OF SURVEY)

Page 12 - Untitled

17. Please provide your name in the space below so you may be contacted for a possible oral interview. 18. Please provide your e-mail address in the space below so that you may be contacted to schedule a possible oral interview. 19. Please provide a contact phone number in the space below so you may be contacted to schedule a possible oral interview.

Thank you for taking time to participate and share your opinions and experience!

Your input will lend to better understanding the rhetorical practices of fundraisers. Respectfully, Todd W. Rasberry, Researcher

222

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

APPENDIX E

COMPILED LIST OF FUNDRAISING LORE To be a successful asker you must first be a giver.

You‘ve got to spend money to raise money.

People give to people.

Goal of fundraising is to match institution‘s needs with individual‘s interests.

It‘s the ―other‖ Golden Rule: He who has the gold makes the rules. (The other golden rule refers to a donor giving where they want, athletics, academics, etc.)

There are only 2 kinds of people, those who give and those who don‘t.

―No‖ simply means ―not now.‖

There is no replacement for good prospect research. The best prospect research comes from a prospect.

Not everyone is a prospect, but everyone is a suspect.

The best prospect is a current/past donor.

It is never too late to say thank you.

You can never say thank you too much.

Fundraising is not just about raising money, but building a relationship.

Honesty and Integrity: ―Do what you say and say what you do!‖

Development officers are facilitators. While we work for and our allegiance is to our institution; we often play the role of advocate for the donor when appropriate.

Fundraisers make the donors feel GOOD about giving away their money!

The number of zeros in the gift determines the number of visits necessary with the donor.

There is no magic in fundraising.

223

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

Fundraisers don‘t talk people into giving money, but they can talk them out of giving money.

If you do the things that work enough times, you will raise money.

Fundraisers don‘t want one gift from a donor, but a lifetime of gifts.

Face-to-face visits are the most effective methods of soliciting a gift. (You can‘t milk a cow over the phone.)

224

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

APPENDIX F

ACTUAL LORE FUNDRAISERS ARE SHARING

“Rules of thumb” or “sage advice” or “lore/beliefs” fundraisers reported having heard/learned during your fundraising career

Code Title # of coded Respondent Responses to question #21 responses (duplicates deleted) Be honest 23  Be direct.  Be honest/believable.  Be professional.  Be Honest.  Be Bold.  People give to people (especially ones they trust).  Do not force it.  Be yourself and be sincere.  You have to be HONEST-- always--Even if you don't have the best news about your organization, or interest rates on their investment, or whatever—you have to be HONEST about it.  Make them feel that you are not just a "fundraiser," but a friend and confidant that they can trust.  Don't hide that you are a fundraiser, because if they think you're not and you ask for money, then they will be curious at least, betrayed and angry at worst.  Ask the way you'd like to be asked to do something important.  Be yourself.  Have integrity.  Understand the institution you represent.  You only get one chance at integrity, so always be honest with the donor.  Panic, fear or luck are not fundraising strategies.

225

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

 Never stay beyond requested time unless donor asks you to.  Put yourself in the donor's shoes.  Honesty is the best policy.  Be genuine.  Be trustworthy. Nurture a 21  Relationships are key. relationship  Take time to nurture a relationship.  People give to people. It's my job to inspire and nurture that relationship in order to get a gift.  First, it is about the relationship--have to have a knack for getting along well with people and knowing boundaries.  Keep things light hearted; use your sense of humor.  Build relationship first.  Fundraising is donor-driven.  Empathy is our most powerful tool as a fundraiser.  Don't forget to bring the doggie biscuits. Pinky loves them. (Pinky was the cherished pet of a widow. When we gave attention to Pinky, the donor cried with joy.)  Treat a donor the way you want to be treated.  Develop the relationship.  Develop personal relationships.  Relationship, relationship, relationships.  "People give to people" (build the relationship).  "Fundraising is all about relationships."  People give/donate to people, not to programs/projects.  Your oldest friends are your best friends.  Create the relationship first and the asking part will be the easy part.  Know when to separate the relationship from

226

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

friendship and work. Ask for a gift 17  Ask donors to help - they will give more if they are engaged and needed.  The number one reason that people don't give, they weren't asked.  You don't get if you don't ask.  Always talk money every donor visit.  People won't give unless asked.  Gifts must be gone after, they aren't just given.  Don't be afraid to ask. The donor is waiting for the question.  Never deprive a donor the opportunity to give.  After you ask, be quiet  Don't ask until you know what the answer will be, you know the person that well.  If the prospect pre-empts your ask, say thank you and tell them you are grateful for their gift, but you have practiced the ask and can you ask them anyway?  Ask and be silent.  "If you don't ask, they won't give."  You get what you don't ask for.  You're not going to get anything if you don't ask for it.  People don't give because they aren't asked. Practice makes perfect, keep trying, you'll get better (at asking). Visits add zeros to 15  The amount of "zero's" on your ask is related to the gift the number of visits.  It takes 7 contacts before someone will give a major gift.  The Chancellor used to say that it took 6-7 visits by different people at the university before the donor should be asked.  Never cold call an ask. Always touch a donor 7 times a year.

227

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

 Best advice: your goal in visit one is ONLY to get a second visit. The more they talk about themselves the more likely that will happen.  Impatience in process, patience in results.  Each visit adds a zero to amount of the gift.  Donors can usually give 7 times what they will send in on their own.  It takes 18 months to cultivate a major gift.  You can't ask on the first call.  Usually need to meet with donor three times before making an ask.  Major gifts require more hand-holding than do smaller annual gifts.  Do not ask too soon and/or for too little.  Broach the subject after one to three visits if possible.  It takes 18-24 months of cultivation to secure a gift. Listen to the donor 15  Listen to what the prospect/donor is saying.  Listen more than you speak when meeting with prospects and donors.  You have to be a good LISTENER, and always make the visit, ask, etc. about the DONOR and what they're passionate about.  Match donor to project and don't try to make donor gift fit one of your projects.  Be an athletic listener when you are with a donor/prospect.  Address issues that are important to the donor first.  The art of listening. Do your homework 14  Prospect tables. before the ask  Remember that there are lots of ways to give, not just cash -don't be afraid to talk about planned giving, you don't have to have a law degree to open the door for a planned gift.  Be disciplined in working your prospect

228

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

portfolio.  Establish specific objectives before every call.  Never allow a volunteer to ask for a gift without a University representative.  Moves management is vitally needed. Prospect management is vitally needed.  Research before you go, but do not let the research totally guide your conversation.  Do some homework for the big ask.  Giving pyramids.  Need at least 3 qualified prospects for every major gift.  10% of donors will make up 90% of campaign goal.  80/20 rule (20% of people give 80% of the total).  Always have a goal in mind for each visit.  One third of development production should be planned gifts. Get out the door and 13  Pick up the phone to set an appointment. visit someone Excessive research is a time-waster. (The organization had excellent capacity ratings on anyone I would call.)  Focus on getting out-the-door. Everything else is not as important.  High call volume, good things happen when you meet lots of people FTF.  Don‘t get lost/stuck doing other "STUFF", FTF visits are number one.  See enough people.  Make as many calls (visits) as possible.  Don't wait until you have all the information before you make the call; you never have all the information.  Personal visits are the key to getting major gifts.  Identify ways to further engage the donor after the call. Stay in touch - never let too much time pass before contacting the donor again.

229

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

 Fundraising is like life insurance sales - the more you are in front of people, the more likely you are to succeed in hitting goals.  You can't milk a cow from a distance, you have to go see it, have a conversation, and ask!  Success in fundraising is all about the number of contacts.  Persistence is essential to fundraising success. Say ―thank you‖ 12  Stay in touch with a donor after a gift.  Always thank them at least 7 times.  You can never say thank you enough.  Maybe more important than all, is always THANKING your donors--w/notes, donor- centered events, emails, etc. You'll never get a second gift if you don't thank properly.  Thank you notes sent within 24 hours of a gift.  Always write a thank you note after a visit,  "People want to know how we are stewarding their money."  Start out your conversation with thanking the donor for past gifts.  Follow up in writing to thank them for the contact. Engage the donor 11  Ask probing (but not intrusive) questions.  Ask them what they like and feel strongest about.  Ask the right questions.  Make the visit, ask, etc. about the DONOR and what they're passionate about.  Engage donors with things in which they are interested in the course of a visit.  Get them talking about themselves. Look for clues in their home or office that you can use to ask questions. Let them steer the conversation the first visit.  Always have 2-4 questions that will transition you from the info gathering to fundraising status

230

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

of the call.  Ask questions that reveal the donors values and interest level.  Ask for money get advice, ask for advice get money.  Fundraising is 90% information and 10% asking.  Ask pertinent questions to find the potential donor's "hot buttons." No always means 7  "No" always doesn't mean "no." It may mean no, maybe not now or no, not that gift amount, etc.  Find out why, if they say no.  Never accept no as the final answer.  No means not yet.  No means not now.  The first No is hello. Do what you say 5  Follow up on what the donor has told me. you‘ll do  Do what you say.  Always leave a call with the next step clearly agreed to with the donor - next contact, discussion of gift, etc.  Always follow up a visit in a timely manner. Ask for more than 3  Start on the high side [meaning dollar amount of they expect an ask], you can always come down. If you start low you tend to stay low.  Don't be afraid to ask high; donors rarely are offended with that.  If asked for a gift well above what they expected, they will likely give more than they were thinking about giving.

231

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

APPENDIX G

HOW LORE ASSISTS FUNDRAISERS

Was fundraising “rules of thumb” or “sage advice” or “lore/beliefs” assist fundraisers in doing their job

Code title # of Respondent Responses to question #24 coded (duplicates deleted) lines  Gives them different ways of developing donors and Provides Guidelines 43 asking for gifts allow them to learn what works for or Teaches other fundraisers.  I think that it is always good to listen to rule of thumb or advice and then see what works in your particular situation and incorporate them when appropriate.  They can give the fundraiser direction - a path for success.  We can learn from others' experience.  Rules of thumb to guide them with their own unique style.  They provide guidelines for success, as experienced by other professionals.  They are reminders of things we all know - sometimes we need those "oh yea" moments  I also believe that these "rule of thumbs" can help fundraisers early in their careers or remind seasoned fundraisers how to inspire others to give to their organization's cause.  It speeds up their learning curve.  Helps them avoid making some of the mistakes others have made.  As in any other profession, it helps to learn from more experienced people.  It never hurts to learn something new and apply it to what you are already doing.  At times we need to be reminded about our purpose.

232

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

 Gives us some benchmarks or institutional advice.  Easy to remember, make sense, have proven true based on experience.  Rules of thumb help keep you focused.  It keeps them focused on what they talk about and how they talk to a prospect.  Barometer check on what we are experiencing and what we are being told by management.  Help develop a fundraisers skill with strategy so that they can respond quickly to comments and help the donor create a giving plan.  You have to take what you hear and see if it applies to you or your work.  It's always helpful to hear information and decide if it is relevant to your donor.  Gives them a platform from which to develop their own style.  Focus on mission critical elements.  At a philosophical level they can help people develop their own personal philosophy (comfort level) with asking. At a practical level, it can help a person develop a "script" for the call that they are comfortable with.  At a professional level, it can help a person monitor their own career development.  Much of the technique for fundraising is learned through others and working out what works for you by hearing how people do things.  Underlying thoughts that guide our behaviors.  If used well will lead to success in the work.  It allows us to have "guidelines" so to speak. It helps us with growing in our position and knowing what is right or wrong to do with a donor. You can tweak as you go but it provides a basis of understanding how to fundraise.  They are not items we would write a "ten commandments" book about. However, if one can take slivers of truth that can be used and benefited from then conversing with others through their

233

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

experiences then that can be extremely beneficial.  They guide the fundraiser's thinking as s/he goes about his/her job.  Can give you a starting point in the planning process as long as you don't believe those beliefs are set in stone.  Some of the rules of thumb help fundraisers know where to place an emphasis and how much time to devote.  They have helped me by providing me with little reminders and tips.  Also, it should help them realize that they can't "sell" a building, but need to sell the human element.  It keeps thoughts and certain phrases fresh in my mind so that I am comfortable with the conversations concerning fundraising.  Perspective, not law.  On job training.  Give validation that we're doing a good job.  Give those who are inexperienced, real-life lessons and examples.

 I think there is some rule of thumb advice regarding Universal truths to 13 solicitation strategies, organization and skills that follow are consistent with all fundraisers.  Some of the primary tenets/rules of thumb are important to keep in mind because they are, for the most part, universal.  There are some foundations to fundraising that never change. They are fundamentals.  If a fundraiser is not doing these things then they will most likely not be successful, or it will take much longer to meet goals.  They stick principles in the mind to be followed.  While fundraising varies greatly from one area and one institution to another, an established set of practices provides a framework within which a practitioner can develop his/her methodology for

234

Texas Tech University, Todd W. Rasberry, August 2011

doing development.  Fundamentals are needed in every profession to get the job accomplished.  No two situations are identical; however, there are some simple things that don't always come naturally. So, having someone point out those things can be a subtle validation that your instincts are accurate.  Socialization of what we value, do and believe in our field of philanthropy.  I consider them pearls of wisdom from more experienced fundraisers.  Tried and true experience for reflection.  They are not items we would write a "ten commandments" book about. However, if one can take slivers of truth that can be used and benefited from then conversing with others through their experiences then that can be extremely beneficial.  They are essential attributes.

 Increases your confidence in making the ask. Builds confidence 3  Builds donor confidence and a lasting relationship.  Primarily it helps the novice to have confidence to go forward and ask for the gift.

 Great to share success stories. Sharing success 3 stories  Voice of experience.  Real world advice rather than book advice.

 They help to create a camaraderie - a club, if you Identifies or creates 1 will. There's a sense of belonging and a strength that a professional comes from some "inside knowledge." community

 It really just motivates me to be the best that I can Motivates or inspires 1 be.

235