LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

$E$>52148260§

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 c:/CIRC/DateDue.p65-p.15

DIFFUSION OF PHYSICAL AND SOCIAL INCLUSION WITHIN LOCAL
PUBLIC PARK AND RECREATION AGENCIES IN MICHIGAN

By

Ariel Rodriguez

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
Department of Park, Recreation & Tourism Resources

2002

ABSTRACT

DIFFUSION OF PHYSICAL AND SOCIAL INCLUSION WITHIN LOCAL
PUBLIC PARK AND RECREATION AGENCIES IN MICHIGAN

By

Ariel Rodriguez

In local public park and recreation agencies in Michigan, innovations occur
on a daily basis. Yet, some innovations are implemented at faster rates than
others. Physical inclusion and social inclusion are two innovations that have
been implemented at different rates. Physical inclusion is the removal of
architectural barriers to help people with disabilities freely access a recreation
activity. Social inclusion is providing opportunities that encourage social
interactions between people with and without disabilities so that they may
participate freely in a recreation activity. Although both are central parts involving
people with disabilities into community endeavors, physical inclusion has been
implemented at a faster rate than social inclusion. This study used the diffusion
of innovation theory to interpret the implementation of these innovations.
Specifically, this study analyzed attributes of both innovations. Study results
indicated that the relative advantage, complexity, compatibility, visibility, image,
and results demonstrability of physical inclusion were significantly different from
social inclusion. This has led to a conclusion that one of the methods of
increasing the rate of implementation of social inclusion is to promote these

attributes.

I would like to dedicate this thesis to everyone involved in my personal milieu.
Your endeavors have advertently and/or inadvertently affected the road that I

have chosen.

For those whose deeds directly affected my state of being, mind, and spirit
special thanks to you. I would not be here without your energy.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

More specifically, I would like to thank...
...my parents, for their patience and guidance

...my friends, for their inspiration and support, and
...lcababicus Moore, for insanity in times of sanity.

To my committee, Dr. Richard D. Paulsen (chair), Dr. Joseph Fridgen, and

Dr. Esther Onaga, your wisdom and guidance will not go in vain. I sincerely
appreciate all that you helped me go through during my Masters” process.

Dr. Paulsen, your endeavors did more for me than simply help me to finish my
Masters’ degree, they helped me to be a better professional.

Other professors that I would like to thank that were not in my committee, but
whose actions helped me to complete my thesis...

...Dr. van der Smissen, thank you for your continued wisdom...

...and Dr. Baker, whose gumption goes well beyond ten cups of coffee, thank
you for your “gentle” reminders of my thesis priority.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION . .
Frame of Reference .
Problem Statement .
Study Purpose .
Hypothesis .

Definitions . .
Limitations .
Delimitations . .
Assumptions . .

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW .
Diffusion of Innovation Theory . .
Park and Recreation Innovation Research .
Local Public Park and Recreation Agencies . .

Roles of Local Public Park and Recreation Managers .'

Inclusion in Public Services ........
Summary of Literature Review .

CHAPTER III: PROCEDURES .
Population and Sample .
Instrumentation .

Pilot Study . . . . .
Collection of Data .
Treatment of Data .

CHAPTER IV: ANALYSIS .
Profile of Managers . . . .
Profile of Park and Recreation Agencies .

Profile of Park and Recreation Agencies’ Social System .' .

Distribution of Respondents . .

Manager Perceptions of Agency Inclusiveness .
Instrumentation . . . . . . . .

Tests for Significance .

Study Hypotheses . .

Summary of Analysis .

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION . .
Summary of Procedures .
Summary of Findings .
Discussion .
Limitations . . . .
Recommendations Based on Study Results .
General Implications for Diffusion of Innovations .
Recommendations for Future Study .

APPENDICES .
BIBLIOGRAPHY .

vi

1-11
1-6

7-8
8-10
10
11
11

1 2-27
12-18
18-19
1 9-21
21 -23
23-26
26-27

28-33
28
28-30
30-31
31
31 -33

34-56
34-35
36-37
37

37-38
38-39
39-40
40-41
42-56
56

57-67

57-58
58-59
60

61 -63
63-66
66-67

68-77

78-85

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Descriptive results by manager experience

Table 2. Frequency and percentage distribution by education level

Table 3. Frequency and percentage distribution by Certified Park and Recreation
Professional (CPRP)

Table 4. Frequency and pe7rcentage distribution by agency operating budget
Table 5. Frequency and percentage distribution by perceived discretionary funds
Table 6. Descriptive results by department year of establishment

Table 7. Frequency and percentage distribution by agency type

Table 8. Frequency and percentage distribution by governmental unit

Table 9. Frequency and percentage distribution by congressional districts

Table 10.
Table 11.
Table 12.
Table 13.
Table 14.
Table 15.
inclusion
Table 16.
Table 17.
Table 18.
Table 19.
Table 20.
Table 21.
Table 22.
Table 23.
Table 24.
Table 25.

Table 26.
inclusion

Manager perceptions of agency's programs inclusiveness

Cronbach Alpha scores for attributes of physical and social inclusion and PWS's
Descriptive results by physical and social relative advantage

Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test results for physical and social relative advantage
Descriptive results by compatibility of physical and social inclusion

Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test results for compatibility of physical and social

Descriptive results by physical and social visibility

Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test results for physical and social visibility
Descriptive results by physical and social triability

Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test results for physical and social triability
Descriptive results by physical and social imagibility

Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test results for physical and social imagibility
Descriptive results by physical and social results demonstrability
Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test results for physical and social results demonstrability
Descriptive results by physical and social complexity

Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test results for physical and social complexity
Independent sample t-test results for e-mail effects for physical and social

vi

35
35

35

36
36
37
37
37
38
39
40
43
43
45

45

47
47
49
49
51
51
53

55
55

56

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

Frame of Reference

Why do some innovations, regardless of how beneficial or how superior to
prior products or processes they may be, get implemented and others rejected?
This intriguing question is the basis for this research. Studies on various
innovations, their processes of diffusion, environment, and origins have
continued to emerge since the 1920s and 19305 (Rogers, 1983). Numerous
models and theories attempting to explain this phenomenon have been
recognized since the early 21st century. In addition to the various models and
theories, innovation studies range from a variety of fields, for example,
marketing, sociology, economics, anthropology, geography, and public
administration. The field of parks and recreation has also delved into studying
innovafions.

Within the field of parks and recreation, a variety of innovation studies
have been done from better understanding snowmobile users (Stynes 8.
Szcodronski, 1980) to better understanding why a wave pool would be adopted
as opposed to rejected (Sherman & Havitz, 1991; Crompton & Havitz, 1987).
Articles have also been written concerning outsourcing and its possible
contributions to recreation agencies (Edginton & Jiang, 2000). There have been
many more studies concerning a variety of innovations in parks and recreation.
These studies have come about, in part, because of continuous needs,

demands, and opportunities experienced by the parks and recreation field.

Towards the end of the 20th century and into the 21st century, another
innovation arose, inclusion of people with disabilities into park and recreation
services and programs. Inclusion is a need, demand, and opportunity for park
and recreation providers in the public sector which has come about from a variety
of sources.

The sources stem from the necessities of the community by the citizens of
the area. It has been estimated that 9,938,444 people reside in Michigan (US.
Census 2000, 2000) from which approximately 1.7 million have been found to
have disabilities‘ (Michigan Commission on Disability Concerns, 2001 ). Laws
such as the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act of 1990 (IDEA) and advocate groups such as The Arc
Michigan and the Michigan Developmental Disabilities Council (MDDC) have
also stressed the need and demand of inclusion (US. Department of Justice,
2002; US Department of Education, 2001; The Arc Michigan, 2001; Michigan
Developmental Disabilities Council, 2001).

Professional associations such as the National Therapeutic Recreation
Society (NTRS), the National Recreation and Parks Association (NRPA), and the
Michigan Recreation and Park Association (MRPA) have also discussed the
need, demand, and opportunities of inclusion in the parks and recreation field
(National Therapeutic Recreation Society, 2001; National Recreation and Park

Association, 2001; Michigan Recreation and Park Association, 2001). This list is

 

1 Official number of people with disabilities in Michigan from the 2000 US. Census is not
currently (February 24, 2002) available. In addition, estimating the number of people with
disabilities is difficult if valid and reliable estimates are required. This is due to a variety of
reasons (see Appendix A).

f»)

not exhaustive. Many other agencies, institutions, organizations, and individuals
have been instrumental in expressing various issues of inclusion.

Prior to these more recent efforts, the focus, when working with people
with disabilities, was mainstreaming and integration. Bullock and Mahon (2000)
have noted, “Mainstreaming proponents usually argue that a participant must
earn his opportunity to be placed in a regular recreation setting by keeping up
with the class and showing appropriate behavior" (p. 54). Whereas, “Integration
is the placement of someone who has a disability with her peers in the regular
setting” (Bullock & Mahon, 2000, p. 54). Bullock and Mahon (2000) further
explained that these methods of selective placement made participants feel as
though they were different and not capable. “ . . . Inclusion is the best of both
worlds. Inclusion provides opportunities for a participant to choose to be with her
peers in the regular setting and also provides the supports and accommodations
needed to ensure personally satisfying and valued participation” (Bullock 8.

Mahon, 2000, p. 54).

Legislation prior to 1990 that assisted with inclusion, mainstreaming and
integration included the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, the Rehabilitation Act
of 1973, the Education of All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, the Voting
Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act of 1984, the Air Carrier Access
Act of 1986, the Developmental Disabilities and Bill of Rights Act Amendment of
1987, and the Technology-Related Assistance for Individuals for Disabilities Act
of 1988 (US. Access Board, 2001; Bullock & Mahon, 2000), but these legislative

efforts concentrated more on physical aspect of inclusion, mainstreaming or

integration or social aspects of inclusion, mainstreaming or integration only in
federally funded facilities. Newer efforts, with the help of the ADA and the
growing number of agencies promoting full inclusion, have stimulated a need for
full inclusion in all major service providing sectors, public (federal, state, and
local) and private. This includes both physical and social inclusion (US.

Department of Justice, 2002).

Despite recent efforts, the literature notes difficulties in the diffusion of full
inclusion. Full inclusion, or simply inclusion, “. . . is a process that enables an
individual to be a part of his environment by making choices, being supported in
what he does on a daily basis, having friends, and being valued” (Bullock &
Mahon, 2000, pg. 58). In other words, inclusion is the process of creating an
atmosphere that allows people of all abilities to come together to fully enjoy
(physically, psychologically, socially, emotionally, and spiritually) various
products or services that are provided by park and recreation service providers.
In particular, the literature has pointed to a lack of efforts being made in the
social aspect of inclusion (Bullock & Mahon, 2000; Schleien, 1997), but has
noted that greater strides have been made in the physical elements of inclusion
(Bullock & Mahon, 2000). Although both physical and social inclusion are
important aspects when involving people with disabilities into community
endeavors, physical inclusion has been implemented at a faster rate than social
inclusion (Bullock & Mahon, 2000).

Various authors have proposed internal and external factors for a lack of

social inclusion diffusion. Although several explanations have been provided, few

efforts have been made to understand agency perspectives (see Dattilo, 1994;
Schleien, Ray, & Green, 1997; National Therapeutic Recreation Society, 1999;
Bullock & Mahon, 2000).

Innovations, in this study, are new ideas, practices, or objects that have
been perceived as new by an individual or other unit of adoption (Rogers, 1983).
Inclusion is currently an issue of debate by many scholars and has yet to be
implemented in various agencies as it is thought to be a much more innovative
approach to providing park and recreation services to people with disabilities
(Bullock & Mahon, 2000; Schleien, Ray, & Green, 1997). To understand the
process in which most innovations are used or implemented in an organization,
numerous issues concerning both internal organizational environments or milieus
and external organizational environments must be understood.

The process of innovation diffusion is relatively complex in organizations
(March, 1988). The diffusion of innovation theory has helped put this concept
into perspective (Rogers, 1995; Tannon & Rogers, 1975; Ash, 1997). According
to the diffusion of innovation theory, diffusion is the process by which innovations
are communicated through channels over time among members of a social
system (Rogers, 1983, 1995). One influencing or encouraging factor in the
adoption of an innovation is its attributes (Rogers, 1983, 1995). Although there
are many influencing attributes (Zaltman, Duncan, & Holbeck, 1973; Fliegel &
Kivlin, 1966; Dearing, Meyer, & Kazmierczak, 1994; Rogers, 1983, 1995), the
attributes that have been found to be most influential include relative advantage,

compatibility, triability, observability, and complexity (Rogers, 1983, 1995).

Moore & Benbasat (1991) noted that image was a subcomponent of relative
advantage and that observability was broken down into visibility and result
demonstrability.

Given the difficulties with the diffusion of social inclusion and the success
of the diffusion of physical inclusion, this study compares the differences and
similarities between them in local public park and recreation agencies in
Michigan. Furthermore, the implementation of social and physical inclusion is
compared as the adoption is legally mandated through the ADA for the specific
population in this study. The basis for the comparison is the diffusion of
innovation theory which indicates that perceptions of different innovation
attributes are positively and negatively correlated to the diffusion of innovations.
Moreover, the comparison is used to test the diffusion of innovation theory.
Problem Statement

The fundamental problem driving this study involves current difficulties
with the diffusion of social inclusion within local public park and recreation
agencies. Although several explanations have been provided, few efforts have
been made to understand agency perspectives (see Dattilo, 1994; Schleien, Ray,
& Green, 1997; National Therapeutic Recreation Society, 1999; Bullock &
Mahon, 2000) and none, as reviewed by the investigator, have been made using

the diffusion of innovation theory.

Study Purpose

The purpose of this study is to test the diffusion of innovation theory as
one possible explanation for the differences and similarities between the diffusion
of social and physical inclusion within local public park and recreation agencies in
Michigan.
Study Hypothesis

There are a variety of attributes of innovations that are positively and

 

negatively associated with the implementation of an innovation (Rogers, 1995;
Moore & Benbasat, 1991 ). These attributes are used to compare the
implementation of physical and social aspects of inclusion. The attributes include
relative advantage, triability, compatibility, image, visibility, results demonstrability
and complexity (Rogers, 1995; Moore 8. Benbasat, 1991). The first six attributes
have been noted to being positively related, and the last one, to be negatively
related. Given that physical aspects of inclusion have been implemented more

rapidly and extensively than social aspects, the following hypotheses are tested.

H013 “Physical Inclusion relative advantage = I-‘Social Inclusion relative advantage

HA1: “Physical Inclusion relative advantage > I-‘Social Inclusion relative advantage

H023 “Physical Inclusion compatibility = “Social Inclusion compatibility

HA2: IJPnysicaI Inclusion compatibility > “Social Inclusion compatibility

H033 IJPIIysicaI Inclusion visibility = IJSocial Inclusion visibility

HA3: “Physical Inclusion visibility > “Social Inclusion visibility

H041 “Physical Inclusion triability = “Social Inclusion triability

HA4: IJPnysicaI Inclusion triability > “Social Inclusion triability

H053 “Physical Inclusion imagibility = “Social Inclusion imagibility

HA5: ”Physical Inclusion imagibility > “Social Inclusion imagibility

H063 “Physical Inclusion results demonstrability = “Social Inclusion results demonstrability

HA6: “Physical Inclusion results demonstrability > I-‘Social Inclusion results demonstrability

H073 “Physical Inclusion complexity = “Social Inclusion complexity

HA7: ”Physical Inclusion complexity < ”Social Inclusion complexity

Definition of Terms

Attributes of innovations. Seven attributes are used in this study. These
attributes were modified by Moore and Benbasat from Rogers’ (1983) original
attributes of innovations.

. Compatibility- the degree to which using an innovation is perceived as
being consistent with the existing values, needs, and past experiences of
potential adopters (Moore & Benbasat, 1991)

0 Complexity— the degree to which using an innovation is perceived as

being difficult to use (Moore & Benbasat, 1991)

0 Image - the degree to which using an innovation enhances one’s image or
status within the organization (Moore & Benbasat, 1991)

0 Relative Advantage — the degree to which using an innovation is
perceived as being better than using its precursor (Moore & Benbasat,
1991)

0 Result Demonstrability- the degree to which results of implementing an
innovation are demonstrable to others (modified from Moore 8. Benbasat,
1991)

o Triability- the degree to which it is possible to try implementing the
innovation (modified from Moore & Benbasat, 1991)

o Visibility — the degree to which using the results of an innovation are
visible to others (modified from Moore & Benbasat, 1991)

Other terms. Various other terms are used throughout this study that
need clarification.

. Adoption — a decision to make full use of an innovation as the best course
of action available (Rogers, 1983)

o Diffusion - the process by which ( 1) an innovation (2) is communicated
through certain channels (3) over time (4) among the members of a social
system (Rogers, 1983)

0 Implementation — the decision to put an innovation into use (Rogers,

1 983)
0 Inclusion — the process of creating an atmosphere that allows people of all

abilities to come together to fully enjoy (physically, psychologically,

socially, and emotionally) various products or services that are provided
by park and recreation service providers

0 Innovation — an idea, practice, or object that is perceived as new by an
individual or other unit of adoption (Rogers, 1983); it also implies bringing
something new into use (Mohr, 1969)

o Invention — Implies bringing something new into being or creation (Mohr,

1969). This is in contrast to innovation, which is bringing something new

 

into use
a Physical Inclusion — the removal of architectural barriers to help people
with disabilities freely access a recreation activity
0 Social Inclusion — is providing opportunities that encourage social
interactions between people with and without disabilities so that they may
participate freely in a recreation activity
Limitations
This study will focus on managers to obtain organizational information.
This limitation may affect the quality of the information received. As noted by
Mayer and Davidson (2000), “simple aggregation of individual responses [when
analyzing organizations] may not always be appropriate because innovation may
be the product of smaller groups within the organization whose perceptions and
actions are critical” (p. 427). Therefore, information from managers alone may

not provide a complete picture of the agencies in this study.

10

Delimitations

This study will be delimited to Michigan local public park and recreation
agencies. This will not include special districts or school districts. Information
will be obtained from top-level managers in these agencies.
Assumptions

Three major assumptions are made in this study. First, this study assumes
that the managers studied will have accurate (or valid) knowledge of the park and
recreation agency they manage and of the system in which the agency exists.
Second, it assumes that the manager’s perceptions of the agency will be aligned
with the views of the agency. The final assumption made is that physical
inclusion is implemented more frequently than social inclusion in local public park

and recreation agencies.

11

 

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The review of literature considers studies on the (1) diffusion of innovation
theory, (2) recreation innovations, (3) local public park and recreation agencies,
(4) local public park and recreation managers, and (5) inclusion in community

recreation.

 

Diffusion of Innovation Theory

The diffusion of innovation theory recognizes diffusion as the process by
which (1) innovations are (2) communicated through channels (3) over time (4)
among members of a social system (Rogers, 1995; Tannon & Rogers, 1975).

Innovations. Innovations are an integral part of local public park and
recreation agencies and their management. Crompton (1999) has recognized
that a crisis created by the expectations that an agency should do more with
fewer tax resources has resulted in managers acquiring a new entrepreneurial
mindset and have since been developing many different innovative funding and
operating methods. Whether the innovation is a new skateboard park, a new
form of planning, like strategic planning, in order to respond to higher demands
for quality services with fewer funds, or the implementation of a performance
based budget to improve a prior line-item budget, innovations are everywhere
and continue to affect park and recreation managers and the overall field.

Innovation is the specific tool of entrepreneurs, the means by which

they exploit change as an opportunity for a different business or a

12

different service. It is capable of being presented as a discipline,

capable of being learned, capable of being practiced.

Entrepreneurs need to search purposefully for the sources of

innovation, the changes and their symptoms that indicate

opportunities for successful innovation. And they need to know and

to apply the principles of successful innovation (Drucker, 1985, p.

1 9).

Innovation, as defined by Rogers (1995), is an idea, practice, or object
that is perceived as new by an individual or other unit of adoption. Other
definitions of an innovation have been proposed (see Grady & Chi, 1994), but
this study will use Rogers’ definition as it is widely recognized within the diffusion
of innovation paradigm.

Triability (the degree to which it is possible to try implementing the
innovation), visibility (the degree to which using the results of an innovation are
visible to others), image (the degree to which using an innovation enhances
one’s image or status within the organization), compatibility (the degree to which
using an innovation is perceived as being consistent with the existing values,
needs, and past experiences of potential adopters), relative advantage (the
degree to which using an innovation is perceived as being better than using its
precursor), and complexity (the degree to which using an innovation is perceived
as being difficult to use) are attributes of innovations that have encouraged and
discouraged adoption of the innovation (Tannon & Rogers, 1975; Rogers,

1983,1995; Moore & Benbasat, 1991).

13

Three categories of innovations have also been noted (Damanpour &
Gopalakrishnan, 1999). They include technical versus administrative, product
versus process, and radical versus incremental.

Technical innovations pertain to products, services, and production

process technology; that is, they can be the adoption of an idea for

a new product or a new service or the introduction of a new

element in an organization’s production process or service

operation . . . Administrative innovations involve organizational

structure and administrative processes; that is, they can be the

adoption of new ways to recruit personnel, allocate resources, give
rewards, and structure tasks or units . . . Product Innovation is
defined as a new product or service introduced to meet an external
user or market need, and process innovation is defined as new
elements introduced into an organization’s production or service
operations . . . Radical innovations produce fundamental changes

in the activities of the organization and represent clear departure

from existing practices, whereas incremental innovations result in a

lesser degree of departure (Damanpour & Gopalakrishnan, 1999,

pp. 62,65).

14

Communicated through channels. Communication is the process by
which messages are transmitted from a source to a receiver, with a viewpoint of
modifying the receiver’s behavior. . . communication channel is the means by
which the message gets from the source to the receiver (Rogers, 1983, 1995).

In the parks and recreation field, channels of communicating information
have been managed by marketing and human relations personnel.
Understanding potential sources for communication channels can be used when
introducing a new innovation into an organization. Copper (1983) recognized this
when he discussed the methods by which personal computers were first
introduced into the San Diego County Department of Parks and Recreation.

Over time. Innovations that occur in the parks and recreation field occur
over time. Studies by Crompton and Havitz (1987) and Shaman and Havitz
(1991) have recognized that the process of innovation-diffusion with wavepools
occurred over time. Similarly, Copper (1983) recognized that the process of
introducing personal computers into his recreation department required time.
Although there have not been many studies in the recreation field dealing
exclusively with the concept of time, authors from a variety of fields have done
research or noted research on time and other elements of the innovation
diffusion process (Poole, Van de Ven, Dooley & Holmes, 2000; Rogers, 1983,
1995; King & Anderson, 1995; Zaltman et al., 1973; Huber & Van de Van, 1995).
In this study, time was taken into account, but not studied directly (i.e., this
research did not try to find relationships between time and the implementation of

an innovation within the park and recreation agencies).

15

Among members of a social system. In addition to the innovation, the
concept of time, and the channels of communication, the members of a social
system play an important role in the diffusion of innovations. Within local public
park and recreation agencies, the members may include users, managers,
service providers, elected officials, citizens, citizen groups, and boards. Authors
have identified different roles these members play (van der Smissen, Moiseichik, u
Hartenburg, & Twardzik, 1999; Crompton, 1999). Two roles that have been if
found to influence the diffusion of innovations are those of change agents and
opinion leaders (Zaltman & Duncan, 1977; Rogers, 1983, 1995; Valente & Davis,
1999).

A change agent, as defined by Zaltman and Duncan (1977), is any
individual or group operating to change the status quo in a system such that the
individual or individuals involved must releam how to perform their role(s).
Change agents commonly use opinion leaders to help them in their quest for
change (Valente 8. Davis, 1999). Opinion leaders, according to Valente and
Davis (1999), are individuals who are more central to a community and thus
perhaps more influential. Rogers (1983, 1995) has noted that the success or
failure of diffusion programs rests in part on the role of opinion leaders and their
relationships with change agents. Although this research does not study this
concept directly (i.e., network analysis and other methods of directly studying
change agents and opinion leadership), it uses members of a social system to

gather information about perceptions of innovations.

l6

Factors affecting the adoption and implementation of innovations within
organizations. In addition to the factors already mentioned, there are additional
factors that have been found to affect the adoption and implementation of
innovations within organizations. Some of these factors include general barriers
or hindrances (Wise, 1999), agency characteristics (Berry, 1994), agency
leadership roles (Berry & Wechsler, 1995) and characteristics (Rogers, 1983),
and characteristics of external factors such as those of the larger organizational
structure (for example, counties, municipalities, and townships) (Feller & Menzel,
1977). Feller and Menzel (1977) have also noted resources, citizen demands,
supplier activities, administrative/managerial pressures, intergovernmental
relations, knowledge infrastructure, and technological change as the main factors
that influence diffusion of innovations in the public sector.

Critiques of using attributes to better understand change in organizations.
Despite the various research efforts towards attributes of innovations, several
criticisms have been proposed. Downs and Mohr (Downs & Mohr, 1976, 1979;
Downs, 1978; Mohr, 1982) have pointed out inconsistencies between adopter
characteristics, innovation characteristics, and adoption relationships in many
attribute studies. They argue that generalizations are not possible given the
variability and instability reported by many attribute studies.

Another critique of innovation research, which encompasses attribute
research, is that of biases. Rogers (1995) has noted a variety of biases, but only
the pro-innovation bias will be discussed because it is the most relevant to this

study. The pro-innovation bias, “is the implication of most diffusion research that

17

 

an innovation should be diffused and adopted by all members of a social system,
that it should be diffused more rapidly, and that the innovation should be neither
re-invented nor rejected” (Rogers, 1995, p. 100).

The final critique of innovation research goes back to the dimension of
time. Having participants recall information from the past can present some
problems. It was noted by Tannon and Rogers (1975) that recall tends to be
distorted in the direction of dissonance reduction.

Park and Recreation Innovation Research

There has been little empirical park and recreation research dedicated
solely to the diffusion of innovations. Four major areas are emphasized by park
and recreation innovation authors. The first involves the perspectives given by
Crompton and Havitz (1987) and Shaman and Havitz (1991). These
perspectives involved looking at Rogers (1983) innovation-decision process
model and determining how it could be used to explain the successes and
failures of proposed innovative ideas within park and recreation agencies. The
second perspective includes advocating for change (for example, Heller, 2000).
Although this perspective can be very useful in grassroot efforts to cause
change, the literature does little to help managers completely understand the
various elements involved in change. The third area concentrates on providing
information on how an innovation was implemented, and the articles are typically
reported as case studies, (for example, Copper, 1983). This innovation effort is
important and helps individuals learn more about how different innovations occur

in different organizations. One of the major setbacks of this effort is that they are

18

not based upon theoretical frameworks. Therefore, the authors do not provide
needed information about the process of diffusing innovations. The fourth area
includes some researchers that have provided a theoretical framework with their
research in park and recreation innovations, but they are limited in number (for
example, Stynes & Szcodronski, 1980). Overall, not enough empirical research
has been done in the field of parks and recreation regarding diffusion of
innovation research to adequately apply the theory in the field.
Local Public Park and Recreation Agencies

A local public park and recreation agency constitutes any public park and
recreation agency that falls under the following categories: municipalities, special
districts, or an “arm of the state” (which includes townships, schools, counties,
and villages) (van der Smissen, et al., 1999).

Schools, counties, and townships are considered “arms of the

state” because the state establishes the geographical boundaries,

which encompass the whole state. Counties and townships are

political subdivisions of the state that are included in municipality

legislation. Then, the state divides itself into school districts.

Legislation authorizing schools may include provisions for athletics

and community recreation, especially summer programs, or in

some states, it may include specific “community education”

legislation, which includes recreation services . . . Municipalities are

created for the benefit of people living inside the designated

boundaries. Municipalities may be established either by home rule

19

 

charter or by authorizing legislation which defines their powers and

responsibilities . . . Numerous states have passed enabling

legislation which authorizes the establishment of special districts at

the local level to provide designated park and recreation services.

Such districts are independent and autonomous with their own

governing bodies elected by the electorate within the specific

district or judicially appointed and with taxing power. (van der

Smissen, et al., 1999, pp. 27-28).

Kraus and Curtis (1990) have noted some of the trends that have been
occurring in local public agencies. Due to lack of federal funding, joint operations
between some local government agencies have been pursued in order to
accomplish specific duties through shared resources. Privatization, public sector
divestiture of assets and service responsibilities, allowing the private sector to
take over all aspects of service and service deliveryz, has also been seen as one
way to solve the issue of accountability with reduced funding (Johnson & Walzer,
2000)

Other issues that should be noted include administrative placement within
larger systems and the role of boards and commissions which are common
among local park and recreation agencies. Many local public park and recreation
agencies operate as units within larger systems (Kraus & Curtis, 1990). Being

part of a larger organization modifies the agencies environment. This could

 

2 This definition has evolved to include other business ventures such as contracting out (often
called outsourcing in business), corporization, franchise, internal markets, joint venture,
management contracts, private infrastructure development and operation, volunteers, vouchers,
public-private partnerships, self-help, and asset sale or long-term leases.

20

impact the diffusion of innovation because the organizational structure becomes
more complex.
Roles of Local Public Park and Recreation Managers

Local public park and recreation managers are responsible for the
success and/or failure of their agencies. van der Smissen, et al. (1999) define a
manager as a person who plans, organizes, directs, and controls in order to
manage the organization and organizational units. In addition, a manager has
various roles. The roles include being a communicator, leader, coach, mentor,
change agent, and power broker (van der Smissen, et al., 1999). Crompton
( 1999) and Godbey (1997) have also noted a new role, that of an entrepreneur.
Furthermore, Kraus and Curtis (1990) have recognized effective managers roles
within an organization to consist of catalyzers (who make things happen),
disciplinarians (who make sure that others in the organization obey its policies,
guardians (protectors of the organization’s resources, funds, and public
reputation), innovators (who stimulate thinking), model figures (who define the
fundamental values and goals of the organization), and spokespersons (who
speak for the organization in public meetings). Overall, managers play a role in
many different aspects of the agency. This allows them to have a
comprehensive understanding of their agency. Managers face a variety of
challenges with these roles.

The new role that is characteristic of effective park and recreation

managers is that of an entrepreneur who operates in a public sector

environment. An entrepreneur is defined as someone who shifts

21

economic resources out of an area of lower and into an area of

higher productivity and greater yield. Traditionally, the term was

applied only to business people who operated in this way, but it

now accurately describes the modus operandi of effective park and

recreation managers. They seek creative, resourceful ways of

using their scarce funds to leverage substantial additional

resources through partnering with a wide range of business,

nonprofit, and other government entities. Managers then employ

their management and marketing skills to ensure that these

resources are used to yield the maximum possible social and

economic benefits (Crompton, 1999, p. 10).

Drucker (1985) has noted that innovations are a specific tool of
entrepreneurs. If innovations are to be the new tools used by managers, then
they should understand what are their roles with these new tools. Grady (1992)
found that managers perceived their roles within the concept of innovations to be
to create a supportive climate for innovative activity, communicate environmental
receptivity for the innovation to the innovator, and to reward innovative
performance. The last of which has been continuously debated (Grady, 1992).
There are other issues regarding the management of innovations.

Damanpour & Gopalakrishnan (1999) expressed other pertinent issues
regarding management of innovations within an organization. The issue relates
to the distinction between innovation types when concerning adoption of

innovations. This is important to recognize because not all innovations have

22

identical attributes. In addition, Daft (1978) has noted that the process of
adoption or implementation of different types of innovations in organizations is
not identical, some follow a top-down process, others a bottom-up process.
The various differences between categories of innovations reflect a variety
of issues for managers. This is because the different categories affect different
organizations differently. Therefore, categories of innovations are one of the
issues that managers will face when dealing with innovations (Damanpour &
Gopalakrishnan, 1999).
Organizational performance is a function of innovating, not adopting
radical, technical, product or any one type of innovation alone. The
management of innovation, therefore, entails managing streams or
sets of innovation, which requires a new perspective in both
studying and managing innovations in organizations. Innovation
should be considered as a managerial process rather than a purely
technological process. To successfully adopt sets of innovations,
managers should be able to understand and cope with the different
requirements of each type of innovation and introduce structures,
cultures, and systems that facilitate the synchronous adoption of
multiple types (Damanpour & Gopalakrishnan, 1999, p.77).
Inclusion in Public Services
Legal mandates. Prior to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
(ADA), there were numerous legal efforts made to assist people with disabilities.

They include the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, the Rehabilitation Act of

23

1973, the Education of All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, the Voting
Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act of 1984, and the Air Carrier
Access Act of 1986, the Developmental Disabilities and Bill of Rights Act
Amendment of 1987, and the Technology-Related Assistance for Individuals for
Disabilities Act of 1988 (US. Access Board, 2001; Bullock & Mahon, 2000).

The Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 requires that federally funded
buildings and facilities be accessible to people with disabilities (U.S. Access
Board, 2001). The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits discrimination based on
disability in federally funded employment and programs and services, by federal
contractors, and in the availability and use of federal agencies’ electronic and
information technology (U.S. Access Board, 2001). The Education of All
Handicapped Children Act of 1975, which is now termed Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) after 1990 amendments, stated that all children
and youth with disabilities would receive a free, appropriate public education
(Bullock and Mahon, 2000). The Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and
Handicapped Act of 1984 requires that registration facilities and polling places for
federal elections be accessible to persons with disabilities (U.S. Access Board,
2001). The Air Carrier Access Act of 1986 prohibits discrimination on the basis
of disability in air travel and requires air carriers to accommodate the needs of
passengers with disabilities (U.S. Access Board, 2001). The Developmental
Disabilities and Bill of Rights Act Amendment of 1987, the amended version of
the Mental Retardation Facilities and Community Mental Health Centers

Construction Act of 1963, PL 88-164, mandated the establishment and operation

24

 

of a federal interagency committee to plan for and coordinate activities related to
people with developmental disabilities (Bullock & Mahon, 2000). Finally, the
Technology-Related Assistance for Individuals for Disabilities Act of 1988 was
enacted to expand availability of assistive technology services and devices to
people with disabilities (Bullock & Mahon, 2000). Although the purpose of these
laws was to prevent the discrimination of people with disabilities, they often fell
short of what was needed to provide inclusive services for people with
disabilities. The ADA made the most comprehensive push, in the United States,
towards inclusive services. The ADA prohibits discrimination based on disability
in employment, state and local government services, transportation, public
accommodations, commercial facilities and telecommunications (U.S. Access
Board, 2001). The culmination of the covered legal mandates, the growing
number of agencies promoting full inclusion, and citizens growing awareness of
their rights has stimulated the push for inclusion.

Inhibitors of inclusion. Several authors have noted inhibitors of inclusion.
Dattilo (1994) noted psychological reactance, learned helplessness, human
helplessness, a controlling environment, overemphasis on competition, and
boredom and anxiety as different barriers to inclusion. The National Therapeutic
Recreation Society noted physical and attitudinal barriers to affect inclusive
services (National Therapeutic Recreation Society, 1999). Bullock and Mahon
(2000) noted that children’s communication problems and short attention spans,
lack of social acceptance as equal partners by others, logistics of meeting

transportation, feeding, and toileting needs create barriers to inclusive services

25

for people with disabilities. Schleien, Ray, & Green (1997) distinguished
between external and internal barriers. External barriers included financial
constraints, lack of qualified staff, transportation, and/or accessible facilities, poor
communication, ineffective service systems, and negative attitudes. lntemal
barriers included skill limitations, dependence on others, health and fitness, and
lack of knowledge. Most of these inhibitors focus on inhibitors to the individual.
Concentrating on the person with the disability does not allow for different points
of views to be expressed. For example, perspectives of service providers,
change agents, or opinion leaders are not taken into consideration. Although
Schleien, Ray, & Green (1997) concentrated on some of the external factors
which would encompass public service providers, the list did not take into
account differences between public service providers.
Summary of Literature Review

The review of literatures has shown several points. First, managers have
many roles in park and recreation agencies and therefore, are involved in many
of the agencies efforts. This would allow for managers to give very good
information concerning the park and recreation agency. Second, legislation
shows that inclusion is not an option for adoption. Moreover, methods of
implementation, for the most part, have been left to the agencies. Therefore, in
this study, efforts were concentrated on the implementation of physical and social
inclusion, not the adoption. Third, Inclusion is a more innovative option than
mainstreaming and integration when including people with disabilities into park

and recreation programs/services. Therefore, inclusion was studied as opposed

26

to mainstreaming or integration. Finally, local public park and recreation agencies
are very complex. Therefore, information will be collected from municipalities
and “arms of the state,” as they have clear boundaries which do not overlap and

are distinguished in the US. Census.

27

CHAPTER III

PROCEDURES

This study tested the diffusion of innovation theory through a comparative
analysis of social and physical attributes of inclusion within a local public park
and recreation setting. The procedures used to acquire and analyze the
information for this study are discussed in this chapter.

Population and Sample

The population of this study was 200 Michigan local park and recreation
managers. The entire population was sampled in this study.
Instrumentation

A modified questionnaire was used to obtain information from the
managers (Appendix B). The original questionnaire was developed by Moore
and Benbasat (1991) to study a product innovation, personal workstations
(PWSs). The attributes studied included triability, relative advantage, ease of
use (complexity), compatibility, visibility (observability), voluntariness, image, and
result demonstrability. These eight attributes were modified from Rogers’ (1983)
five attributes: triability, observability, compatibility, complexity, and relative
advantage. This study used seven of the eight attributes suggested by Moore
and Benbasat: triability, visibility, complexity, compatibility, relative advantage,
result demonstrability, and image. These seven encompass Rogers’ original five

attributes. One attribute was not used in the instrument for this study.

28

Voluntariness was omitted because inclusion is not voluntary. Inclusion is
federally mandated through the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

As related to local public park and recreation agencies, each of the seven
attributes could be seen within physical and social inclusion. For example,
triability could be seen when service providers modify a program to include a
person(s) with a disability that because of the disability may not be able to
participate in the program. Triability occurs when the modification takes place in
only one or a few programs before they are made to all or most of the programs.
Visibility may occur when the innovation could be viewed by others. For
example, an accessible ramp could be viewed by others. Complexity of an
innovation is usually expressed through those who have to implement the
innovation. For example, if a service provider is not familiar with different
techniques to modifying a program, then they may perceive the modification of a
program to be highly complex. Compatibility is associated with how inline the
innovation is to the agency’s mission or general purpose. For example, if an
agency has within its mission to serve “all” citizens, then providing programs that
accommodate for some of these citizens should be compatible with the agency’s
mission. Relative advantage is associated with how much better the new
innovation is perceived to be than the older innovation that it will be replacing.
For example, if a park and recreation manager perceives that a new cement
ramp will be better than a wooden ramp, then the manager may be willing to
replace the wooden ramps with cement ramps. Results demonstrability are

concerned with whether the results of an innovation can be expressed to others.

For example, if a manager cannot express to others the potential results of a new
therapeutic pool to others then it is less likely that the pool will be purchased.
Finally, if an innovation creates a better perceived image of the agency, then it is
more likely to be implemented. For example, if a new program that promotes
social inclusion is deemed to potentially create a negative view of the agency,
then it is more likely that the new program will not be implemented.

Demographic questions were asked in the questionnaire. They included
questions concerning the agency’s resources. This element has been noted by
Feller & Menzel (1977) to be an important element impacting innovations in the
public sector. Questions were also posed concerning manager’s education and
experience. This helped to obtain information regarding possible similarities and
differences of the managers who responded to the questions.

Reliability and validity tests were performed on the instrument. For the
reliability, coefficient alpha was measured. Alpha scores for each attribute of
social and physical inclusion were compared to the alpha scores of the original
instrument (see Chapter IV). For the validity, the content validity was taken.
Expert judges were used in this procedure. A pilot study was completed that
assisted with the assessment of reliability and validity of the instrument.

Pilot Study

Once the original questionnaire was completed, it was presented to
various mid-level local public park and recreation managers. They were
contacted through phone or e-mail and asked to participate in the pilot study.

Original questionnaires were also distributed to middle level park and recreation

30

managers at a Southern Michigan Recreation and Parks Association meeting.
The pilot study participants completed the original questionnaire and gave
feedback concerning the questionnaire to the investigator. Six participants were
used in the pilot study.

Collection of Data

Primary and secondary data were collected for this study. The final
questionnaire, which was used to collect the primary data, was distributed to the
200 agency managers through first-class mail along with other package material
in November of 2001. Other contents within the package included a cover letter
requesting the manager’s participation in the study and a pre-stamped return
envelope. The managers were given three weeks to fill out the questionnaire
before receiving a second mailing requesting their participation to the study in
December of 2001.

Secondary data were collected through the US. Census database,
Michigan Recreation and Parks Association (MRPA), Yahoo! Yellow Pages, and
various local governmental agency websites. The secondary data collected were
used to create a local public park and recreation agency database. This
database was used to mail out survey packets to local public park and recreation
managers.

Treatment of Data
Profile of the subjects. The sample included 200 local public park and

recreation managers in Michigan. Six questions were asked concerning

31

demographic information of the managers. The questions focused on education
background and experience as a local public park and recreation manager.

Elements of the problem. There were three elements of the problem:
agency demographics, agency perceptions of attributes of social and physical
inclusion, and manager demographics. Agency demographic questions were
related to agency resources. Social and physical inclusion attributes included
triability, visibility, complexity, compatibility, relative advantage, result
demonstrability, and image. Manager demographics were collected through the
final questionnaire. The questions focused on manager education and
expenence.

Relationship of the elements. The three elements are related to the focus
of this study, physical and social inclusion attributes, in various ways. Different
agency demographics have been shown to influence innovation diffusion
(Rogers, 1983, 1995). In addition, different manager backgrounds may produce
different perceptions about the local public park and recreation agency.

Descriptive statistics were obtained for all variables. Furthermore, a
nonparametric test, Wilcoxon paired signed rank test, was used to directly test
the seven hypotheses in this study. In addition, chi-square was used to compare
means of agency, social structure, and manager demographics.

Effects of e-mail. During the initial phases of the study, unintended e-mail
messages were sent to various managers. This e-mail contained an attached
document which contained a description of the study with the hypotheses of the

study at the bottom of the document. The eXposure of the hypotheses could have

32

biased the responses of this study. To check for this, independent sample t-tests
were run comparing answers of those who received the e-mail and those that did

not.

33

CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS

This study tested the diffusion of innovation theory through the analysis of
social and physical inclusion attributes within a local public park and recreation
setting. An analysis of the primary and secondary data collected in this study is
discussed in this chapter. In addition, this chapter is organized according to the
substantive variables of the problem (hypotheses).

Each of the hypotheses in this chapter were measured using two steps.
First, means were taken for each attribute. In the second step, physical and
social inclusion attributes were compared using the nonparametric Wilcoxon
paired signed rank test.

In this chapter, several tables are used to display various analysis results.
For space considerations, several of the words are abbreviated. Therefore, in
the tables provided in this chapter, PHY = Physical, SOC = Social, REL =
Relative Advantage, CPA = Compatibility, VIS = Visibility, TRI = Triability, IMG =
lmagibility, DEM = Results Demonstrability, and CPL = Complexity.

Profile of Managers

On average (mean), managers held park and recreation positions for 19
years, were directors for 11 years, and were employed in their current position for
10 years (Table 1 ). Moreover, about 51% had a bachelor’s degree as their
highest level of education earned and 41% had master’s degrees (Table 2).

These degrees were obtained from 1969 through 2000 (Table 1). On average,

34

degrees were earned in the early 1980’s (see Table 1). In addition,

approximately 61% of the managers were not certified park and recreation

professionals (Table 3).

Table 1. Descriptive results by manager experience

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

n Min Max Mean SD
Years employed in parks and recreation 76 0.5 35 18.84 9.02
Years held position of director 76 0 31 10.76 8.21
Years employed in current position 76 0.5 28 10.44 8.41
Year of degree 73 1969 2000 1983.36 8.57
Table 2. Frequency and percentage distribution by education level

f %

high school diploma 1 1.32

bachelors 39 51 .32

masters 32 42.1 1

doctorate 2 2.63

other 2 2.63

Total 76 100.00

 

 

 

Table 3. Frequency and percentage distribution by Certified Park and Recreation

Professional (CPRP)

 

 

 

 

 

f %

No CPRP 46 60.53
Yes CPRP 30 39.47
Total 76 100.00

 

 

35

 

Profile of Park and Recreation Agencies

On average (mean), approximately 40% of the agencies had operating
budgets larger than $1,000,001, 17% between $500,001-$1,000,000, 23%
between $200,001- $500,000, 17% between $50,001- $200,000, and 3% under
$50,000 (Table 4). Also, approximately 53% felt they had discretionary funds for
new initiatives while 47% felt they did not (Table 5). In addition, the average
(mean) agency was established in 1967 (Table 6). Although there is a difference
between years in which agencies were established, approximately 50% of the
agencies were established between 1960 and 1990. Comparisons were also
made regarding whether an agency was a recreation department, park and
recreation department or a park department. Approximately 92% of the agencies

were either park and recreation or recreation departments (Table 7).

Table 4. Frequency and percentage distribution by agency operating budget

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

f %

Under $50,000 2 2.67
$50,001 -$200,000 13 17.33
$200,001-$500,000 17 22.67
$500,001 -$1 ,000,000 13 17.33
Over $1,000,001 30 40.00
Total 75 100.00

 

 

 

Table 5. Frequency and percentage distribution by perceived discretionary funds

 

 

 

 

 

 

f %

No perceived discretionary funds 36 47.37
Yes, perceived discretionaryfunds 40 52.63
Total 76 100.00

 

36

Table 6. Descriptive results by department year of establishment

 

n Min Max Mean SD

 

 

Department established 69 1896 2001 1967.23 20.81

 

 

Table 7. Frequency and percentage distribution by agency type

 

 

 

 

 

 

f %

Park age—rlcy 6 7.69

Park and Recreation and Recreation agency 72 92.31
Total 78 100.00

 

Profile of Park and Recreation Agencies’ Social Systems
Of the managers who responded to the questionnaire, approximately 19%
were from county agencies, 31% were from city agencies, 49% were from

township agencies, and 1% was from village agencies (Table 8).

Table 8. Frequency and percentage distribution by governmental unit

 

 

 

 

 

 

f %

County 15 19.23
City 24 30.77
Township 38 48.72
Village 1 1 .28
Total 78 100.00

 

 

 

Distribution of Respondents

All of the agencies in this study were coded according to their respective
congressional district. Of the managers who responded to the questionnaire,
most came from agencies that were reflective of their respective congressional
district (Table 9). Only congressional district 16 was misrepresented greater than

3.3% (Table 9).

37

Table 9. Frequency and percentage distributions by congressional districts

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cong. District ftotal f study % total % study % difference

1 15 5 7.5 6.4 -1.1

2 15 5 7.5 6.4 -1.1

3 9 5 4.5 6.4 1.9

4 12 5 6 6.4 0.4

5 13 4 6.5 5.1 -1.4

6 10 5 5 6.4 1.4

7 18 8 9 10.3 1.3

8 14 8 7 10.3 3.3

9 14 6 7 7.7 0.7

10 19 8 9.5 10.3 0.8
11 12 7 6 9.0 3.0
12 14 3 7 3.8 -3.2
13 16 8 8 10.3 2.3
14 2 0 1 0.0 -1.0
15 2 0 1 0.0 -1.0
16 15 1 7.5 1.3 -6.2
Total 200 78 100% 100% 0%

 

Manager Perceptions of Agency Inclusiveness

Agency managers were asked regarding their perceptions of their
agency’s programs concerning physical and social inclusion. Approximately 57%
of the managers perceived “not at all” that their agencies provided programs
solely for persons with disabilities (Table 10). Approximately 42% of the
managers perceived “somewhat” that their agencies provided programs where
persons with disabilities participated with persons without disabilities (Table 10).
Finally, approximately 50% of the managers perceived “moderately” to “quite a
bit” that their agencies provided programs that were physically accessible to

people with disabilities (Table 10).

38

Table 10. Manager perceptions of agency's programs inclusiveness

 

 

 

Segregated Recreation Inclusive Recreation Physically Inclusive
Programs Programs Programs
f % f % f %
Not at all 43 57 15 20 14 18
Somewhat 18 24 32 42 14 18
Moderately 1 0 1 3 14 1 8 1 7 22
Quite a bit 1 1 10 13 21 28
Extensive 4 5 5 7 10 1 3
Total 76 100 76 100 76 100

 

 

 

 

 

Instrumentation

Cronbach Alpha (a ) was used to test the reliability of the questions used
to determine each of the seven attributes. Table 11 contains maximized alpha
scores for the questions used to determine attributes of physical inclusion, social
inclusion, and of the prior instrument (for personal work stations or PWS’s; the
short form), which was modified for this study. The original instrument used in
this study (different from the prior instrument as the prior instrument was modified
to account for differences in this study) contained three questions for each
attribute. After all combinations of each attribute were tested for alpha scores, it
was determined that one question would be omitted from imagibility, complexity,
visibility, and results demonstrability in order to maximize the reliability of the

instrument.

39

Table 1 1. Cronbach Alpha scores for attributes of physical and social inclusion and PWS’s

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a Physical or Social a PWS’s
Triability 0.87 0.91 0.71
Relative Advanggg 0.89 0.88 0.90
Imagibility 0.80 0.88 0.79
Complexity 0.65 0.88 0.84
Visibility 0.81 0.89 0.83
Compatibility 0.94 0.94 0.86
Results Demonstrability 0.75 0.78 0.79

 

Paired-sample T-test

After testing the reliability of the instrument, assumptions, that should be
met in order to use the paired-sample t-test with confidence, were tested using
frequency distributions. Skewness and kurtosis levels above 1 and below -1 of
the paired differences indicated that the distribution was not normal. After the
data was examined, it was determined that the data was not normally distributed
(one of the assumptions was not met). Therefore, outliers in the data, with z-
scores larger than 3 or less than -3, were omitted. After outliers were omitted,
frequency distributions were run again. Similar results indicated that the paired
differences were again not normally distributed. Therefore, normality tests were
not sustained, and it was determined that the nonparametric Wilcoxon paired
signed rank test would be used.
Nonparametric Wilcoxon Paired Signed Rank Test

There are three basic assumptions that should be met when using the
Wilcoxon paired signed rank test. The differences of the pairs should be
independent, symmetrical, and they should have the same median.

Independence was met as responses from one paired difference were not

40

influenced by other paired differences. Symmetry was measured by testing the
skewness of the data through a frequency distribution. It was found that the data
was symmetrical as the paired differences of physical and social inclusion
attributes had skewness scores less than 1. Finally, median levels were analyzed
using frequency distributions, and it was deemed that the paired differences had
similar medians.

After the assumptions were met, the Wilcoxon paired signed rank test was
run to determine significance of the differences between the attributes of physical

and social inclusion. Results of the test are discussed in the following sections.

41

Hypothesis One: Relative Advantage

The first hypothesis states that physical inclusion is perceived to have
more relative advantage to the recreation agency than social inclusion. For
example, if hiring a person to speak to people with hearing difficulties is deemed
to be overall better than using note cards, then a person may be hired to do sign

language. The following equation represents this hypothesis:

l
H01: ”Physical Inclusion relative advantage = “Social Inclusion relative advantage E

HA1: “Physical Inclusion relative advantage > “Social Inclusion relative advantage

Result. Physical inclusion was perceived as having more relative
advantage than social inclusion. As seen in Table 12, physical inclusion relative
advantage had a mean of 6.36 and social inclusion relative advantage a mean of
5.76. The difference was statistically significant from 0 with a p—value of .000
(Table 13). Given the results of the analysis, the null hypothesis was rejected,
and the alternative hypothesis was accepted. Thus, it is important to emphasize
the relative advantage of social inclusion above other concepts that it will replace
(e.g., integration and mainstreaming) by those who wish to implement social
inclusion. If this effort is not made, then social inclusion will not be implemented

at a faster rate than it is currently implemented.

42

Table 12. Descriptive results by physical and social relative advantage

 

 

 

 

 

Mean n SD SE
PHY REL 6.36 73 0.88 0.10
SOC REL 5.76 73 1.12 0.13

 

Table 13. Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test results for physical and social relative advantage

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

n Mean Rank Sum of Ranks
Negative Ranks 41a 24.00 984
Positive Ranks 5b 19.40 97
Ties 27c
Total 73
p (2-tailed) 0.000

 

a SOC REL < PHY REL
b SOC REL > PHY REL
c PHY REL = SOC REL

43

Hypothesis Two: Compatibility
The second hypothesis states that physical inclusion is perceived to have
more compatibility to the recreation agency than social inclusion. For example,
an innovation that is more in line with an agency’s mission will more likely be
implemented than not. The following equation represents this hypothesis:
H023 lJPnysicaI Inclusion compatibility = “Social Inclusion compatibility
HA2: “Physical Inclusion compatibility > “Social Inclusion compatibility
Result. Physical inclusion was perceived as having more compatibility
than social inclusion. As seen in Table 14, physical inclusion compatibility had a
mean of 6.14 and social inclusion compatibility a mean of 5.87. The difference
was statistically significant from 0 with a p-value of .000 (Table 15). Given the
results of the analysis, the null hypothesis was rejected, and the alternative
hypothesis was accepted. Thus, it is important to emphasize the compatibility of
social inclusion with the views of the agency that will adopt social inclusion. If this
effort is not made, then social inclusion will not be implemented at a faster rate

than it is currently implemented.

Table 14. Descriptive results by compatibility of physical and social inclusion

 

 

 

 

Mean n SD SE
PHY CPA 6.14 74 0.9 0.1
SOC CPA 5.87 72 1.01 0.12

 

 

Table 15. Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test results for compatibility of physical and social

 

 

 

 

 

 

Inclusion
n Mean Rank Sum of Ranks
Negative Ranks 253 20.52 513
Positive Ranks 9b 9.11 82
Ties 38c
Total 72
p (2-tailed) 0.000

 

 

a SOC CPA < PHY CPA
b SOC CPA > PHY CPA
c PHY CPA = SOC CPA

45

 

Hypothesis Three: Visibility
The third hypothesis states that physical inclusion is perceived to have
more visibility to the recreation agency than social inclusion. This has to do with
how visible an innovation, for example a new self-propelled ramp, is to others.
The following equation represents this hypothesis:
H033 lJPhysical Inclusion visibility = “Social Inclusion visibility
HA3: IJPliysicaI Inclusion visibility > “Social Inclusion visibility
Result. Physical inclusion was perceived as having more visibility than
social inclusion. As seen in Table 16, physical inclusion visibility had a mean of
4.84 and social inclusion visibility a mean of 3.9. The difference was statistically
significant from 0 with a p—value of .000 (Table 17). Given the results of the
analysis, the null hypothesis was rejected, and the alternative hypothesis was
accepted. Thus, it is important to make the social inclusion visible to others to
facilitate the adoption of social inclusion. If others, such as potential adopters, are
not made aware of social inclusion efforts in an agency, then social inclusion will

not be implemented at a faster rate than it is currently implemented.

46

Table 16. Descriptive results by physical and social visibility

 

 

 

 

Mean n SD SE
PHY VIS 4.84 73 1.11 0.13
SOC VIS 3.9 73 1.37 0.16

 

Table 17. Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test results for physical and social visibility

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

n Mean Rank Sum of Ranks
Negative Ranks 46a 31.12 1431.5
Positive Ranks 1 1b 20.14 221.5
Ties 16c
Total 73
p Q-tailed) 0.000

 

a SOC VIS < PHY VIS
b SOC VIS > PHY VIS
c PHY VIS = SOC VIS

47

 

 

Hypothesis Four: Triability
The fourth hypothesis states that physical inclusion is perceived to have
more triability to the recreation agency than social inclusion. For example, if an
agency manager has the opportunity to test out the innovation, it has a greater
chance of being implemented. The following equation represents this
hypothesis:
H043 “Physical Inclusion triability = “Social Inclusion triability

HA4: “Physical Inclusion triability > “Social Inclusion triability

Result. Physical inclusion was not perceived as having more triability than
social inclusion. As seen in Table 18, physical inclusion triability had a mean of
3.38 and social inclusion triability a mean of 3.38. The difference was not
statistically significant from 0 with a p-value higher than .050 (see Table 19).
Given the results of the analysis, the null hypothesis was accepted, and the
alternative hypothesis was rejected. Thus, it is not important for an agency to try
out social inclusion before it implements it throughout its programs. If a manager
promotes the triability of social inclusion, resources, that may otherwise have
been spent on other efforts, such as the other six attributes described in this

study, may be wasted.

48

Table 18. Descriptive results by physical and social triability

 

 

 

Mean n SD SE
PHY TRI 3.38 67 1.43 0.17
SOC TRI 3.38 67 1.48 0.18

 

 

 

Table 19. Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test results for physical and social triability

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

n Mean Rank Sum of Ranks
Negative Ranks 23a 19.74 454
Positive Ranks 19b 23.63 449
Ties 25c
Total 67
p (2-tailed) 0.975

 

a SOC TRI < PHY TRI
b SOC TRI > PHY TRI
c PHY TRI = SOC TRI

49

Hypothesis Five: ImagibiIity
The fifth hypothesis states that physical inclusion is perceived to have
more imagibility to the recreation agency than social inclusion. For example, if an
innovation is introduced that will be perceived by the manager to make the
agency look better in the eyes of others, then it is more likely to be implemented.
The following equation represents this hypothesis:
H053 “Physical Inclusion imagibility = “Social Inclusion imagibility
HA5: “Physical Inclusion imagibility > “Social Inclusion imagibility
Result. Physical inclusion was perceived as having more imagibility than
social inclusion. As seen in Table 20, physical inclusion imagibility had a mean
of 4.36 and social inclusion imagibility a mean of 3.99. The difference was
statistically significant from 0 with a p-value of .001 (Table 21). Given the results
of the analysis, the null hypothesis was rejected, and the alternative hypothesis
was accepted. Thus, it is important that social inclusion is perceived as
increasing the image of the adopting agency. If those within the adopting agency
do not perceive social inclusion to increase the image of the agency, then social

inclusion will not be implemented at a faster rate within the adopting agency.

50

Table 20. Descriptive results by physical and social lmagibillty

 

 

 

Mean n SD SE I
PHY IMG 4.36 73 1.46 0.17]
soc IMG 3.99 73 1.49 0.17J

 

 

Table 21. Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test results for physical and social Imagibility

 

 

 

 

 

 

n Mean Rank Sum of Ranks
Negative Ranks 30a 27.03 811
Positive Ranks 15b 14.93 224
Ties 28c
Total 73
p (2-tailed) 0.001

 

 

 

a SOC IMG < PHY IMG
b SOC IMG > PHY IMG
c PHY IMG = SOC IMG

51

Hypothesis Six: Results Demonstrability
The sixth hypothesis states that physical inclusion is perceived to have
more results demonstrability to the recreation agency than social inclusion. For
example, if a manager can express to others the potential or actual results of an
innovation, then it is more likely to be implemented. The following equation
represents this hypothesis:
H063 “Physical Inclusion results demonstrability = “Social Inclusion results demonstrability

HA6: “Physical Inclusion results demonstrability > “Social Inclusion results demonstrability

Result. Physical inclusion was perceived as having more results
demonstrability than social inclusion. As seen in Table 22, physical inclusion
results demonstrability had a mean of 5.01 and social inclusion results
demonstrability a mean of 4.54. The difference was statistically significant from 0
with a p-value of .000 (Table 23). Given the results of the analysis, the null
hypothesis was rejected, and the alternative hypothesis was accepted. Thus, it is
critical that the adopting agency be able to express the results of social inclusion.
If an adopting agency cannot demonstrate the results of social inclusion, than
social inclusion will not be implemented within that adopting agency faster than it

is currently being implemented.

52

Table 22. Descriptive results by physical and social results demonstrability

 

 

 

 

Mean n SD SE
PHY DEM 5.01 70 1.24 0.15
SOC DEM 4.54 70 1.41 0.17

 

Table 23. Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test results for physical and social results

 

 

 

 

 

 

demonstrability
n Mean Rank Sum of Ranks
Negative Ranks 34a 26.26 893
Positive Ranks 12b 15.67 188
Ties 24c
Total 70
(2-tailed) 0.000

 

 

 

a SOC DEM < PHY DEM
b SOC DEM > PHY DEM
c PHY DEM = SOC DEM

53

 

Hypothesis Seven: Complexity
The seventh hypothesis states that physical inclusion is perceived to have
less complexity to the recreation agency than social inclusion. For example, if a
new social inclusion program is perceived to be too complex, then is it more likely
that it will not be implemented. The following equation represents this hypothesis:
H071 “Physical Inclusion complexity = “Social Inclusion complexity

HA7: “Physical Inclusion complexity < “Social Inclusion complexity

Result. Physical inclusion was not perceived as having more complexity
than social inclusion. As seen in Table 24, physical inclusion complexity had a
mean of 3.75 and social inclusion complexity a mean of 3.99. The difference
was statistically significant from 0 with a p-value of .004 (see Table 25). Given
the results of the analysis, the null hypothesis was rejected, and the alternative
hypothesis was accepted. Thus, it is important for social inclusion to not be
perceived as complex by the adopting agency. If social inclusion is perceived to
be complex, then the adopting agency may not implement social inclusion at a

faster rate than it is currently implementing social inclusion.

54

Table 24. Descriptive results by physical and social complexity

 

 

 

 

Mean n SD SE
PHY CPL 3.75 74 1.23 0.14
SOC CPL 3.99 74 1.08 0.13

 

Table 25. Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test results for physical and social complexity

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

n Mean Rank Sum of Ranks
Negative Ranks 21a 29.31 615.5
Positive Ranks 43b 34.06 1464.5
Ties 106
Total 74
p (2-tailed) 0.004

 

a SOC CPL < PHY CPL
b SOC CPL > PHY CPL
c PHY CPL = SOC CPL

55

 

 

Effects of E-Mail

As seen in Table 26, none of the variables were significantly (95%

confidence) impacted by the e-mail that was sent to the managers. Two

variables, physical and social results demonstrability were close to .05, thus this

should be noted.

Table 26. Independent sample t-test results for email effects for physical and social

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Inclusion
t cit p (2-tailed) SE 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Upper

PHY TRI 0.45 40.20 0.66 0.40 -0.62 0.98
PHY REL -0.86 51.30 0.40 0.21 -0.61 0.25
PHY IMG 0.64 39.46 0.53 0.31 -0.42 0.82
PHY CPL -0.19 35.09 0.85 0.29 -0.63 0.52
PHY VIS -0.35 57.33 0.73 0.25 -0.59 0.42
PHY CPA -0.73 47.54 0.47 0.22 -0.59 0.28
PHY DEM 1.74 53.25 0.09 0.25 -0.07 0.95
SOC TRI 0.90 44.11 0.37 0.40 —0.45 1.18
SOC REL 0.30 39.13 0.77 0.32 -0.54 0.73
SOC IMG 0.27 43.69 0.79 0.33 -0.58 0.75
SOC CPL 0.81 44.87 0.42 0.28 -0.33 0.78
SOC VIS 0.09 50.41 0.93 0.30 -0.58 0.64
SOC CPA 0.50 36.82 0.62 0.34 -0.52 0.86
SOC DEM 1.78 47.72 0.08 0.32 -0.07 1.22
Summary of Analysis

In summary, after each of the seven hypotheses were analyzed, it was

found that there was a significant different between paired difference of the

means of physical and social inclusion relative advantage, compatibility, visibility,

imagibility, complexity, and results demonstrability. In addition, the e-mails that

were sent to the managers did not statistically affect managers’ answers.

56

 

CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION

The investigator of this study tested the diffusion of innovation theory as
one possible explanation for the differences and similarities between the diffusion
of social and physical inclusion within local public park and recreation agencies in
Michigan. This chapter contains a summary and discussion of the various
elements in this study.

Summary of Procedures

In November of 2001, 200 local park and recreation managers were sent
questionnaire packages requesting them to provide various demographic
information on themselves and on the agency which they direct. Furthermore,
questions were posed regarding seven different attributes of physical and social
inclusion. Managers filled out the questionnaires and returned them using the
self-addressed envelope that was provided to them in the package they received.
Managers who did not return the surveys within three weeks received a second
questionnaire package containing the same information they had received
through the first mailing. The Wilcoxon paired signed rank test was used to
compare the significance of the paired difference between means of physical and
social inclusion attributes.

Summary of Findings
After each of the seven hypotheses were analyzed, it was found that there

was a significant paired difference between managers’ perceived diffusion of

57

physical and social inclusion innovation for relative advantage, compatibility,
complexity, visibility, imagibility, and results demonstrability. In addition, it was
found that there was no statistical difference between the perceived triability of
social and physical inclusion.

Discussion

The fundamental problem which drove this study was the current difficulty
managers have diffusing social inclusion within local public park and recreation
agencies. Although several explanations were provided, few efforts have been
made to understand manager perspectives (see Dattilo, 1994; Schleien, Ray, &
Green, 1997; National Therapeutic Recreation Society, 1999; Bullock & Mahon,
2000) and none have been made using the diffusion of innovation theory.

In order to test the diffusion of innovation theory, the investigator collected
information regarding various attributes that have been deemed to influence
(positively and negatively) the diffusion process of an innovation from managers
in local park and recreation agencies in Michigan. As shown through the results,
six of the seven hypotheses rejected the null and accepted the alternative. Two
points stem from this; first, a discussion of hypotheses which rejected the null
and next, a discussion of the hypothesis that accepted the null.

Hypotheses which rejected the null. In this study, various attributes of
physical and social inclusion were found to be statistically different. More
specifically, the perceived relative advantage, compatibility, visibility, imagibility,
complexity and results demonstrability of physical inclusion were found to be

significantly higher (less in the case of complexity) than that of social inclusion.

58

The findings in this study are consistent with prior research studying the diffusion
of innovation theory (Rogers, 1983; 1995).

Hypotheses which accepted the null. Although research has shown that
triability helps increase the rate of diffusion of innovations, this study found that
there was no difference between physical and social inclusion regarding triability.
Many factors could explain this.

First, during the pilot study, it was brought to the investigator’s attention
that the agencies do not have the opportunity to try out physical inclusion. They
stated that they either make a facility accessible or they do not. There is no in-
between. In addition, there are certain standards that are already initiated that
dictate what an agency must do to be physically accessible (US. Department of
Justice, 2002). Standards are not available for social inclusion.

Another explanation might be that the managers themselves do not
implement physical or social inclusion, and therefore, they may not have specific
information concerning the implementation of physical and social inclusion. For
example, a service provider may have moved a recreation program that was
originally offered in an inaccessible facility to a facility where people using
wheelchairs could participate in the program. In addition, social inclusion could
occur in various levels as well. Thus, a program could have been slightly
modified (i.e., rule modification) to implement social inclusion that would have

gone unreported to a manager of an agency.

59

Limitations

The major concern of this research is that of the generalizability to the
diffusion process of innovations. The process of innovation diffusion in
organizations is not limited to attributes (Mohr, 1999). Therefore, it would be
incorrect to determine that a comprehensive understanding of the process of
innovations in organizations has been reached through this research. But, this
research can be used to understand elements of the process of inclusion in park
and recreation agencies in Michigan.

Other limitations of this study concern the nature of the diffusion of
innovations. Rogers (1983; 1995) identified four key elements concerned with
diffusion. He stated that diffusion is the process by which ( 1) an innovation (2) is
communicated through certain channels (3) over time (4) among the members of
a social system. It is within the third point that another limit to this research
comes about. Since the process of diffusion occurs through time, it is necessary
to examine various points within the process. lnforrnation for this study was
collected at one single point in time.

Another limitation of the study is that it only asked managers of the local
public park and recreation agencies for information concerning their agency.
Therefore, only managers’ perceptions were analyzed. Although managers play
key roles in the implementation of innovations in their agencies, other persons
have influence on innovations as well (Mayer & Davidson, 2000). Therefore,
information from managers alone may not provide a complete picture of the

organizations in this study.

60

Recommendations Based on Study Results

Each of the attributes gives some insight into the differential rate of
diffusion of physical inclusion and social inclusion. Therefore, there are four
considerations that a manager should focus on when taking into account the
attributes of social inclusion while promoting the implementation of social
inclusion of people with disabilities in their programs. All four considerations
(benefits, alignment, ease of implementation, and triability) should be fully
addressed if a manager wishes to increase the implementation rate of social
inclusion.

First, a manager should focus on the benefits of socially including a
person with a disability as opposed to integrating or mainstreaming them. The
relative advantage of inclusion over integration and mainstreaming should be
relayed to those who influence the participation of individuals In park and
recreation programs and those who implement (directly and/or indirectly) the park
and recreation program. Some influencers include park and recreation
programmers (who program services for both people with and without
disabilities), agency managers, potential participants with and without disabilities,
and parents or guardians of people with and without disabilities (Schleien, Ray, &
Green, 1997).

Second, a manager should focus on how social inclusion of people with
disabilities into their agency’s park and recreation programs is aligned with the
mission and vision of the agency. This can be done by promoting, through the

media, agency web sites, newsletters, activity guides, word of mouth, and

61

programs, how social inclusion is aligned with the mission and vision of the
agency. Another way is to modify the agency’s mission and vision to emphasize
how social inclusion is an important part of the agency. By promoting social
inclusion, a manager makes social inclusion more visible to potential participants
and persons who influence social inclusion in agency park and recreation
programs. Furthermore, by promoting the benefits of social inclusion, a manager
has given potential participants and persons who influence social inclusion in
agency park and recreation programs enough information for them to be able to
tell others about the benefits of social inclusion. In addition, through these efforts,
the agency’s perceived image will increase for people and organizations that
support social inclusion in park and recreation programs.

Third, through the promotional efforts noted above, a manager should
focus on the relative ease of implementing social inclusion into park and
recreation programs in addition to the benefits of social inclusion. For example, if
a manager is attempting to provide a description of how social inclusion would
affect an agency to other park and recreation employees, the manager Should
frame the description in a manner that the employees would understand. A
manager might frame social inclusion similar to other programs that allow people
increased options and opportunities to participate in the agency’s park and
recreation programs. These programs would be currently implemented, so the
employees would have a base of knowledge for the comparison. For example, a
manager might compare the implementation of social inclusion to existing

scholarship programs, which are currently used in the agency to help people with

62

low incomes participate in park and recreation programs. By comparing social
inclusion to scholarships, the manager has reduced the level of complexity for
the employees and increased the chances of social inclusion being implemented
in the park and recreation agency.

Finally, a manager should not focus on providing an opportunity for
potential participants to try out social inclusion in a program. Social inclusion
should be a part of all of the programs. In other words, if a manager focuses on
implementing social inclusion programs for people with disabilities in only part of
the programs as opposed to all of the programs within the agency, these efforts
may be fruitless. An example of this would be to provide social inclusion
opportunities for people with disabilities in some parts of a city as opposed to the
entire city. This action would not positively influence the implementation rate of
social inclusion.

General Implications for Diffusion of Innovations

The findings from the study suggest that when attempting to increase the
rate of implementation of social inclusion, a park and recreation agency must pay
attention to the attributes of the innovation; especially, the relative advantage,
compatibility, visibility, imagibility, complexity and results demonstrability of the
innovafion.

There are many potential implications based upon this. Specifically, there
are three areas where the findings of this study could be generalized. Overall, the
basis for the potential implications is that the results of this study can provide

managers and others involved within local public park and recreation agencies

63

tools to assist with the diffusion of innovations. First, the study implications could
be generalized towards other innovations utilizing the attributes as a tool to aid in
the implementation. For example, for a manager who is interested in building a
new Skate park (an innovation in the beginning stages of diffusion), he would
focus on how much better the new skate park would be to provide programs and
services to the youth of the community than other facilities, how easy it would be
to build the information and attain information from the potential target market
and other markets, how others will be able to see the skate park which will
increase the image of the agency, how the skate park is in line with the agency’s
mission, and how beneficial the skate park would be to the participants. Because
of the potential differences between innovations and situations surrounding
different innovations, it is important for managers to have a basic understanding
of the diffusion of innovation theory before they attempt to promote different
innovation attributes.

Second, for those innovations that are slowly diffusing, the results of this
study provide a basis for repackaging strategies. For example, if a mid-level
manager has been trying to convince a superior to invest in a new computer for
the park and recreation agency, then the mid-level manager can focus on how
the new computer will be better than the older computer, how workers will be
able to work faster and accomplish more which is in line with what the manager
wants from the workers, how the new computers will not be more complex than
the older computers to use, and how investing in the new computers will increase

the image of the manager in the eyes of the workers as they will feel that she

64

cares about them more. It is also important that the manager understands the
potential results of the new computers so that she could be a potential advocate
for the new computers if the funding for the new computers comes from another
department.

Finally, the study results have potential implications for the involvement of
other significant members of the social system, such as advocacy groups, policy
makers, friends groups, state and national park and recreation professional
associations, local education systems, and consumers, who are interested in
promoting a particular innovation, such as social inclusion. Local public park and
recreation managers could use these members of the social system to influence
the diffusion of social inclusion. This would be done by promoting the various
attributes of social inclusion through these members by taking into consideration
the various qualities of each agency. For example, a manager could publish
articles in various newsletters or publications disseminated by state and national
park and recreation professional associations, friends groups, and/or advocacy
groups. The information provided would create visibility for the issue of social
inclusion. In addition, the information could focus on specific attributes of social
inclusion such as methods to simplify the implementation of social inclusion, the
advantages of implementing social inclusion, or some potential results of
implementing social inclusion.

A manager could also work with members of the social system to provide
collaborative programs that either promote social inclusion and/or that implement

social inclusion. For example, a manager could work with a local university to

65

assist in modifying current programs within the agency to support the
implementation of social inclusion. By collaborating with other members of the
social system and using their expertise, key attributes of implementing social
inclusion, such as relative advantage, can be increased. In addition, initial
collaborations may open the door for future collaborations involving other
innovations.

Additionally, a manager could more broadly share her experiences with
other professionals for the purpose of advancing the innovation. The focus could
be on the various attributes of social inclusion at state, national and international
professional conferences. Michigan Recreation and Park Association, National
Recreation and Park Association, National Institute on Recreation Inclusion,
National Therapeutic Recreation Society, and TASH (an international association
of people with disabilities) host annual conferences where professional
information is disseminated.

Recommendations for Further Study

Taking everything into consideration, the investigator makes various
recommendations for further study. First, if this study was to be reproduced,
information should be collected from a wider array of individuals of each of the
local public park and recreation agencies. Furthermore, future studies should
target understanding why triability was not found to be a significant factor. Other
manager, agency and social system factors need to be examined to determine

whether they explain the differences that were found in this study.

66

Beyond this study, the investigator recommends that studies should
concentrate on the other elements of the diffusion of innovation theory. For
example, future studies should examine the specific communication processes
that were used to diffuse physical and social inclusion, analyze the effects of time
on the diffusion process, or study the effects of social cohorts on the diffusion of

physical and social inclusion.

67

APPENDIX

68

Appendix A

Source and accuracy statement for the 1993 public use file from the survey of

income and program participation (SIPP) (US. Census, 1993).

Source: US. Census (2002). Source and accuracy statement. Retrieved March

3, 2002, from http://www.census.gothhes/www/disable/sipp/src.html.
Accuracy of Estimates

We base SIPP estimates on a sample. The sample estimates may differ
somewhat from the values obtained from administering a complete census using
the same questionnaire, instructions, and enumerators. The difference occurs
because with an estimate based on a sample survey two types of errors are
possible: nonsampling and sampling. We can provide estimates of the magnitude
of the SIPP sampling error, but this is not true of nonsampling error. The next few
sections describe SIPP nonsampling error sources, followed by a discussion of

sampling error, its estimation, and its use in data analysis.

Nonsampling variability. We attribute nonsampling errors to many sources,

they include:
o inability to obtain information about all cases in the sample,
. definitional difficulties,

0 differences in the interpretation of questions,

69

o inability or unwillingness on the part of the respondents to provide correct

information,
. inability to recall information,
. errors made in collection (e.g. recording or coding the data),
0 errors made in processing the data,
0 errors made in estimating values for missing data,

0 biases resulting from the differing recall periods caused by the

interviewing pattern used,

c undercoverage.

We used quality control and edit procedures to reduce errors made by
respondents, coders and interviewers. More detailed discussions of the existence

and control of nonsampling errors in the SIPP are in the SIPP Quality Profile.

Undercoverage in SIPP resulted from missed living quarters and missed
persons within sample households. It is known that undercoverage varies with
age, race, and sex. Generally, undercoverage is larger for males than for females
and larger for Blacks than for Nonblacks. Ratio estimation to independent age-
race-sex population controls partially corrects for the bias due to survey
undercoverage. However, biases exist in the estimates when persons in missed
households or missed persons in interviewed households have characteristics

different from those of interviewed persons in the same age-race-sex group.

70

A common measure of survey coverage is the coverage ratio, the
estimated population before ratio adjustment divided by the independent
population control. Table 6 shows CPS coverage ratios for age-sex-race groups
for 1992. The CPS coverage ratios can exhibit some variability from month to
month, but these are a typical set of coverage ratios. Other Census Bureau

household surveys like the SIPP experience similar coverage.

Comparability with other estimates. Exercise caution when comparing
data from this report with data from other SIPP publications or with data from
other surveys. Comparability problems are from varying seasonal patterns for
many characteristics, different nonsampling errors, and different concepts and
procedures. Refer to the SIPP Quality Profile for known differences with data

from other sources and further discussion.

Sampling variability. Standard errors indicate the magnitude of the sampling
error. They also partially measure the effect of some nonsampling errors in
response and enumeration, but do not measure any systematic biases in the
data. The standard errors mostly measure the variations that occurred by chance

because we surveyed a sample rather than the entire population.

71

Appendix B (modified to fit thesis requirements)

Michigan Local Public Park and Recreation Departments
This study is composed of three sections. Section 1 asks general questions concerning your department.
Section 2 asks more detailed questions concerning your perceptions of two difierent elements of access.

Section 3 asks questions about your experience and education. Each of the three sections begins with brief
instructions.

Section 1

The following questions refer to your department.
Please circle or fill in the most appropriate answer for each question.

1. How much operating budget was allocated (in total) to your department this fiscal year?
a. Under $50,000 d. $500,001- $1,000,000
b. $50,001- $200,000 6. Over $1,000,001
c. $200,001- $500,000

2. Does your department have discretionary funds to implement new initiatives? No Yes

3. In what year was your department established?

= :s' 9‘ is s
4. To what extent does your department do the following: *3 4?} g g g
a E .8 .3: 2
2 t2 2 5 at
a. Directly provide organized recreational programs solely
. . . . . l 2 3 4 5
for persons With disabIIItIes
b. Directly provide organized recreational programs where
people with disabilities participate in the recreational l 2 3 4 5
programs with people without disabilities
c. Directly provide organized recreational programs that are l 2 3 4 5

physically accessible for persons with disabilities

72

Section 2

The following questions concern your perceptions of two different elements of access.
Please circle or fill in the most appropriate answer for each question.

Physical Access is the removal of architectural barriers to help people with disabilities freely access a
recreational activity. One example of physical access would be to create a ramp in front of a recreational
facility to enable a person using a wheelchair to enter the building on their own. In the following
statements, please answer regarding your perceptions on each statement below concerning physical access
as they relate to your department.

Extremely

Disagree

_

NNNNNNN

uwwwwww

hbhth-h

MMMMMMM

O\O\O\O\O\O\O\

Extremely
Agree

\l

\)\)\)\l\l\l\l

_

. Physical access was available to my department to adequately test
run various designs

2. Before deciding whether to use any of the physical access designs,
my department was able to properly try them out

3. My department was permitted to provide physical access on a trial
basis long enough to see what its benefits are

4. Providing physical access makes it easier for my department to
fulfill its mission

5. Providing physical access enhances my department’s effectiveness
6. Overall, providing physical access is advantageous

7. Providing physical access improves my department’s image within
the community

8. Departments in the community who provide physical access have
more prestige than those who do not

9. Providing physical access is a status symbol in the community
10. Physical access is burdensome to provide

11. Providing physical access is often frustrating

12. Physical access is easy to implement

13. In my community, one sees physical access provided

14. Physical access is not very visible in my community

15. It is easy to observe physical access provided in the community

73

2 3 4 5 6 7 16. Providing physical access is completely compatible with my
department’s mission

2 3 4 5 6 7 17. Providing physical access fits well with my department’s mission

2 3 4 5 6 7 18. Providing physical access fits into my department’s mission

19. My department would have difficulties communicating the results of
providing physical access opportunities to others

2 3 4 5 6 7 20. My department could communicate to others the consequences of
physical access

 

2 3 4 5 6 7 21.The results of providing physical access are apparent

22. Does your department have expertise available to provide physical access? No Yes
23. Please state the three most influential barriers to providing physical access.

1.

 

2.

 

 

74

Social Access is providing opportunities that encourage social interactions between people with and
without disabilities so that they may participate fi'eely in a recreational activity. One example is
modifying the game of soccer so that a person with hearing difficulties can communicate with other
players, officials, coaches, etc. (without hearing difficulties) using hand signals. In the following
statements, please answer regarding your perceptions on each statement below concerning social access
as they relate to your department.

Extremely
Disagree
Extremely
Agree

. Social access was available to my department to adequately test
run various opportunities

.—
N
DJ
A
LII
05
\l
—-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. Before deciding whether to use any of the social access
opportunities, my department was able to properly try them out

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. My department was permitted to provide social access on a trial
basis long enough to see what its benefits are

l 2 3 4 S 6 7 4. Providing social access makes it easier for my department to
fulfill its mission

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. Providing social access enhances my department’s effectiveness

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. Overall, providing social access is advantageous

I 2 3 4 5 6 7 7. Providing social access improves my department’s image within
the community

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. Departments in the community who provide social access have
more prestige than those who do not

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9. Providing social access isastatus symbol in the community
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10. Social access is burdensome to provide

11. Providing social access is often frustrating

12. Social access is easy to provide

75

13. In my community, one sees social access provided

14. Social access is not very visible in my community

\l\l\)

15. It is easy observe social access provided in the community

uuww
JXQ-b-b
MMMM
05050505

NNNN

7 16. Providing social access is completely compatible with my
department’s mission

17. Providing social access fits well with my department’s mission

N
b)
A
'Jt
05
\J

2 3 4 5 6 7 18. Providing social access fits into my department’s mission

19. My department would have difficulties communicating the results of
2 3 4 5 6 7 providing social access opportunities to others

2 3 4 5 6 7 20. My department could communicate to others the consequences of
social access

 

2 3 4 5 6 7 21.The results of providing social access are apparent

22. Does your department have expertise available to provide social access? No Yes
23. Please state the three most influential barriers to providing social access.

1.

 

2.

 

 

76

Section 3

The following questions refer to your education and experience as the director of your department.
Please circle or fill in the most appropriate answer.

1. What is your highest degree?

 

a. High School Diploma d. Doctorate
b. Bachelors e. Other
c. Masters

2. In what year did you obtain your highest degree of education?

3. How many years have you been employed in the field of parks and recreation?
4. How many years have you held a position of director?

5. How many years have you been employed in your current position?

6. Are you currently a Certified Park and Recreation Professional (CPRP)? No Yes

Thank you for your participation in this study!

77

BIBLIOGRAPHY

78

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ash, J. S. (1997). Factors affecting the diffusion of the computer-based patient
record. Retrieved August 5, 2001, from
http://www.amia.org/pubslsymposia/ DOO4266.PDF

Berry, F. S. (1994, July/August). Innovation in public management: The adoption
of strategic planning. Public Administration Review, 54(4), 322.

Berry, F. S., & Wechsler, B. (1995, March). State agencies’ experience with
strategic planning: Findings from a national survey. Public Administration
Review, 55(2), 159.

Bullaro, J. J. (1982). The business of survival: Developing a marketing strategy.
Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, p.64.

Bullock, C. C., & Mahon, M. J. (2000). Introduction to recreation services for
people with disabilities: A person-centered approach (2nd ed. ).
Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing.

Copper, R. R. (1983). Organization, management and personal computers:
Experiences and strategies. Park and Recreation Administration.

Crompton, J. L. (1999). Financing and acquiring park and recreation resources.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Crompton, J. L., & Havitz, M. E. (1987). A recreation project that was rejected:

Lessons from a failure. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration,

5(2).

79

Daft, R. L. (1978). A dual-core model of organizational innovation. Academy of
Management Journal, 21, 193-210.

Damanpour, F., & Gopalakrishnan, S. (1999). Organizational adaptation and
innovation: The dynamics of adopting innovation types. In K. Brockhoff,
A. K. Chakrabarti, & J. Hauschildt (Eds), The dynamics of innovation:
Strategic and managerial implications (pp. 57-80). Berlin: Springer.

Dattilo, J. (1994). Inclusive leisure services: Responding to the rights of people
with disabilities. State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc.

Dearing, J. W., Meyer, G., & Kazmierczak, J. (1994). Portraying the new:
Communication between university innovators and potential users.
Science Communication, 16(1), 11-42.

Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and intemet surveys: The tailored design method
(2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Downs, G. W. (1978). Complexity and innovation research. In M. Randor, l.
Feller, & E. M. Rogers (Eds), The diffusion of innovations: An assessment
(pp. 1-21). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University.

Downs, G. W., & Mohr, L. B. (1976). Conceptual issues in the study of
innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 700-714.

Downs, G. W., & Mohr, L. B. (1979). Toward a theory of innovation.
Administration and Society, 10, 329-408.

Drucker, P. F. (1985). Innovation and entrepreneurship: Practice and principles.

New York: Harper & Row, Publishers.

80

Edginton, C. R., & Jiang, J. (2000, April). Outsourcing: A strategy for improving
the quality of leisure services. Joumal of Physical Education, Recreation
8. Dance, 71(4), 46-49.

Feller, l., & Menzel, D. C. (1977, March). Diffusion milieus as a focus of research
on innovation in the public sector. Policy Sciences, 8, 49-68.

Fliegel, F. C., & Kivlin, J. E. (1966, November). Attributes of innovations as
factors in diffusion. American Journal of Sociology, 72(3), 235-248.

God bey, G. (1997). Leisure and leisure sen/ices: In the 21“ century. State
College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc.

Grady, D. O. (1992, Winter). Promoting innovations in the public sector. Public
Productivity & Management Review, 16(2), 157.

Grady, D. 0., & Chi, K. S. (1994, Winter). Formulating and implementing public
sector innovations: The political environment of state government
innovator. Public Administration Quartariy, 17(4), 468.

Heller, B. (2000, January). Innovation revolution: Don’t vegetate, innovate.
Parks & Recreation, 35(1), 74-81.

Huber, G. P., & Van de Ven, A. H. (Eds.). (1995). Longitudinal field research
methods: Studying processes of organizational change. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.

Johnson, R. A., & Walzer, N. (2000). Local government innovation: Issues and
trends in privatization and managed competition. Westport, Connecticut:

Quorum Books.

81

 

King, M, & Anderson, N. (1995). Innovation and change in organizations. New
York: Routledge.

Kraus, R. G., & Curtis, J. E. (1990). Creative management: In recreation, parks,
and leisure services. St. Louis, MO: Times Mirror/Mosby College
Publishing.

Lewin, K. (1951 ). Field theory in social science. New York: Harper and Row.

March, J. G. (1988). Decisions and organizations. New York: Blackwell.

Mayer, J. P., & Davidson ll, W. S. (2000). Dissemination of innovation as social
change. In J. Rappaport, 8. E. Seidman (Eds), Handbook of community
psychology (pp. 421-438). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum
Publishers.

Michigan Commission on Disability Concerns. (2001). Retrieved August 5, 2001,
from http://www.misilc.org/mcdc.htm

Michigan Developmental Disabilities Council. (2001). Retrieved August 5, 2001,
from httpzllwww.mdch.state.mi.uslmddc/

Michigan Recreation and Park Association. (2001). Retrieved August 5, 2001,
from http:I/www.mrpaonline.org

Mohr, L. B. (1969). Determinants of innovation in organizations. American
Political Science Review, 63(1), 111-26.

Mohr, L. B. (1982). Explaining organizational behavior. San Francisco: Jossey—
Bass.

Mohr, L. B. (1999). One hundred theories of organizational change: The good,

the bad, and the ugly. In H. G. Frederickson, & J. M. Johnston (Eds),

82

Public management reform and innovation: Research, theory, and
application (pp. 17-36). Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press.

Moore, G. C., & Benbasat, l. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure
the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation.
Information Systems Research, 2(3), 192-222.

National Recreation and Park Association. (2001). Retrieved August 5, 2001,
from http:/Iwww.nrpa.org/

National Therapeutic Recreation Society. (2001). Retrieved August 5, 2001,
from http:
//207.22.170.19/story.cfm?story_id=614&departmentid=0&publicationlD=2
1

National Therapeutic Recreation Society. (1999). Position statement an inclusion.
Retrieved August 5, 2001, from
http:/I207.22. 1 70.1 9/department.cfm?department
lD=37&publicationID=21&Sub_DepartmentlD=122

Poole, M. S., Van de Ven, A., Dooley, K., & Holmes, M. (2000). Organizational
change processes: Theory and methods for research. New York: Oxford
University Press.

Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of innovation (3rd ed.). New York: The Free
Press.

Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovation (4th ed.). New York: The Free

Press.

83

Sherman, J. S., & Havitz, M. E. (1991, Fall). Introducing an innovative recreation
facility: Lessons from a success. Journal of Park and Recreation
Administration, 9(3), 29-40.

Schleien, S.J., Ray, M.T., & Green, F.P. (1997). Community recreation and
people with disabilities: Strategies for inclusion (2nd ed.). Baltimore: Paul
Brookes.

Stynes, D.J., & Szcodronski, K. R. (1980). Predicting trends in Michigan
snowmobiler characteristics using product life cycle and diffusion of
innovations theories. Proceedings North American Symposium on
Dispersed Winter Recreation. Office of Special Programs. University of
Minnesota. St. Paul. pp. 148-153.

Tannon, C. P., & Rogers, E. M. (1975). Diffusion research methodology: Focus
on health care organizations. In G. Gordon & G. L. Fisher (Eds), The
difi'usion of medical technology: Policy and research planning perspectives
(pp. 51-77). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Company.

The Arc Michigan. (2001). Retrieved August 5, 2001, from http:/Iwww.arcmi.org/

us. Access Board. (2001). Retrieved August 5, 2001, from http:/Iwww.access-
board.gov/

US. Census (1993). Source and accuracy statement. Retrieved March 3, 2002,
from http:/Iwww.censusgov/hhes/wwwldisable/sipp/src.html.

US. Census 2000. (2000). US. Census 2000. Retrieved August 5, 2001, from

http:/Iwww.census.gov/

84

US. Department of Education. (2001). Retrieved August 5, 2001, from
http:/Iwww.ed.gov/

US. Department of Justice. (2002). Retrieved September 15, 2002, from
http:/Iwww.usdoj.gov/

Valente, T. W., & Davis, R. L. (1999). Accelerating the diffusion of innovations

using opinion leaders. Annals of the American Academy of Political and

Social Science, 566, 55-67.

 

van der Smissen, B., Moiseichik, M., Hartenburg, V. J., & Twardzik, L. F. (Eds). I
(1999). Management of park and recreation agencies. Ashbum, VA:
National Recreation and Park Association.
Wise, L. R. (1999, December). The use of innovative practices in the public and
private sectors: The role of organizational and individual factors. Public
Productivity & Management Review, 23(2), 150-168.
Zaltman, G., & Duncan, R. (1977). Strategies for planned change. New York:

John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Zaltman, G., Duncan, R., & Holbeck, J. (1973). Innovations and organizations.

New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

85

 

   

Itrill;illilljjjllljlil