tNFLUENCE 0F ROLE COMMITMENTS,
PERCENED‘ROLE'CONFUCT, AND GREGARSOUSNESS
ON THE PUELECAWON BEHAWOR- OF
AGRECUL‘FURAL SCIEM’ESTS

Thesis for five Degree of M. A.
MECHIQAE‘E SYATE EENWERSETY
H. SMafi‘ Hawkins
3964

masts

 

LIBRA RY G"
Mid‘figan State

g j UHiVCl‘Sity {1

'1 @ww

 

 

 

ABSTRACT

INFLUENCE OF ROLE COMMITMENTS, PERCEIVED ROLE-CONFLICT,
AND GREGARIOUSNESS ON THE PUBLICATION
BEHAVIOR OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENTISTS

By H. Stuart Hawkins

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of certain
social-psychological variables on the lay and professional publication
behavior of agricultural scientists. The independent variables were:
strength of organizational and professional commitment, strength of per-
ceived role-conflict between these commitments, and the diversity of
face-to-face channel usage (i.e., the kinds of different people a sci-
entist talks to about his research).

The dependent variables, lay and professional publication output,
and the independent variables, were measured by means of a self-admin-
istered mail questionnaire in four land-grant colleges.

A significant positive relationship was found between scientists'
commitment to their organization (the university) and their professional
discipline. Thus, a scientist who is highly committed to his profession-
al role also tends to be committed to the aims of his employing organiza-
tion. Strength of professional commitment successfully predicted pro-
fessional publication output, and strength of organizational commitment
predicted lay publication output. However, predicted interactions be-
tween organizational and professional commitment to produce higher output
of lay or professional publications were not found.

Past research has indicated that a scientist is likely to undergo

role-conflict where faced with loyalty to his profession and to his

H. Stuart Hawkins.

organization, and where he sees the aims or goals of these mutually in-
compatible. Although varying degrees of role-conflict were measured,
there was no relationship between perceived conflict and publication
performance.

Other research has indicated relationships between scientists'
performance and their frequency of contact with colleagues from dis-
similar backgrounds. In this study it was found that diversity of con-
tact with a number of different kinds of people successfully predicted
lay publication performance but not professional publication performance.

Some possible explanations of the results were given, and impli-
cations of the findings for research administrators discussed.
Recommendations were made with regard to the provision of opportunities

for interdisciplinary discussion among research workers.

INFLUENCE OF ROLE COMMITMENTS, PERCEIVED-ROLE-CONFLICT,»
AND GREGARIOUSNESS ON THE PUBLICATION BEHAVIOR OF

AGRICULTURAL SCIENTISTS

By

H. Stuart Hawkins

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Communication

1964

APPROVED:

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to express my sincere appreciation and thanks to my thesis
advisor, Dr. Verling C. Troldahl, for his help, guidance, and con-
structive criticism at all stages of this study. Thanks also go to
Dr. Erwin P. Bettinghaus and Dr. Everett M. Rogers of my committee, and
to James P. Bebermeyer, John S. Murray, and Dr. Mason Miller, of the
Institute for Extension Personnel Development for assistance with pre-
testing the questionnaire. Special thanks are due to the extension
editors and professional staff of the four colleges, and to Mrs. Ruth
Langenbacher who typed the manuscript. Finally, my thanks to my wife
for enduring the rigors of a graduate thesis and sustaining me when

I flagged.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page
I THE RESEARCH PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . l

The Research Problem . . . . . . . . . 3

Review of Literature . . . . . . . . . 4

(i) Role and Role-Conflict . . . . . . M

(ii) Organization Versus Profession . . . 7

(iii) Diversity of Contact . . . . . . 11

(iv) Scientific Performance . . . . . . 13

Hypotheses for Present Study . . . . . . . 13

II RESEARCH DESIGN . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Sample Selection and Data Collection . . . . 15
Operationalization of Variables . . . . . . 16

(i) Criterion Variables . . . . . . . 16

A. Professional Publications . . . . 16

B. Lay Publications . . . . . . . 17

(ii) Independent Variables . . . . . . 18

A. Commitment to Organization . . . . 18

B. Commitment to Profession . . . . . 19

C. Role-Conflict . . . . . . . . 19

D. Diversity of Face-to—Pace Channel
Usage . . . . . . . . . . 21
Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

iii

Table of Contents (continued)

Chapter

III FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Description of the Sample . . . . . .

Response to the Questionnaire . . .

Age, Rank, and Academic Degree . . .

Publication Output . . . . . . . .

Tests of Hypotheses . . . . . . . .

Other General Findings . . . . . . .

IV DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . .

S ummary O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Organizational and Professional Commitment

Strength of Commitment and Publication Output

Perceived Role-Conflict and Publication Output

Channel Diversity and Publication Output .

Implications . . . . . . . . . .
REFERENCED BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . .
APPENDICES’

APPENDIX A: The Questionnaire . . . .

APPENDIX B: Covering Letter sent with Ques-
tionnaire . . . . . . .

iv

Page
23
23
23
23
25
26
32
33
33
35
38
39
#0
H2

#5

#8

5n

Table

6.

LIST OF TABLES

Response to questionnaire

Description of sample on personal attributes,
by college

Production of professional and lay publications

Mean professional commitment at different levels
of organizational commitment

Mean number of lay publications produced at
different levels of organizational and
professional commitment

Mean number of professional publications produced
at different levels of organizational and
professional commitment

Mean number of professional and lay publications
produced at different levels of perceived role-
conflict

Mean numbers of lay and professional publications
produced at different levels of diversity of
face-to-face channel usage

Page

2%

2a

26

26

28

29

30

31

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix Page
A. The Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . 48
B. Covering Letter sent with Questionnaire . . . 54

vi

CHAPTER I

THE RESEARCH PROBLEM

"That it shall be the object and duty of said experiment sta-

tions to conduct original researches or verify experiments on

the physiology of plants and animals; ...and such other re-

searches or experiments bearing directly on the agricultural

industry of the United States as may in each case be deemed
advisable, having due regard to the varying conditions and

needs of the respective States or Territories."

-- Excerpt from Hatch Act of 1887 establishing Agricultural

Experiment Stations.

The provisions of the Morrill Act of 1862 which established the
land-grant college institution, and the Hatch Act of 1887 which ensured
finances for agricultural experiment stations attached to these colleges
ensured a favorable environment to promote agricultural research in the
United States. Schools of agriculture in these colleges are charged
with the task of adding to the storehouse of knowledge of agriculture
and related matters through research, as well as to teaching and ex-
tension of agricultural information.

One of the fundamental principles of the land-grant system has
been to allow "sympathetic recognition and support of the essentials for

research, the type of workers required, and the adjustment of their

duties.."1 Thus, the individual scientist has considerable freedom of

 

1Recommendations from 39th Meeting of Association of Land-grant
Colleges, 1925. '

2 .
operation within the general structure of the experiment station. How-
ever, as these colleges are also charged with the broad duties of solv-
ing local agricultural problems and improving standards of rural living,
a complementary system of extension services has been develoPed to dis-
seminate research findings and provide an efficient means of contact be-
tween scientists and lay peOple who make use of these findings.
Effective communication between scientists through professional journ-
als, or from scientists to practical users of their findings through
extension publications, commercial magazines, etc. is an essential part
of the system. Without such organization the dissemination of research
findings would be restricted to informal face-to-face channels and thus
remain strictly limited.

It is common experience with those who act as intermediate com-
municators between research workers and lay peOple that individual re-
searchers vary widely in their productivity of written material. While
differences in research content and faculty duties undoubtedly contribute
to this situation, it is likely that other underlying social and psycho-
logical factors also affect the individual's orientation toward writing.
With the proliferation of research findings, the fast expanding technical
literature, and the increasing complexity of technical language involved,
it is becoming increasingly difficult for either intermediate communi-
cators or lay people to keep up-to-date with research results of potential-
ly practical application. The diffusion of these findings in a readily
assimilable form eventually may be facilitated by research workers taking
a more active part in communicating direct to prospective users of their
or at least in facilitating the task of intermediaries in this direction.

The identification of socio-psychological variables associated with

3
differences in communicative productivity should be of assistance to the
administrators charged with the overseeing of research programs, with
the dissemination of research results, and perhaps even with the basic
education and training of research workers in their undergraduate and

‘ graduate years.

The Research Problem

The research worker of an agricultural experiment station at a
land-grant college is part of the wider social system but can be seen
as operating chiefly within certain subgroups of this system. It is as-
sumed that his behavior within the system will depend in part on his
perceptions of the expectations of these subgroups, i.e. their norms
and standards of evaluation of him as an incumbent of a position within
the system. For the purposes of this study we will consider two of these
subgroups: (l) the professional discipline of the individual researcher,
and (2) the university of which he is a faculty member. It is appreci-
ated that others might have usefully been included.

While the values and aims of these two groups may not be mutually
exclusive and separate, we may consider the individual researcher as an
actor in the system who has at least two major roles to play, (i) as a
member of his professional discipline, and (ii) as a faculty member of
his university. To the extent that he perceives differences in the ex-
pectations or requirements of these two roles and that these expectations
or requirements appear incompatible, the actor may feel anxiety as to
how he might satisfy both. Assuming that his discipline stresses the
value of contributing to basic knowledge in the field and of publishing
research findings in professional journals, and that in addition, his

university emphasizes the value of answering practical problems of rural

1;
areas, the researcher may perceive a degree of conflict in the aims of
these two subgroups of which he is a part. Thus, depending on the
strength of his commitment to either role, it is suggested that his ori-
entation towards publishing research results for professional colleagues
or for direct consumption by lay people will differ. Whereas a low de-
gree of conflict under these circumstances may serve as a positive
stimulant to writing activity in either or both areas, it is suggested
that a high degree of conflict may have an adverse effect on overall
productivity.

The purpose of this study will be to measure the output of pro-
fessional and lay publications of research workers in schools of agri-
culture of four land-grant colleges and try to relate variations in pro-
ductivity to measures of strength of organizational and disciplinary
commitment, and degrees of perceived inter-role-conflict, and the di-

versity of the face-to-face channels of communication used.

Review 3:1: Literature

 

(i) Role and Role-Conflict

The concept of "role," which is central to this study, has
received considerable attention in recent years. In a very thorough and
searching overview and critique of role theory, Gross, Mason, and
McEachern (1958) point out the diversity of meanings held for the concept
by such authors as Parsons and Shils, Linton, Newcomb, Sarbin, and others.
Despite the plethora of written material, there has been relatively
little empirical evidence to allow entirely satisfactory definitions of
the concept. Furthermore, what evidence has been produced has at times
been contradictory with earlier definitions, e.g., the empirical study

of role demands and conflicts among school superintendents by Gross 33 31,

5
Recent support for some of the ideas advanced by the latter has been
given by Levinson (1963) who points out that there are at least three
specific senses in which the term "role" has been used, explicitly or
implicitly, by various writers:

(a) structurally given demands associated with a given social
position (norms, expectations, responsibilities, etc.) In this sense it
is a set of pressures that guide, impede, support, or channel an individ-
ual's operation in a social system.

(b) a member's orientation or conception of the part he is to

 

play in a system -- his inner definition of what someone in his position
is supposed to think and do about it. This viewpoint follows closely
the "symbolic interaction" approach of G.H. Mead (193”).

(c) actions of individual members seen in terms of their relevance
for the social structure. These are ways in which the members occupying
similar positions act in accord or in violation of a given set of norms
within the system.

The second of these senses might also be termed personal £2157

definition. When an individual is confronted with a complex system of

 

requirements, facilities, and conditions of work, he adjusts his mode of
behavior to suit conditions as he perceives them. This may involve
passive "adjustment," active furthering of role-demands, or attempts to
revise his role or the structural context. Thus, personal role-
definition may serve to maintain or change the social structure or may
involve a high or low degree of self-commitment and personal involvement.
Although the individual's conceptions of their role demands in the same
position may vary considerably, there must be a degree of consensus

about that position within any one organization in order to maintain

structural stability. Whereas this consensus is relatively rigidly ad-
hered to in industrial organizations, it is far more flexible in academic
situations with the result that the role-demands of a faculty member may
be extremely loosely defined. Similarly, the role-performance of an in-
dividual is the resultant of many forces -- the organizational structure
and norms, job demands, professional values, personality factors, and so
on. In industry, the organizational demands and goals generally are
clearly defined -- maintenance of or increase in productivity and maxi-
mizing of financial gains. Although some of the same values pertain to
a greater or lesser extent in the academic situation, the condition is
rather more diffuse. The main difference lies in the greater freedom of
the academic to pursue his own course of action.

As has already been pointed out, a person may occupy two or more
positions in a social system. For example, research workers perform
both as professional members of their discipline and as university facul-
ty members. As Sarbin (195M) points out, "role conflicts occur when a
person occupies two or more positions simultaneously and when the role
expectations of one are incompatible with the role expectations of the
other." On the other hand there can be contradictory expectations held
for the incumbent of a single position. Seeman (1953) defines it as
"the exposure of the individual in a given position to incompatible ex-
pectations perceived by an actor occupying a position with several sets
of expectations." Thus, a researcher may view the expectations of his
professional group, the university administration, and the eventual
users of his findings, as widely divergent or as congruent. Where the
expectations are perceived as different but compatible, role congruency

exists. However, where the expectations are perceived as both different

7

and incompatible, perceived role-conflict is likely to be generated.
Getzels and Guba (1954) writing on role, role-conflict, and effectiveness,
hypothesize a systematic negative relationship between the intensity of an
individual's perceived role-conflict and the effectiveness with which he
can discharge his role. This adds support to the notion that a researcher
who perceives a high degree of incompatibility between his role as a pro-
fessional researcher and as a member of the experiment station staff may
be subject to such a degree of role-conflict that his effective Operation
is reduced. This may be reflected in a lower quantity of written com-
munications than are produced by colleagues working in a comparable

sphere.

(ii) Organization Versus Profession

At this stage it seems fruitful to consider the concepts of "local"
and "cosmopolitan" identified by Merton (1957) in his discussion of the
patterns of influence in a small Eastern community. The main criterion
he uses in distinguishing between these two is in an individual's ori-
entation toward the community. Some of the points he mentions include:

Cosmopolitans: highly selective in their personal relationships,

 

maintaining a limited range of personal contacts largely for the
exchange of ideas. Generally active members of voluntary organi-
zations where they can display their knowledge and skills.
Recognized in the community for these attributes.

Localites: show marked interest in establishing frequent con-

 

tact with many people, chiefly for purposes of mutual help. Tend
to join voluntary organizations as a means of enlarging a network

of contacts. Sought after less for specialized knowledge than

 

for a sympathetic understanding stemming from close inter-

personal relationships.

Gouldner (1957) has extended Merton's concepts to deal more spe-
cifically with the social structure of an organization. He suggests that
the behaviors expected of, and considered appropriate for, an individual
in a particular situation can be termed his "manifest" social role. In
any situation,however, the individual is likely to be acting in more than
one role, including some that may seem less than appropriate or even
irrelevant. Gouldner refers to these as "latent" social roles, i.e.,
their significance is tied to something not obviously apparent at the
time. For example, are the professional group memberships of a research-
er usually associated with his manifest role as an experiment station
scientist or does he play some latent role in this position as a result
of these memberships? Although such roles often appear inappropriate
under the circumstances, Gouldner suggests they may affect an individual's
behavior more than is apparent on a cursory examination of the situation.
He points out that latent roles can be very important in the organization
because they may exert pressure on the manifest role systems and can im-
pair the balance of the system. Thus, differences in latent roles may
help explain differences in behavior for those performing the same mani-
fest role, e.g., those researchers in the same department of the experi-
ment station engaged in similar work but who perform differently in terms
of their communicative productivity to either lay people or fellow pro-
fessionals. By recognizing the "local" and "cosmopolitan" concepts as
latent roles, Gouldner suggests we can examine an individual's perform-
ance without focussing solely on his position within the organization or

on the stated policies of that organization. He recognizes three major

9.

variables in differentiating between these two concepts:
(i) loyalty to the employing organization;
(ii) commitment to specialized or professional skills;

(iii) reference group orientations, i.e., professional peers with-
in or outside his employing organization.

From these variables he identifies:

A. Cosmopolitans - low on loyalty to the employing organization,
high on commitment to specialized role skills, and likely to
use an outer reference-group orientation, i.e., look to pro-
fessional peers outside the employing organization.

B. Locals - high on loyalty to the employing organization, low
on commitment to specialized role skills, and likely to use
an inner reference group orientation, i.e., look to peers
within the employing organization.

In another analysis of the role of local and cosmopolitan sci-
entists in industry, Shepard (1956) points out the problems of conflict-
ing interests between scientists' identification with their professional
group and company policies. Whereas the scientist is supposed to be
guided by intellectual curiosity and place emphasis on contributing to
knowledge, the businessman is guided by the possibility of making profit.
Cosmopolitan researchers are oriented towards success as members of their
profession and their interest in their employing organization is often
limited according to its adequacy as a provider of facilities for the
pursuit of professionally rewarding work. Since they are generally pro-
ductive they may be valuable to the organization, but such value is like-
ly to be almost an accidental by-product of their work. On the other
hand, locals are good "company men" who are more concerned with the ad-

vancement of the organization than with any specific professional

lO'
aspects of their work. In this way they may be of less value to the
organization than productive cosmopolitans but will create fewer "human
relation" problems.

In a secondary analysis of data collected by Pelz (1956) in a
large medical organization, Glaser (1963) reports that "highly motivated"
scientists generally were judged better performers than less motivated
colleagues. He defines high motivation in terms of those who place high
value on their freedom to carry out their own research as well as con-
tributing to basic scientific knowledge -- both of which are character-
istics of cosmopolitans. However, apart from being judged as high sci-
entific performers, Glaser found that highly motivated scientists
_ generally put in more time on their own research without sacrifice to
other professional activities or organizational commitments. Thus, he
considers a high "institutional" motivation (or commitment to one's pro-
fessional role as a scientist) tends to make scientists both hard working
investigators and hard working organizational men. By the criterion that
both research and non-research activities are important to them, these
highly motivated scientists are 2222 cosmopolitan- and local-oriented.
They are oriented towards the institutional goals and rewards of their
profession (e.g., rec0gnition by their professional colleagues) and to
the responsibilities within their research organization (e.g., applic-
ability of findings, etc., and duties likely to lead to loca l recogni-
tion). It is possible therefore, that as highly motivated scientists
are judged better performers than less motivated colleagues, they will
also be the.most productive writers. One would expect the strength of
professional commitment could be related to professional publication out-

put, and strength of organizational commitment to lay publication output,

11‘
and that those highly committed to both profession and organization
would be the most productive of all.

Kornhauser (1962) points out that there are built-in strains be-
tween work establishments and professional institutions with respect to
goals and incentives. An industrial concern requires results that de-
velop and improve its products, whereas a professional discipline, while
not denying this principle, demands its practitioners maintain standards
in the face of contradictory demands of employers. Although there is
general consensus among authors on problems of scientists in industry
that the goal pressures and opportunities for conflict are considerable,
it is probable that they are relatively slight in the academic settings
of a university. However, the schools of agriculture of land-grant
colleges have service duties of applied research and information dif-
fusion as stated obligations under the Hatch and Morrill Acts. It is
conceivable that under these circumstances the expectations of the orga-
nization could be perceived by the individual as incompatible with those
of his profession. Similarly, although both organization and profession
demand loyalty, and reward it with conferred status, it is often possible
that the two may clash. For example, a scientist taking on administra-
tive duties to advance his organizational career may curtail his pro-
fessional activities to such an extent that his professional career is

affected.

(iii) Diversity of Contact
Mention has already been made of a study by Pelz of scientific
performance of medical researchers. It was found that high performance

among scientists, as judged by a panel of colleagues, was significantly

3

12

related to a scientific rather than an institutional orientation to their
work. In a second series of analyses Pelz discusses the styig of communi-
cation between professional colleagues as a determinant of performance.
He found that high performance was significantly related to scientists
having frequent contact with professional colleagues with dissimilar
disciplinary interests to their own. He suggests that scientists benefit
by frequent opportunities to exchange ideas with people having different
values. Whether or not such diversity of contact stimulates researchers
to communicate more to lay audiences is not known.

Frequency of contact with local colleagues was found by Menzel
and Katz (1955) to be related to the innovativeness of medical practi-
tioners in adopting a new drug. That is, the more frequently a doctor
was named by his colleagues as a friend or a discussion partner, the
more likely he was to be an innovator with the new drug. They consider
that doctors who are well "integrated" into their professional community
are more in touch with new ideas and feel more secure in risking innova-
tions. Personal relations, in their opinion, have a strong impact on
the making of scientific decisions. In his discussion of the elements
of scientific performance, Pelz quotes research by Lieberman and Meltzer
in which performance is equated with publication productivity.l
Assuming that scientific performance and innovativeness are related di-
mensions, in the light of Menzel and Katz's findings that innovativeness
is related to frequency of contact, it seems possible that publication

productivity could also be related to frequency of contact.

 

1Pelz, op, cit. p. 313

13

(iv) Scientific Performance

In a discussion of scientific productivity, Meltzer (1956) points
out that performance can be considered as a complex phenomenon with a
number of inter-related components such as creativity, quality, communi-
cability, and quantity of output. It being such a formidable task to
combine these into a meaningful measure, Meltzer considers it more fruit-
ful to look at the various factors separately and then to study their
interrelationships. In his mail questionnaire study of physiologists
he looked at quantity as a factor of performance in much the same way
that this study will. He points out that, whereas the criterion of
quantity in his study does not have equal units (a book is given the
same weight as a paper, and a full authorship the same as a co-authorship),
it is assumed that such factors are not of sufficient importance to

affect the basic analysis markedly.

Hypotheses far; Present SLudl
This study will focus on two criterion variables,(a) the pro—
ductivity of experiment station scientists measured in frequency of
professional publications, and (b) their productivity measured in fre-
quency of lay publications.
In order to investigate possible predictors of these productivity
variables four independent variables will be measured. These are:

(i) the individual scientist's commitment to his professional
role as a scientist,

(ii) his commitment to his organizational role as an applied
researcher and diffuser of information,

(iii) the degree of conflict he perceives between these two
roles, and

(iv) the diversity and frequency of contact with people with
whom he discusses his research.

14

Of the seven hypotheses proposed, the first three are concerned
with the degree of commitment to profession or organization, the fourth
and fifth with perceived role-conflict, and the last two with diversity
and frequency of contact. The hypotheses are as follows:

(1) A person's commitment to his immediate organization is neg-
atively correlated with his commitment to his profession.

(2) The greater a person's commitment to his immediate organi-
zation, the greater the number of his lay publications, the difference
being accentuated ifluais also highly committed to his profession.

(3) The greater a person's commitment to his profession, the
greater the number of his professional publications, the difference being
accentuated if he is also highly committed to his organization.

(u) The higher a person's perceived role-conflict, the lggg£_his
frequency of professional publication.

(5) The higher a person's perceived role-conflict, the 12333 his
frequency of lay publication.

(6) The frequency of a person's lay publications will be posi-
tively correlated with his diversity of face-to-face channel usage.

(7) The frequency of a person's professional publications will

be positively correlated with his diversity of face-to-face channel usage.

CHAPTER II

RESEARCH DESIGN

Sample Selection and Data Collection

 

Respondents for the study were drawn from the staffs of the
schools of agriculture of the Universities of Connecticut, Massachusetts,
Missouri, and Rhode Island. Those included in the sample had bachelors
degrees or higher, had the rank of assistant professor or higher, re-
ceived the whole or part of their salary from the Agricultural Experi-
ment Station of their college, and conducted at least some research. As
is typically the case in such institutions where joint appointments are
often held, some respondents classified themselves as primarily re-
searchers, and others as part-time research, with additional extension
or teaching duties. Department heads and persons employed by the col-
leges for less than 18 months were excluded from the sample.

A pretest of the questionnaire was conducted in the school of
[agriculture at one of the New England land-grant colleges during inter-
views with experiment station scientists. A modified version for self-
administration was prepared and forwarded to the remainder of the sci-
entists not interviewed in the first college as well as to the schools
of agriculture in three other land-grant institutions.

The self-administered questionnaires were distributed with the

assistance of the extension editorial office at each university.

lS

16

A covering letter was sent with each questionnaire explainingin

broad terms the purpose of the study and requesting the coOperation of
the respondent. A stamped, addressed envelope was included to facilitate
direct return and to ensure the confidential nature of replies. No at-

tempt was made to follow up respondents.

Operationalization'2£.Variables
(i) Criterion Variables
The dependent variable in this study is publication productivity
of individual experiment station scientists during the three years prior
to answering the questionnaire. This is divided into publications
written primarily for a professional audience and those written for a

nonprofessional or lay audience.

A. Professional Publications

These are articles or papers written for a professional audience,
i.e., fellow agricultural scientists or members of a particular discipline.
Each separate article, etc. is given the same weight of one unit irre-
spective of length, quality, readability, etc. While it is appreciated
that this is a poor index in many ways, it is felt that a more complex
approach would be unwarranted at this stage. Furthermore, the work of
Meltzer quoted above suggests that any errors introduced in this method
of analysis should not markedly affect overall results.

To provide a score for "professional publications," respondents
were asked to inventory their publications in the areas of journals or
papers, experiment station bulletins, or books, directed at a professional

audience.l

 

1For details of the questions see Appendix A, questions 27-28,
29-30, and 35.

17

Although it is assumed that all articles named as being written
for professional journals can be included in this category, respondents
were asked to name the journals so that a validity check of the pro-
fessional nature of their writings could be made if necessary. The
question used was:

27-28 Have you published, or had accepted for publication,

any articles or papers in scientific journals or
publications in the last three years?

 

Yes: No: If yes, could you please list the
names of the journals and how
many articles in each?
In the case of experiment station publications (as distinct from

extension publications) and books, respondents were asked whether their

audience was primarily professional or lay.

B. Lay Publications

Lay publications are defined as articles, papers, extension pub-
lications, or books, written primarily for nonprofessional audiences,
e.g., farmers or other practical users of research findings. They are
measured in the same way as professional publications, i.e., each
separate article is given a weight of one unit.

To provide a score for "lay publications," respondents were asked
to inventory their publications in the areas of experiment station
bulletins, extension-service publications, commercial magazines or news-
papers, and books, directed at a nonprofessional audience.l

As there is greater variability in the type of publication for

which lay articles are written, questions were worded to allow more de-

tailed specification of the scientist's communication behavior. For

 

1For details of the questions see Appendix A, questions 29-30,
31-32, 33-3u, and 35.

18

example, in questions 29-30 for experiment station articles, and
question 35 for books, respondents were asked to indicate whether they
were written primarily for a lay or professional audience.

29-30 Have you published, or had accepted for publication, any
experiment station bulletins in the last three years?

Yes: No: If yes, how many?

 

How many of these were directed at:
a professional audience
a nonprofessional audience.

 

 

(ii) Independent Variables
A. Commitment to Organization

In the review of the literature the concepts of "localite" and
"cosmopolite" were discussed at length. It was pointed out that Gouldner
and Glaser have modified Merton's use of the terms to include members of
industrial and research organizations. They were able to typify people
according to such criteria as loyalty to their organization or to their
discipline.

In this study it is intended to classify scientists according to
their expressed commitment to their profession or to their university
(organization). _In a series of questions (38, no, #2 8 an) the strengths
of their values for being known as a faculty member, as being active in
university affairs, as a source of advice for extension workers, and as a
source of practical ideas for farmers, are tapped to indicate the
strength of their organizational orientation. A person with a high score
on the four questions will be considered as being highly committed to his
organization. For example, Question 38 was:

How important is it to you to be known as a member of the
University faculty?

19

a extremely important
3 very important

2 fairly important
1 not very important
0 not at all important

In framing these questions it has been assumed that scientists rec-
ognize the original, practical research aims expressed in the Hatch Act
as part of their current organizational obligations. A score range from

O - 16 was possible.

B. Commitment to Profession

In a similar manner to organizational commitment, professional
commitment has been tapped by a series of four questions (37, 39, HI, 8
#3). These aim to measure the strength of their values for disciplinary
expertness, for contributions to basic scientific knowledge, for member-
ship in their scientific organizations, and for being known as good re-
searchers. For example, Question 37:

How important is it to you to be known as an expert in your
discipline?

4 extremely important
3 very important

2 fairly important
1 not very important
0 not at all important

A score range of 0 - 16 was possible.

C. Role-Conflict
The lack of consensus regarding the meanings of the concept "role"
has been made clear earlier. It is intended here to use the meaning out-

lined by Levinson as a working definition.1 A role is seen as a

 

lLevinson, pp, cit.

2O

member's orientation or conception of the part he is to play within a
system. Thus, role-conflict occurs when he occupies simultaneously two
or more positions and perceives incompatibilities in the expectations
of these.

In this study the two roles concerned are those:

(a) of the individual as a professional, a member of his scientific
discipline, and a researcher, and

(b) the individual as a member of the College of Agriculture, of
the faculty of his university and employing organization.

As the service functions associated with schools of agriculture
in land-grant colleges are rather unusual organizational goals for the
university as a whole, it seems likely that conflict could be perceived
between an experiment station scientist's role prescription as a pro-
fessional and as a member of the organization. His professional com-
mitments might lead him to perceive his goals as the contribution to
scientific knowledge through fundamental research, whereas the organi-
zational goals may lay stress on the need for practical solutions to
local problems and the dissemination of information to farmers.

Seven questions (HS-51) aim to measure the extent to which an
individual perceives the goals of his profession and organization in con-
flict. Thus, a person classified as high in role-conflict in this study
is one who perceives incompatible differences between the expectations
of fellow professionals and the College of Agriculture of his university,
and hence scores highly on these questions. For example, Question #5:

Now... As a member of the Experiment Station staff you perform

duties as a scientist, following the principles of your dis-

cipline. You also perform duties as a member of the College
of Agriculture of your university, trying to serve their goals.

21

In performing your job as a scientist and as a member of the
College of Agriculture, how often do you find the goals of

these two groups in conflict. Would it be...

 

u very often

3 fairly often

2 now and then

1 seldom
never

A total score range of O - 24 was possible on these seven questions.

D. Diversity of Face-to-Face Channel Usage

Pelz' findings discussed earlier indicate that scientists general-
ly perform better when they have regular contact with a variety of col-
leagues in different disciplines than when they do not. While it is some-
what difficult to probe the diversity of contacts of an agricultural
scientist by means of a self-administered questionnaire, an attempt has
been made to do so with questions about the frequency of contact with
different categories of people he talks to about his research, e.g.,
fellow researchers on- and off-campus, adminiStrators, extension men,

etc.1

For example,
How often do you talk to the following kinds of people about
your research?

Commercial Researchers several times a week
about once a week

once or twice a month
less than once a month.

Nine categories of such people were listed and the total frequency
of contact was determined for each category. On the basis of the fre-
quency distributions for each item, people were classified as being

above average (scoring 1) or below average (scoring 0) in contact for

 

lSee Question 52 in the Appendix

22
each category. The medians of the frequency distributions were at the
"about once a week" level for Department Head and Fellow Researchers On-
Campus, and at the "once or twice a month" level for the remainder. An
index of diversity of contact was then established for each person on

the basis of the sum of his scores for the nine categories.

Data Analysis

Five hypotheses were tested with product-moment correlations. In
order to investigate variations in productivity of lay and professional
publications with concomitant variations in the level of professional
and organizational commitment, two hypotheses (H2 and H3) were tested
with a two-way analysis of variance. As the ratios of cell-N's in
columns were not proportional, an approximation procedure involving a
treatments-by-levels type of analysis was conducted on the matrix of

cell means.l

 

1For details of the procedure see Walker and Lev, pp. 381-382.

CHAPTER III

FINDINGS
Description pf the Sample

Response to the Questionnaire

In this study it was sought to question all full-time and part-
time research, research-extension, or research-teaching staff of the
agricultural experiment stations of four land-grant colleges by means
of a self-administered mail questionnaire.

Of the 250 questionnaires distributed, 150 (60%) were returned.
After removing ineligible respondents a final sample size of 121 (48%)
was attained. Returns from the four colleges were much the same. For

a tabulation of responses by colleges see Table 1.

Age, Rank, and Academic Degree

The comparability of the four colleges in terms of respondents'
age, academic status, and highest degree is shown in Table 2. Respond-
ents from the different colleges did not differ significantly on these
attributes.1

Nearly three-quarters of the respondents were under 50 years of

age, and the largest percentage of these were in their forties. More

 

1Age: Chi square = 13.03, d.f. = 9; Academic Rank: Chi square
= 12.53, d.f. = 6; Highest degree; Chi square = 4.16, d.f. = 6.

23

24

than three-quarters had academic status higher than that of assistant
professorship, the numbers being fairly evenly divided between those
with associate and full professorships. The doctoral degree was by far
the most common in all colleges, with four out of every five respondents

having achieved this level. Of the remainder, the majority held master's

 

 

 

degrees.
Table 1. Response to questionnaire
Completed Questionnaire (usable) 56% 48% 44% 50%
Ineligible 4 ll 12 10
Non-Response 40 41 44 40
100% 100% 100% 100%
Questionnaires Distributed (N =) 25 85 45 100
Table 2. Description of sample on personal attributes, by college
Colleges
Personal Characteristics A B C D Total Sample
'Age:
Under 40 43% 24% 62% 24% 31%
40-49 years 43 49 19 44 42
50-59 years 14 22 19 22 21
60 years and older 0 5 0 10 6
100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Academic Status:
Assistant Professor 22% 22% 31% 20% 22%
Associate Professor 64 27 56 38 40
Professor 14 51 13 40 37
Emeritus Professor 0 0 0 2 l
100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Highest Degree:
Bachelors 0% 5% 6% 4% 4%
Masters 14 15 25 8 13
Doctoral 86 80 69 88 83
100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
N = 12 41 16 50 121

 

25

Publication Output

 

The principal variables of interest in this study are the numbers
of lay and professional publications produced by experiment station sci-
entists in the three years prior to answering the questionnaire. They
were questioned about the number of papers, bulletins, articles, books,
etc. they had written for either professional or lay audiences. The
distribution of their replies is shown in Table 3.

Although experiment station scientists tend to produce slightly
more professional than lay publications, there is considerable vari-
ability among staff members in their levels of productivity of either
type. An almost even number of scientists were the most prolific
writers of both professional and lay publications over a three year
period. (19% for professional and 21% for lay). However, there is an un-
even distribution of those who produce the least number of publications of
either type; 45% of the respondents produced one or no lay publications
during the sample period, while only 24% produced as few professional
publications.

Thus it seems that, although the production of professional pub-
lications is fairly evenly distributed among staff members, the bulk of
writing for nonprofessional audiences is done by a productive few; where-
as 53% of the scientists produce three-quarters of the professional pub-

lications, only 36% produce three-quarters of the lay publications.

26

Table 3. Production of professional and lay publications

 

No. of Publications: Professional Lay
0 - l 24% 45%

2 - 3 23 14

4 - 5 24 12

6 - 7 10 8

8 or more 19 21
100% 100%

N = 121 121

Mean Number of Publications per Person 4.1 3.4

Standard Deviation 2.9 3.3

 

Table 4. Mean professional commitment at different levels of
organizational commitment

 

Organizational Commitment
Low Med.-Low Med.-High High

Mean Professional Commitment 9.9 11.9 12.6 13.1

Sample Size (N =) 23 33 32 33

 

Tests 95 Hypotheses

 

For five hypotheses proposed, two significant positive and three
significant negative correlations were predicted. In addition, by break-
ing the variables "professional" and "organizational" commitment into
two levels, High and Low, an interaction effect was predicted for two

hypotheses.

H1: A person's commitment to his immediate organization is
negatively correlated with his commitment to his profession.

As described previously, separate indices for respondents' com-
mitment to their immediate organization (the university) and to their

professional discipline were compiled. On the basis of previous research,

27

’particularly that of Kornhauser, a significant negative relationship was
predicted between an individual's commitment to his organization and to
his profession. However, the product-moment correlation between these
two variables was .44, a significant relationship in the opposite direc-
tion to that predicted.1 Therefore, H1 was not confirmed.

By dividing organizational commitment scores into four levels the
mean professional commitment scores for each level show a corresponding
increase with increasing organizational commitment. (see Table 4). This
indicates that if a person is highly committed to his organization, he
also tends to be highly committed to his profession.

H2: The greater a person's commitment to his immediate organiza-
tion, the greater the number of his lay publications, the
difference being accentuated if he is also highly committed
to his profession.

The product-moment correlation of .44 between organizational
commitment and number of lay publications indicates a significant re-
lationship in the direction predicted by H2. The accentuated difference
hypothesized when individuals are highly committed to both their pro-
fession and their organization did not prove significant. To test the
hypothesis, organizational and professional commitment scores were split
at the median into high and low levels and a two-way analysis of variance
was carried out, using the approximation procedure cited earlier.

Table 5 presents the mean number of lay publications for each
level of organizational and professional commitment. From these results

it is concluded that, irrespective of the level of professional commit-

ment, at high levels of organizational commitment, scientists produced

 

lA product-moment correlation of .18 was needed to be significant
at the .05 level, two-tailed test.

28
about twice as many publications as at low levels of commitment. In its
present form then, H2 is therefore not supported. It is accurate, how-
ever, if the qualifying clause "...the difference being accentuated if
he is also highly committed to his profession" -- is dropped.

Table 5. Mean number of lay publications produced at different levels
of organizational and professional commitment

 

Organizational Commitment

 

 

 

Low High
Professional High : 2.2 4.5
Commitment
Low : 2.0 4.6
Sample Size Hi Prof. Comm. : 17 39
Lo Prof. Comm. : 39 26
Analysis 2f Variance - Summary
Source of Variation S.S. d.f. M.S. F F 95
Between Levels Org. Comm. 5.89 l 5.89 15.91 3.93
Between Levels Prof. Comm. 0.01 l 0 01 0.03 3.93
Interaction 0.02 1 0.02 0.05 3.93
Error 117 0.37

 

H3: The greater a person's commitment to his profession, the
greater the number of his professional publications, the
difference being accentuated if he is also. highly com-
mitted to his organization.

The product-moment correlation between professional commitment
and number of professional publications of .37 indicates a significant
positive relationship. In a similar manner to the previous hypothesis,
a two-way analysis of variance confirmed the relationship but failed to

confirm the accentuated difference hypothesized for individuals com-

mitted highly to both their organization and their profession. In its

29

present form, then, H3 was also not supported but is accurate by dropping
the qualifying clause: "...the difference being accentuated if he is
also highly committed to his organization."

Table 6 presents the mean number of professional publications for
each level of organizational and professional commitment. The findings
indicate that, at high levels of professional commitment, scientists pro-
duce about twice as many publications as at low levels of commitment,
irrespective of their level of organizational commitment.

Table 6. Mean number of professional publications produced at different
levels of organizational and professional commitment

 

Professional Commitment

 

 

 

Low High
Organizational High : 2.3 5.1
Commitment
Low : 3.5 5.8
Sample Size Hi Org. Comm. : 26 39
Lo Org. Comm. : 39 17
Analysis of Variance - Summary
Source of Variation S.S. d.f. M.S. F F.95
Between Levels Prof. Comm. 6.40 l 6.40 23.70 3.93
Between Levels Org. Comm. 0.99 l 0.99 3.67 3.93
Interaction 0.03 l 0.03 0.11 3.93
Error 117 0.27

 

H4: The higher a person's perceived role-conflict, the lower his
frequency of professional publication.

Although there was a negative relationship between perceived role-
conflict and frequency of professional publication, as predicted, the

product-moment correlation of -.12 was not significant. H4 was therefore

30
not confirmed. In Table 7 the mean number of professional publications .
for different amounts of perceived role-conflict are given. It is con-
cluded that, at different levels of perceived role-conflict, scientists
do not differ significantly in the number of professional publications
produced.

H5: The higher a person's perceived role-conflict, the lower
his frequency of lay publication.

The predicted relationship between perceived role-conflict and
frequency of lay publications was not significant, the product-moment
correlation being .09. Further checking indicated that the low cor-
relation was not due to lack of linearity. The eta for the relationship
was .19, but was not statistically significant.1 H5 was therefore not
confirmed. The mean numbers of lay publications for different levels of
perceived role-conflict are given in Table 7. These results indicate
that scientists do not differ significantly in their frequency of lay
publication at different levels of perceived role-conflict.

Table 7. Mean number of professional and lay publications produced
at different levels of perceived role-conflict

 

Perceived Role-Conflict

Low Med.-Low Med.-High High

Mean Number of Professional 4.6 4.5 3.6 3.9
Publications

Mean Number of Lay 2.5 3.4 4.4 3.4
Publications

Sample Size (N =) 27 27 27 40

 

 

1r statistic = 1.53; d.f. = 3 s 118, n.s.

31

H6: The frequency of a person's lay publications will be posi-
tively correlated with his diversity of face-to-face
channel usage.

The predicted relationship between the diversity of face-to-face
channel usage and the output of lay publications was found to be signi—
ficant. The product-moment correlation was .32. H6 was therefore
supported. The mean numbers of lay publications produced for four
levels of channel diversity are shown in Table 8.

These results indicate that the greater the number of a diverse
range of people a scientist talks to about his research, the more lay
publications he will produce. Thus, a person who was rated as highly
diverse in his face-to-face channel usage produced three times as many
lay publications as a person rated low in diversity.

H7: The frequency of a person's professional publication will be
positively correlated with his diversity of face-to-face
channel usage.

With a product-moment correlation of .07 between the diversity of
channels of face-to-face communication usage and output of professional
publications there appeared to be no significant relationship. Therefore,
H7 was not confirmed. The mean number of professional publications pro-
duced at four levels of channel diversity are shown in Table 8. It is
concluded that diversity of channel usage has no significant effect on
the productivity of professional publications.

Table 8. Mean numbers of lay and professional publications produced at
different levels of diversity of face-to-face channel usage

 

Diversity of Channel Usage

Low Med.-Low Med.-High High

Mean Number of Lay 1.5 3.5 3.5 4.6
Publications

Mean Number of Professional 4.0 4.6 3.7 4.4
Publications

Sample Size (N =) 23 24 41 33

32
93233 General Findings

Although no specific relationships were hypothesized between the
variables already discussed and academic rank, highest degree, or year
of appointment, data on the latter three were collected for descriptive
purposes.

A significant correlation existed between academic rank and out-
put of professional publications (r = .23) but the relationship between
rank and output of lay publications (r = .12) was non-significant. As
might be expected, a significant relationship was found between "highest
academic degree attained" and output of professional publications
(r = .23), but no relationship was demonstrated between highest degree
and output of lay publications (r = .06). It seems then, that academic
degree and rank will affect the output of professional publications but
have no influence on the productivity of lay publications.

(Professional commitment and highest academic degree were signifi-
cantly related (r = .29) but no relationship was found between organiza-
tional commitment and degree (r = .03). Although not strong, (r = .18),
a significant positive relationship existed between perceived role-
conflict and year of appointment. This suggests that scientists perceive
more confliction between the goals of their organization and those of

their discipline the longer they remain in the organization.

CHAPTER IV

DISCUSSION

Summapy

The present study was designed to evaluate the relationships be-
tween the professional and lay publication productivity of agricultural
experiment station scientists and certain social-psychological vari-
ables. Seven hypotheses were derived from existing research findings
and tested by means of a self-administered questionnaire at four land—
_grant colleges.

On the basis of research findings in industry a significant neg-
ative correlation was predicted between a scientist's commitment to his
immediate organization -- the university -- and to his professional dis-
cipline. The reverse was found to be the case. A scientist who is highly
committed to his professional role also tends to be highly committed to
the aims of his more immediate employing organization.

Although there is no past research to directly suggest a relation-
ship between professional commitment and professional publication pro-
ductivity, on common sense grounds it seemed they should be related.
Similarly, it seemed reasonable that, if the communication of agricul-
tural information was one of the stated aims of the land-grant college,
lay publication output should be related to organizational commitment.
Both relationships were significant as predicted. However, on the basis
of Glaser's notion of the dual, cosmopolitan-local orientation of highly

33

34

motivated scientists, it was also predicted that a person's high organ-
izational commitment and high professional commitment, when found,

would interact to produce even higher professional publication output.
Similarly, it was predicted that a person's high professional commit-
ment and high organizational commitment when found, would interact to
produce a higher output of lay publications. As neither of these pre-
dictions were supported, it appears that professional and lay publica-
tion behavior are independent dimensions with no interaction effect
between professional and organizational commitment on publication output.

Past research, including that in the industrial field, has in-
dicated that a scientist is likely to undergo role-conflict where he is
faced with two loyalties, to his profession and to his organization, and
where he sees the aims or goals of these as mutually incompatible. Such
role-conflict may result in decreased working efficiency. The present
study, although indicating that varying degrees of conflict were per-
ceived, gave no indication of a significant relationship between per-
ceived conflict and publication performance.

Another earlier research finding indicated that scientists' per-
formances, as judged by a panel of fellow scientists, were significantly
related to frequent contact with colleagues dissimilar to themselves in
professional backgrounds and interests. Although the specific issues
on which judgment was made were not specified, it is likely that pub-
lication productivity was an important factor on which performance was
assessed. In this study it was hypothesized that diversity of face-to-
face channel usage would be related to publication productivity.

Results were significant only for lay publications, suggesting that a

diverse range of contacts stimulates experiment station scientists to

35
write for lay audiences but does not affect their publication output for

professional audiences.

Organizational.gpd Professional Commitment
In the earlier discussion of Kornhauser's research on scientists
in industry, it was pointed out that professional and organizational goals
were frequently in opposition. Whereas industrial organizations seeks to
channel the efforts of their employees along their own lines to serve
their own ends; "The various actions of the scientist, qua scientist,
are undertaken because they add to knowledge, not because of any immedi-

ate benefit to any individual or group..."1 Hence, the scientist deeply

committed to his profession may find it difficult to adhere to organiza-
tional requirements for research oriented largely towards the application
of knowledge for profit maximization. At the same time, the organiza-
tionally-oriented scientist, in doing his best to meet requirements, is
usually less interested in his research than he is in the advancement of
the organization, thus being less likely to produce many results of value
to the organization according to Kornhauser. It was largely on the basis
of these considerations that a negative relationship was hypothesized
between organizational and professional commitment among agricultural
experiment station scientists.

The findings that these commitments are significantly positively
related suggests that such role-conflict does not exist in the more
academic setting of the land-grant college. However, respondents did
indicate varying degrees of role-conflict. It is possible that this

effect was due to the design of the questionnaire. By placing the

 

‘ lE.C. Hughes, Men and Their Work, F.P. of Glencoe, Ill., 1958,
p. 139. _"""'_"""

36

f

questions tapping commitment before those measuring conflict, it is con-
ceivable that respondents were predisposed to indicate role-conflict,
having had their attention drawn to the possibility of its presence.
Although the possibility of a positive relationship between pro-
fessional and organizational commitment was considered in formulating
the hypothesis originally, it was felt that the service functions of the
land-grant college might be perceived as incompatible with professional
aims. However, subsequent evidence has indicated that the aims and
goals of these organizations may not be well understood by their members.
In this situation, presumably the role prescriptions for research positions
within the organization would be rather vague and the possibility of per-
ceived incompatibilities between professional and organizational goals
would be diminished. Also, as research administrators in land-grant
colleges are generally active research or ex-research workers themselves,
they are likely to be more sympathetic toward the professional orientation
of their charges than are their industrial counterparts. They are more
likely to try to steer a course between a heavy stress on the utility of
findings and full "academic freedom" in research, i.e., the ability to
research problems of their own choosing without organizational constraint.
The findings tend to support Glaser's contention that some highly com-
mitted professional men may also be highly committed to their organiza-

tion. They have what he calls a "local-cosmopolitan" orientation.

 

lCouch, Miller, and Murray point out that, in one of the colleges,
half of the scientists interviewed in their sample did not know the aims
and objectives of their organization while the remainder could make only
a very general statement inferring that their research efforts were "for
the betterment of the lot of men."

37

Additional evidence for this viewpoint is also suggested from the
results of personal interviews with experiment station scientists at one
of the four colleges (Couch, Miller, and Murray, 1964). Most of them
considered that they were in their "ideal" job. The college was a de-
sirable environment to work in, and as research was their chosen career
into which much effort had gone, it would take a lot to move them from
this to another job or organization. Nevertheless, there were still
small things they would like to see improved or changed.

Since the two types of commitment were fairly highly correlated
with each other, one might ask whether it is useful to distinguish be-
tween the two types. It might be just as meaningful to combine them into
a single commitment score. To check this, the correlations between all of
the eight individual items comprising the two indices were studied. When
the four "professional commitment" items were intercorrelated, their aver-
age (mean) inter-item correlation was .41. This indicates how much the
four items have in common. When the four "organizational commitment"
items were intercorrelated, their average (mean) inter-item correlation
was .38. However, when each of the four "professional commitment" items
were intercorrelated with each of the four "organizational commitment"
items, the mean of the 16 correlation coefficients was .24. This latter
correlation coefficient suggests some commonnesses in the two types of com-
mitment, as did the correlation of .44 between the total scores for the two
indices. However, there is considerably more homogeneity within each of
the two sets of items than there is when the two sets are combined. There-
fore, it seems meaningful to maintain the distinction between the two types

of commitment.

38

Strength pf_Commitment and Publication Oupput

 

It is generally conceded in the literature that publication out-
put is the most common base for assessing scientific performance, at
least in universities. As Caplow and McGee (1958) state: "It is neither
an overgeneralization nor an oversimplification to state that in the
faculties of major universities in the United States today, the evalua-
tion of performance is based almost exclusively on publication of scholar-
ly books or articles in professional journals as evidence of research

activity."1 It would seem a logical corollary then, that the output of

professional publications should be positively related to the strength
of an individual's commitment to his profession, as indeed it was in this
study.

However, there is no prior evidence to the author's knowledge, to
lead so clearly to the hypothesis concerning organizational commitment
and output of lay publications. The significant relationship found be-
tween these variables suggests that experiment station scientists who
are conscious of their obligations and commitments to an academic organ-
ization with a stated duty to transmit practical information, will be
motivated to write more for such nonprofessional audiences. In this
situation their rewards may lie either in the knowledge that they are
communicating useful information, or that they are helping fulfill one
of the purposes of their organization and hence presumably gaining in
prestige within the organization.

The findings from testing the first hypothesis support Glaser's
notion that professional and organizational commitment can be positive-

ly related dimensions of orientation of the same scientist. However,

 

lCaplow and McGee, 1958, p. 83.

39
further testing revealed a lack of interaction between professional com-
mitment and lay publications at increasing levels of organizational com-
mitment, and a similar lack of interaction between organizational com-
mitment and professional publications at increasing levels of professional
commitment. These findings suggest that the two classes of publications
are separate dimensions, and the productivity of each may be "activated
at the appropriate time and place as determined by the organizational

structure within which he works."1

Perceived Role-Conflict and Publication Output

 

Role-conflict is likely to occur whenever a person is called upon
to fill two or more roles whose expectations appear incompatible. To
reduce or remove such conflict there are several courses he may follow.

He may either abandon one role and concentrate on the others, he may
attempt a compromise, or he may withdraw either physically or psycholog-
ically. In all instances, if his actions affect some aspect of his work,
it is conceivable that his working efficiency could be affected, probably
adversely where withdrawal or compromise takes place.

In a superficial comparison of the academic environment of a land-
pgrant college and an industrial situation there may appear to be much less
opportunity for role-conflict to arise in the former. As Caplow and McGee
point out: "Above all, the university is remarkable for pursuing an in-
tricate program with little agreement about fundamental purposes. It is
easy for people to agree that the purpose of a factory is production,
even if they disagree violently about methods or the distribution of
earnings. It is not at all easy ...to determine the fundamental pur-

poses of a university or the relative importance of different activities

 

lGlaser, 1963, p. 257.

40.
in contributing to those purposes."1

In this situation one might expect a faculty member to be able to
follow his chosen course without much actual or perceived interference
from the administration. However, the experiment station scientist is
employed by that part of the university charged with specific service
functions of seeking answers to applied problems and diffusing information,
as well as with the more diffuse aims of contributing to the storehouse
of scientific knowledge. It is therefore conceivable that he may per-
ceive some conflict between his professional role as a scientist, where
the stress is on contributing to knowledge, and his organizational role
as a faculty member, applied researcher, and information diffuser. Al-
though respondents' scores on questions designed to tap the presence of
such perceived role-conflict apparently did indicate the presence of
varying degrees of conflict, there was no significant relationship between
these scores and the output of either professional or lay publications.

It is conceivable that the highly motivated scientist will always
perceive a degree of role-conflict between his teaching and other faculty
duties and his professional research career especially if, as pointed out
earlier, he is alerted to the possibility that it may exist. However, it
appears that this conflict will not divert him from his professional com-
mitment of contributing to scientific knowledge via professional publica-
tions, or to his organizational responsibilities of diffusing information

in lay publications.

Channel Diversity and Publication Output
Assuming that high publication output is a desirable facet of sci-
entific performance, what are some social factors that appear to influence

such performance? Should a scientist be encouraged to develop a broad

 

lCaplow and McGee, pp: cit., p. 4.

41
range of contacts or should he be placed in a situation with minimum dis-
tractions from all but his immediate colleagues? These are questions that
may concern a research administrator who wishes to develop a working en-
vironment conducive to maximum performance.

It was pointed out in earlier discussion that the work of Pelz and
others at the Institute for Social Research at Ann Arbor has shown that
high performance among scientists, as judged by their fellows, was related
to their having frequent contact with professional colleagues from back-
grounds dissimilar to their own. However, no indication is given how
a diverse range of face-to-face contacts might affect the publication
performance of scientists. In the present study an index of diversity of
face-to-face contact was established and found to be significantly re-
lated to output of lay but not professional publications. This suggests
that the more gregarious he is in his habits, or the wider his range of
personal distinct from impersonal contacts, the more an experiment sta-
tion scientist is motivated to write for a lay audience. Although
perhaps not quite parallel, Merton's contention that "localites" seek
to establish frequent contact with many people, chiefly for the purpose
of mutual help, would seem to be in line with these findings. The di-
versity of his contacts may make him more aware of problems for which he
has practical solutions, especially in the experiment station environment
where he can mix with extension workers who are closely in touch with
field problems. As a highly committed organization man, he may then be
motivated to assist farmers by writing articles with a practical
orientation.

These relationships might not hold so well in other situations

where there is less contact with practical problems and where discussions

42
with research colleagues may be confined more to research, qua research,

problems.

Implications

 

By understanding more about the social and psychological bases of
scientists' behavior, research administrators should be in a better
position to evaluate individual performance and to organize an optimal
environment for research activity. From this study emerges the picture
of the experiment station scientist in a land-grant college as a person
who, if strongly committed to his profession, will also be committed to
the goals of his employing organization. This implies that any conflict
he perceives between the two is insufficient to impair his performance
as a fundamental researcher when fulfilling his duties as a member of
his organization, or vice-versa.

Although publication is only one facet of his work productivity,
it is an important and tangible measure of his performance. For better
or for worse, it is often the index upon which research administrators
evaluate the individual. Hence, any information concerning relationships
between scientists' publication behavior and underlying social-psychologi-
cal or environmental factors, should be of positive value to administra-
tors seeking to improve channels of communication between laboratory and
field practice. Such information is provided by the finding that a di-
verse range of face-to-face contacts is positively related to lay publi-
cation productivity.. This suggests that administrators seeking to
maintain a strong flow of applied research results from experiment sta-
tions to farmers should encourage opportunities for researchers to mix
with a wider range of contacts in discussing their research.

~ In research organizations where no emphasis is placed on the

43

application of research findings for profit making, there is a pur-
posive effort by the administration to interfere with scientists as
little as possible and to allow them to pursue their chosen course with

O O O l O O O
a m1n1mum of non-research 1nvolvement. Desp1te the serV1ce respon51-

bilities of land-grant institutions, the findings of this study with re-
spect to the professional orientation of their scientists' and their pub-
lication behavior, give no reason to suggest otherwise. Thus, the highly
committed professional will continue to write for his professional
audience despite an equally high commitment to his organization. Simi-
larly, the productive communicator of nonprofessional information, in
helping fulfill a stated task of his organization, does not necessarily
neglect his professional commitments. Apparently, any conflict they
perceive between the goals of profession and organization is not reflect-
ed by lower publication output for either category.

As land-grant colleges are organizations with specific aims,2
often not well understood by the majority of their members,3 administra-

tors may want their charges to be more aware of, and to identify them-
selves more closely with, the organizational aims. The "organizational"
aim of land-grant colleges relevant to this study has been the dissemi-
nation of research findings to farmers and other practical users of such
information. However, in clarifying the aims of their organization,
administrators perhaps should stress the congruency between these aims

and those of the professional disciplines represented by faculty members.

 

lGillespie, pp. 22-23.
2See references to the Hatch and Morrill Acts, p. 1, above.
3Couch, Miller, and Murray, pp: cit.

44

According to Glaser,l

if the organizational goal of applied research is
heavily emphasized, those deeply committed toward fundamental research
may perceive increasing conflict, reduce the strength of their organiz-
ational commitment, and become isolated "cosmopolitans" oriented solely
toward their profession. Similarly, those already oriented toward ,
applied research may neglect their professional obligations.

The findings concerning channel diversity of face-to-face contact
suggest more positively a fruitful direction for administrators. By
encouraging interdisciplinary discussions and the free interchange of
ideas at all levels, it seems likely that the desired objective of more
effective communication with lay audiences will be achieved, at least to
the extent that researchers will tend to write more for those audiences.

It is appreciated that certain environmental factors peculiar to
the land-grant college system reduce the generalizability of these
findings. Many research organizations do not have teaching responsibili-
ties combined with the regular functions of their research groups, and
may not have well developed extension services to disseminate information
to and provide feedback from the users of their findings. To extend the
applicability of the present research it would be fruitful to test the
hypotheses concerning relationships between diversity of face-to-face

contact and publication behavior in other organizations where these ex-

tension and teaching facilities do not exist.

lGlaser, p. 259.

REFERENCED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Caplow, T., and McGee R.J. The Academic Marketplace, Science Editions,
1961.

 

Couch, C.J., Miller, M.E., and Murray, J.S. Communicative Behavior of
Agricultural Scientists, Mimeo. Inst. Ext. Pers. Devel., Mich.
State Univ., Sept. 1964.

Getzels, J.W., and Guba, B.G. Role, Role-Conflict, and Effectiveness:
an empirical study, Amer. Soc. Rev., 1954, 19; 164-175.

Gillespie, D.T.C. Research Management in the Commonwealth Scientific
and Industrial Research Organization, Australia, Public Adminis-
tration, 42: 11-31, (spring) 1964.

Glaser, B.G. The Local-Cosmopolitan Scientist, Amer. Journ. Soc.,
1963, 62} 249-259.

Gouldner, A.W. Cosmopolitans and Locals: toward an analysis of latent
social roles, Admin. Sci. Quart., 1957-58, 2; 281-306, 444-480.

Gross, N., Mason, W., and McEachern, A.' Explorations ip_Role Analysis.
Wiley 8 Sons, N.Y., 1958.

 

 

Kornhauser, W. Scientists ip Industry: conflict and accommodation,
Univ. of Calif., Berkeley, 1962. '

Levinson, D. J. Role, Personality, and Social Structure in the Organ-
izational Setting, pp. 428- 441 in Smelser, N. J. and Smelser, W. T.,
Personality and Social Systems, John Wiley 8 Sons, N. Y., 1963.

 

Mead, G. H. Mind, Self, and Society, Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago,
Ill. 1934.

 

Meltzer, L. Scientific Productivity in Organizational Settings,:1.

£92.

Menzel, H., and Katz, E. Social Relations and Innovation in the
Medical Profession, Publ. Opin. Quart., 1955, 19; 337-352

Merton, R. K. Social Theory_ and Social Structure, Free Press, Glencoe,
Ill.’ 1957, pp. 387‘u20.

Pelz, D.C. Some Social Factors Related to Performance in a Research
Organization, Admin. Sci. Quart., 1956, 1; 310-325.

45

46

Sarbin, T. Role Theory. pp 223-258 in Handbook pf Social Psycholqu,
Lindzey, Gardner, (3d), Vol. 1, Addison-Wesley Co., Reading, Mass.,
1954.

 

Seeman, M. Role-Conflict and Ambivalence in Leadership, Amer. Soc. Rev.,
1953, 18; 373.

Shepard, H.A. Nine Dilemmas in Industrial Research, Admin. Sci. Quart.,
1955, _1_: 295-309.

Walker, H.M., and Lev, J. Statistical Inference, Holt, Rinehart 8
Winston, New York, 1953.

Appendix A

Questionnaire for Agricultural Scientists

APPENDIX A

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR AGRICULTURAL SCIENTISTS

Project Number 160
Phase Number 01
Respondent Number

 

 

 

 

 

Name :

Age : Sex : __
Department :

Specialty :

Year of Accepting Present Position :

Bachelors Degree : Yes: __ No: __
Masters Degree : Yes: __ No: __
Doctoral Degree : Yes: No:

Honorary or Other Degrees

 

Do you classify yourself as:

Primarily a researcher
Primarily an extension specialist

About half of each

Now, could I have some details on HOW you report your research findings?

27-28 Have you published or had accepted for publication any articles
or papers in scientific journals or publications in the last

three years?

Yes:

 

No:

Journal

If yes, could you please list the names of

the journals and how many articles in each.

Number

 

 

 

 

 

 

48

49

29-30 Have you published, or had accepted for publication, any exper-
iment station bulletins in the last three years?

Yes: No: If yes, how many? :

 

How many of these were directed at: a professional audience
___a nonprofessional audience

31-32 Have you published, or had accepted for publication, any articles,
bulletins, circulars, leaflets, etc. for state or federal exten-
sion service publications in the last three years?

Yes: No: If yes, how many? (n.b. please give one
number for all types)

33-34 Have you written any articles for commercial or popular magazines
or newspapers in the last three years?

Yes: No: If yes, how many? :
35 Have you written any books in the last three years?

Yes: No: If yes, what was it called? :

 

 

Did you write it primarily for: a professional audience
a nonprofessional audience
both

Now something a little different... If one of your colleagues was asked
to characterize you as a person, he might do it in a number of ways.
Here are some phrases he might use. After reading each phrase, please
mark the statement which best indicates how important it is for you to
be known this way. Here is the first phrase....

 

36 How important is it to you to be known as a good teacher?

4 extremely important

3_very import ant

2 fairly important

1 not very important
not at all important

37 How important is it to you to be known as an expert in your
discipline?

4 extremely important
3 very important

2 fa1rly important
1 not very important
0 not at all important

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

50

How important is it to you to be known as a member of the University
faculty?

4 Extremely important

3 very important
2___fairly important

1 not very important
not at all important

...as a contributor to basic scientific knowledge?

4 extremely important
3 very important

2 fairly important
1 not very important
0 not at all important

...as an active partic pant in university affairs?

1
4 extremely important
3 very important

2 fa1rly important
1 not very important
0 not at all important

...as a member of your scientific organization?

4 extremely important
3 very important

2 fairly important

1 not very important

0 not at all important

...as a source of advice for extension workers?

4 extremely important
3 very important

2 fairly important

1 not very important

0 not at all important

...as a good researcher?

4 extremely important
very important

2 fairly important

1 not very important

0 not at all important

...as a source of practical ideas for farmers or other users of
your findings?

4 extremely important

3 very important

2 fairly important

1 not very important

0 not at all important

51

lNow... As a member of the Experiment Station staff you perform duties

as a scientist, following the principles of your discipline. You
also perform duties as a member of the College ovagriculture of your
university, trying to serve their goals.

45

46

47

48

49

In performing your job as a scientist and as a member of the College
of Agriculture, how often do you find the goals of these two groups
in conflict? Would it be...

4 very often
3 fairly often
2 now and then
1 seldom

never

How much do you think scientists in your field and the adminis-
tration of the College of Agriculture agree with how often you
should publish your research findings? Do they...

0 agree completely
1 agree in general

2 sometimes agree, sometimes not
3 disagree in general
4 disagree completely

How much does your attendance at faculty meetings or at other
university committee meetings interfere with your research.
WOUld it be c o o

3 a great deal
2 quite a bit
1 just a little

0 not at all

How much do other non-research duties in the College of Agriculture
interfere with the attainment of your professional goals as a scien-
tist? Would it be...

3 a great deal

2 quite a bit
1 just a little
0

not at all

How different do the aims of the College of Agriculture seem from
those of your scientific discipline? Would they be...

3 a great deal different
2 quite a bit different

1 just a little different
0 not at all different

52

50 How much do scientists in your field disagree with university
administrators on the percentage of time you should spend doing
research? Would it be...

3 _a great deal
2— _quite a bit
1— _just a little
0_ _not at all

51 Many members of the College of Agriculture hold joint appointments
with responsibilities in research, extension, and teaching. In
your case, considering the attainment of your professional goals,
do you find this system...

0 very helpful

1 helpful

2 _neither helpful nor a hindrance
3_ a hindrance

4 _a great hindrance

53 How often do you talk to the following kinds of people about your

Research?

Department Head Other Administrators
several times a week several times a week
about once a week about once a week
once or twice a month once or twice a month
less than once a month less than once a month

Commercial Researchers U.S.D.A. Researchers
several times a week several times a week
about once a week about once a week
once or twice a month once or twice a month
less than once a month less than once a month

Fellow Researchers On-Campus Fellow Researchers Off-Campus
several times a week several times a week
about once a week about once a week
once or twice a month once or twice a month
less than once a month less than once a month

Extension Specialists Extension Agents
several times a week several times a week
about once a week about once a week
once or twice a month once or twice a month
less than once a month less than once a month

Farmers or Practical several times a week
Users of Your about once a week
Findings once or twice a month

less than once a month

Appendix B

Covering Letter Enclosed with Questionnaire

APPENDIX B

CoVering Letter Enclosed with Questionnaire

Agricultural Liaison Unit,
C.S.I.R.O.,
372 Albert Street,
East Melbourne, Victoria.
Australia.

September 1964

Dear Scientist:

I'm Stuart Hawkins of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial
Research Organization of Australia. At present I'm working in the
graduate program of the Department of Communication of Michigan State
’ University.

In common with other scientific institutions around the world,
our Organization is very much interested in how researchers communicate
their findings. With this is mind I am conducting a limited survey of
the communication behavior of agricultural scientists in some land-grant
colleges. I regret that, owing to limitations of time and finance, I
will not be able to visit with you personally.

I would very much appreciate it if you could spare about 15
minutes of your time to complete this questionnaire and return it to the
address below:

H.S. Hawkins

Department of Communication
322 Union

Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan 48823.

Naturally all individual replies will be treated as confidential
and will be used solely for compilation of group data.

Thanking you in anticipation of your cooperation.

Yours sincerely,

Enc: Stamped, addressed
envelope H.S. Hawkins

54

~~ v11"

u".

'39-}?-

 

, 5.. *7 I -" _3
f 1‘" .
.‘SE‘ v 1 AL) I"
——— -

Q
~.
\
”d
‘N
|.
J
”I
I
"1

TH a-
ll“ F- ‘9‘
' b

.4 .
, sir ii,

A.

'. rs" I‘ll
1.: ~ . ? '
' 5 ‘Eefi’

 

 

"iii $111131?“ {11111111 £ij MN!“