*’~ . ’ :- '
"3: ~ 1 . 3. ,:
I13 ‘ ‘ ‘ , ‘ : 3' .
“.31. A . , . , -
1.3.5., '..| . . _ ‘3:
,‘-u xx ‘ 1 _— ‘: ‘. . J ‘ . 1' 3 . ..
2‘5 ;' c ,3 . f ‘
w > - . . 4 . ; ,,

   

     

 

 

     

 

 

 

   

o, , .
n . , , ) > ' >‘ r:
.“ ’ ‘ ‘ ~ \:» 9
'r A .I .A.. .

 

 

“‘>\'-:\I‘

 

J.

mi

A
.~

 

E"

 

 

’35:;

3i
z

 

::

  

“,3: .J.M.‘

   

 

 
    
  
  
 

”IIWIIIII'
”13””,1...”
1-,.» .11

  
       

.11.
11

    
   
  
    
 

  

H1J
find/(.173;
.
«

           
 

 

’t .. rm; , 1., }.
Vr;f'” “AW 'vv-ov J’

n: '
”rile: ,- ”r r: 19::9

 

J I I f

" ’ '; " '. fin-rum .
ll ,.,

I! ’7’ I

IJr

 
    
   

 

y .
Jw
-‘--¢-:!-:;.. "1" ,.

c'

375'"

'11.:

 
  
 
   
 
  
   

   
  
  
  

J
1.”:11ngfrJ-V1Ju1’.
’l};

3 1: annqflz

I ‘ 1 ‘ p I -r .4 9 t
1r- . "I, :f; , ,, ’ I‘II.:H' 1v’irrrrlgl-V, r 'Z'JII’L'

' "7"’f’""" 1' 6'4: 13;. f .. ““"" r r If” 9;, . 1" #1433111."

"'IJLJIJJIya “'2', ”>141". Cm! .J'J I'llarl" z- y? {(2 w" 1" 'J'_J , - Fr5r::-' 'f vamflJer-rrr

11a'.!r,"..'ru':7‘,":. " "" r" ' ‘ 1‘ 3 ,1.
1 '4’”. ; 'u".

’- Ir

. 1.

  

 

N':fl

’ht) Ayvr.l'l'rl;
rm; u ’
:I:’ 'I

   

     
     

 

"‘-

     
  

         

    
    
  
 

 

       

33:57“; "
/r
M! '

          
   
    
 
   
  

 

 
 

M -,
'l-ul‘l-J
l'Fvl!r

 

   
  

    

yr J 751' rW'“ ”'
‘1‘?"Wh‘pr" Irl<:;1‘(‘
J .. J -rnJJJ
":3? 5’3; '1 15-77,. "J. . 1 1."!
.. 3 J
”v 1-

wry;

  

 

    
   

  
   
     
   
     
  

   
     

 

‘;2._.'” 3
f.

     
    
 
   
  

         

1
u. a"!

. ..J1.-1r

“nnuvwr ,

l

1/

    

 

_u’1,-
r “71-"1Jrr-
‘ u”}""""’;" .3; 3 r:
1,1!” 137/1 5'.”
'41", $23,739 31;,” “3,2,:
3333.51,;

  
  

     
 

r,
rvl‘b:':r::f:’. 9:11;”

     
    

   
  
   

 

         

I}. .3; I?
r
11.”?! "- 3,.-

”L p: ,
I}. In!" »Jr ::.,; r
.4" u 1 .JJ-a .W
:r-~' hi «I. m

 

   

   
 

  

L I B R A R Y
Michigan State
University

WIN/1111!!!”

3 12930 981

   

WWI/1M WWII/W 11L 3;

    

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

A COMPARISON OF COMMUNICATION BEHAVIORS
IN INNOVATIVE AND NON—INNOVATIVE
SECONDARY SCHOOLS

presented by

Richard K. Allen

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

_Ph_LD_:_ degree in M

E E gig fig? 1
Major p fess

Date November 11, 19 70

 

0-169

 

.4

-. 444‘}.

“Ag!

 

MSU

’ LIBRARIES
n.

 

RETURNING MATERIALS:
P1ace in book drop to
remove this checkout from
your record. FINES wil]

 

 

 

be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped beiow.

 

 
 

~ i;
. ,v,
K27
,m

NOV 1 7 1995
a 1. I
_ 9“ u

 

\JF\

 

 

 

ABSTRACT
A COMPARISON OF COMMUNICATION BEHAVIORS

IN INNOVATIVE AND NON-INNOVATIVE
SECONDARY SCHOOLS

BY

Richard K? Allen

The present study sought to assess the relationship
between selected communication behaviors and the innovative-
ness of organizations. The study was a comparative evaluation
of these communication behaviors in innovative and non-
innovative secondary schools.

Four secondary schools in the Northwest quadrant of
Michigan were selected as the research settings. Two of
the schools were predesignated as innovative and two as
non-innovative. Each teacher in the four schools was asked
to respond to a two part questionnaire. Part I asked for
the name, sociometric data and factors of sex, age, teaching
experience, etc. Part II contained anonymously answered
attitudinal questions concerning the school system and its
administration. The returned questionnaires were coded
and computer analyzed.

The communication behaviors were divided into two

classes on the basis of general behavioral concepts. These

Richard K. Allen

concepts were system Openness, the system's ability to

 

exchange information with its outside environment, and

communication integration, the system's ability to transmit

 

information internally. System openness deals with low
information gets into an organizational system and communica-
tion integration deals with what happens to the information
once it is in the system.

The system Openness hypotheses predicted that the
Opinion leaders, as well as the entire teaching staff, in the
innovative schools would read more professional journals,
attend more extra-system education meetings, and involve
themselves in more extra-system interpersonal communication
than the Opinion leaders and teachers in the non-innovative
schools. The communication integration hypotheses predicted
that the innovative schools would have more downward communica-
tion, have a higher degree of sociometric integration, and
be more participative in school decisions that the non-
innovative schools. The communication integration hypotheses
further predicted (l) more highly concentrated Opinion
leadership in innovative schools, and (2) more vertical
communication in innovative schools, with more horizontal
communication in the non-innovative schools.

We found support for the predicted differences between
the innovative and non-innovative schools concerning attendance
of teachers and opinion leaders at extra-system meetings and

the degree of participation in decision-making by members

 

Richard K. Allen

of the system. The present study also supported the predic-
tions concerning sociometric integration and the direction
of communication in the system.

Data for hypotheses concerning readership of professional
journals, Opinion leader reliance on extra-system inter-
personal sources for educational information, and the con-
centration of opinion leadership indicated results in the
opposite direction of that which was predicted. These
hypotheses were not supported.

Research results also failed to support the predictions
that the teachers in innovative schools relied more heavily
upon extra-system interpersonal information sources, and
received more downward communication from administrators
than teachers in non-innovative school, although the results

were in the predicted direction.

A COMPARISON OF COMMUNICATION BEHAVIORS
IN INNOVATIVE AND NON-INNOVATIVE

SECONDARY SCHOOLS

BY

Richard KL Allen

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Speech

1970

 

M7103

Accepted by the faculty of the Department of
Communication, College of Communication Arts, Michigan
State University, in partial fulfillment of the require—

ments for the Doctor of Philosophy degree.

83$ ‘Wr /Zo;//V~

Director of Thesis

 

 

Guidance Committee: S;~A«/ K;%7/7Z1137‘*, Chairman
I

 

 

 

DEDICATION

TO

Jean

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author wishes to express his sincere appreciation
to Dr. Everett M. Rogers for his friendship, intellectual
stimulation, and assistance in all phases of the present
study.

For conscientiously serving as members of the Guidance
Committee, the author acknowledges Professor Russell Kleis,
Dr. David Ralph, and Dr. Lawrence Sarbaugh. The early
guidance of Dr. William B. Lashbrook and Dr. James McCroskey
is also acknowledged.

For their assistance and valuable professional help,
the author wishes to acknowledge Mrs. Judy Nims, Mrs. Anita
Immele, and Dr. William Force. Acknowledgment for their
excellent cooperation is due the administrators, staff, and
teachers of the schools examined in the present study.

My parents, who provided the original Opportunity
and desire for more knowledge, have consistently offered
encouragement and moral support during the quest for that
knowledge.

My wife Jean and our children, Steve and Scott, made
the pursuit of this degree worthwhile. Their loyalty,
encouragement, and cooperation during these difficult but

enjoyable years gave me the opportunity to succeed.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DEDICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. . . . . . . . . . . .
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . .
LIST OF FIGURES. . . . . . . . . . . .
LIST OF APPENDICES. . . . . . . . . . .
Chapter
I THE PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . .
Objectives. . . . . . . . .

Change and Organizational Structure .
Communication of Change in Educational

Organizations . . . . . . . .
Justification. . . . . . . . .

II HYPOTHESES. . . . . . . . . . .

General Hypotheses . . . . . . .

System Openness . . . . . . . .

Communication Integration. . . . .

Summary. . . . . . . . . . .

III METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . .

The Settings . . . . . . . . .

Data Gathering . . . . . .
Operationalization of Concepts and

Techniques of Measurement . . . .

Data Analysis. . . . . . . . .

IV RESULTS. . . . . . . . . . . .

System Openness . . . . . . .

Communication Integration. . . . .

Summary. . . . . . . . . . .

Page
iii
iv
vii

ix

12
18

24
27
29
38
47

49
49
6O

63
68

77
77
84
98

Chapter Page

V CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . 100

System Openness . . . . . . . . . 102
Communication Integration. . . . . . 106
Implications for Future Research . . . lll

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

vi

Table
III-l

IV-1

IV-2

IV-3

IV-4

IV-5

IV-6

IV-7

1/ IV- 8
¢’IV-9

,IV-lO
v

IV-ll

LIST OF TABLES

Basis for Testing the Independent Variables

Professional Journals Read by Teachers in
Innovative and Non-Innovative Schools . .

Number of Extra-System Meetings Attended by
Teachers in Innovative and Non-Innovative
Schools . . . . . . . . . . . .

Interpersonal Sources of Educational Informa—
tIOn for Teachers in Innovative and Non-
Innovative Schools . .'". . . . . .

Professional Journals Read by Opinion Leaders
in Innovative and Non-Innovative Schools .

Number of Extra-System Meetings Attended by
Opinion Leaders in Innovative and Non-
Innovative Schools . . . . . . . .

Interpersonal Sources of Educational Informa-
tion for Opinion Leaders in Innovative and
Non-Innovative Schools . . . . . . .

Mean Number of Meetings Attended for Teachers
and Opinion Leaders in Innovative and
Non-Innovative Schools . . . . . . .

Information Sources for Teachers and Opinion
Leaders in Innovative Schools. . . . .

Downward Communication in Innovative and Non-
Innovative Schools . . . . . . . .

Direction of Communication Flows in Innovative

and Non-Innovative Schools. . . . . .

Cliques, Isolates, and Semi-Isolates in
Innovative and Non-Innovative Schools . .

vii

Page
69

78

79

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

87

87

Table

IV-12

IV—13

IV-l4

IV-15

IV—l6

Group Centrality Indices for Innovative and
Non-Innovative Schools . . . . . . . .

Participation in Organization Decisions in
Innovative and Non-Innovative Schools . . .

Gini Ratio Coefficients for Innovative and
Non-Innovative Schools . . . . . . . .

Number of Opinion Leaders Nominated by Teachers
in Innovative and Non-Innovative Schools . .

Summary of Tests of Hypotheses . . . . . .

viii

Page

89

96

97

97

99

Figure
11-1
11-2

III-l

III-2

IV-1

IV-2

IV-3

IV-4

LIST OF FIGURES

Griffith's Open system theory . . . . .
Paradigm of hypotheses. . . . . . . .

Example of a communication network as repre—
sented by a sociogram, a binary matrix,
(A), and its corresponding squared matrix,

A2. 0 O O O O O I O O O O C 0

An illustration of the Lorenz curve indicat—
ing concentration of sociometric Opinion
leadership . . . . . . . . . . .

Sociogram of the sociometric choices in
SChOOl I-l O O O O O O O O O O O

Sociogram of the sociometric choices in
SChOOl I_2 O O O O O O O O O O O

Sociogram of the sociometric choices in
SChOOl N—l O O O O . O O O O O O O

Sociogram of the sociometric choices in
SChOOl N_2 O O O O O O O O O O O

Paradigm of meeting attendance by teachers

and opinion leaders in innovative and
non-innovative schools . . . . . . .

ix

Page
33

48

73

75

91

92

93

94

104

Appendix
A

B

LIST OF APPENDICES

THE PROJECT 7 AREA

CURRICULAR PRACTICES POLL .

LETTER OF INSTRUCTION TO SUBJECTS . . .

THE QUESTIONNAIRE

SOCIOMETRIC CHOICE MATRICES

Sociometric Choice
Sociometric Choice
Sociometric Choice
Sociometric Choice

FACTORS OF SEX, AGE,
SCHOOL. . . .

Matrix for

Matrix
Matrix
Matrix

for
for
for

EDUCATION,

Factors of Sex and Age .
Factors Of Education and Years in

School . . .

School I-l
School I-2
SchoOl N-l
School N-2

AND YEARS IN

Page
123
125
127
129
142
143
144

145
146

147
148

149

CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM

A frequently encountered View of the American

educational system is that it is not a system at all,

but a vast, sprawling, complex semi-chaos. Another

View sees it as a connected network of subsystems of

various size, operating in a more or less coherent

way (Miles, 1964, p. 29).

Chapter I will set the scene for the comparative analysis

of innovative and non-innovative systems by examining the
objectives, research traditions, and justifications pertain—

ing to the subject.

Objectives

The innovativenessl of social systems2 has long been

 

a concern of researchers. However, there seems to be limited
empirical evidence available from past diffusion research
with regard to the basic problem of how communication behavior

affects innovativeness in a system. The present study was

 

lInnovativeness is the degree to which one unit is
relatively earlier than another unit in adopting ideas,
practices and/or inventions which are now to that unit.

2A social system is defined as a bounded collection of
interdependent parts, devoted to the accomplishment of some
.goal or goals.

 

 

designed to analyze the effects of communication structure
on the innovativeness of comparative social systems.

The principal research questions here are generally

 

concerned with system openness and communication integration

as organizational communication behaviors and their relation-
~—-—-§__‘__ ‘ 1 . . 7.—--~ '7 --,— "I"

ship to the innovativeness of an educational organization.

System opennessl is the degree to which a system is receptive

 

to all types of inputs, and makes outputs to, the environment.

Communication integration1 is the interconnectedness of the

 

organizational communication structure. Such integration is

produced by an uninterrupted flow of information2 and the

 

openness of communication channels within the organization.
The specific objective is to examine innovativeness
as it relates to communication behaviors in a field setting
by:
l. Observing the differences in communication behaviors
between innovative and non-innovative school sYstems,

viewing these school systems as formal organiza-
tions.

 

 

lSystem openness and communication integration will be
further defined in Chapter II.

2Information is defined as the combination of intelligence,
learned experiences and observations necessary for the main-
tenance and advancement of a system. It is the energic input,
the life-blood, if you will, of a system. Without a steady
flow of information in and out of an organization, that organi-
zation is not likely to survive.

 

 

3Katz and Kahn (1966) define a formal‘organization as
an ensemble of individuals who perform diStinct but interrelated
and coordinated functions, in order that one or more tasks
may be completed. Such functionary groups as industrial firms,
the army and, of course, the public schools, fit this definition.

2. Observing how an organization gives and receives
information and how it internally processes that
information.

3. Collecting and analyzing comparative empirical
evidence from the "real world."

Before expanding the structure of the present study
it will be helpful to make a closer examination of organiza-

tional structures and their ability to change.

Change and Organizational Structure

 

Change is a noticeable alteration which takes place in
the goals, structure, or processes of a system over time.

The Observer of formal organizations is forced to the
conclusion that most organizations are not characterized
by rapid change.

Indeed, when organizations are Observed over a long
period of time, they appear to be characterized by stability,
rather than change. Since (1) a formal organization is a
structural mechanism employed by society to achieve one
or more of its commonly-accepted goals, (2) the goals do
not change noticeably, and (3) each organization's activities
are rather clearly demarcated, any particular organization
comes into existence with a great deal of built-in stability.
This stability is so great as to constitute a powerful
resistance to change.

On the other hand, it is clear that organizations
g9 change. In many organizations, the increments of change

are small, but in others, change is so radical as to cause

the disappearance of the original organization and the
appearance of a new one. As an organization changes, the
members of that organization also must change, must acquire
an unaccustomed facility for change, if they are to live in
a modern world. Such organizational change means that the
achievement and maintenance of our mutual well-being becomes
progressively more important and more difficult to
accomplish because change has to affect the stability of an
organization and its members. It further means, however,
that if we are to maintain our health and a creative relation-
ship with the world around us, we must be actively engaged
in change efforts directed toward ourselves and toward our
material, social, and spiritual environments.

One way to examine the problems of organizational change
is to place ourselves in the role of communication consultant
for a moment. According to Lippitt and others (1958, p. 3),
"The increased need to modify or invent our patterns of
behavior and organization has led natrually to a demand for
professional help." Based upon past research, what sort of
help or advice could a professional Offer an organization?

First, resistance to change can be expected if the
nature of the change is not made clear to the peOple who
are going to be influenced by the change. Theories of decision-
making sometimes ignore communication effects. Prima facie,
this exclusion seems implausible. If, for example, educa-

tional decisions are assumed to be based on expectations

concerning student needs, costs, and effectiveness of pro-
grams, it is "hard to see how we can ignore the process
through which such information is communicated in the
organization" (Cyert and March, 1963, p. 67). In spite of
these facts, it seems that the dissemination of recommended
changes in education has not been dealt with adequately,

and one of the major problems inhibiting change in our
present educational programs and processes is the lack of
sound communication between teachers, administrators, school
boards and the public. We might do well in this situation
to apply a question and answer posed by Simon (1957, p. 108),
although it does not speak directly to education problems.

He says:

The question to be asked of any administrative
process is: How does it influence the decisions of
the individual? Without communication, the answer
must always be: It does not influence them at all.

In order to study formal organizations, it is first
imperative that we understand the relationship between the
hierarchical structure, both stated and perceived, and

existing communication patterns. Communication is the

 

exchange Of information and the transmission of meaning.
It is "the very essence of a social system or an organization"
(Katz and Kahn, 1966, p. 223).

All organizations need information in their communica-

tion channels. As an organization grows, it is to be expected

that its information needs will increase. But the parallel
growth of an organization and its ability to gather and

use information do not exist in a one—to—one-ratio. The
disparity is caused by the necessary accelerated growth so
common in organizations today and their comparative lack of
interest and/or ability to exchange information with their
environment and utilize that information at a similar rate.
Every organization thus must solve the problem of how it
will obtain its information and what patterns of communica—
tion shall be followed.

A part of the chaos that may exist in an organization
is the failure to see any dimensions of organizational
communication other than those implied by the formal
organization chart on the executive Office wall. The
formal organization chart is, of course, an important
structural factor simply because organizations are tradi—
tionally described by organization charts. An organization
chart Specifies the authority or reportorial structure of
the system. The organization chart communicates some of
the most important formal attributes of the system. Cyert
and March (1963, p. 289) point out that "The organization
chart still provides a lot of information conveniently—-partly
because the organization usually has come to consider rela—

tionships in terms of the dimensions of the chart."

 

 

When one studies the diagram of the structure of an
institution, he learns something about its operation and
about the communication patterns which accompany its function.
Yet when we place human beings into the slots on that
organizational chart, we find ourselves with a second, but
equally important, structural pattern, the informal

organizational1 chart.

 

The high structure and rigidity of the formal structure
may account for the frequently-reported existence of informal,
and sometimes unknown, communication channels in such
organizations. The problem stems from the fact that the
informal structure is changing, fluctuating, and dynamic,
whereas the formal structure has a tendancy to be more static.
Too often the formal structure no longer describes what is,
in fact, going on in the dynamics of an organization. And
even more importantly, if the formal organization always
matched the informal organization, most organizations would

be highly productive, highly cohesive, and enjoy considerably

 

lFormality is defined as a conventional methodical
structure, a set of rules. Informality, on the other hand,
is a non-conventional method with little structure. The
formal aspect of an organization then, is the hierarchical
structure which the organization itself recognizes as its
structure, i.e., who reports to whom. The informal organiza-
tion, is the less obvious structure within each formal
organization which, although it is not always recognized,
is nonetheless present and must be dealt with; i.e., "the
grapevine." Because of its obscurity and lack Of recognizable
structure, the informal organization is extremely difficult
to deal with.

more communication efficiency than they do. Since the
informal and formal do not match, the recognition and under-
standing of the informal organization hierarchy within a
formal organization is an absolute necessity if one is to
examine the total organization.

Communication in a hierarchical structure must proceed
both up and down the hierarchy. On the surface, the consider-
ation of upward and downward seems to imply a complete
communication system in a formal organization according to
the formal organizational chart. However, if the informal
organizational structure is considered, we add an horizontal,
or lateral, dimension to the communication system.1 Organiza—
tions face one Of their most difficult problems in procedures
and practices concerned with lateral communication, i.e.,
communication between people at the same hierarchical level.
The model of a tightly run organization would be one which
attempts to understand and control, but not necessarily
restrict, lateral communication. A role incombent would
receive almost all his instructions from the man above him,
and would deal with his associates only for task coordination

specified by rules. Such a plan, however, neglects the need

 

1Katz and Kahn (1966, p. 235) define downward communica—
tion as information which follows down through the pattern of
hierarchical positions and upward communication as information
which ascends the hierarchical ladder. They define horizontal
communication as information which moves among peers at the
same organizational level.

for socioemotional support among peers, and although it is
still true that uncontrolled communication of a horizontal
character can detract from maximum efficiency, it will con-
tinue to exist and must be understood and managed, not
destroyed.

Communication among peers, in addition to providing
emotional and social support to the individual, also provides
task coordination. The mutual understanding of colleagues
is one reason for the power of the peer group. Psychological
forces push people toward communication with peers; people
"in the same boat" share the same problems. Hence, if there
are no problems of task coordination left to a group of peers,
the content of their communication can take forms which are
irrelevant to or destructive of organizational functioning
(Katz and Kahn, 1966, p. 244).

The importance of a lateral dimension should not
diminish the importance of the upward and downward dimensions.
All three dimensions are important. Downward communication
has implications for organizational morale and effectiveness.
In general, the rank-and—file member gets his task instruc-
tions from those immediately above him. As Katz and Kahn
(1966, p. 239) point out, messages from superior to sub-
ordinate basically concern job instructions, job rationale,
procedures and practices, feedback to the subordinate about

his performance, and indoctrination of goals.

10

Supervisors are relatively quick to perceive the
problems of downward communication. The growth and complexity
of modern systems place pressure upon supervisors at all
levels to develop effective means of transmitting information
to lower echelons that is Vital to the continuing, efficient
operation of the organization. The passing on of orders,
policies, and plans necessary to modern life is the backbone
of efficient management.

There are many values, however, that accrue to those
supervisors who listen willingly and who urge their subordinate
to talk freely and honestly. Communication "up the line"
takes many forms. It can be reduced, however, to what the
person says (1) about himself, his performance, and his
problems, (2) about others and their problems, (3) about
organizational practices and policies, and (4) about what
needs to be done and how it can be done. Thus the subordinate
can report to his supervisor about what he has done, what
those under him have done, what his peers have done, what he
thinks needs to be done, his problems and the problems of
his unit, and about matters of organizational practice and
policy. He can seek clarification about general goals and
specific directives. The more oppressive the organizational
structure is at the top, however, and the more control is
exercised through pressure and sanctions, the less adequate

will be the flow of information "up the line."

11

If the functions of communication in an organization
are to be achieved, we must realize that communication is
dynamic. Information must flow constantly up, as well as
down, if it is to stimulate mutual understanding at all
levels of the organization.

The formal aspects of an organization, then, must be
considered in conjunction with its own informal structure
and the resulting upward, downward and horizontal communica-
tion dimensions of the organization. The structural and
communication patterns within an educational organization
are examples of the necessary melding of the formal and
informal aspects of an organization.

While the administrative process of an organization
is affected by communication, it is by no means a one-way
street. An organization through its norms, values, status
hierarchy, etc., also has a strong effect on communication.
Open and necessary communication in an organization may be
altered in important ways or thwarted altogether by the
explicit and implicit rules and policies of that organization.
The organization itself can seriously hamper the establish—
ment of effective lines Of communication, even though it
may do so unwittingly. According to Katz and Kahn (1966,

p. 246), "It is not a matter of changing the communication
habits of individuals, but of changing the organizational
conditions responsible for them." These effects or conditions

may be of a nature which limit the flow of communication in

12

and out of an organization or of a nature which limit the
flow of information within an organization.
Let us now turn to the specifics of the communication

of change in an educational setting.

Communication of Change in
Educational Organizations

 

 

As mentioned earlier, the communication patterns of
an organization seem to be interrelated with, and inextricable
from, the ability of the organization to adapt to change.
Support for this contention is indicated by research findings
from all types of organizational systems.

Of course, we are primarily concerned here with the
body of knowledge resulting from research on the communication
of change in educational systems. Many of the research
findings from industry may be applied to educational systems,
particularly if both industrial and educational systems are
looked at as organizations.

Of about 1,700 diffusion studies content-analyzed and

included in the bibiography of the Diffusion Document Center

 

 

lThe Diffusion Document Center is located in the Depart—
ment of Communication at Michigan State University. The Center
contains articles pertaining to the communication of new
ideas among members of a social system over time. Each
empirical study catalogued in the Center has been content-
analyzed, and information pertaining to both the independent
and dependent variables and the relationship between them
has been placed on IBM cards.

13

at Michigan State University, slightly more than six percent
.were classified as educational. The comparative paucity
of research findings in the field of education may be partly
due to a lack of interest or a lack of useful methodologies.
It is also possible that certain ideological beliefs
in the educational profession serve to block educational
innovation and the study of educational innovation by
effectively insulating educational practitioners from reality.
For example, beliefs that North American schools are locally
controlled, that the school teacher is an independent,
autonomous professional, and that teaching and learning cannot
be effectively measured or specified in other than intuitive
terms, all appear to serve the function of protective myths.
As Miles (1964, p. 634) further pointed out:
. . . the teacher's ideological commitment to professional
autonomy appears to be belied by heavy classroom reliance
on texts and materials. Confused role expectations for
the teacher may be at work; for example, reading experts
do not accord full professional status to teachers,
yet expect them to act autonomously and rely less on
texts. Thus it seems likely that local innovative
efforts are restricted by the fact that the teacher's
role is actually that of a bureaucratic functionary who
has little power to initiate systemwide change, but-—
because of the ideology concerning professionalism
alluded to above—-tends to resist innovative demands,
like most professionals in bureaucratic organizations.
Other aspects like vulnerability to outside influence,
the use of persons rather than physical technology as primary
instruments of change, lay control, and the communication
behaviors found in the individual organizations, may serve

to lower innovation rates in educational organizations, when

seen comparatively with other types Of organizations.

14

Another basic reason why educational systems have
difficulty in managing change is because their administrators
have been trained instead to manage stability. Perhaps
no type of system has been subjected to more rapid and sudden
change since "Sputnik" than education, a condition which
accounts for the difficulty educational organizations have
found in keeping up with change.

Such authors as March (1965), Lippitt and others (1958),
and Katz and Kahn (1966) point out that the difficulty of
experiencing and implementing change in a stable organization
should not be minimized. Clearly, successful educational
systems, like any organization, must be stable if they are
to provide the continuity necessary in a formally structured
organization. It is therefore unreasonable to expect such
organizations to evolve structures which maximize flexibility.
A highly flexible organization is poorly adapted to stable
conditions, just as a highly inflexible and formal organiza-
tion is poorly adapted to an unstable set of problems.

The pain and disorganization that arise from finding
that our familar ways of behavior no longer work in a new
environment, or in one that has been altered, are frequently
an unavoidable stimulus toward change. It is not pleasant
to feel threatened and that pain can become a force toward
change. The system experiencing a threat will try first
and most urgently to return to old and secure patterns of

behavior because members of the system naturally feel more

15

sure Of these traditional patterns than of other untried and
untested patterns.

What appears to be painfully "new" to our educational
systems is not "new" because it has never been there before,
but because it has changed in quality. One factor that ii
new is the prevalence of newness; the changing scale and
scope Of change itself, so that the world alters as we walk
in it, so that the years of man's life measure not some
small rearrangement or moderation of what he learned in child-

hood, but a great upheaval. The Angel Gabriel in Green Pastures

 

put is still more succinctly: "Everything nailed down is
coming loose."

When a change process occurs, the system can react in
one of four ways. These ways are: /

l. Ignore the change; pretend things are just as
they always have been and will be. Think that
the usual is eternal.

2. Resist the change; prefer conditions not as good
as they could be for fear they might be worse
than they are.

3. Adapt and accept with an easy, false enthusiasm
under the delusion Of action: "We did this."
Dedicated to ourselves, our goals are simply
adaptation to the past as we knew and loved it.

4. Design and create the future. Mistakes may
occur but not by individuals who do nothing. A
leader is always exposed to risk. But he takes
the risk in the hope of real gain, where inaction
can only court certain disaster.

 

it

16

The first three reactions are forms of resistance to
change. A change force has its origin in any aspect of the
situation which increases the willingness of the system to
make a proposed change. A resistance force has its origin
in any aspect of the situation which reduces the willingness
Of the system to make a change.

One of the most discouraging moments in many a process
of change comes when resistance to change suddenly appears
in an important subpart Of the system. Usually the change-
initiating subpart responds by being intensely angry or
painfully disheartened. Often it seems incomprehensible to
the prOponents of change that resistance should occur. "Why
are they resisting something that will benefit them as
much as it does us?" "Can't they see that this will be an
advantage to the whole community, even if they have to give
up a little?"

Such frustration need not exist, as Lippitt and others
(1958, p. 86) point out:

It is of interest that many resistance forces can be
converted into change forces. Resistance forces come
into being originally in response to certain neds of
the client system. If the client is saying, in effect,
that the status quo must be maintained because it is
the best way to meet these needs, the change agent may
be able to show that the same needs would be met even
more satisfactorily in a changed set of conditions.

Then the very energy which the client system once

used tO maintain the status quo may shift direction
and become an impetus toward change.

 

17

What an organization really needs is an effective,
solid management of the system in question through the
development of adequate communication channels and behaviors.
This type of management is the process Of converting informa-
tion into action, and managerial success is determined by
what information is chosen and how the conversion is
executed. The manager's environment is information about
his enterprise and its environment; his function is that of
searching and selecting relevant data from that environment
for conversion into behavior——in the form of inputs to those
who do the work of the organization (Dance, 1967, p. 93).

We can now see a strong case for an improved system of
communication which will allow educational systems to keep
up with their own needs. These needs must be met because
innovation in education, whether it involves the use of
new curriculum materials or new educational technology, has
become essential if the schools are to be genuinely effective
in achieving their aims and goals. Continuing assessment
of the product of the schools also is necessary in order to
prOperly evaluate and update the school programs. Hence,
the develOpment of principles and techniques for critically
judging the worth of whatever the schools teach and the
effectiveness and efficiency of their methods of instruction
is essential. Thus, the formal educational system may feel
dissatisfaction or pain associated with the present situa—

tion. Then the change force is a desire for relief. Just

 

18

as the sick individual wants to be cured of his symptoms,
the unproductive group or organization wants to find a way
to function more efficiently.

One Of the best and most reliable ways to locate the
most efficient, productive methods in organizations is
through conceptualizing and empirical measurement, which

the present study will seek to provide.

Justification

 

Most educators can see the need for a study of innova—
tion and change methods in today's educational organizations.
But research and attention to the organizational aspects
and the communication behaviors necessary for change have
often been ignored.

In the main, past research has taken the school systems
as the study unit with very limited attention being paid to
concepts related to organizational theory. School systems
have been seen as adOpting units; but school systems are
complex organizations. The fact that school systems are
organizations has been generally over-looked, according to
Carlson (1968, p. 16).

One must, of course, recognize some exceptions to the
overall dearth of research attention to school system as
organizations. Davis (1965) made some use of what could
be called organizational theory in examining the adoption

of innovations in two liberal arts colleges. And Eibler

19

(1965) explored some organizational variables related to the
adoption of innovations among high schools. Such studies
provide an excellent research beginning but far from

enough conclusive results to begin to build any body of
theory.

Communication has been neglected in diffusion studies
of educational innovations. Attempts to understand how
various modes of communication are related to innovativeness
have been few. According to Carlson (1968, p. 22), research
has shown that the extent to which one seeks information
outside his immediate geographical area is related to the
rate of adoption. Studies have pursued the notion of
opinion leadership and its bearing on rates of adoption.

But overall, the neglect of communication in educational
organizations is awesome. As Guetzkow (1965, p. 569) pointed
out, ". . . research in communication has lagged behind
studies concerning other features of organizational life

such as authority, division of work, and status."

It is desirable to know how communigationfibehaviors
are related to innovativeness, since communication is
'necessary for innovativeness to take place. Without
communication, innovations will not even be introduced
into a system. Additionally, if One wants to know how an
innovation spreads, one is inescapably involved in the
study of communication processes.

Greater knowledge of the effects of communication

behaviors on the innovativeness of an educational system

20

is needed. An organization can be viewed as an information-
processing and decision-rendering system. We need more
reliable data on where and how organizations secure new
information, how that information is communicated through
the organization, how decisions are reached, and finally,
how such decisions are implemented in the organization.
Without such research and information, educational organiza-
tions will continue to find it difficult, if not impossible,
to modernize. In this regard, Gouldner (1961, pp. 396-397)
state that:

The very rationality of the modern organization has
made it increasingly dependent upon the kinds of infor—
mation that can be supplied by Operations or market
researchers, Opinion pollsters, industrial socio-
logists, morale surveyors, and group dynamics.

A problem with past diffusion research in the educa-
tional setting has been its heavy concern with the entire
system as a unit for study. Strictly speaking, until one
is concerned with individual system members, the questions
pertaining to various uses of channels of communication
are meaningful. "School systems do not send, receive,
nor fall under the influence Of communications; only
peOple do" (Carlson, 1968, p. 22). As long as the school
system is taken as the adopting unit and until attention
'is given to who plays what part within a school system in
the adOption decision, the neglect of the part played by

communication will continue, and a large gap in knowledge

will continue to exist.

21

For inStance, if more data were available concerning
teachers in the schools, perhaps methods could be suggested
by which being innovative could be made more attractive
to the average teacher in the classroom. Research must be
focused toward the classroom if it is ever to interest
teachers in the adoption of innovations. The present study
focuses on classroom teachers and their subsequent collective
communication behaviors. As Miles (1964, p. 47) put it,

"In the develOpment of theoretical understanding, there is
no substitute for the close examination of concrete particular
situations."

Now a very fundamental question from a theoretical
and practical VieWpoint can be raised as to why some social
systems have a higher rate of innovativeness than other
social systems. It is evident that the comparative analysis
of communication integration is important both theoretically
and empirically in terms of bringing into focus the effect
of communication structure on innovation diffusions.

There is a rationale for exploring the linkage between
the communication behaviors of the classroom teacher and
the innovativeness of a particular educational system on a
comparative basis. Such a comparative research approach,
which attempts to systematically compare educational organiza-
tions, is "probably the best heuristic solution" (Blau and
Scott, 1962, p. 223) to the study of a formal organization.
Further need for such study is cited by Blau and Scott

(1962, p. 111):

22

It has long been asserted that work groups should
not be studied in isolation but in the context of the
larger organization of which they are a part. How—
ever, few studies have used a comparative approach
to show how specific differences between formal organiza-
tions influence work group structure.

The prOgress of schools over the last few years has
exhibited the worth Of educational research and develOpment.
Much has been learned about relating subject matter to
instructional goals, refining the techniques of explanation,
cultivating the capacity for discovery, and defining other
aspects of the learning process. But much more needs to be
known if schools are to continue to move ahead. Better
techniques must be develOped for disseminating new technical
knowledge and applying it in actual instruction. Both basic
and applied research are necessary if false starts, blind
alleys, and wasted time are to be avoided in the school
systems.

Theorists and philosophers of science tell us that
it will never be possible to lay claim to a solid body of
theory until research testing all possible variable linkages
has been conducted and all pertinent research questions have
been asked. While we cannot cover such a broad territory
as all variable linkages in the present study, we grg asking
some research questions which link major variables.

A suggested method of theory-building is to ask similar
research questions in slightly different ways, replications

of a sort, thus testing and re—testing, validating and re-

validating. Such is the nature of the study herein presented.

23

Given the foregoing research inadequacies and research
needs in the field of organizational communication, the
stage is set for raising the fundamental problem of this
thesis: Are there comparative differences between educational
organizations with regard to their communication behaviors

which differentially affect their innovativeness?

 

CHAPTER I I
HYPOTHESES

The present study was not designed to investigate
in depth the total structure of the communication system
itself. The focus was rather on innovativeness and how a
few selected structural communication variables affect
innovativeness. Chapter II will develop the relationship
between communication behaviors and innovativeness further
and state the hypotheses postulated in the present study.

According to Kerlinger (1964), an independent variable
is the presumed cause of the dependent variable, which is
the presumed effect. The independent variable is the
antecedent; the dependent variables is the consequence Of
one or more independent variables.

In the present study the dependent variable is the
innovativeness of the system and the independent variables
are the communication behaviors of members of the system.
The present study tests a series of comparative hypotheses
in which the innovativeness of the systems is always the
dependent variable and the various communication behaviors

posited in the hypotheses are the independent variables.

24

25

The Diffusion Document Center located in the Department
of Communication, Michigan State University, contains over
1,700 such studies, of which approximately 1,020 seek to
explain innovativeness as their main dependent variable.
Rogers (1969, p. 56) stated that "adopting new ideas is the
heart of the modernization process, hence, innovativeness
is utilized as a consequent."

Before pursuing the hypotheses further, it seems
advisable to expand the conceptual definitions of system

and innovativeness found in Chapter I and to consider them

 

in the context of the present study.

We define a system as a bounded collection of inter-
dependent parts, devoted to the accomplishment of some goal
or goals. Operationally, what are these boundaries in the
present study? We arbitrarily define the system1 boundaries
as follows:

1. Each system includes only the teachers and
administrator or administrators in a certain
building within each of the four school districts
under study. Exception: One school district
being studied includes two buildings (located
about ten miles apart) in its system. Both Build—
ings were included since the two constitute one
total secondary school with one common principal.

 

1The systems in the present study are four secondary
schools in Northern Michigan. These systems will be described
in more detail in Chapter III.

26

2. The system boundaries includes the teachers
and administrators found in the secondary
schools of each of the four school districts
being studied. These teachers and administra—
torswere considered "within" the system while
parents, school board, local citizens and all
those outside the school district were con-
sidered to be "outside" the system.

3. The principal justification for setting these
system boundaries was to facilitate the study of
communication behaviors. In an educational
setting, the communication system boundaries
seem to naturally fall rather tightly around
a small educational unit and its own internal
membership.

Our definition of innovativeness is the degree to which

 

one unit is relatively earlier than another unit in adopting
ideas Of practices which are new to them. Operationally,

we further define innovativeness as the general tendency

and willingness of a school to try educational innovations
which are new to them and which may require changes in their
structure. When attempting a workable definition of inno-
vativeness, one must consider the time element, cognitive

or attitudinal innovativeness versus behavioral innovative—
ness, and needed innovativeness, rather than innovation for
innovation's sake.

Let us further explain these terms. The present study
considers an innovative school to be one willing to take
overt innovative action and not just talk about,or profess
an attitude toward, such action. It is also important to
examine a school and its innovation attempts together to
determine whether the innovation is an important and necessary

change rather than simply an attempt to appear fashionable.

27

An innovative school is considered to be one which
is attempting to change the stability of its organization
at the time. At any certain point, time is clearly an important
consideration since once a change is established in an
organization and has been fully implemented into that
organization, the change becomes part of the organizational
patterns at some point, rather than organizational change.
Since change is a process, and when the process stOps, the
organization becomes static and unchanging. When today's
innovative educational organizations become satisfied and
complacent with their specific changes and cease to remain
flexible to further change, they become non—innovative.

We are, therefore, dealing with a comparison of
presently innovative and non-innovative systems. The basis
for these designations will be further explicated in

Chapter III.

General Hypotheses

 

As pointed out by Rogers (1962), a postulated relation—
ship between two conceptual variables is called a general

hypothesis, which is tested by means of testing one or

 

more empirical hypotheses. An empirical hypothesis, accord—

 

ing to Rogers, is the postulated relationship between two
Operational measures of conceptual variables. The present

study was designed within such a framework.

28

For convenience in research, analysis, and understand—
ing, the general hypotheses are Operationalizations of
two separate but interrelated major behavioral concepts.
The total communication structure of a social system is

herein defined, in terms of these two main concepts, system

 

openness and communication integration. The two concepts
are interrelated since system Openness speaks to the way in
which information gets in and out of an organization, and
communication integration deals with what becomes of the
information while it is within the organizational system.
Both system Openness and communication integration
and their related empirical hypotheses will be examined in
greater detail in a moment. But first, we must take a
closer look at the interdependence of the two concepts.
For example, if we are to predict the effects of the down-
ward communication of a school administrator on his teachers,
we cannot ignore the Openness of the administrator to
exogenous information channels. Actually we are dealing
with a form Of one of the most common communication research

orientations, the two-step flow hypothesisl. The two-step

 

flow hypothesis calls attention to channels of communication
and to the various personal relations among those who receive

communication messages.

 

lThe two—step flow hypothesis suggests that innovations
spread from sources of new ideas via relevant channels to
opinion leaders and from them by way of interpersonal communica—
tion channels to their followers (Lazarsfeld and others, 1944,
p. 151).

 

29

The two general concepts in the present study are so
mutually exclusive and still so undeniably interdependent,
that they seem to provide an excellent package for studying
the communication behaviors of a system and its memerbs.

In short, it seems highly possible that system openness
plus communication integration may well determine innovative-

ness .

System Openness

 

In Chapter I we provided a limited conceptual definition
of system Openness which will now be expanded.

System Openness is the degree to which a system

 

exchanges information with sources outside the system.
System Openness includes open and closed systems and the
various degrees found along a continuum stretching between
the two. "An Open system is related to and makes exchanges
with its environment, while a closed system is not related
to and does not make exchanges with its environment" (Miles,
1964, p. 429).

Yadav (1967, p. 199) pointed out that the nature and
extent of innovation diffusion in a social system depends
upon an effective linkage of interpersonal communication
structure with the information environment external to a
social system. Rao (1966) in his research in communication

and development in peasant villages asserted that if

30

-communication is mainly within the group, little that is
new comes into the system and the old information and
methods must be relied upon. To survive, then, a system
needs to continuously exchange energies and materials with
its environment.

Two factos, entropy and organization, are constantly

 

at work against one another in a system and should be con-
sidered here, since they directly affect the openness of

the system. Entropyl is a "measure Of disorder in the
universe, and its characteristic tendency is to increase"
(Ascroft, 1969, p. 63). According to Ascroft, organization2
is the measure Of Opposition to the entropic process and

the presence Of structure in the system.

Closed systems are static, incapable of exchanging

 

energy with their environments, and are characterized by

 

lThe entropic process, according to Katz and Kahn (1966,
p. 21), is a universal law of nature in which all forms of
organization move toward disorganization or death. Complex
physical systems move toward simple random distribution of
their elements and biological organisms also run down and
perish. The open system, however, by importing more energy
from its environment than it expends, can store energy and
can acquire negative entropy. There is a general trend in
an Open system to maximize its ratio of imported to expended
energy, to survive and even during periods of crisis, to live
on borrowed time. To survive, systems must move to arrest
the entropic process; they must acquire negative entropy
(organization).

 

2 . . . . . .

Organization, as it is used here, is synonymous With
negentropy, which Katzman (1970) defined as the degree to
which there is structure in a system. In a thermodynamic
system, for instance, it is the degree of patterned, non—
random distribution Of matter and energy.

 

31

a tendency for entropy to increase. Open systems are dynamic,

 

maintain a continuous interchange of energy and component

materials with their environments and are characterized by

a limited and temporary tendency for organization to increase.
One might find a steady state at anngiven point in

time within either an Open or closed system. A steady state

 

is defined as the composition of the system remaining
constant, a state Of equilibrium. According to ROling (1970,
p. 29), a steady state can be a "dynamic equilibrium (Open
system) or a static equilibrium (closed system)." In other
words, an Open system may have boundaries, however, they

are at least partially permeable.

Open-system theory, with its entrOpy assumption,
emphasizes the close relationship between a structure and
its supporting environment, in that without continued inputs
the structure soon runs down. Thus, one critical basis for
identifying social systems is through their relationships
with energetic sources for their maintenance. The substance
of open-system theory is pointed out by Griffiths (1964,

p. 430):

. . any open system has supra—systems and sub-
systems. Let an organization be considered as an
Open system, comprised of human interactions, that
maintains a definite boundary. Further, consider
administration as an open sub-system, and the environ-
ment as a supra-system. The administration sub—system
is located at the point of tangency of the three
systems (as in Figure II-l).

When we consider the Openness of a system to its

surrounding environment in the present study, we are taking

32

Administration:'

Organization: Sub—System

Environment: System

Supra-System

 

\-

Figure 11-1. Griffith's Open system theory.

33

into consideration the relationship of the system itself
to its own sub-systems and supra-system.

Katz and Kahn (1966), Miles (1964), and others provide
controversy about the effects of an Open system on change
and innovation. Some authors state that an open system
produces stability and infrequent change because of the
stable, mechanical system necessary to keep information
flowing in and out of an organization. Others conversely
feel that the major impetus for change in an organization
comes from outside the organization because of the fresh
approaches that exogenous information brings with it. As
pointed out by Rao (1966), it appears that most energic
inputs such as new ideas must start outside a given system,
and continue to flow into it if that system is to survive.
Although we pointed out in Chapter I of the present study
that innovations often enter a system at the top of the
system hierarchy, it is possible for information to enter
a system at lower levels. The system Openness hypotheses
assume the possibility of innovations entering a system
at these lower levels, through the teachers rather than
from the school administrators.

The evidence presented thus far points out that:

l. The nature and extent of innovativeness in an

organization depends upon an effective linkage

between that organization and the external
information environment.

34

2. It is necessary for an organization to be open
to extra—system communication channels in order
to successfully acquire the negentropy necessary
for organizational survival.

3. An organization must remain open to extra—system
communication channels if it is to achieve a
dynamic equilibrium, a steady state in an organi—
zation which is still partially permeable and
viable.

Given such evidence, the following empirical hypotheses
relating to the general hypothesis concerning system open-
ness will help operationalize system openness and attempt
to prove its relationship to the more innovative systems.

General Hypothesis: Innovative schools depend more

heavily on extra-system communication exchange than non-

innovative schools.

 

Hypothesis 1: Teachers in innovative schools read
more professional journals than those in non—innovative
schools.

Hypothesis 1 is intended to test the relationship
between innovativeness and a high degree of system openness
through the examination of the number of professional journals
read by the teachers in the system. Professional journals
are regarded here as an important source Of education
information from outside the system.

Rogers (1962, p. 102) states that there have been
direct relationships found by several researchers between a
high degree of openness in a system toward outside informa—

tion sources, and innovativeness.

35

The spontaneous self—improvement which is involved in
reading professional journals should be an indicator of the
Openness of the system members to extra-system information.

Hypothesis 2: Teachers in innovative schools attend
more extra—system professional meetings than teachers in

non-innovative schools.

 

Extra-system professional meetings, as herein used,
are meetings of an educational information nature, such
as regional or state educational association meetings, which
involve people from more than one school district. These
meetings clearly are extra-system information sources by
our earlier definition of system boundaries. Such meetings
disseminate information stemming from their own level or
Often from levels even further removed from a particular
school or school district, such as national and international
levels. Professional meetings are considered to definitely
be sources of extra-system information and should prove to
be direct indicators of system Openness.

According to Fox and Lippitt (1967), teachers partici—
pating in summer workshops became more innovative than
teachers who did not attend the workshops and were more
successful in bringing about change in their own systems.

Rogers (1963, p. 256) stated that, "It has been found
that teachers who attend out-of—town educational meetings
are more innovative. This suggests that sending teachers
to workshops, conferences, and lectures, where they may
be exposed to new educational methods, may be a wise invest-

ment."

36

Hypothesis 3: Teachers in innovative schools engage

 

in extra—system interpersonal communication more than teachers

 

in non—innovative schools.

 

Some researchers have found that messages emanating
from outside the social system, cosmOpolite sources, are
often more technically accurate than localite sources.

Cosmopoliteness is "the degree to which an individual's
orientation is external to a particular social system"
(Rogers, 1962, p. 19). Researchers suggest that cosmOpolite
communications are more important for the members of a
social system to learn of a new idea. Information about
innovations usually emanates from sources external to the
system.

Researchers found that opinion leaders1 are more apt
to engage in extra-system communication than their followers.
From this notion, it is the contention in Hypothesis 3 that
the entire teaching staff of an innovative school would
enter into more outside communication than would the teach-
ing staff of a non-innovative educational system.

Hypothesis 4: Opinion leaders in innovative schools

 

read more professional journals than those in non-innovative

schools.

 

1An 0 inion leader is defined as an individual from whom
others seek information and advice (Rogers, 1962, p. 16).
While Rogers points out that an opinion is not usually an
"innovator" (Roger's designation for the first in a system to
adopt an innovation), he does state an Opinion leader is
usually an early adopter and a highly innovative person.

37

Hypothesis 5: Opinion leaders in innovative schools

 

attend.more extra—system professional meetings than Opinion
leaders in non-innovative schools.

Hypothesis 6: Opinion leaders in innovative schools

 

engage in extra-system interpersonal communication more than
opinion leaders in non-innovative schools.

As previously pointed out, researchers indicate that
Opinion leaders are more apt to engage in extra-system
communication than their followers. Hypotheses 4, 5 and 6
test whether or not opinion leaders in an innovative system
are more apt to engage in extra-system communication than
those in a non-innovative system.

The narrative section under Hypotheses l, 2, and 3
explicated that relationship between system openness and
three variables. The same explanations apply to Hypotheses
4, 5, and 6, except that we now approach the three tests
Of system openness and its relationship to innovativeness
through an examination of the Opinion leaders and their
information sources, rather than the entire teaching staff
of each school.

There is some basis for the postulations in Hypotheses
4, 5, and 6 concerning opinion leader behavior. Lionberger
(1962, p. 238) findings indicate that farmer Opinion leaders
subscribed to and read a comparatively higher number of
magazines and newspapers, and belonged to more organizations

than the non-opinion leaders. Menzel and Katz (1962, p. 238)

38

found that more influential medical doctors were most likely
to receive information about drugs from professional journals.
It is further reported by Rogers (1962, p. 238) that opinion
leaders relied heavily upon extra-system, or cosmOpolite,
sources of information.

In his study of modernization processes in peasant
villages, Rogers (1969, p. 229) pointed out that, "In the
traditional villages where to be cosmOpolite is to be deviant
from localistic norms, the opinion leaders are less cosmOpolite."
Rogers further stated that an opinion leader is highly con-
formist to the system norms.

Hence, Hypotheses 4, 5, and 6 test if findings concern-
ing the opinion leader's propensity to exchange information
with outside sources is more likely to be applicable to innovative

systems than to non—innovative systems.

Communication Integration

 

Communication integration, the second of the two con-
cepts in the study, is concerned with an Open, uninterrupted

communication flow within a system. Communication integration

 

is the interconnectedness of the units within an organization.

Guimaraes (1970, p. 10) defined communication integration
as "the degree to which the sub-systems or individuals in a
communication system are structurally interlinked." Communica-
tion integration, or the lack of it, is a process variable

which ranges on a continuum and is measured as the degree to

39

which all members of an organization or system relate to each
other through the exchange of symbolic content. It is evident
from the foregoing definition that the concept of communication
integration includes not only the interpersonal relation-

ships between individuals at the dyadic level, but also between
individuals and subgroups and between subgroups themselves.
These subgroups constitute the total communication structure

of an entire social system.

Guimaraes (1970) carried out an analysis to examine the
relationship between external and internal communication
integration1 and innovativeness. Two relatively modern
Brazilian villages, in the Guimaraes study, show considerably
higher levels of communication integration than do two
relatively traditional social systems. A tentative conclusion
was that "modern social systems seem to exhibit relatively
higher degrees of both internal and external communication
integration" (Guimaraes, 1970, p. 18).

We selected the following general hypothesis and
empirical hypotheses concerning the relationship between
communication integration and innovativeness.

General Hypothsis: Innovative schools have a higher

 

degree of communication integration than non-innovative

 

schools.

 

lGuimaraes' "internal integration" concept corresponds
with our concept of communication integration. His "external
communication integration" is the same as what we have labeled
"system oppenness."

 

40

Hypothesis 7: Teachers in innovative schools receive

 

more frequent downward communication from administrators

 

concerning the adequacy of their work than is received by

 

teachers in non—innovative schools.

 

The type Of downward communication in question here is
really a form Of feedback. We define feedback as return
communication providing the initial source with information
concerning his success in accomplishing his Objective. Such
feedback is vital to communication integration within a
system because Of its loosening effect on the internal flow
Of communication and its strengthening effect on organizational
morale.

Experienced personnel directors and successful managers
feel that subordinates are better able to function and will
be more apt to operate successfully in a free communicative
manner when they receive frequent and meaningful downward
communication from their superiors. Such a notion concerning
downward communication seems to be true even if the nature of
the communication is corrective concerning the performances
of subordinates. In short, as long as superiors control the
rewards in the system, their subordinates need to know where
they stand at all times from an evaluative point Of View.

In the present study the more innovative school systems
were expected to have a comparatively higher rate Of downward
communication because of the perceived effect of downward
communication upon the free flow Of communication in the

internal system.

41

Hypothesis 8: Innovative schools have more vertical

 

communication flows, while non-innovative schools have more

 

horizontal communication flows.

 

An examination of the direction of communication flows
within an organization should tell us a great deal about the
communication integration of the systems, since the direction
of communication deals with the flow of communication within
the organization. The direction of the flow may suggest
the degree of freedom in the internal communication channels
and whether it is possible for information to pass vertically
or it if can move only horizontally.

The information requirements of superior and subordinate
are not symmetrical. What the superior wants to know is often
not what the subordinate wants to tell him; what the sub-
ordinate wants tO know is not necessarily the message the
superior wants to send. The difference exists because their
social status, goals, needs, and expectations are not the
same and in some cases they are not even similar. The greater
the conflict between the communication needs of these two
hierarchically situated senders and recipients of information,
the more likely lateral communication is to increase. Among
peers, there is greater complementarity of information needs.
When a foreman finds little reception from his superior, he

will turn to fellow foreman to talk about his problems.

42

Most innovations enter the system at the top and if
the system is well integrated, they flow downward. The
basic assumption here is that when change occurs in an
organization, it occurs from the top down while change coming
up from the lower echelons is less frequent. As it is noted
by Miles (1964, p. 435), "A hierarchical order would enable
change to occur from the top down, but the relative inde-
pendence Of the sub-systems would tend to slow down the rate
of change." The structure makes change from the bottom very
difficult; one would expect little, if any change, to be
introduced in such a way. Such a statement seems even more
true when one considers that in most organizations the
organizational power resides at the top.

There has been little empirical research concerning
the direction of communication flows and their effect upon
the organization. Katz and Kahn (1966, p. 247) point out
that there are no studies of the distinctive types of communi-
cation which characteristically flow horizontally, upward,
or downward in organizations, although such research is much
needed.

Hypothesis 8 is an attempt to link vertical communica—
tion with a higher degree of innovativeness and horizontal
communication with a lower degree of innovativeness. Such
a linkage is important in better establishing the relation—
ship between innovativeness and the direction of the flow of

communication within an organization.

     

43

Hypothesis 9: Innovative-schools have a higher degree
of sociometric communication integration than non-innovative
schools.

The sociometric patterns and links in an organization
are probably the best single indicator of the degree to
which an organization is integrated. The foregoing it true

. . . l . .
primarily because group coheSiveness is, in fact, another

 

way to measure communication integration.

The major thrust of Hypothesis 9 is that innovative
schools will have a more closely integrated communication
system than non-innovative schools. Such a sociometrically-
integrated system has more individuals linked to each other

. . . . 2 -
in communication and fewer isolates and segregated cliques .

 

lGroup cohesiveness is a combination of all the factors
which draw individuals to a group and keep them there such
as attractiveness, friendship choices, common goals, etc.

 

2According to Lin (1966), an isolate is defined as an
individual who has no apparent relationships with other
members of the system and neither nominates nor is nominated
by any other individual in the organization.

3Cliques are sub—groups within a larger group who do
not connect or communicate with other major groups in the
organization. A clique is a set of individuals who interact
more frequently with members of that set than they do with
other social system members outside the set. Cliques can be
effectively cohesive internally, however, they tend to have
a divisive effect upon the larger group unless there are
contacts between the cliques.

44

Research, though not extensive, has shown that innova-
tiveness is related to an integrated sociometric pattern.

Lin (1966) found that, on a comparative basis, the most
innovative school systems had highly integrated communication
patterns, while the less innovative systems configured into
several small cliques and some isolates.

Hypothesis 9 is an attempt to substantiate the Lin (1966)
and Guimaraes (1970) findings concerning the relationship
between innovativeness and an integrated communication pattern.

Hypothesis 10: Innovative schools have a higher degree

of participation than non-innovative schools.

 

Participation is the engagement of the individual in

 

the system so that he is involved in decisions which affect

him as a system member. In a participative system the
individual has both a voice and a vote in the sub-system in
which he functions and in the representation of that sub—
system in the larger structure. Such participation also
guarantees him an opportunity to share through his own involve-
ment in the rewards of the group cooperation that constitutes
the system. Coch and French (1948) point out that research
shows that industrial workers who were given such Opportunities
for discussion accepted innovations in work procedures much
more readily than did workers in situations where no discus-
sions were allowed. It seems clear that the more participa-
tive a system is, the more integrated the communication will

be.

45

Since reaching a group decision is normally a frustrat-
ing and time-consuming process, the rate of adoption of
innovations is usually faster by the authoritative approach1
than by the participative approach. Changes brought about
by the authoritative approach, however, are more likely to
be discontinued than those brought about by the participative
approach due to the lack Of individual involvement and
commitment to the final decision which is missing in the
authoritative approach.

"A belief by the membership that they have a reasonable
control over group decisions seems to generate an interest
on their part in the goals" (Cartwright and Zander, 1968,

p. 407). Therefore, through the perceived commonality of
goals, the members should be more apt to turn the system into
an innovative one.

Hypothesis 10 attempts to explore and test for the fore-
going relationship. According to Katz and Kahn (1966, p. 380),
"The involvement of the individual in a system so that he
regards its goals as his Own personal objectives has seen

little study."

 

lThe authoritative approach to decision-making is the
Opposite of the participative approach in that the group is
not involved in the decision. Decisions are made unilaterally
and flow down from the top of the hierarchy in the form of
rules and policies.

 

46

Hypothesis 11: Opinion leadership is more concentrated

 

in innovative schools than in non—innovative schools.

Opinion leadership concentration is the degree to which

 

influence and power is concentrated in one or more units in

a social system. Opinion leadership in a social system can
be either widely distributed over the entire communication
structure or concentrated in the hands of a few individuals.
It is felt that the highly innovative system is produced by

a system with greater unanimity in the designation of opinion
leadership choices. The ability Of the members of a system
to accept and designate their opinion leaders should indicate
an integration in the organizational communication system
rather than a disjointed system with no universally accepted
opinion leadership.

It seems that if individuals in a social system can
readily identify opinion leadership, the social system in
question is highly integrated with clearly structured internal
communication lines. High opinion leader concentration
should help provide a more clearly defined internal informa-
tion source for system members and, hence, indicate a more
effective communication integration structure.

While formal research in the area of opinion leadership
concentration is limited, there has been a great deal of
speculation concerning the relationship of leader concentra-

tion to innovativeness.

 

47

Summary

The present study is designed to examine the relation—
ships of certain communication behaviors on the innovative-
ness of selected secondary schools. The format of the
study is to examine these relationships through two general
concepts; system openness and communication integration,
which are operationalized through 11 hypotheses (Figure II-2).

In general support of our hypothetical construct,
Carlson (1965, p. 6A) provided findings which Speak to the
relationship between the degree of innovativeness and cer—
tain communication behaviors contained in some of our

hypotheses.

 

 

48

momospomhr mo SOHOOHOAII.NIHH onsmflm

coflpmnucooqoo Hmpmoq QOHGHQO
Empmmm OH soapdeOHpHmm
sumppmm OHHpoEOHOOm OOLOHOODOH
OOHmeHOSEEOO mo mmmsHOOHuHo>

COHHOOHOSEEOO
pnmsszoo mo mosmswonm

Amoahmflum> pcopsmmopsHv
COHDOHOOHQH OOHpOOHOSEEOO

Ha

0H

AHOQOmHomHOchV
mamcsmru Eoummm1mnpxm

mumpwoq coflsfldo

m Ompmcmflmom mmcapooz Empmhmumnuxm

m mHOQHSOb Hocoflmmmmonm mcflpuom

m

m AamsOmHomHODch
mamcsmru Empmmmlmuuxm

m mHonomoe Ham mmcflpomz Eoumwmloupxm

mHOQHOOh Hmcoflmmowomm msflpmom

Amwanmflnm> DQOUQOQOUGHV
mmmcsmmo Emumwm

AOHQOHHO> psoucmmmov
mmoso>flum>ossH

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

Chapter III will describe the physical settings for the
research, the method of data—gathering, the Operationaliza—
tion of hypothetical terms, and the various methods of data-

analysis used.

The Settings

The settings for the present study were four secondary
school systems in Northern Michigan. These schools are
relatively small, employing 8 to 29 teachers each. Two
systems were predesignated as "innovative" and two as
relatively "non-innovative".

The main reason for choosing only secondary schools is
that many educators agree that in any given system or size
level, elementary schools and teachers have a tendency to be
more innovative than similar secondary schools. Therefore,
it might cause a loss of control in the study to mix elementary
with secondary systems. Additionally, since innovativeness
is our dependent variable, it is important to hold the char-
acteristics of the predesignated cells as constant as possible
in every aspect except innovativeness while Observing the
independent variables.

49

50

Comparatively small schools were chosen because of their
apparent tendency toward greater comparative disparity between
the innovative and non-innovative. Rogers (1963, p. 255)
asserts that:

A high relationship has been found between the
financial resources of a school system and its innovative—
ness. In fact, outstandingly innovative school systems
are usually located in particularly wealthy communities.
At the same time, however, it is important to remember
that not all rich schools are innovators and that not
all schools that innovate are rich. The community's
attitude about providing support for the school's costs
is obviously an important intervening variable between
community wealth and school innovativeness.

From the Rogers statement we assume that larger communities
have a larger school budget with which they work and perhaps
a greater tendency toward modern goals. These larger bud—
gets may quite possibly be a major reasons for innovativeness
in larger school systems. It was felt that in choosing both
the innovative and non-innovative school systems from small,
traditional type areas with limited financial support, we
would be dealing with systems which were innovative or non—
innovative mainly because of a desire, or lack of it, for
more effective learning by their children. In other words,
we wanted to deal with innovative schools that apparently are
innovative because of a desire to be so and not due to a
"surplus of money, so why not give it a try" attitude. Such
a wide disparity in innovativeness, which does not seem as
if it would be as pronounced in larger school systems, makes

identification of polarized innovativeness in the selected

schools easier and more justifiable.

51

The predesignated degree of innovativeness of each system
was established by one outside source and verified by another.
The source establishing the original innovativeness is a
special project, Impact 7, operating out of Title III of the

Elementary and Secondary Education Actl.

Impact 72 is headquartered in Reed City, Michigan and

is involved in assisting certain school systems in the

 

lThe divisions of the Elementary and Secondary Education
ASE passed by Congress in 1965 are all designed for different
educational purposes. Impact 7 is a program which comes under
Title III of the ESEA. Title III, for the purpose of develop-
ing innovative ideas in education, is formally established as
Projects to Advance Creativity in Education, abbreviated as PACE.

 

2The stated philosophy of Impact 7 is as follows:

We believe there is a need for greater and continuous
exposure to the expanding world of education, therefore
we perceive our task as providing opportunities to explore
and develop educational trends both inside and outside the
Impact 7 area, recognizing that school districts and
individuals must ultimately decide their own course of
action.

The activities of the Project over the past three years
have been varied. One such activity is the Voyager magazine,
a publication developed within the Impact 7 area, concerning the
Impact 7 area. It is designed to strengthen and promote an
awareness of the cultural, social, economic and educational
heritage of the area.

Other Project programs are a series of workshops, con-
ferences and seminars designed to expose educators to the
latest trends in education. They are planned according to the
needs and desires of area educators and "sabaticals", which
are live-in, work—in experiences in innovative schools outside
the Impact 7 area, have been provided to a limited number of
educators upon application approval. These sabaticals have
not been approved on any quota—per-school basis and have
ranged from several days to two weeks in length.

 

 

52

Northwestern quadrant of the State (see Appendix A) with
the development of innovative educational programs. The seven
counties of the Impact 7 area include five intermediate school
districts. These intermediate school districts are combina—
tions of local school districts which often cross county lines
and are brought together for the purposes of better planning
and improved programs. The five intermediate school superin-
tendents decided that ESEA Title III could serve some Of the
educational needs which exist in the area. In order to
qualify for Title III funds, it was necessary to design and
submit a plan. A planning project was submitted to the
Federal government and approved to survey the needs of the
local schools and to compile a proposal to meet these needs.
The planning project resulted in a proposal which was submitted
to the U. S. Office of Education. The proposal was approved
and Impact 7 began operation on June 28, 1967 for a three year
period.

The primary Impact 7 Project was an invitation which
was extended to all school systems in the seven counties to
submit proposals for funds to operate "Lighthouse Projects."
These "lighthouses" were to be innovative educational programs
which could serve as demonstration centers for the enrichment
of the entire field of education. Of the proposals submitted
(many school districts did not submit), seven were selected.

The selected projects were concerned with the following:

53
1. Elementary School Guidance and Perceptual
Development
2. School Community Relations
3. Extended School Year
4. K—12 Scheduling Revision
5. Flexible Scheduling-Ungraded Elementary

6. Individualized Instruction and Non-Graded
Elementary

7. K-12 Comprehensive Health Program

After nearly three years of working with all of the
schools in the seven county area, particulary those in the
seven selected projects above, the Impact 7 staff named
schools in their total Project area who have adapted or
tried their suggested programs as "innovative" and those schools
who were reluctant or refused to accept the ideas as "non—
innovative". It is possible that Impact 7 looked favorably
toward their programs. However, the variety of innovative
programs offered by Impact 7, and whether a school would
accept or reject such programs, appear to be valid indicators
of innovativeness.

These predesignated innovative and non—innovative
schools were verified further by Dr. William Force, a professor
in the School of Education at Central Michigan University.
In his research, Force attempted to determine the effects of
innovative and non-innovative schools on the attitudes and

teaching effectiveness of first year teachers.

 

54

Force presented the schools designated to him by the
Impact 7 staff with a curricular practices poll listing 25
recent educational innovations (Appendix B) and asked the
teachers and administrators to check the practices which they
had tried or were presently practicing. The resulting
scores were computed by totaling the number of innovative
practices adopted by each school system. The range of scores
were from 0 to 13 and those schools with scores from 7 to 13
were considered by Force to be innovative and those with
scores from O to 3 were the non-innovative schools. The
innovative schools selected for the present study had scores
of 13 and 12 on the Force instrument and the scores for the
non—innovative schools selected were 1 and O.

In the present study we selected schools in the Impact
7 area which were designated by the Project staff as innovative
or non-innovative, and verified by the Force research as our
subject systems. Schools on extreme ends of the innovative-
ness continuum were chosen rather than schools with varying
degrees of innovativeness located all along the continuum.
While an "extreme group" approach leaves out a sizable amount
of data concerning innovative systems located between the
extremes, it does provide excellent comparative data in an
exploratory study such as the present study. Future studies
with more prior research from which to draw should include
selected systems from along an innovativeness continuum rather

than only the extremes.

 

55

The schools predesignated to the present study as
innovative or non—innovative varied in size. However, since
we wanted to study the designated schools as they existed
from a field study point of View, the size differential had
to be a secondary consideration. All schools, however, are
in the Northwestern quadrant of Michigan, all are in the seven

county Impact 7 area, and all are consolidatedl school

 

districts.

In order to maintain the necessary anonymity promised
to the schools under study, we shall hereafter refer to the
two innovative systems as I—1 and I-2 and the non-innovative

systems as N—l and N-2.

School I-1

 

School I—l has been a consolidated school district for
about four years and is still a small school by most standards.
They have eight teachers and approximately 170 students in

grades 7 through 12. This school, although it is very small,

 

l .
In these rural areas it became necessary several

years ago to consolidate, to combine several smaller school
district in order to maximize the resources available to
each system and Offer the best possible program to the
students.

 

56

is Operating a modular schedulingl program. All of the

 

teachers in I—l have visited other innovative schools within
the last two years. By the judgement of the Impact 7 staff
and by their own self—perceptions school I—l is a highly
innovative, modern system. School I—l had a score of 13 on
the curricular practices poll administered by Force.

During the Spring of 1968 the staff of school I—l began
to put many of the ideas they had gathered from Impact 7 and
extra-system Visitations into operation. The teachers experi-
mented with different teaching methods and worked with such
activities as large and small group instruction, open labs,
independent study, self—pacing and non—grading (no marks).
All such experimentation was done within the confines of the
existing high school schedule.

The experimentation led to the development of a modular
flexible scheduling program, which was put in operation with

the opening of school in September, 1969. The schedule

 

lModular scheduling is a teaching method which divides
the school day into equal time segments and usually is Operated
daily on a demand basis so that each class may not meet for
the same amount of time each day. For instance, the school
day might be broken into 24 fifteen minute modules. Each
teacher establishes the amount of time he needs on each day
in order to handle whatever unit the class is studying. It
might be one module today and three modules tomorrow. Some
types of programs which can be run with modular scheduling
are expanded field trips, open labs, seminars and activity
packages, which enable students to learn almost independently
of formal classes and at their own speed.

 

57

operates on an eight day cycle and consists of twenty-one,

20 minute modules or class periods. Staff members have also
added new courses to the curriculum and are working with
learning activity packages for independent study. In addition,
formal study halls have been eliminated and the students are
provided with a quiet area and an informal area for use during

their unscheduled time.

School I—2

 

School I-2, a consolidation of several school districts,
has been in existence about 19 years. The present school has
15 teachers and approximately 300 students in grades 7 through
12. Every teacher in School I-2 has visited at least one
innovative school outside their own system through an Impact
7 visitation program within the last two years and the school
is also presently operating an Impact 7 program in modular
scheduling. I-2 achieved a score Of 12 on the curricular
practices poll.

In the Spring of 1968, the school I—2 staff decided to
give a flexible or modular program a trial. Staff members
built the schedule and made the decision as to the amount of
formal classroom time they would use for the program. The
program consisted of a hand-generated daily demand schedule
of thirteen, 30 minute class periods or modules. Formal study
halls were discontinued and the student was given the respon-

sibility for handling his unscheduled time.

 

58

Drawing upon this previous experience, a six day cycled
flexible scheduling program was put into Operation in the Fall
of 1969. The schedule consisted of 19 class periods or
modules of 20 minutes in length. Under the current program
many new activities are being tried by the staff such as
independent study, Open lab, large and small group instruction,
learning activity packages, seminars, combined studies

programs, and the introduction of new class Offerings.

School N—l

 

School N—l is a five-year-old consolidation of three
school districts. The school has 23 teachers and approximately
475 students in grades 7 through 12. The school has a fairly
new junior and senior high school building and a new principal
in 1969-70. An interview with the principal indicated that
he had occasionally attended Impact 7 conferences, some Of
his teachers had used some of the Impact 7 services, but that
no attempt had been made to try a lighthouse project or take
part in Impact 7 in any major way. School N—l had a score
of l on Force's curricular practices poll.

'School N-l, although it has 23 teachers, only consists
of 21 respondents since the principal explained that two
individuals simply did not wish to answer the questionnaire
and he would not pressure them to do so. One can only speculate
what the reasons for the two refusals might be. The reasons

the two respondents refused to answer and return their

59

questionnaires will be a subject for further discussion in

Chapter V.

School N—2

School N-2 is a three—year—old consolidation which
temporarily operates grades 11 and 12 in one building and
grades 9 and 10 in another building, approximately 10 miles
away. The school has 29 teachers and approximately 670
students in grades 9 through 12. The seventh and eighth
grades were not included here because they were located in
several different elementary buildings. The principal,
who has been in the system for two years, stated that a few
of his teachers had used Impact 7 services on a strictly
voluntary basis, but that no major programs of Impact 7 had
been used or applied for. N-2 had a score of 0 on the
curricular practices poll administered by Force.

Interestinly, school N-2 had difficulty at the beginning
of the 1969—70 year with a teacher concerning his beard and
long hair. The school finally was forced to allow this
teacher to teach his classes without removing his beard by
court order. The court order came only after the involvement
of such organizations as the American Civil Liberties Union.

Neither school systems N-l nor N-2 are presently involved

in innovative educational projects by their own admission.

60

Data—Gathering

 

The data were obtained via a field survey in which the
unit of analysis was the individual teacher in the selected
schools. The survey data were collected from all teachers
in each system via a questionnaire (Appendix D) which was
mailed to the administrators, distributed, and answered in
writing by the respondents.

The field survey seemed to lend itself very well to
the testing of the particular set of comparative hypotheses
which were described in Chapter II. The survey approach also
makes possible the inexpensive collection of comparable
material so that the results may be expressed in quantitative
terms and statistical methods may be employed in the analysis.
Survey research has, however, been criticized for its lack of
control over extraneous variables. The findings from survey
research, it is said, lack the validity in determining
relationships between the dependent and independent variables.

On the other hand, the laboratory experiment has been
criticized for its narrow definition of the population and
for its use of an unnaturalistic environment. A field survey,
such as the present one, may avoid such a narrowness of
definition through the gathering of the data as it exists in

its natural environment.

61

In order to gather firsthand data on a social organiza—
tion, the researcher must get within seeing and hearing
distance of that organization. To come close to an organiza-
tion, however, is to be exposed to the very social forces
the researcher wishes to investigate, for no organization is
apt to be willing to be treated solely as an impersonal means
to the ends of some outsider--even if those ends are the
advancement of knowledge. NO investigator is capable of
behaving in a completely neutral and detached manner when in
the process of interacting with other human beings. Such a
bias effect from interaction is eliminated when the main
source of data is a written questionnaire.

To be allowed to remain close to the subject organiza—
tion, a researcher must not only abide by the general norms
regulating his conduct as a social scientist, he must also
respect the norms of the particular group he wishes to study.
With this thought in mind, the decision was made to honor
the request from the four school principals that they be allowed
to administer the instrument to their teachers. It must,
at the same time, be realized that one must carefully draw
up the directions, purposes, cover letters, etc. due to the
potential difficulty of someone not as familiar with the study
as the researcher administering the research.

The questionnaires were administered in two parts. Part

I asked for the name of the respondent and some personal data.

 

 

62

Part I included questions such as the sociometric questions,
which require identification of the respondent in order to
identify who talks to whom. Part II was anonymously answered
and contained system evaluation questions which probe the
Opinions of the individual. Hopefully, the anonymity put the
respondent at ease and gained a maximum accuracy Of response.
The instrument also included control questions such as age,
education level, years in the school system, radio listening
and television Viewing habits, and newspapers reading

habits of the respondents.

Carlson (1968, p. 19) pointed out that in his own
studies of school staff characteristics he has sometimes
produced inconclusive results which may be the result of
asking the wrong questions. With the danger Of asking the
wrong questions or too many questions in mind, we tried
to ask only the questions necessary to gain the desired
information to test the hypotheses and to word the questions
as directly and completely as possible.

The questionnaires were mailed to each of the four
school principals with explicit instructions for administering
them and an instructional cover letter (Appendix C) to the
respondents was attached to each questionnaire.

The completed questionnaires were picked up by the
researcher approximately one week after mailing them. During
the visit to the schools, the week of May 25, 1970, each
school was observed in operation and the principals were

interviewed by the researcher.

63

Operationalization of Concepts
and Technigues of Measurement

 

 

A degree of clarity has already been established
through the Operational definitions for innovativeness, system
Openness, and communication integration in Chapter I and II,
however, we must now make clear how the instrument Opera-
tionalized the concepts in the empirical hypotheses,
(Appendix D). The operational definitions will include
references to the appropriate questions in the instrument,
which may be examined further in Appendix D.1

A list of professional journals read, extra—system

 

education publications regardless of their academic area,

was requested of each respondent. The respondents were

asked to list the journals which they read regularly and

those which they read occasionally, in Part I B—5 of the
instrument. Those journals listed as read occasionally were
assigned a score of one and those read regularly were assigned
a score of two. The total of these two responses was the
individual score for journals read by the respondent. The
score of two for those journals read regularly was intended

to give stronger weight to more regular reading habits.

In the Operationalization of professional meeting

 

attendance, the respondents were asked in Part I B-4 to

 

 

1Part II A of the questionnaire was included for use

in another paper by this author and is not a part of the
present study.

64

record the number of professional educational meetings
attended in the past two years involving educators from

"more than one school district". Such professional meetings
might be educational association meetings or institutes.

It was felt that the "more than one school district" stipula-
tion indicates that only meetings involving extra—system
communication and information sources are to be listed.

The total number of meetings attended by each individual was
their meeting attendance score.

To determine the use of interpersonal extra-system

 

communication channels, the subjects were asked in Part I B-6

 

of the instrument if they received most of their "insights
and new ideas regarding education" from discussions with
educators within their own school district or from educators
outside of their own district. The subjects had to choose
one of these two answers which determined whether they relied
more heavily upon interpersonal information sources inside
or outside of the system. The results were scored according
to which of the two choices were selected by each respondent.
We examined these measures of journals read, meetings
attended, and interpersonal sources of information both in
relation to all of the teachers in each system and then in

relation to the Opinion leaders designated by their peers.

65

Opinion leaders in the present study are members of the

 

system who were selected by their peers in Part I C-1 of the
questionnaire as the persons "whose opinions on educational
changes" were most valuable to them. The 30 per cent of the
teachers receiving the most nominations in each school system
were designated as the opinion leaders. The selection of 30
per cent was an arbitrary one designed to include the several
top choices from each school and, at the same time, provide
at least five choices in the innovative and non-innovative
cells to allow the use of certain statistical measures.

The frequency of downward communication was operation-

 

alized as a type of feedback from the principal. The subjects
were asked two questions, Part II B—3 and B—4, regarding down—
ward communication from administrators. The subjects were
asked if the principal "offers suggestions" to help improve
their teaching performance, and whether or not the principal
let them know when he "heard any criticism" of their teach—
ing performance. Each of the two questions Offered the
following answers:

(Scores)

(4) Very frequently
(3) Quite frequently
(2) Once in a while
(1) Quite infrequently

(0) Never
Summing these assigned values for the two questions, scores

Could range from 0 to 8.

66

In measuring the direction of communication flow within

 

the school systems, we asked each subject to tell us whether
they discussed their teaching problems with the school
administrators (vertical communication), or with their fellow
teachers (horizontal communication). The subjects had to
choose between these two responses and the results were scored
according to which of the two available choices were made by
each subject in Part II B—5 of the instrument.

The degree of sociometric integration was determined

 

by asking each respondent to name the teachers in their school
with whom they talked most frequently, Part I C—2, to deter—
mine to whom they were linked and consequently if the system
was configured in a multi-linked sociometric pattern or if
it had several small cliques and one or more isolates. The
instrument provided three spaces for nominations, however,
there were a few respondnets who nominated more or less than
three people. Most respondents, however, listed three choices.
The scoring here was how many nominations were received by
each member of the system. The nominations were the key to
the method of analysis used here which will be discussed
further in the next section of the present chapter.
Participation was defined as the role in decision—making

played by the members of the system.

 

67

The instrument asked two questions concerning partici-
pation, Part II B—1 and B—2. One asked if the principal
usually asks the "teacher's opinion when making a school
decision" involving their work. The second question asked
if it is unusual for the teacher "to take part in discussions
which results in decisions regarding school problems and
activities". The scaled choices offered to the respondent
were as follows:

Agree very much
Agree on the whole
Agree a little

Don't know

Disagree a little
Disagree on the whole

Disagree very much
These scales were assigned values from "0" to "6";
however, the scores ran in the opposite order in the two
scales, since one question was worded positively and one
negatively. Summing the two scores provided a potential
total range from 0 to 12.

Opinion leadership concentration is the degree to which

 

more units (individuals in the present study) in a social
system are perceived to have a relatively greater concentration
of interpersonal influence or power as opposed equal power
among all system members. The present study is concerned with
opinions on educational change. The related item, contained

in Part I C—l, asked each respondent to name the three teachers

 

68

in their school "whose opinions on educational changes are
most valuable" to them. The responses were scored by summing

the nominations received by each member of the system.

Data-Analysis

 

The collected data were analyzed by a variety of
appropriate procedures. Bearing in mind that the study is
a comparative study, we used several methods of analysis
where they seemed feasible, including statistical methods in
some instances. We compared the communication behaviors
(the independent variables) in relation to pre-designated
innovativeness or non-innovativeness (the dependent variable)
of the schools.

The tests used with each hypothesis are shown in Table

III-l.

Analysis Of Variance

 

One-way analysis of variance is a parametric statisticsal
method. There are certain assumptions of parametric statistics
which must be met: A normal distribution, homogeneity of

variance, and equality of intervalsl. It is advisable, wherever

 

lNormal distribution assumes that the sample is drawn
from a population that is normally distributed. Homogeneity
of variance assumes the variance within group's homogeneous
from group to group within the bounds of random variation.
Equality of intervals assumes that the interval between each
score is equal and continuous.

 

 

 

 

 

 

69

 

coanonpaoocoo

 

“carom assoc amsmH> anamuoemoq aoaaaao whoaomoe Haa an m
mosmflum> mo mammaocd OOHOOQHOHuHum mnonomoe Ham ca m
iaoaumoaaanuass snoopmm
xflnumzv HOSmH> OHHuoEOHoom ooumHOOch mHOEOOOB Ham m m
macaw OOHOOOHQDEEOO
onusom Hco mo coflpoonao muonomoe Ham m m
OOHDOOHCOEEOU
ecumenm> mo mammaocm onmzczoo mo mocosvonm macromoe Ham 5 m
AHOCOmHomHoncHV mumpmoq
onosom ago maoccwro Eonmmmlmnpxm coacflmo o m
mnoowoq
oocmflnm> mo mammamcm mmcflpooz Empmhmlmnpxm COHOHQO m m
mHOOMSOb mnoomoq
oocmflno> mo mflmwamcm HchHmmomonm mcflomom coacflmo v m
AachmHomHOchv
onuswm ago maoccmro Eoummmlmnpxm mnosoooe Ham m m
oocmflno> mo mflmwamcm mmcwnooz Empmmmlouuxm mnozomoe Ham N m
mamcHsOb
oocmflnm> mo mammaocm Hmcowmmowonm mcflomom mHObOOOB Had H m
mamonuomxm
mafiumoe Mow mflwmm oanmflnm> pcoocomoocH OHCD mflmoauommm

 

.moanmfinm> pcoosomoocw ogu OGHDOOB How mammm11.HIHHH mamma

 

70

possible, to use parametric statistics because of their greater
accuracy and validity than non-parametric statistics.
Kerlinger (1964, p. 260) points out:
Use parametric statistics, as well as the analysis
of variance, routinely, but keep a sharp eye on data
for gross departures from normality, homogeneity of
variance, and equality of intervals.

Although some of the data were interval data, some of
it only approached interval data. In some Of the latter cases,
we assumed interval data for the sake of the more accurate
and definitive parametric measures. The total subjects in
the present study constituted entire populations Of the
systems studied rather than random samples. We, however,
assumed that these schools were representative of similar
schools.

The data Obtained concerning Hypotheses 7 and 10 con-
cerning the frequency of downward communication and partici-
pation provided equal interval data meeting the assumptions
necessary for parametric statistics and allowing us to employ
a one-way analysis of variance.

In testing Hypotheses l and 4 dealing with journals
read, and Hypotheses 2 and 5 dealing with extra-system
meetings, we assumed we had interval data in order to use the
one-way analysis of variance. The type of data yielded by

the instrument for these hypotheses were probably not actually

interval data since the intervals were not necessarily equal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

71

Chi Sguare

 

Chi square is a non-parametric binomial statistical test.
A binomial test is associated with two class, dichotomous
variables such as yes-no, male-female, intra-system--extra—
system, vertical-horizontal, etc. The data concerning
Hypothesis 3 and 6 dealing with extra—system channels and
8 dealing with the direction of communication flows were
binomial choices which were well suited to a chi square test

of significance.

Sociometric Integration

 

The sociometric data obtained in relation to Hypothesis
9 were analyzed by visual observation of sociograms and the
computerized matrix multiplication program. The main
advantage of the sociogram is its visual utility in observing
the system under study. The main disadvantage, however, is
that its analytic utility is limited because it is limited
to descriptive statements. In other words, where the
researcher gains in visual, descriptive utility with socio-
grams he loses the mathematical accuracy Of statistical tests

such as matrix multiplication.

 

The matrix multiplication approach allows the identifica-
tion of formally—defined structures within a communication
network, including both direct and indirect relationships.
According to Guimaraes (1970, p. 39), the matrix multiplication

computor program, consists of raising the Original

i 1 i, J

 

 

72

binary (0-1) matrix to n-powers in order to determine n-
chains among network members, as well as the tendency toward
and identification of clique groups.

As an illustration, consider a simple hypothetical
network of four persons (3, p, g, g), whose relations are
shown both in the sociogram and in the binary matrix, A,
in Figure III-l. Assuming that the sociogram and its
corresponding binary matrix, A, represent the communication

patterns in the network, one can see who communicates to

 

whom (in matrix A, by reading across the rows, i.e., row 1
shows that person 3 communicates with person b and d, etc.).
By inspection we can, therefore, Observe in matrix A,

direct, one-step_connections among the network members.

 

The squared matrix, A2, shows indirect, two-step

 

connections among the network members. For example, in the
squared matrix, A2, we see that cell ag_has a value of l

(in the original binary matrix, A, this cell has a value of
O). In fact, the following relationships can be seen both

in the sociogram and in matrix A: §_p g. In cell 23 of
matrix A2 we also find a value of 1, indicating the relation—

ship: g_g 3.

Opinion Leader Concentration

 

Hypothesis 11 was tested by visual Observation of the
Opinion leadership Gini ratios. When using the Gini ratio
to examine opinion leadership concentration,the concentration

is measured from the Lorenz curve by plotting the cumulative

 

 

73
a b
¥

Vi

d c
a b c d a b c
a 0'1 0 1 aFI 1 1
b O O l l b l 2 O

A: A2
c O 1 O 1 c l l l
d l d l l

L l 0 fl 2.

 

 

 

Figure III—1.—-Examp1e of a communication network as
represented by a sociogram, a binary matrix, (A), and
its corresponding squared matrix, A .

 

LN

 

 

 

74

percentage distribution of sociometric choices on the ordinate
against the cumulative percentage distribution of individuals
on the abscissa (Figure III-2). The Lorenz curve is drawn
by rank-ordering all individuals according to the percentage
of sociometric choices that each individual has. Since both
axes of the Lorenz curve are expressed in terms of cumulative
percentage distribution ranging from 0 to 100, the straight
line rising from the origin indicates the line of perfect
equality of distribution Of sociometric choices among all
members. The area between the Lorenz curve and the line of
perfect equality represents the degree of Opinion leadership
concentration in a social system. The ratio of the area
between the Lorenz curve and the line of perfect equality,
to the total area of the triangle formed by the two axes
and the line of perfect equality, is called the Gini ratio
of concentration or Gini index of concentration.

According to Yadav (1967, p. 101), the Gini index
sums for each individual in the population the difference
between where he is on the Lorenz curve and where he would
be expected to be in the case of equal distribution of
sociometric choices among all the members. This sum is
divided by its maximum possible value so that the Gini
coefficient ranges between 0 and l. The greater the Lorenz
curve deviates from the line of equality, the greater is the

concentration.

75

 

.mwcmuoomoa QOHQHQO OAHpoEOHOOm mo coauouusoocoo
OGHDOOHUGH o>nso Nconoq one mo coflponumDHAH cm .NIHHH onsmflm

muonfioa mo ncoo Mom O>Humasfido

ooa om om ow ,ON 0

 

_
.
.
ow "
.
_
movaono om 111..I11-.
mo ucoo mom
333255 AIIILIIII
ow HHOSUO uoomuom mo ocflq
om

 

 

 

ooa

 

76

Statistical Significance

All hypotheses were tested for significance at the
.05 level. Since the selection of a significance level is

an arbitrary decision, the .05 level has been chosen because

of its widespread acceptance.

 

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS

This chapter presents the results of the research.
Following the established format in the study, we shall
approach the results from the standpoint of the system
Openness hypotheses first, and then the communication

integration hypotheses.

System Openness

 

Hypothesis 1

 

The first hypothesis predicts a relationship between
the innovativeness of a school system and the number of
professional journals read by the teachers in that system.
Specifically the hypothesis states:

Teachers in innovative schools read more professional
journals than those in non-innOvatiVe schools.

Table IV—l indicates the mean scores for professional
journals read by the teachers in the innovative and non-
innovative school systems. The results of the analysis
of variance indicate no significant difference between the
means; F is 2.43, which is less than the 3.98 required for

significance at the 5 per cent level. In fact, the trend

77

 

 

_ . _.

78

is in the Opposite direction from the one predicted in the

hypothesis, and the hypothesis is not supported.

TABLE IV—l.—-Professional Journals Read by Teachers in
Innovative and Non—Innovative Schools.

 

 

Teachers Mean Score
Innovative Schools 3.65
Non-Innovative Schools 4.76

 

Hypothesis 2

 

The second hypothesis deals with the relationship
between school system innovativeness and the number of extra-
system meetings attended by the teachers in each system.

The hypothesis states:
Teachers in innovative schools attend more extra-system
professional meetings than teachers in non-innovative
schools.

Table IV-2 indicates the mean number of meetings attended
by the teachers in innovative and non-innovative schools.

An analysis of variance shows a significant difference in
the predicted direction between the means; F is 9.25, which

is greater than the 3.98 required for significance at the

5 per cent level. Thus, Hypothesis 2 is supported.

 

- r
79

TABLE IV—2.——Number of Extra—System Meetings Attended by
Teachers in Innovative and Non-Innovative Schools.

 

 

Teachers Mean Number
Innovative Schools 11.26

Non-Innovative Schools 5.06

 

Hypothesis 3

Hypothesis 3 predicts a relationship between innova—
tiveness of the systems and the teacher's perference for
interpersonal sources which were outside the system. The
hypothesis predicts:

Teachers in innovative schools engage in extra—system
interpersonal communication more than teachers in non-
innovative schools.

Table IV—3 shows the number of teachers indicating a
preference for information sources inside or outside their
own school. Chi square reveals no significant difference
in source choices; X2 is .11, which is less than the 3.89
required for significance at the 5 per cent level. There-
fore, although the data trended in the predicted direction,

the hypothesis is not supported.

TABLE IV—3.--Interpersonal Sources of Educational Information
for Teachers in Innovative and Non-Innovative Schools.

 

 

Teachers Within Outside Total
System System Subjects
Innovative Schools 11 12 23

Non—Innovative Schools 26 24 50

 

 

8O

Hypothesis 4

 

The fourth hypothesis draws a relationship between
innovativeness of a system and the number of professional
journals read by the Opinion leaders in that system. The
hypothesis specifically states:

Opinion leaders in innovative schools read more
professional journals than those in non-innovative
schools.

As pointed out in Chapter III, we designated the 30
per cent of the teachers in each school receiving the most
Opinion leader nominations as Opinion leaders.

Table IV-4 indicates the mean journal reading scores
obtained from the Opinion leaders. An analysis of variance
indicates no significant difference between the mean scores;
F is .76, which is less than the 4.28 required for signifi-
cance at the 5 per cent level. As in Hypothesis 1, the

data trended in the opposite direction from that which was

predicted in the hypothesis. Hypothesis 4 is not supported.

TABLE IV—4.——Professional Journals Read by Opinion Leaders
in Innovative and Non—Innovative Schools.

 

Opinion Leaders Mean Score

 

 

Innovative Schools 3.88

Non-Innovative Schools 5.24

 

 

81

Hypothesis 5

 

Hypothesis 5 predicts a relationship between system
innovativeness and Opinion leader attendance at extra-system
meetings. The hypothesis specifically predicts:

Opinion leaders in innovative schools attend more extra-
system professional meetings than opinion leaders in
non-innovative schools.

Table IV—5 provides the mean number Of extra-system
meetings attended by Opinion leaders. An analysis of variance
indicates a significant difference between the means; F is

8.46, which is greater than the 4.28 required for significance

at the 5 per cent level. Hypothesis 5 is supported.

TABLE IV-5.--Number of Extra—System Meetings Attended by
Opinion Leaders in Innovative and Non—Innovative Schools.

 

 

Opinion Leaders Mean Number
Innovative Schools 18.50
Non—Innovative Schools 5.71

 

Hypothesis 6

 

The sixth hypothesis deals with the relationship between
the innovativeness of a system and the Opinion leader's
prOpensity to seek interpersonal communication sources
located outside their own system. The hypothesis specifically
states:

Opinion leaders in innovative schools engage in

extra—system interpersonal communication more than
Opinion leaders in non-innovative schools.

 

 

82

The mean scores for interpersonal source choices by
Opinion leaders are indicated in Table IV—6. Chi square
reveals a non-significant difference; X2 is .49, which is
less than the 3.84 which is required for significance at
the 5 per cent level. While the opinion leaders in the
innovative schools were equally divided in their choices
of internal and external communication sources, the choices
of the Opinion leaders in the non—innovative schools trended
in Opposition to the predicted direction. Thus, Hypothesis

6 is not supported.

TABLE IV—6.—-Interpersonal Sources of Educational Information
for Opinion Leaders in Innovative and Non-Innovative Schools.

 

 

O inion Leaders Within Outside Total

p System System Subjects
Innovative Schools 4 4 8
Non-Innovative Schools 6 ll 17

 

Supplementary Analysis

 

It seems worthwhile at this point to compare some
Opinion leadership scores with similar scores achieved by
all Of the teachers. Let us compare, for instance, the
scores relative to extra~system meeting attendance and extra—

system interpersonal communication sources.

 

, ,

Table IV—7 indicates that the mean number of meetings
attended by the teachers and the opinion leaders were nearly
the same in the non-innovative schools. On the other hand,
the opinion leaders in the innovative schools attended
considerably more meetings than their colleagues on the

teaching staff.

TABLE IV—7.-—Mean Number of Meetings Attended for Teachers
and Opinion Leaders in Innovative and Non—Innovative Schools.

 

 

System All Teachers Opinion Leaders
Innovative Schools 11.26 18.05
Nonélnnovative Schools 5.06 5.71

 

Table IV—8 concerning external and internal information
sources reveals very little difference between the inter—
personal communication sources of teachers and opinion
leaders in the innovative schools. In the non—innovative
schools a high percentage of subjects gain their information
from within their own system, while an equally high percentage
of their own opinion leaders report a preference for extra-
system information sources (an even higher percentage than

Opinion leaders in the innovative schools).

 

 

 

 

 

 

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII-Illlllllll-IIIIEEErr “ h

84

TABLE IV—8.-—Information Sources for Teachers and Opinion
Leaders in Innovative and Non-Innovative Schools.

 

 

 

 

Sources Sources
Within Outside
System System System Total

Innovative Schools
Teachers (N=23) * 47.8% 52.2% 100%
Opinion Leaders (N=8) 50.0% 50.0% 100%
Non-Innovative Schools
Teachers (N=50)~ew 52.0% 48.0% 100%
Opinion Leaders (N=17) 35.3% 64.7% 100%

 

The data presented in Table IV-7 tend to support the
theory that Opinion leaders conform to the norms of their
own system. Table IV-8, on the other hand, tends to support
to a degree the generalizability Of Opinion leadership
behaviors. Table IV—8 suggests that some Opinion leaders
may behave like other opinion leaders regardless of the
system norms in their own systems. We shall discuss this

further in Chapter V.

Communication Integration

 

Hypothesis 7

 

The seventh hypothesis predicts a relationship between
system innovativeness and the frequency of downward communica-

tion, by stating:

 

85

Teachers in innovative schools receive more frequent
downward communication from administrators concerning
the adequacy of their work than is received by teachers
in non-innovative schools.

The results shown in Table IV—9 indicate the mean
scores for downward communication in the innovative and
non—innovative schools. An analysis of variance indicates
a non—significant difference in the predicted direction
between the means; F is 1.24, which is less than the 3.98

required for significance at the 5 per cent level. Hypothesis

7 is, therefore, not supported.

TABLE IV-9.—-Downward Communication in Innovative and Non—
Innovative Schools.

 

 

Teachers Mean Score
Innovative Schools 2.65
Non—Innovative Schools 2.18

 

Hypothesis 8

 

Hypothesis eight postulates a relationship between
innovativeness and the direction of the communication flows
within a system. Specifically, the hypothesis states:

Innovative schools have more verticalness in their
communication flows, while non—innovative schools
have more horizontal communication flows.

The results presented in Table IV—lO show the number
of teachers in the innovative and non-innovative schools who

responded concerning their use Of either vertical or

horizontal communication. Chi square reveals a significant

 

 

 

86

difference in the direction of communication flows as
predicted; X2 is 15.91, which is greater than the 3.84 required
for significance at the 5 per cent level. Thus, the hypothesis

is supported.

Hypothesis 9

 

The ninth hypothesis predicts a relationship between
system innovativeness and the degree Of sociometric communicao
tion integration. The hypothesis states:

Innovative schools have a higher degree of sociometric
communication integration than non-innovative schools.

The results of the matrix multiplication analysis are
reported in Tables IV-ll through IV—l4.

In Chapter II we defined a cligue as a subgroup within
a larger group. An isolate was defined as an individual
who has no apparent relationships with other members of
the system and neither nominates or is nominated by any
other individuals in the organization. Because of the
stringency of such an absolute definition of isolate, it
is felt that it will be helpful here to designate semi-
isolates. We define semi—isolates as those individuals who
either did not choose any other individuals, 9£_were not
chosen by anyone.

The data produced by the matrix multiplication computer
program designate each entire system as at least one clique.

Such a designation could be confusing according to our

 

87

s m o o mopmHOmHuHsom

 

 

 

H H o o mODmHOmH

m m H H mosvHHo mo HOQEOZ
iamnzv AHNqu imHuzc Amaze
mlz le NIH HIH
mHoosom m>HHo>oscH1coz mHoonom o>Hpm>oscH

 

.mHoonom m>Huo>occH
Isoz one o>Hpo>occH CH moumHOmHlHEom pom .mmpmHOmH .mosoHHOII.HH1>H mqmme

 

 

 

om He m mHoorom o>Hpm>Occchoz
mm m mH mHoonom o>Huo>occH
mpooflnsm OOHHOOHODEEOO QOHDOOHGSEEOU mnosoooe
Hmpoe HOHGONHHom HOOHHHO>
.mHoonom

0>Hflm>OECHIQOZ UCM ®>Hflm>OCCH CH mgoflm COHflmnuHCHHEOU MO COHflOTHHQIlomVHlx/H mqmfifi

 

 

88

definition of a clique. Using our definition of a clique,
we would designate no cliques at all in a system when all
members are sociometrically connected to all other members.
The matrix multiplication program designates such a system
(I—1 and I-2 are examples) as having one clique.

The prediction of Hypothesis 9 is supported by the
matrix multiplication data. As indicated in Table IV-ll,
each of the innovative schools was configured into one solid
group with no isolates or semi-isolates. The data concerning
the non—innovative schools indicates the designation of
several cliques, semi-isolates and one isolate in each
school.

Table IV-12 indicates the group centrality indices
achieved in each school as obtained by the matrix multiplica-
tion program. To review briefly, the matrix multiplication
program takes data from responses to sociometric questions
and determines the direct and indirect interconnectedness
among the individuals responding. The program provides,
among other indices, an index we call "the group centrality
index." In essence the centrality index is the mean of the
individual's relative integration scores in a system. The
individual relative integration score for each nominator is
the sum of the length of all links (direct and indirect) in
the individual's row in a matrix, divided by N—l, i.e., the
number of individuals in the matrix minus the individual

being observed.

 

 

89

Higher centrality indices indicate greater integration
in a system. We can see in Table IV—12 that School N—2
has a much lower centrality index than either of the innova-
tive schools. Although School N—l has approximately the
same centrality index material presented here at least

partially supports the prediction in Hypothesis 9.

TABLE IV—12.--Group Centrality Indices for Innovative and
Non—Innovative Schools.

 

 

Schools Group Centrality Index
I—2 4.46
N-l 4.93
N-2 2.66

 

The matrix multiplication data indicate that the teachers
in both innovative schools are connected sociometrically to
the maximum number Of fellow teachers in their system (N minus
1). The innovative schools, therefore, are highly integrated
systems. The matrix multiplication further reveals that
non—innovative school N-l configured into two cliques and
did not reach their maximum degree of interconnectedness.
Perhaps a much better example Of the integration pattern
in a non-innovative school is the results obtained for non—
innovative school N-2. School N—2 configured into six cliques

and also did not reach the maximum level of interconnectedness

 

90

possible for them. Thus, we must conclude that the non-
innovative schools in the present study are not as highly
integrated as the innovative schools.

Observation of the sociometric choices (see matrices
in Appendix E) resulted in the sociograms found in Figures
IV—l through IV—4.

Figure IV-l indicates the tight sociometric inter-
connectedness found in School I-l. The only individual
not in the sociometric "mainstream" of the system is
individual number 2. The individual is probably not in
the mainstream because he only nominated one person and
was only nominated by one person, whereas other system
members had more than one or two direct relationships. In
Figure IV—2, School I—2 appears to have an even greater
interconnectedness within its system than that found in
School I—l.

Figure IV—3 shows one isolate and two semi—isolates
in School N—l. The sociometric pattern does not appear to
be as interconnected in School N-l as it is in the innova—
tive schools. Such an appearance is probably due to the
fact that more individuals nominated fewer than three
colleagues in the non—innovative schools than in the innova—

tive schools.

91

«it

Figure IV—l. Sociogram of the sociometric choices
in School I-l.

 

 

 

 

95

Figure IV-4 shows one isolate (Number 69) and seven
semi-isolates (Numbers 45, 48, 50, 51, 53, 55 and 73) in
School N-2. All of the semi—isolates are individuals who
were not nominated by anyone. The system seems to divide
itself into two separate groups which are connected by only
four one-way relationships. Of further interest is the fact
that three of these four connecting individuals (Numbers 51,
53 and 73), are semi-isolates, since they were not nominated

by anyone. Individuals 51, 53 and 73 seem to be compara—

 

tively weak linkages.

Considering the configurations illustrated in these
four sociograms we conclude that the innovative schools are
more highly interconnected sociometrically than the non—
innovative schools.

Thus the results Of the matrix multiplication program
and the observation Of the sociograms indicate that we

support Hypothesis 9.

Hypothesis 10

 

Hypothesis 10 predicts a positive relationship between
the amount of member participation in the decisions made
by a system and the innovativeness of that system. The
hypothesis states:

Innovative schools have a higher degree of participation
than non—innovative schools.

 

‘ k,

96

Table IV-l3 indicates the mean participation scores
in the innovative and non—innovative schools. An analysis
of variance reveals a significant difference in the
predicted direction; F is 19.62, which is greater than the
3.98 required for significance at the 5 per cent level.

Thus, the hypothesis is supported.

TABLE IV—l3.--Participation in Organization Decisions in
Innovative and Non—Innovative Schools.

 

 

Teachers Mean Scores
Innovative Schools 10.48
Non—Innovative Schools 6.82

 

Hypothesis 11

The eleventh hypothesis predicts a positive relation—
ship between innovativeness and high opinion leader con—
centration. Specifically, the hypothesis states:

Opinion leadership is more concentrated in innovative
schools than in non—innovative schools.

The relationships involved in Hypothesis 11 were tested
by computing Gini ratios. As we pointed out in Chapter III,
the Gini ratio sums for each individual in the system, the
difference between where he is on the Lorenz curve and where
he would be expected to be in the case of equal distribution
of sociometric choices among all the members. The sum is

divided by its maximum possible value so that the Gini

 

 

 

97

coefficient ranges between 0 and 1. Table IV—l4 provides
the coefficients of the Gini ratio of concentration for

each of the four schools.

TABLE IV—l4.——Gini Ratio Coefficients for Innovative and
Non—Innovative Schools.

 

 

 

 

Innovative Schools Non—Innovative Schools
I-l 1-2 N—l N—2
Gini Ratio .54 .47 .56 .58

 

The possible range of a Gini coefficient is between
0 and l. The coefficients in Table IV—l4 do not indicate
a very high level of concentration and they show very little
difference from school to school. Moreover, the differences
which appear are in a direction opposite to the one predicted
by Hypothesis 11. For the foregoing reasons we could not
accept Hypothesis 11.

Observation of the opinion leader data concerning

nomination choices are shown in Table IV—15.

TABLE IV—15.——Number of Opinion Leaders Nominated by Teachers
in Innovative and Non-Innovative Schools.

 

Number of Teachers

 

 

Number of Nominations Made I-l I-2 N—l N—2
0 O 0 4 5

l 3 3 2 6

2 3 3 4 13

3 2 9 ll 5

Total N _8 I5 fi 29

 

98

Bearing in mind that each teacher could nominate three
opinion leader choices, the results in Table IV—15 seem to
indicate an important factor: the greater percentage of
teachers making less than three choices are in the non—
innovative schools. Such a result is bound to cause the
concentration to be higher in the Gini ratio computation,
since the fewer nominations in the non—innovative schools

would not be spread over nearly as many difference individuals.

Summary

Table IV-l6 summarizes the results of the statistical

tests in the present study.

 

UODHOQmsm uoz

GOH¥MHU2C®OQOU

 

QHnmhoomoH GOHGHQO mnozoooe HH< HHIm
oopnomnsm mm.mHnm qOHpmaHoHunmm mnmromoe HHa OHum
oouuommdm snouumm 0HnuoE

IoHoom OopmnmoucH muonomoe HHm m1m
ponnommsm Nm.mHu x GOHHOOHCSEEOO
N mo mmocHMOHuHo> muosomoe HHm mnm
wouuommsm uoz «N.Hnm soHuOOHQOEEOO Ones
Issoo mo mocosoonm muonoooe HHm hum
ponnoamsm #02 me.” x AHOCOmHomHODGHV mHOUOOH
N mHocsmsu Empmhmlmnpxm coHcHdo our
ponuommsm mv.wnm mOCHpooz mHOOOOH
% Eoummmlmnpxm COHGHQO mlm
oonnommsm uoz m>.nm mHMQHDOO mHOOOOH
Hmsonmomonm OOHOmom noHsto elm
oounommsm uoz HHH.n x AHMQOmnomnowch
N mHoccmno Eowmmmlmupxm mnoromoa HHm mum
OOHMOQQSm mN.mnm mmcHuooz
Eoummmlmnuxm mnorouoe HHm Nlm
OouMOQQSm uoz mv.Nnm mHmcHDOO
Hmconmowonm mnHomom muonomoe HHm Hlm
mHmonnommr
mo umoe OHQOHHO> ucopcomoonH meNHmcm mHmocuomxm
neona5m Hmoaanumpm no anus

 

 

.mOmOSHOQSm mo mumoe mo NMmEEOW11

.GH1>H mamas

 

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS

The chapter summarizes the present study, discusses
the results concerning system openness and communication
integration, and discusses the relationship of these two
concepts to innovativeness. This chapter will also discuss

implications for future research and action.

Summary

The present study examined the relationship between
the innovativeness of a school system and the system openness
and communication integration in a system. System Openness
is defined as the degree to which information may pass in

and out of a system, and communication integration is the

 

degree of interconnectedness of the communication patterns
within the system. System openness and communication inte—
gration were operationalized through eleven communication
behavior variables. The general objective of the study was
to examine innovativeness in an organization as it relates

to communication behaviors.

 

 

101

All of these behaviors were examined comparatively
between predesignated innovative and non—innovative schools.
The willingness to cooperate and the behavior of the
respondents in the innovative and non—innovative schools
were as one might typically predict. For instance, the
administrators and the teachers in the innovative schools
went out of their way to make the research comfortable during
his visit to their schools. They were very proud of their
schools and insisted that the researcher see all of their
facilities and programs in action. Conversely, the admin-
istrators in the noneinnovative schools felt they hardly had
time to speak with the researcher. In School N—l, which
had 21 respondents, there were originally 23 secondary
teachers. Two teachers refused to respond and, although the
principal was reluctant to discuss it further, it seemed
as though these two teachers did not feel free to respond.

The study predicted that the teachers and the Opinion
leaders in the innovative schools would both attend more
extra-system meetings and that the teachers in the innovative
school would participate more in decisions within their
school. It was further predicted that the innovative schools
would have a comparatively higher degree of sociometric
integration and that the innovative schools would use more
vertical communication channels, while the non—innovative
schools would use more horizontal channels. Each of these

five hypotheses was supported.

 

102

The study predicted that teachers and opinion leaders
in the innovative schools would read more professional journals
than those in the non—innovative schools. The study also
predicted that opinion leadership Would be more highly
concentrated in the innovative schools and that opinion
leaders in the innovative schools would engage in more extra—
system interpersonal communication than the opinion leaders
in the non-innovative schools. These four hypotheses were

not supported and the results were in the opposite direction

 

of that which was predicted, although not significantly.
Finally, the study predicted that teachers in the
innovative schools would receive more frequent downward
communication from administrators and that teachers in the
innovative schools would engage in more extra—system inter—
personal communication than teachers in the non-innovative
schools. Examination of these two hypotheses revealed

results in the direction predicted, but not to a statistically

 

significant degree for support.

System Openness

In light of the research by Rogers (1962), Lionberger
(1962), and Menzel and Katz (1962) which was Cited in
Chapter III concerning the reading of professional journals
and in light of the logical basis for such reading being a
key source of extra—system information, it is somewhat
surprising to this researcher that Hypotheses l (F=2.43) and

4(F=.76) were not confirmed.

—-l 1

 

103

The only apparent reasonable explanation for the non-
innovative teachers and opinion leaders reading more journals
than the teachers and Opinion leaders in the innovative
schools is their need for outside information due to the
probable paucity of new information within their own system.
One plausible explanation for what appears to be a low number
Of journals read by all respondents and the lack of differ—
ence between the innovative and non-innovative schools may
be the settings themselves.

The settings for the present study were small, rural
secondary schools which naturally employ local, rural teachers
for the most part. If one might attribute a degree of
intellectual curiosity and/or sophistication to those who
are stimulated to read professionally, then perhaps these

hypotheses were not really highly valid indicators Of system

 

openness for these particular teachers. The foregoing
possibility is based on the comparative lack of intellectual
and cultural stimulation found in small rural communities
and the type of people who might consequently be likely to
settle and teach in such an area. Perhaps they are not the
type who seek their information through professional reading
whether they are innovative or non-innovative.

Hypothesis 2 (F=9.25) and 5 (F=8.46) dealing with teacher
and Opinion leader attendance at extra—system meetings, were
supported. In the innovative schools, the opinion leaders

scored higher than the teachers on their attendance at extra—

___J 1

 

104

system meetings, while in the non—innovative schools, the
opinion leaders and teachers scored approximately the same

(Figure V-l).

 

 

Teachers Opinion Leaders
Innovative _ / _
Schools X=ll.26 < X=18.50
\
\\// \\//
Non-Innovative _ _
Schools X=5.06 X=5.7O

 

 

 

 

Figure V—l.——Pardigm of meeting attendance by teachers and
opinion leaders in innovative and non-innovative
schools.

 

Extra—system educational meetings appear to be an

 

important source of outside information, particularly for
the teachers in the more innovative systems. The meetings
appear to be an even more important imformation source

to the opinion leaders in the non-innovative schools. A
plausible explanation for the increased importance to these
Opinion leaders in non—innovative schools is that, since
their system has little innovativeness within it, they must

rely on outside sources for new educational information.

 

 

105

Examination of Hypothesis 3 concerning extra-system
interpersonal communication sources showed results tending
slightly in the direction predicted, although not significantly
(X2=.1l). That is, a slightly larger number of teachers in
the innovative schools reported gaining most of their
educational insights from sources outside rather than inside
their system and in the non-innovative schools the opposite
was true. One respondent from a non—innovative school wrote
"if any" in the margin next to the question asking where
they received their educational insights.

Hypothesis 6 data revealed results in an Opposite
direction from those predicted by this researcher concerning
interpersonal sources of educational information for opinion
leaders. The Opinion leaders in the non—innovative schools
showed a higher propensity toward the use of outside sources
than they did toward inside sources (X2=.49). These results
were not in the direction predicted. A possible explanation
for these results is that those who believe that Opinion
leadership and its accompanying personality characteristics
are generalizable to some degree, may be correct. In other
words, perhaps an opinion leader will behave nearly the same,
whether he is a member of an innovative or a non—innovative
social system. Further, it now seems plausible that such
a generalized opinion leader would naturally feel a much
greater need to go outside a non—innovative system for

information than would an opinion leader in an innovative

 

106

system where his fellow teachers would provide stimulation
and information within the system. Actually, in the present
study the opinion leaders in the non-innovative schools also
read more professional journals than opinion leaders in the
innovative schools (Hypothesis 4). An unexpected suggestion
indicated by the present study, then, might be that Opinion
leadership is a variable with stronger influence than such
variables as the norms of an innovative or non—innovative
social system. An Opinion leader may be more apt to follow
opinion leader norms than the norms of the social system

to which he belongs, when surrounded by non—innovative

people.

Communication Integration

 

An examination of the Hypothesis 7 data reveals that

the teachers in the innovative schools reported a slightly

 

greater amount of downward communication from their

administrators than teachers in the non-innovative schools.

 

Although the difference was in the predicted direction, it
was not confirmed as statistically significant (F=l.24).

It now seems possible that the questions used for
Hypothesis 7 and the accompanying five item scaled responses
were confusing to the respondents. Such a conclusion seems
possible because of the confusion apparent from observation

Of the completed questionnaires. The confusion was manifested

 

 

107

in the high number of erasures and decision changes appearing
on the completed questionnaires. Another plausible explana—
tion for the high number of teachers in the non—innovative
schools reporting corrective downward communication from
their principal is the possible existence of a greater need
for corrective work with that group of teachers than among
the more innovative ones. Such an assumption is based on
the notion that innovative teachers are usually active and
creative "self-starter" types, while non—innovative teachers
would no doubt require more supervision from their adminis‘
trators.

The prediction in Hypothesis 8 that the communication
flows in the innovative schools would be more vertical than
horizontal and that the communication flows in the non-

innovative schools would be the direct opposite was supported

 

as highly significant (X2=15.92).

In Chapter II we said that when a subordinate cannot
achieve communicative satisfaction vertically, he would
resort to lateral or horizontal communication. We further
stated in Chapter II that, since innovations often enter a
system at the top, vertical communication seems imperative
to an innovative system. The implication of the above find-
ings is that an innovative system has an open and useful
set of vertical communication channels and that the members
of such a system are not forced to resort to horizontal
communication as often as the members in a non—innovative

system.

 

108

Hypothesis 9, which predicts that innovative schools
have a higher degree of sociometric communication integra—
tion than non—innovative schools, was confirmed both by
the matrix multiplication computations and visual observa-
tion of the sociograms.

The innovative schools each registered the highest

 

possible integration scores on the matrix multiplication
program with no isolates and no internal cliques. On the
other hand, neither of the non—innovative schools achieved
the integration scores they potentially could have achieved
by having a completely integrated system. Each of them had
one isolate. Additionally, one non—innovative school had
two semi—isolates and the other had seven. In Chapter IV,

we defined a semi—isolate as an individual who either

 

nominated no one gr was nominated by no one. While isolates
and semi—isolates do tend to impede the total integration
Of a system, we are not, making a value judgement here whether
it is good or bad for an individual to be an isolate. The
results of these matrix examinations indicate support for
Hypothesis 9.

Some of the respondents in the non—innovative schools
wrote unsolicited comments in the margin of the questionnaire

next to the sociometric question, "List the teachers with

whom you talk most frequently." Examples of these comments
are "no preference," "no real distinction," and "I know
few people." One of the isolates left answers A, B and C

 

 

Tee

109

unanswered, wrote in the letter "D," and placed his own name
beside it. He then added the words "only D" beside the item.
The respondent in answering "only D“ apparently was telling
us that he talks to no other colleagues.

The findings for Hypothesis 9 indicate the same
positive relationship which Lin (1966) found between the degree
of innovativeness in a system and the degree to which that
system has a sociometrically integrated communication pattern.

Hypothesis 10 predicts that innovative schools have
a higher degree of participation than non—innovative schools.
The results were confirmed as highly significant (F=l9.62).
There appears to be little participation in decision-making
in the non—innovative schools by the system members. A
teacher in a non—innovative school answered the statement,
"The principal usually asks my opinion when making a school
decision which involves my work" by checking "disagree on
the whole." In the margin this respondent wrote, "Can't

think of a particular instance but knowing my principal as

 

I do, I can only guess."

 

The relationship between participation and the innova—
tiveness in a system takes on added importance when we
consider that a great deal of research such as that cited
in Chapter II by Katz and Kahn (1966), Cartwright and
Zander (1968), Coch and French (1948), and many others reports
that system members who participate in decisions have a

greater interest in the implementation of the decision. Such

—HL 1

 

 

110

findings concerning participation and involvement seem to

indicate that the diffusion, adoption, and continuance of

an innovation should be much easier in a participative system.
Hypothesis 11 predicts a relationship between a high

degree of innovativeness and high Opinion leadership con-

centration but was not supported. The Gini ratio computa—

 

tions indicated almost identical ratios for all four schools
in the study, e.g., the four schools in the present study

showed very little difference in their opinion leadership

 

concentration. The Gini ratios in the non—innovative schools
were slightly higher than those in the innovative schools
which is a trend in the opposite direction from the one
predicted in the hypothesis.

One reason for the lack of high concentration on a
small number of opinion leaders could have been partially
brought about by the questionnaire item itself, which asked
the respondents to, "Name the three teachers in your school
whose Opinion on educational changes are most valuable to
you." The overt offer of three choices, when accepted by
the respondents, was bound to spread the nominations over
a larger total population thereby limiting the concentration
on just a few nominees.

The question and response problem also offers a
possible explanation for the trend in the results Opposing
the prediction of the hypothesis. As we pointed out in

Chapter IV, Table IV—17, there was a higher percentage of

 

111

teachers in innovative schools nominating two or three
individuals, while in the non-innovative schools, there
were nine out of fifty respondents who niminated no one.
Teachers in the non-innovative schools wrote comments such
as, "no preference," "none," and "I don't believe there ie
much of an exchange of Opinions on educational changes."

On the surface, these comments and the blank questionnaires
might seem to indicate that the prediction of Hypothesis 11
would be confirmed since the respondents did not always
name any opinion leader and some did not even think there
was gay exchange of Opinions. However, the structure of
the question and the number of responses received actually
appear to have worked against the prediction in Hypothesis
11. Such a notion is based on the fact that the non—innova-
tive schools, having fewer separate individuals nominated,
would naturally concentrate the opinion leader nominations

they did make on a smaller, more highly concentrated group

 

of individuals.

 

Implications for Future Research

 

While only part of the hypotheses in the present study
were supported, several implications for future research in
the areas of innovativeness and communication behaviors
can be suggested.

First, methods of assuring the innovativeness of study

units might be questioned. There is a great deal of difference

__1 I

 

112

between an "innovative teacher" and a "teacher in an innova—
tive school." Researchers investigating the innovativeness
variable in the future might be wise to screen individual
subjects on a pretest basis, rather than assuming that

teachers are all innovative because the system they are part

of meets valid innovativeness criteria. Such a pretest
situation would provide subjects who could produce statisticalli
significant results for the hypotheses which tended in the
predicted direction, but not to a significant degree.

Of particular interest for future research is the
relationship between innovativeness and the reading of
professional journals. Perhaps the predictions concerning
journal readership and innovativeness in the present study
could be supported if the innovativeness and non—innovativeness
were established through individual pretesting and the

independent variable were examined more carefully in an iso—

 

lated condition rather than as one of eleven hypotheses.

 

As pointed out in Chapter III of the present study, we
have used the extreme ends of the innovativeness continuum
for the pre—designation of our innovative and non-innovative
schools. These extremes were chosen because of the compara-
tive method employed in the present study and the exploratory
nature necessary due to the paucity of the related research.
As research becomes more prevalent in the areas of innovative—
ness and organizational communication, it will be necessary
to examine organizations with varying degrees of innovative-

ness located between the two extremes of the continuum.

O

 

 

113

Another research question which definitely needs
answering is whether opinion leadership is stronger in
innovative or non—innovative systems. Additionally the
results of the present study raise the question of whether
variables such as system norms or generalized opinion leader
behavioral norms are stronger. The present study seems to
indicate that an opinion leader will behave positively as
predicted in Hypotheses 4, 5, and 6 whether the system norms
tend toward innovativeness or not. Specific research is
needed to confirm or reject this notion. Rogers (1962, p. 250)
suggests that research is needed concerning opinion leader—
ship and its correlates, such as social status, cosmOpolite—
ness, innovativeness, and social participation. Rogers
suggests investigations should be directed to determine the
amount of variation in leadership explained by each of these
variables. The present study supports these suggestions.

It will be a valuable addition to the total body of

theory to examine the variables in the present study and

 

other similar variables on a multivariate basis. Since each

 

of these communication behavior variables are interlinked,
there is good reason for examining them in concert and
analyzing the corresponding interaction effects. Such a
Inultivariate analysis might couple factors dealing with
innovativeness, sources of educational information, age,

and level of education in one analysis.

1___________________________________:::]Ii‘.

 

 

114

The present researcher would heartily recommend the use
of a comparative research design such as the one used in
the present study. It is not only a highly workable design
for field research, but the comparative analysis of the
communication structure in modern and traditional social
systems can hopefully provide information regarding the kind
of structural rearrangements which might be conducive to
the adoption of technologies. These structural rearrange—
ments might include improved practices such as better
recruitment, changes in personnel, and better training
methods.

Hopefully, the present study sheds some light on the
relationship between innovativeness and the hypothesized
communication behaviors, as well as other behavioral
(zoncepts. The communication field will surely profit if
future researchers concentrate their efforts on an examina-

tion of the important organizational variables.

 

 

REFERENCES

115

 

REFERENCES

Amidon, Edmund J. and Hough, John B. (Ed.). Interaction
Analysis: Theory, Research, and Application. Reading
Massachusetts: Addison-Westley PublishIng Company,
1967.

 

 

Anderson, C. Arnold and Bowman, May Jean (Ed.). Education
and Economic Development. Chicago: Aldine PublishIng
Company, 1965.

 

 

Ascroft, Joseph R. "Modernization and Communication:
Controlling Environmental Change," unpublished Ph.D.
thesis, Michigan State University, 1969.

Backstrom, Charles H. and Hursh, Gerlad D. Survey Research.
Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University Press,
1963.

 

Bennis, Warren G.; Benne, Kenneth D.; and Chin, Robert. (Ed.).
The Planning of Change. New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston, 196I.

 

BerlO, David K. The Process of Communication. New York:
Holt, Rinehart andIWinston, I960.

 

; Lemert, James B.; and Mertz, Robert J. "Dimen-
Sions for Evaluating the Acceptability of Message
Sources," unpublished paper, Department of Communication,
Michigan State University, 1966.

 

Blau, Peter M. and Scott, W. Richard. Formal Organizations.
San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Company, 1962.

 

Bormann, Ernest G.; Howell, William S.; Nichols, Ralph G.;
Shapiro, George L. Interpersonal Communication in the
Modern Organization. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1969.

 

 

Carlson, Richard 0. Adoption of Education Innovations. Eugene,
Oregon: The Center for the Advancement Study of
Educational Administration, University of Oregon, 1965.

 

. "Summary and Critque of Educational Diffusion
Research," Research Implications for Educational
Diffusion, June, 1968, pp. 1-28.

 

Cartwright, Dorwin and Zander, Alvin (Ed.). Group Dynamics.
Evanston, Illinois: Row Peterson, 1968.

 

Chesler, Mark; Schmuck, Richard; and Lippitt, Ronald. "The
Principals Role in Facilitating Innovation," Theory Into
Practice, Vol. II, No. 5, 1963.

 

116

 

117

Childs, John W. "A Study of the Belief Systems of Adminis-
trators and Teachers in Innovative and Non-Innovative
School Districts," unpublished Ph.D. thesis,.l965.

Coch, Lester and French, John R. P., Jr. "Overcoming
Resistance to Change," Human Relations, 1 (1948),
pp. 512-532.

Committee for Economic Development. Innovation in Education:
New Directions for the American School. New York:
Committee for Economic Development, 1968.

Comrey, Andrew L.; Wallace, High; and Wilson, Robert C.
"Factors Influencing Organizational Effectiveness VI:
A Survey of Aircraft Workers," Personnel Psychology,
Vol. 8, 1955, pp. 79-100.

Crane, Edgar. Marketing Communications. New York: John
Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1965.

Cyert, Richard M. and March, James G. A Behavioral Theory
of the Firm. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-
HaIl, Inc., 1963.

 

Dance, Frank E. X. (Ed.). Human Communication Theory.
New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1967.

Davis, Richard H. "Personal and Organization Variables
Related to the Adoption of Educational Innovations." t/
unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Chicago,
September, 1965.

Eibler, Herbert John. "A Comparison of the Relationships
Between Certain Aspects or Characteristics of the
Structure of the High School Faculty and the Amount
of Curriculum InnoVation." unpublished Ph.D. thesis,
Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan, 1965.

Eicholz, Gerhard C. "Why Do Teachers Reject Change?" Theory
Into Practice, Vol. II, No. 5, pp. 252-256.

 

Faunce, William A.; Hardin, Einar; and Jacobson, Eugene H.
"Automation and the Employee." East Lansing, Michigan:
Michigan State University, Labor and Industrial Relations
Center, Reprint NO. 44, 1962-1963.

 

Finn, William L. "Influence of Community Values on Innovative-
ness," American Journal of Sociology, 1970, Vol. 75, pp.
1983-991.

Fox, Robert S. and Lippitt, Ronald. The Innovation of Class-
room Mental Health Practices. In M. B. Miles (Ed.),
Innovation in Education. New York: Bureau of Publica-
tion, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1964, pp.
271-299.

 

118

Gouldner, Alvin W. Organizational Analysis. In W. Bennis,
K. Benne and R. Chin (Ed.), The Planning_of Change.

New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1961.

Griffiths, Daniel E. Administrative Theory and Change in
Organizations.

In M. B. Miles (Ed.), Innovation in |//
Education. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers
College, Columbia University, 1964, pp. 425-437.

Guetzkow, Harold. Communications in Organization.

In J. G.
March (Ed.), Handbook of Orggnizations. Chicago:
Rand McNally and Company, 1965.

 

Guimaraes, Lytton L. Communication Integration:

 

 

A Review
of the Literature and Some Emerging Hypotheses. (Doctoral
preliminary paper), East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan
State University, 1970.

Habbe, S.

"Communicating with Employees," Studies in Personnel
Policy NO. 129. New York: National IndustriaI Con-
ference Board, 1952.

Haire, M. Modern Organizational Theory:

A Symposium of the
Foundation fOr Research on Human Behavior. New York:
John Wiley and Sons, 1959.

Halpin, Andrew and Croft, Don B.

of Schools. Chicago:

The Organizational Climate
1963.

Midwest Administration Center,

Hardin, Einar. "Computer Automation, Work Environment and
Employee Satisfaction," East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan

State University, Labor and Industrial Relations Center,
Reprint NO. 31, 1960-1961.

"The Reactions of Employees to Office Automation,"
East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, Labor
and Industrial Relations Center, Reprint NO. 34, 1960-
1961.

"Perceived and Actual Change in Job Satisfaction,"
East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University,

School of Labor and Industrial Relations, Reprint No.
80, 1965-1966.

Hardin, Einar and Hershey, Gerald L. "Accuracy of Employee
Reports on Changes in Pay," Journal of Applied Psychology,
1960, Vol. 44, No. 4.

Havens, A. Eugene.

"Increasing the Effectiveness of Predicting
Innovativeness," Rural Sociology, 1951, Vol. 30, No. 2.

Homas, George. The Human Group. New York: Harcourt, Brace
and World, Inc., 1950.

119

Huseman, Richard C.; Logue, Cal M.; Freshly, Dwight L.
Readings in Interpersonal and Organizational Communication.
Boston: HoIbrook Press, Inc., 1969.

Katz, Daniel and Kahn, Robert L. The Social Psychology of
Organizations. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,
1966.

 

 

Katz, Elihu and Lazarfeld, Paul F. Personal Influence. Glencoe,
Illinois: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1955.

 

Katzman, Natan. "Social Entropy and Communication Systems,"
paper presented at the International Communication
Association Convention in Minneapolis, 1970.

Kerlinger, Fred N. Foundations of Behavioral Research. New
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1964.

 

Klingenburg, Allen Jay. "A Study of Selected Administrative
Behaviors Among Administrators From Innovative and
Non-Innovative Public School Districts," unpublished
Ph.D. thesis, Michigan State University, 1966.

Kohl, John. "Adoption Stages and Perception of Characteristics
of Educational Innovations," unpublished Ed.D. thesis,
University of Oregon, 1966.

Larzarsfeld, Paul F. and others. The Peoples Choice. New
York: Duell, Sloan and Pearch, 1944.

 

Lin, Nan. "Innovation Internationalization in a Formal Organiza- v,
tion," unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Michigan State
University, 1966.

Lin, Nan. Innovative Methods for Studying Innovation in
Education. Diffusion Document Center, Michigan State
University, No. 1204P.

Lin, Nan; Leu, Donald J.; Rogers, Everett M.; and Schwartz,
Donald F. The Diffusion of an Innovation in Three
Michigan High Schools: Institution Building Through
Change. Institute for International Studies in
Education, 1966.

 

Lionberger, Herbert F. "Some Characteristics of Farm Oper-
ators Sought at Sources of Farm Information in a
Missouri Community," Rural Sociology, 1953, No. 18,
pp. 327-338. Cited by E. M. Rogers, Diffusion of
Innovations. New York: The Free Press, 1962, p. 238.

 

 

Lippitt, Ronald; Watson, Jeanne; and Westly, Bruce. The
Dynamics of Planned Change. New York: Harcourt,
Brace and Company, 1958.

 

120

Mansfield, Edwin. "Acceptance of Technical Change: The Speed
of Response of Individual Forms," Pittsburgh: Carnegie
Institute of Technology, 1960.

. "Entry, Gibrat's Law, Innovation, and the Growth
of Firms," New Haven, Connecticut: Cowles Foundation,
Paper No. 187, 1963.

"Intrafirm Rates of Diffusion of an Innovation,"
New Haven, Connecticut: Cowles Foundation, Paper No.
206, 1964.

March, James G. (Ed.). Handbook of Organizations. Chicago:
Rand McNally and Company, 1965.

 

McCloskey, Joseph F. and Coppinger, John M. Operations
Research for Management. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins
Press, 1956.

 

 

Menzel, Herbert and Katz, Elihu. "Social Relations and Innova-
tion in the Medical Profession: The Epidemology of a
New Drug," Public Opinion Quarterly, 1955, No. 19, pp.
337-352. Cited by E. M. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations.
New York: The Free Press, 1962, p. 238.

 

 

Miles, Matthew B. (Ed.). Innovation in Education. New York:
Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia
University, 1964.

 

Miller, Richard. Needed Research and Development in the Process
of Change. Diffusion Document Center, Michigan State
University, No. 0162.

 

 

. Some Current Developments in Educational Change. Dif-
fusion Document Center, Michigan State University, No.0163.

 

 

Mort, Paul R. Educational Adaptability, New York: Metropolitan
School Study Council.

 

Rao, Y. V. Lakshmana. Communication and Development: A Study of
Two Indian Villages. Minneapolis: University of Minn-
esota Press, 1966.

 

 

Reindl, Max H. "Propositions on Information Management of Inno-
vation Processes in Organizations." Unpublished Ph.D.
thesis, Michigan State University, 1970.

Rogers, Everett M. and Cartino, David G. "Methods of Measuring
Opinion Leadership," Public Opinionpguarterly, 1962, Vol.
26, pp. 435-441.

 

. Diffusion of Innovations. New York: The Free Press,
1962.

 

. "What Are Innovators Like?" Theory Into Practice,
Vol. II, No. 5, 1963.

 

121

Rogers, Everett M. Modernization Among Peasants: The Impact
of Communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
Inc., 1969.

 

 

Rokeach, Milton. The Opgn and Closed Mind. New York: Basic
Books, 1960.

 

Roling, Niels G. "The Evolution of Civilization: A Theoretic
Approach to the Diffusion of Innovations With Special
Reference to Modernization." Unpublished Ph.D. thesis,

Michigan State University, 1970.

Rosenburg, Milton J.; Hovland, Carl I.; McGuire, William J.;
Abelson, Robert P.; and Brehm, Jack W. Attitude Organi-
zation and Change. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1960.

 

 

Rotch, William. Management of Small Enterprises: Casespand
Readin s. Charlottesville, Virginia: University Press of
Virginia, 1967.

 

Simon, H. A. Administrative Behavior. 2nd. edition. New York:
Macmillan, 1957.

 

Sprunger, Benjamin B. "An Investigation of the Characteristics
Which Differentiate Innovative from Non-Innovative
College Student Personnel Programs." Unpublished Ph.D.
thesis, Michigan State University, 1968.

Strassmann, W. Paul. Risk and Technological Innovation.
Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1959.

Thompson, Victor A. Modern Organization. New York: Alfred A.
Knopf, 1963.

 

Trodahl, Verling C. and Powell, Frederic A. "A Short Form Dog-
matism Scale for Use in Field Studies," Social Forces,
1965, Vol. 44.

 

Wiener, Norbert. The Human Use of Human Beings. Garden City,
New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1954.

 

Yadav, Dharan P. "A Comparative Analysis of Communication
Structure and Innovation Diffusion in Two Indian Villages.‘
Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Michigan State University, 1967.

Young, Michael. Innovation and Research in Education. London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1965.

 

Zelko, Harold P. and Dance, Frank E. X. Business and Profes-
sional Speech Communication. New York: Holt, Rinehard
and Winston, 1965.

 

 

 

 

APPENDICES

122

W"

 

 

APPENDIX A

THE PROJECT 7 AREA

123

 

 

i r
0 ud / ,
I. :i' L,
Omen.» [J ‘5; Demo. r.)
‘ o-o ! g ; i
6.005: " . x. alorqufln
. bO-OJ¢-0-O-¢J
$-nuo "" i
O. . o
\O. . |O-o-o-.~
. u .b u
\.. ‘ !OI In II.
\'o I I
'I
r.‘
I o
J O
s‘
O
.5

 

1

124

i
r_,_.-,JLoco ;
I "9" ,..-..i I cmouuo
. ‘ .-'-._

oJ-o
No «In: ‘-

b.-----o~
o

L.

! Sphoolcron

JC-O-.-.‘

DOIIO i
i

-O-ITO‘C-

6mm“ Choboy

i
I
I
i
I
I

1 o- 0. ad
Chorlovou

L... .-.

   

 

K

I

Q

\a

5 Prague I“.

-ac-o-III-oT u-o-o-O

mom-Ionncy' Moon.

'0". 0
Q L-0-0-‘-O OJ ‘
0 ‘fl.". ' . ’
o i . '
.° . . !
.\° ' . -o-o-o
. .‘0-0-0-‘-u-O-O-l ”‘- 0—0-0— 1.-
PKOIIOIHOICIOU'ON iOuocodo ”Icon
-._'-0 . .
. 6! and I I . I
B'""! hours. 3 i ! i
- ! i - ! i
-. I‘o' II" " ' " Sic3m52435?£&"iii?o'""
I i a !
i I I I
' ‘ ' . II 0A- -t—fi—l..--‘—O-c"l—I-C
’ a I a on . Iod III .Annoc
I I E
. ' ' I...,
' 3 g 1. Hang
' 9 ! 3°01.
.. .-._._.+._....... ._
Oceano .Nouoyoo .IooboIIo .MIdlond I
! I E ! Ln. -0
f ! I Toscolo Soniloc
I I I "1.-
. . - ._.J 1 I
I-a-o-r1 _ - J..-'-'-'L_—H‘P .—
I MonIco III iGroIIoI ISoqmow !
' I
°‘I L.-. ‘ 9 .
- 'II,,o :mm " I I “I
T'i 3 I Gonuu oLopnv I."_ ._.__
'-.0-I‘Iovo' 'Iomo Clinton ISIIIo:os-u E I I. CIoIr
I .
. . . , I
I I i ‘ !_
. i i Poo—I‘LI-n- 7‘. o o“
I . I "coma: TIM Mb;
‘ ----- J. o-L-_o --~ . o-o ‘
Allogon Bony ;EcIon ilnq om iuvmguon; I .
; I 5 I i i
I I I ! I i
I-.-.-. ._.-'L 0-. .-.--1—- v—._._.L- -.--_ &.1----I-C..I-
Von Boron TKOIOMOl-OOTCOII'IOUD iJOCIIW" IVNM'M' 'vmyno g“
I .
. ' I
‘1 I E I i E
I i I I . I
. ....... 4-... . uuuuu .OP L--o—ITO--L.J'—!-‘-'Lo-u\
(‘0 .60“ :SI Jouph'aronch iHIllodolo I Lonouu .MOMOO
( . I
9‘ I i I I I I
I J i I I I
oo-udoo—oohoo-oohoo—J‘ 1 ' --

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX B

CURRICULAR PRACTICES POLL

125

 

126

CURRICULAR PRACTICES POLL

SCHOOL LEVEL

DIST.

 

 

 

Please check the practices in use in your school

___independent study

_“_0pen labs

___unscheduled time for pupils
mmnseminar groups
mmmnon-graded

___no A,B,C, grades
___schedule modifications
___team teaching

___large group instruction
___core or unified curr.
___multiage grouping
___multiage tutoring
___pupil-teacher planning

role playing or mock teaching

simulation

___computer scheduling
__mprogrammed learning
___new math
___B.S.C.S.
___P.S.S.C.

___Project English
___year—round school

lang.—eXp. approach to

lang. arts

outdoor education programs

and facilities

Federal curriculum project

____(other)

 

____(other)

 

___(other)

 

___(other)

 

Developed by William R. Force

~h‘

APPENDIX C

LETTER OF INSTRUCTION TO SUBJECTS

 

 

127

 

 

128

Dear Respondent,

Thank you very much for your cooperation!!

The answers you give should be thoughtful and as
accurate as possible. Your replies will be held completely
confidential.

Part I

When you have completed Part I place it in the plain
unsigned envelope attached to it, seal it, and return it to
your school administrator.

Part II

Part II should be confidentially placed in the brown

envelope appropriately labeled and located in your school

office.

Remember: Part II is not to be signed by you.
Please try to complete these within two days after you
receive them.

Again, thank you.

 

 

 

APPENDIX D

THE QUESTIONNAIRE

129

 

130

 

Part I
A. Name
Sem
1. Male 2. Female
Agg (Circle one)
1. 20-24 6. 45-49
2. 25—29 7. 50-54
3. 30-34 8. 55-59
4. 35—39 9. 60 or over
5. 40—44

Educational Level (check the highest level attained)

 

1. 1—3 years college
2. Bachelors Degree
3. Bachelors Degree +

4. Masters Degree

 

5. Masters Degree +

 

6. Specialist Degree
7. Doctors Degree
8. Other (specify)

Years of Service

 

How many years have you taught in this school system?

B. l. I read newspaper(s) yesterday.

1. No 2. Yes

————_. _—

How many?

 

131

2. I listened to radio yesterday.

1. No 2. Yes
If the answer is yes, the program(s) I listened
to were:

music

weather

sports

educational activities

local news

national and international news

—_————_—

drama and/or comedy
3. I watched television yesterday.
1. No 2. Yes

_— —_

If the answer is yes, the program(s) I listened
to were:

music

 

weather
sports
____educational activities
local news
___national and international news
drama and/or comedy
4. How many professional educational meetings which

involved educators from more than one school

district have you attended in the past two years?

 

(Number)

132

Please list below the professional journals (regard—

less of the acedemic area to which the journal is

addressed) which you read:

a). Regularly:

 

 

b). Occasionally:

 

 

Most of my insights and new ideas regarding education

 

result from:

Discussion with educators in this

school district.

Discussion with educators outside
school district.

Name the 3 teachers in you school whose opinions
educational changes are most valuable to you.

A.

 

B.

 

C.

 

this

List the teachers with whom you talk most frequently.

A.

 

B.

 

 

 

 

 

133
Part II

Do Not Put Your Name on This Part.

Your answers to these questions will be held completely

anonymous so please answer them as honestly as you possibly

can.

A. Please check the 9mg mpg; appropriate response to
each of these statements:

1. In this complicated world of ours the only way we
can know what's going on is to rely on leaders or
experts who can be trusted.

____agree very much
____agree on the whole

agree a little

 

____don't know
____disagree a little
____disagree on the whole
____disagree very much

2. My blood boils whenever a person stubbornly refuses
to admit he's wrong.
____agree very much
____agree on the whole
____agree a little
____don't know
____disagree a little
____disagree on the whole

disagree very much

 

 

_7—-Wii ‘

134

3. There are two kinds of people in this world: those
who are for the truth and those who are against the
truth.

____agree very much
agree on the whole
____agree a little
____don't know
____disagree a little
____disagree on the whole
____disagree very much
4. Most people just don't know what's good for them.
agree very much
agree on the whole
agree a little

don't know

 

____disagree a little
disagree on the whole
____disagree very much
5. Of all the different philosophies which exist in
this world, there is probably only one which is
correct.
____agree very much
agree on the whole
__~_agree a little
don't know
disagree a little
____disagree on the whole

disagree very much

 

 

135

The highest form of government is a democracy

and the highest form of democracy is a government

 

run by those who are most intelligent.
agree very much
agree on the whole

agree a little

 

don't know

disagree a little

 

____disagree on the whole
disagree very much
The main thing in life is for a person to want to
do something important.
____agree very much
____agree on the whole
agree a little
don't know
____disagree a little
____disagree on the whole
disagree very much
I'd like it if I could find someone who would tell
me how to solve my personal problems.
____agree very much
agree on the whole
____agree a little
____don't know
____disagree a little
____disagree on the whole

disagree very much

 

136

Most of the ideas which get printed nowadays aren't
worth the paper they are printed on.
____agree very much

agree on the whole

agree a little

 

don't know
____disagree a little
____disagree on the whole
____disagree very much
Man on his own is a helpless and miserable
creature.
____agree very much
____agree on the whole
____agree a little

don't know

 

____disagree a little
disagree on the whole
____disagree very much
It is only when a person devotes himself to an ideal
or cause that life becomes meaningful.
agree very much
agree on the whole
agree a little
__‘_don't know
____disagree a little
____disagree on the whole

disagree very much

 

 

137

12. Most people just don't give a "damn" for others.
____agree very much
____agree on the whole
agree a little
____don't know
____disagree a little
____disagree on the whole
____disagree very much
13. To comprimise with our political opponents is
dangerous because it usually leads to the betrayal
of our own side.
____agree very much

agree on the whole

 

____agree a little
____don't know
____disagree a little
____disagree on the whole
____disagree very much
14. It is often desirable to reserve judgement about
what's going on until one has had a chance to hear
the opinions of those one respects.
____agree very much
____agree on the whole
____agree a little
____don't know
____disagree a little
____disagree on the whole

disagree very much

 

 

138

15. The present is all too often full of unhappiness.
It is only the future that counts.
____agree very much
____agree on the whole
____agree a little
don't know
____disagree a little
disagree on the whole
____disagree very much
16. The United States and Russia have just about nothing
in common.
agree very much
____agree on the whole
____agree a little
____don't know
____disagree a little
____disagree on the whole
____disagree very much
17. In a discussion I often find it necessary to repeat
myself several times to make sure I am being under~
stood.
____agree very much
____agree on the whole
agree a little
____don't know
____disagree a little
disagree on the whole

disagree very much

 

139

18. While I don't like to admit this even to myself,
my secret ambition is to become a great man, like
Eistein, Beethoven, or Shakespeare.

____agree very much
____agree on the whole
____agree a little
____don't know
____disagree a little
____disagree on the whole
disagree very much

19. Even though freedom of speech for all groups is a
worthwhile goal, it is unfortunately necessary to
restrict the freedom of certain political groups.
____agree very much
____agree on the whole

agree a little
____don't know
____disagree a little
____disagree on the whole
____disagree very much

20. It is better to be a dead hero than to be a live
coward.

____agree very much
agree on the whole
____agree a little

don't know

 

 

 
 

 

140

____disagree a little
____disagree on the whole
____disagree very much
B. Please answer the following confidential questions with
the most appropriate answer.

1. The principal usually asks my opinion when making
a school decision which involves my work.
____agree very much
____agree on the whole
____agree a little
____don't know

disagree a little
____disagree on the whole
____disagree very much

2. It is unusual for me to take part in discussion

which results in decisions regarding school

problems and activities.

 

agree very much

 

____agree on the whole
____agree a little
____don't know
____disagree a little
____disagree on the whole

disagree very much

 

141

3. The principal offers suggestions to help improve
my teaching performance:
____very frequently
____quite frequently
____once in a while
____quite infrequently
____never
4. The principal lets me know if he has heard any
criticism of my teaching performance:
____very frequently
____quite frequently
____once in a while
____quite infrequently
____never
5. I usually discuss my teaching problems with:
____the school administration

my fellow teachers

 

APPENDIX E

SOCIOMETRIC CHOICE MATRICES

142

 

143

Sociometric Choice Matric for School I—l.

 

 

 

 

 

Chosen

Chooser l 2 3 4* 5 6 7
l X
2 X
3 X X X
4 X X
5 X X X
6 X X
7 X X X
8 X X X

Totals 3 1 l 2 3 4 4

 

 

 

 

144

Sociometric Choice Matrix for School I—2.

 

Chooser

Chosen
9 10 ll 12 l3 14 15 l6 l7 l8 19 20 21 22 23

 

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

X X X
X X X
X X X
X X X
X X X
X X X
X X X
X X
X X X
X X X
X X X
X X
X X X
X X X
X X X

 

Totals

 

L

 

145

Sociometric Choice Matrix for School N-l.

 

 

Chosen
Chooser 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44

 

24 X X X

40 X X X

41 X X X

42 X X X
43 X X X

44 X X

 

Totals 3 5 4 2 5 4 3 3 4 4 3 0 2 1 1 3 O 2 1 1 2

 

146

 

 

 

 

{I (l ”Pfii IIJIVJ IIIIBIIF?: I.| I

o m o m o o N o H m o mHmDOB

 

x
x
x. x
xx x
x
x x x
xx
x
x
x x x
x x
x x x
x x x
x x
x x
xx
x
x
x x
x
x x
xxx
x
x
x
x

x ms

x mm
an

on

mm

mm

mm

mm

mm

we

mm

mm

Hm

om

mm

mm

mm

x x mm
x x mm
x x vm

mm

x x mm
Hm

om

x mv

x x mv
x hv

x X ow
x mv

 

mm mm as obImm mm mm mm mm we mm mm Hm om mm mm mm mm
ammonu

mm mm mm mm Hm om mv mm 5v mv mv Hmmoozu

 

.mIz Hoonom How xflxpmz moflocu ofluumEOHoom

 

 

APPENDIX F
FACTORS OF SEX, AGE, EDUCATION,

AND YEARS IN SCHOOL

147

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

148

 

 

 

 

a m m H H m A HH mH Ammuzv
NIz

m o H H m m m h «H AHNqu
HIz

m o o o N H m m 0H AmHqu
NIH

o H H H H m m m m Amnzv
HIH

Hm>oIom mHImq Halos mmImm HMIom mNImN Hmuom meamm mHmz Hoorom

mmd ,xmm
.mm< ocm xwm mo mHODomm

 

149

 

 

 

m.v mNIH m N NH N o HaNqu
NIz

x.m oHIH H H mH « o AHNqu
HIz

8.4 NHIH N m m H H HmHuzv
NIH

m ONIH m o m N o Hmuzv
HIH

sows mmcmm +mxopmm2 mxwummz +mHon£omm mxoamsomm mmxmwn oz Hoosom

 

AHoorow mquv
Hoogom CH .mxw

soHumoscm

 

.Hoonom QH mxmww paw coHumUSUm mo mxouomm

 

 

II\lIIIIII(WWIIIIIIIIIIHIIIMl)“