"E” M

    
   

LIBRARY “‘
Michigan State
University

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

SELF INV ESTI-mi T THEORY
AND ACADEMIC WORK

presented by

Earl Charles Nance

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

_2h.n__degree in —Sociology—

”Mn 62. 9M9»

Major professor

Date May 1 D, 1979

OVERDUE FINES ARE 25¢ PER DAY
PER ITEM

Return to book drop to remove
this checkout from your record.

 

 

 

 

SELF INVESTMENT THEORY AND ACADEMIC WORK

By

Earl Charles Nance

A DISSERTATION

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Sociology

1979

ABSTRACT
SELF INVESTMENT THEORY AND ACADEMIC WORK
By

Earl Charles Nance

This is a social psychological study designed to test the
basic propositions of self investment theory as conceived by William A.
Faunce. The main research question is concerned with gaining a more
comprehensive understanding of those social factors associated with
achievement in academic work. Our subjects consist of the entire
populations of three social science academic departments from a large
university committed to both undergraduate and graduate teaching.

Briefly, self investment means commitment to an activity based
on the relevance of that activity for self esteem. In the context
of the self, self esteem enhancement is greatest in those areas of
self identity that receive the most social recognition for achievement
from significant others. Furthermore, the total impact that positive
evaluations have on one's self image is mediated by the level of self
investment or degree of concern for success in that activity. Because
of the bearing that status has on recognition for achievement, both
inter- and intrapositional status distinctions are of crucial impor-
tance in terms of the relevant status criteria, potency of prestige
and rewards attached, and subsequent commitments and loyalties to the

related activities. Achievement is the key to the process by which

Earl Charles Nance

self investment and social interaction are assigned meaning and
importance. The major purpose of this study was to confirm the inter-
relationships among levels of self investment, frequency of contact with
colleagues and levels of achievement. This was accomplished by corre—
lating three areas of self investment (research, teaching and nonwork-
related activities) with frequency of contact in three related depart—
mental sociometric networks and with levels of research productivity.

In addition, to confirm our assertion that cosmopolitanism is associated
with frequency of contact with departmental colleagues as well as with
referent others within external research networks, we correlated cosmo-
politanism with self investment and frequency of contact in departmental
research networks. As expected, significant correlations emerged for
the above-mentioned relationships.

The organizational goals of the university, administrative
criteria used for faculty evaluations and colleague orientations
combined constitute the research climate of the institution. The
general nature of the research climate can be obtained by assessing
the academic orientations of faculty members who dominate the nonwork-
related sociometric networks. For our population, those who are the
most active participants in the research sociometric networks are also
the most active participants in the nonwork-related sociometric net-
works. The teaching sociometric networks are relatively isolated from
the research and nonwork-related networks and level of participation
in the teaching network was unrelated to research output, as expected.

The opposite set of relationships is expected to emerge in institutions

Earl Charles Nance

where the research climate is weak, in which case, teaching orientations
will dominate participation in nonwork-related sociometric networks.

A new finding to emerge from this study is that, under condi-
tions of achievement, exclusivity of contact with colleagues, especially
those who share similar levels of self investment in the related area of
activity, is greater than for those who haven't achieved in those same
activities. Thus, the combination of both achievement and high self
investment produces stronger group cohesiveness. Achievement, however,
is the most important factor relating to exclusive referent associations
because it inspires frequent contacts partly due to expectations of
positive evaluations. The implications of this finding are that those
who occupy high status positions in society, especially in occupational
activities, form strong group coalitions that exert power and authority
over those who have achieved less and who are therefore in disadvantaged
positions to produce strong group coalitions promoting their own

interests.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

While I am very grateful for the helpful assistance provided
me by the many outstanding educators that I have had the good fortune
of knowing, a particular debt of gratitude is extended to William A.
Faunce, my dissertation chairperson and advisor, whose gifted ideas
and sociological skills have greatly contributed to my intellectual
development as well as to the completion of this dissertation. During
the early stages of research development, Christopher K. Vanderpool
guided me through the most pertinent literature. Chris was also
extremely helpful in providing me with useful assistance and council
when needed. Other faculty members who have provided me with helpful
assistance toward the completion of this dissertation are Bo Anderson,
Frank Camilleri, Stan Kaplowitz, Peter Manning, Donald Olmsted and Fred
Waisanen. Actually, the entire faculty of the Sociology Department
have been very supportive of this research effort. I am also indebted
to Grace Rutherford for her skillful editorial assistance and typing
of this dissertation.

This work would not be possible without the thoughtful
attention and encouragement provided by my family and friends.

The most outstanding contributors in this regard are Sue Sontag,
Randy Lutikoff, Eva Buzawa, Mel and Esther Kalish and, of course,

my parents.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
Chapter

I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l

Hypotheses and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Hypothesis 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Hypothesis 1A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ll
Hypothesis 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Hypothesis 2A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l7
Hypothesis 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Hypothesis 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

II. THEORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Job Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Cosmopolitan-Local Construct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Organizational Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
The Symbolic Interaction Perspective . . . . . . . . . . 50
The Self Investment Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

III 0 METHODS O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O 7 7

Collection of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Operationalization of Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Hypothesis 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Hypothesis 1A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Hypothesis 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Hypothesis 2A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Hypothesis 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Hypothesis 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

IV. FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Research Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Hypothesis 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

Hypothesis lA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ll7
Hypothesis 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

iii

Chapter Page

Hypothesis 2A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

Hypothesis 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

Hypothesis 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
Appendix

A. INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE . . . . . . . . . . ._. . . . . 172

B. DISTRIBUTION OF FACULTY BY AGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182

C. FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF VARIABLES . . . . . . . . . . 184

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193

iv

Table

10.

11.

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Relationship Between Self Investment and Research
Output Variables: Zero Order Correlations . . . . . . . . 111

Effectiveness of Professional Criteria Model

(Individualized Version of Ranking Status Criteria)

as an Indication of Research Output: Zero Order

Correlations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

Effectiveness of Professional Criteria Model

(Universal Ranking of Eight Standard Status Criteria)

as an Indication of Research Output: Zero Order

Correlations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

Association Between Self Investment in Work and in
Research (Above and Below the Mean): Zero Order
Correlations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

Mean Levels of Self Investment for All Fifteen Self
Investment Items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

Relationship of Age to High Achievement Areas of Self
Investment: Zero Order Correlations . . . . . . . . . . . 119

Relationship of Age to Low Achievement Areas of Self
Investment: Zero Order Correlations . . . . . . . . . . . 119

Association Between Self Investment in Work and Age

for Above and Below the Mean Groups of High Achievement

for the Combined Categories of Self Investment in

Research and Teaching: Zero Order Correlations . . . . . . 121

Relationships Between Three High Achievement Areas of
Self Investment and Related Sociometric Networks:
Zero Order Correlations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

Relationships Between Professional High Achievement
Areas of Self Investment and "Getting Together for
Nonwork—Related Reasons": Zero Order Correlations . . . . 128

Relationships Between the Three Sociometric Networks
and "Total Research Output": Zero Order Correlations . . . 131

Table

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

Page

Relationships Between the Three Sociometric Networks
and "Average of Research Output": Zero Order
Correlations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

Relationships Between the Three Sociometric Networks
and "Trends in Research Output": Zero Order
Correlations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

Relationships Between Self Investment in Three

Achievement Areas of Activity and Frequence of

Contact with Colleagues in External Research

Networks: Zero Order Correlations . . . . . . . . . . . 133

Exclusiveness of Group Associations Relating to
High Achievement Areas of Self Investment . . . . . . . . 136

Exclusiveness of Group Associations Relating to
Low Achievement Areas of Association . . . . . . . . . . 139

Relationships Between High Achievement Categories
of Self Investment and the Teaching Sociometric
Network: Zero Order Correlations . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

Distribution of the Ratios of High Frequency Contacts
to the Total Number of Responses to Self Investment
Items for All Three High Achievement Categories . . . . . 142

Redistribution of the Ratios of High Frequency Contacts
to the Total Number of Responses to Self Investment
Items for All Three Low Achievement Categories . . . . . 143

Relationship Between Self Investment in Work and in
Professional Areas of Activity: Zero Order
Correlations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148

Relationship Between Self Investments in Work and
Nonwork-Related Areas of Activity: Zero Order
Correlations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148

Relationships Between Research Output Variables
and Cosmopolitanism: Regression Analysis . . . . . . . . 153

Relationships Between Cosmopolitanism and Frequency
of Contact with Departmental Colleagues for Three
Networks: Zero Order Correlations . . . . . . . . . . . 155

Relationships Between Internal (Departmental) and
External (Disciplinary Networks) Research Networks . . . 156

vi

Table

C.7

C.8

C.9

C.lO

C.ll

Page
Age Distribution of Faculty by Academic Department . . . . 182

Distribution of Research Output for Department 881
by Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182

Distribution of Research Output for Department 882
by Age I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 183

Distribution of Research Output for Department 883
by Age I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 183

Frequency Distribution of Self Investment in Research
ACtiVitieS I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 184

Frequency Distribution of Self Investment in Teaching
Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185

Frequency Distribution of Self Investment in Nonwork-
Related Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186

Frequency Distribution of Sociometric Links for the
Research Sociometric Networks by Department . . . . . . . 187

Frequency Distribution of Sociometric Links for the
Teaching Sociometric Networks by Department . . . . . . . 188

Frequency Distribution of Sociometric Links for the
Nonwork-Related Sociometric Networks by Department . . . . 189

Frequency Distribution of Self Investment in Work
by Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190

Frequency Distribution of Cosmpolitanism by Academic
Department I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 190

Frequency Distribution of Research Total by Department . . 191

Frequency Distribution of Research Average by
Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191

Frequency of Research Trend by Department . . . . . . . . 192

vii

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

This is a social psychological study designed to test the

validity of some general principles of self investment theory linked

to occupational achievement. Self investment is used here to mean the
degree of commitment based on the relevance of that activity for self
investment. The primary factors under study are frequency of contact
with colleagues, self esteem, professional orientations and recognition
for achievement. Faculty members from three social science departments
constitute the population for our study. William A. Faunce's monograph

entitled Work, Status, and Self Esteem provides the primary theoretical

 

framework for this research effort and, of course, influences the inter-
pretation of the data. The symbolic interaction perspective which is

in many ways compatible with the assumptions of self investment theory
is the underlying perspective that is drawn on throughout for inter-
pretation and formulations of important research questions. While
Faunce's theory often ascends to higher levels of abstraction, espe-
cially with reference to different status assignment systems, the
symbolic interaction perspective provides many important links such

as "significant other" and "reference group" that inform the theory.

The sociology of science has also contributed important concepts and

theories to this research, such as the cosmopolitan-local construct,

scientific network analysis and findings concerning important background
variables of scientists. It is also important to mention that, among
other goals, this is the first in a series of attempts aimed specifi-
cally at testing the basic propositions of self investment theory.
Discussion of the basic purpose of this study is difficult
without first attempting an explanation of the nature of self invest-
ment theory. A more comprehensive understanding of the theory requires
an elaborate discussion reserved for Chapter II. Therefore, only a
brief explanation will be provided at this point. Suffice it to say
that the crucial elements of the self-investment process include the
status assignment system that may be regarded as the normative structure
providing for prestige and material rewards resulting from recognition
for achievement. Social recognition by reference groups serves as the
primary evaluative source associated with areas of commitment and con-
cern. Evaluations occur on a day-to-day basis through social interac-
tion that, depending on the degree of concern for achievement, results
in degrees of either enhancement or degradation of self esteem. The
potency of rewards for achievement is bounded by both reference groups
and the society at large where distinctions of status are made for
almost all activities, of which work is the most essential area for
most people. Thus, the higher up the interpositional status hierarchy
a particular activity is found, the more likely will role incumbents
be associated with greater rewards as visibility is enhanced and

therefore status recognition is more likely. For example, a physician

derives greater deference from others and on a more frequent basis

than a store salesman who is caught near the middle of the occupational
status hierarchy. Reference groups provide the most essential link in
the social recognition process insofar as self esteem maintenance is
concerned primarily because only these groups are really aware of the
quality of achievement under evaluation.

For our population, we found that both research and teaching
reference groups will be identified as the most important areas of
concern with research groups dominating most professional activities.
It is assumed that where there is little or no recognition for achieve-
ment, especially in areas relating to research activity, then self
investment will be withdrawn and reinvested in those activities where
recognition for achievement is greater or more likely. Because this
study is not longitudinal in nature, we do not have an opportunity to
observe the total effects of lack of recognition for achievement or
the possible effects of diminishing self investment that may accrue
from saturation of status recognition. We do however have data on
subjects at various career stages from which to derive tentative
conclusions with regard to these issues.

A secondary purpose of this study is to examine the
cosmopolitan-local construct of academic types as developed by
Gouldner (1957, 1958). Although this construct, as conceived, con-
sists of a continuum of types from local to cosmopolitan, basically,
the local types are concerned with teaching and administrative func-

tions within the local institution and loyalty is firmly attached to

the local institution rather than to disciplinary ties outside of it.
On the other hand, cosmopolites are mainly oriented to professional
interests and contacts outside of the local institution and their
loyalty to the local institution is weak. However, even though
expressions of loyalty may be strongly tied to external disciplinary
interests for cosmopolites, the symbolic interaction concept of
significant other and Faunce's concept of frequency of evaluation
combined suggest that frequent daily contacts with significant others
is necessary for self esteem maintenance and most of our knowledge of
universities informs us that these significant others are often situ-
ated within the same university where common interests and goals are
shared.

Therefore, we are suggesting that cosmopolitan orientations
may be accompanied by strong reference group associations within the
local institution and the possibility of this occurring is greater
when there is a research climate dominating the institution. Gouldner's
analysis supporting his reference group theory was based on a test of
social popularity of faculty members through sociometric questions
requesting the entire faculty of Coop college to respond to a random
sample of names drawn from the college population. The problem is that
no sociometric analysis was made within departments nor within research
or teaching networks. Moreover, the site of Gouldner's study was
primarily local in orientation. Under these circumstances, it is
expected that those who are cosmopolitan in orientation will have

fewer referent associations within the local institution; and for

those associations that exist, this orientation will be overshadowed
by the larger population of localites within the sample. Close
examination of the attitudinal items used in the cosmopolitan-local
follow-up studies indicates that again the entire faculty population
of the institution was sampled for interaction analysis instead of
individual departments as functional units and no further attempts
were made to do any sociometric analysis. The social interaction
items used were mainly attitudinal in nature and no attempts were made
to differentiate between research and teaching oriented professional
contacts. Because we believe that academic departments are in them-
selves vital links in the self investment process insofar as they
structure the most immediate status assignment system for recognition
of achievement, sociometric analysis should be conducted to disclose
social interaction in social, research and teaching networks of the

academic departments.

 

Although in studies of academic types (e.g., Gouldner, 1957,
1958),cosmopolitans ("outsiders" and the "empire builders") and locals

' and the "homeguard")

("dedicated,” the "elders," the "true bureaucrats,‘
were supposedly found in those institutions of higher learning studied
and follow—up studies by Berger and Crimes (1973) and Flango and
Brumbaugh (1974) yielded similar results; an empirical study by
Goldberg et a1. (1965) concluded that in the industrial laboratory
studied, professional personnel "did not choose organizational or

professional rewards, as has been suggested in the literature, but

they varied in the extent to which they sought after personal

gratification in general, whether these come from the organization

or profession" (p. 710). Glaser (1963) also investigated professionals
(scientists) in industry and found that when organizational policies
and standards for performance are not inconsistent with research
interests and professional ethics of scientists, then commitments

to both organizational goals and the ethics of science are likely.
While acknowledging some differences between industrial and academic
communities, it may be asserted that, in general, circumstances sur-
rounding self esteem maintenance are similar and that, in particular,

organizational climate1

is an important intervening variable mediating
the content and impact of referent contacts within institutions.
Findings from organizational studies have emerged within the
past decade (Fulton and Trow, 1974; Blau, 1973; Baldridge et al., 1978)
to underscore the importance of "academic departments" as arenas of
activity rather than the whole institution, or faculty members as
independent agents. Evidence strongly suggests that neither academic
departments nor parent institutions are mutually exclusive of one
another, but instead they are interrelated in terms of organizational

climate. Large public and private institutions with good research

facilities and large graduate student populations tend to employ

 

1Organizational climate is a combination of colleague climate
found among departmental faculty as derived from Peter Blau's use of
the concept in The Organization of Academic Work, 1973 and the primary
organization guidelines for promotion, tenure, salary increase and the
like. In most cases, organization climate is a reflection of the
prestige ranking of the university, which, in essence, combines
the above factors influencing faculty orientations.

 

faculty who maintain high rates of research productivity in comparison
to other institutions.

These organizational studies also indicate that the larger the
university becomes, the fewer bureaucratic constraints over academic
departments are evident. These relationships are especially likely
among elite institutions. The organizational factors combined with
the general tendency for professional groups to exercise more self
autonomy produces a social environment that is highly conducive to
academic freedom. These conditions combined provide ample reason for
concentrating our research on academic departments as the primary social
structure for faculty activity and achievement. In particular, through
sociometric analysis, we expect to discover the importance of everyday
contacts for determining areas of professional interest and concern for
achievement. Principles derived from sociometric analysis are also
expected to apply to other work settings as well. However, the degree
of importance of external organizational constraints will in most cases
be greater outside of the academic community, especially among
nonprofessional work groups.

Previous academic studies have relied heavily on large random
samples of many colleges and universities with particular emphasis upon
the "hard" sciences. Although this study, in comparison, has a small
population and is limited to one academic setting, it affords the
advantages of including almost the entire tenure track populations
of three social science departments. Because of the importance of

departmental status assignment systems for evaluation of performance

and for self esteem maintenance, an analysis of entire populations
of the selected departments is essential for providing a better
understanding of the determinants of academic achievement.

A further discussion of the nature of the research questions
under consideration is provided in the following statements of the
hypotheses to be tested and in brief discussions of their meanings
for academic departments. Because several of the terms to be used
require a more detailed and definitive discussion, the nature of
the discussion to follow will be limited in scope, but, hopefully,

illuminating of the issues of this research effort.

Hypotheses and Discussion

 

Hypothesis 1

 

H1: The greater the achievement in a particular area of
professional activity, the greater will be self

investment in that activity.

In terms of self investment theory, the brief explanation to
follow also refers to and is included in hypothesis 2. When combined,
both sets of hypotheses and explanations conStitute the basic propo-
sitions for the theory of self investment. Achievement is a central
concept that is essential to the whole self investment process because
it represents the end manifestation of social action that is evaluated
according to the status assignment system. The degree of importance
attached to a particular form of achievement is a direct consequence

of the amount of social recognition accruing to it, as well as any

material rewards accompanying it. Communication of social recognition

is essential to inform us of the merits of our accomplishment. Without
social recognition, there would be little, if any, incentive to achieve.
In more specific terms, recognition of success is meaningful when the
source of recognition is significant others. While recognition for
success from many sources enhances self esteem, the crucial arena of
recognition is significant others whose values, beliefs and goals are
most highly valued by us; we strive to achieve according to their
standards of evaluation. In this context, certain reference groups,

to the exclusion of others, become meaningful for us, in that, we
pattern ourselves after them to gain their approval and respect.

Social recognition thereby enhances our self esteem, which, in turn,
increases or maintains our self investment in that activity, especially
when significant others are involved.

For faculty members, the greater the success in a professional
area of activity, the more likely will attention be directed to that
area of accomplishment through daily encounters with colleagues. This,
of course, produces self recognition that has the effect of continuing
the faculty members' efforts to achieve in the area under evaluation.
Also, displays of deference from students and other members of the
community will serve to enhance self esteem. As academic success
increases, frequency of contact with colleagues will also increase,
partly because of rewarding experiences derived from these enCounters.
Bolstered self confidence as a professional as well as high self esteem
as a person tends to increase self investment in the related areas of

activity. Social recognition outside of the department is also evident

10

as other faculty members, aware of status differences within the
discipline, communicate their approval.

In general, recognition for scholarly contributions of
knowledge is more important for most academicians than the material
rewards earned. Although social recognition is essential for self
esteem maintenance, it differs for most businessmen, where this
recognition process is related to the accumulation of wealth, income
and conspicuous consumption, assumed in many different forms. In
social situations with clients and associates, businessmen are likely
to draw attention to their successful business undertakings that, in
effect, convey the value of the rewards attached. In a similar manner,
faculty members will, in social encounters with colleagues, draw
attention to their progress in professionally related activities
or to a recent reward or recognition afforded them for scholarly
achievement. In the case of the businessmen and the faculty members
alike, news of success is communicated through social interaction which
has the effect of enhancing self esteem when acknowledged. The empha-
sis upon scholarly contributions to knowledge found in the academic
community probably causes some uncertainty for some, especially where
there is low consensus on the part of faculty members or within the
discipline as a whole concerning the merits of one's work. In the
business community, on the other hand, there is less uncertainty
concerning success because it is usually manifested in material

forms permitting clear observations and easy comparisons.

11

Hypothesis 1A

 

HlA: Where there is a lack of recognition for achievement in

a particular area of activity, self investment in that

activity will diminish with age.

In the aftermath of repeated attempts to succeed, self
investment is normally withdrawn to discontinue the discomforting
effects of failure. Unless another form of social recognition is
at hand, the consequences for the self investment process can be
devastating. In most cases failure does not become a habit, but
instead a new area of self investment is found to substitute for
the old one and, as a consequence, feelings of self worth are restored.
Repeated failures to gain recognition in research activities, as an
example, may result in increasing self investment in teaching as a
form of compensation. Thus, self investment may decrease considerably
in one area of activity only to increase in another. These proposi-
tions, in part, may assist us in understanding the mobility patterns
for some industrial workers as well as for some faculty members.
Social recognition for success may also accrue to several areas of
activity simultaneously, but due to the economies of time and resources,
and the normal course of events, most faculty members will concentrate
on fewer and fewer professional activities while allowing others to
diminish in importance. Those self investment areas retained will in
most cases consist of the most successful efforts. Some professional
activities, such as research, demand considerable time and resources
for successful completion so that other activities diminish in

importance.

12

In addition to social recognition, there are intrinsic
rewards that are exceedingly important to feelings of self worth.
The Protestant Ethic is an example of a belief system that specifies
things that should be intrinsically gratifying. Even these intrinsic
rewards however are primarily extensions of early learning of societal
norms and values as well as the opinions and values of significant
others who influence our social behavior and career aspirations. In
this context, significant others do not have to be present to influence
the meanings and outcomes of our activities. Experienced authors, as
an example, have acquired self evaluative frameworks of writing skills
and ideas influenced by past training and helpful encouragement and
assistance from significant others so that they can easily guide them—
selves to complete tasks in anticipation of expected rewards. Even
under these circumstances, however, social recognition will eventually
intrude into one's life to thus inform him or her of the relative
merits of the work completed. Therefore, social recognition, in one
form or another, is the key to the self investment process without
which achievement would be unlikely. The greater the recognition
for academic success, the more effort will be expended in the related
areas of activity to the point where academic aspirations, as a
reflection of self investment, have been fulfilled.

Lack of recognition in both teaching and research areas of
activity, assuming either lack of recognition for administrative work
or failure to gain entrance into administrative positions, will, in

most cases, depending on career stage, lead to withdrawal of self

l3

investment from academic activities. This may result in occupational
movements to other academic institutions. For those who have earned
tenure, the most likely possibility is to assume a low profile within
the department and perhaps the institution itself in order to avoid
negative evaluations. Membership in local community or fraternal
organizations may suffice as sources of social recognition sufficient
to restore lost self esteem resulting from academic failures. In
particular, these organizations may be appealing for those who are
adept at performing tasks in demand by these organizations. Involvement
in these organizations will also result in deference to professional
status from members who have lower social statuses. Moreover, for
those academicians who have lost favor in their departments, familial
relationships provide an important source of recognition where self
investment may be increased. In essence, failure at work is not always
tolerable, but it can be managed under circumstances where there is
compensation for self esteem from other sources. Thus, recognition

as a good father and provider may be compensation for little recog-
nition at work in the same way that a reputation as a public spirited
citizen may enhance one's public image.

Organizational climate of the institution is expected to play
an important role in the selection of areas of self investment as well
as the strength of commitment. For most prestigious universities, the
organizational climate will emphasize research activities as the main
area of self investment and collegial evaluations will be based on

research productivity. The real impact of organizational climate is

14

through day-to—day encounters among the faculty, especially within
their departments, where discussions will center on certain professional
activities to the exclusion of others. In general, professional images
are formed, graduate training included, by verbal opinions and body
gestures of colleagues who thereby communicate evaluations of profes-
sional competency and worth. When there is a strong emphasis on one
set of criteria to the exclusion of others, then it becomes necessary
for those faculty members who have low performance records in the area
of evaluation and who are concerned about collegial evaluation to
increase performance levels in the approved area and therefore improve
their status in the department. One of the side effects of a strong
organization climate, however, is that some faculty members will
increase their efforts to achieve in the approved area of activity
without any genuine desire. They have merely submitted to peer
pressure and in the absence of these pressures it is likely that

they would reduce their efforts to succeed and withdraw self investment
from the area of activity. In essence, these faculty members have
higher self investment in their job than they have in their discipline
as a whole. Tendencies to submit to collegial pressures to achieve in
specific areas of activity will be greater under circumstances of
consensus concerning the importance of achievement in that activity.
Under these conditions, it is difficult to avoid evaluation of per-
formance. Consequently, either efforts will be increased considerably
to achieve in the selected area of importance or else self investment

will be withdrawn from that area and increased in another area of

15

activity where the likelihood of recognition is greater. Assuming.
as an example, a weak research climate, then moderate levels of self
investment may be maintained in research even in the face of failure
to gain recognition because of the lack of importance assigned to
achievement in that area of activity. Self investment may also
continue in the face of failure under conditions of dissensus con-
cerning the related criteria. These conditions allow for a variety
of status criteria to select from so that one may accept only those
criteria that tend to enhance self esteem while ignoring the others
without fear of strong social sanctions concerning the possibility

of failure.

Hypothesis 2

 

H : The greater the frequency of contact with colleagues
2 . .

in relationship to a particular area of activity, the

greater will be self investment in that same

professional activity.

A well established social psychological principle related
to this hypothesis is that individuals are attracted to those who are
most like themselves in terms of holding the same interests and goals
in life. In addition to this principle, however, our hypothesis means,
according to self investment theory, that frequency of contact with
colleagues is directly related to achievement in the related area of
activity. The greater the level of achievement, the greater the
tendency to seek out evaluations of performance through involvement

in discussions in mutual areas of interest where one's expertise is

relevant. For our population, we have established research and

16

teaching as two separate social networks. Even though overlapping
from one social network to the other is expected, for the most part,
we expect that most of the social interaction will occur in those
networks that best reflect the organizational climate of the university
as well as the designated function of the department. Actually, the
organizational climate may tend to overshadow in importance the desig-
nated function of the institution or both influences may be strong
enough to establish equal activity in both social networks, in which
case faculty cliques in research and teaching will overlap. In prin-
ciple, we expect these relationships between high frequency contact,
achievement and self investment to hold for most work groups with the

"central life concern."

exception of work groups where work is not 3
Again, it is social recognition for achievement that provides the
incentive for continuing efforts to achieve and hence maintaining

self investment in that area of activity. For those faculty members
who are placed low on the departmental status hierarchy because of

lack of recognition for achievement in both teaching and research

areas of activity, strong social ties are likely to be established

with other professional groups outside of the department or within
local community or fraternal organizations, as already suggested.

For faculty members in their early career stage, we do not expect

the same sets of relationships between frequency of association with
colleagues and achievement because they have only begun to fulfill
their potentials. Perhaps for these younger faculty members, perceived

ability is the primary criterion for determining frequency of contact

with colleagues.

l7

Hypothesis 2A

 

HZA: Exclusiveness of contact among faculty members will

be greater under cond1t1ons of Similar levels of self

investment. Also, these exclusive relationships are

stronger under circumstances of achievement.

This hypothesis is essentially an extension of those self
investment propositions regarding frequency of contact with col-
leagues. In addition, however, it states that low achievers, who
also are expected to have low self investment in the area of activity
in question, will tend to seek out companionship exclusively with one
another because, for one reason, they have similar records of achieve-
ment so that they are not overpowered by the higher status of higher
achievers who may fail to recognize their accomplishments. It is also
unlikely that high achievers will initiate social contact with low
achievers. Notable exceptions are expected, however, among faculty
cohorts, especially with regard to professorial ranks, where collegial
associations are likely to occur. Also, where there are ideological
splits in the department, faculty members may form into powerful
coalitions to defend their interests and to influence administrative
policy.

From the standpoint of self esteem, exclusivity of social
contact may be a defense against the possibility of negative eval-
uations from status superiors. It is less threatening to self esteem
when these risks are avoided. Association with those who have similar

records of achievement will, in most cases, enhance self esteem because

earnest attempts to offer one another some form of confirmation for an

l8

accomplishment will be supportive of the group and, thus, provide
compensation for self esteem lost from failure to gain recognition
outside of the group. In order to ascribe more importance to the
membership group, attempts may be made to discredit the accomplish-
ments of high achievers. As an example, high achievers who publish
frequently may be accused of not doing quality work or not being

more concerned about students. For the group to survive, it must

adopt a set of standards that extol the virtues of its membership

while deemphasizing the importance of higher achievers. In this way,
faculty members form protective boundaries between themselves and other
faculty members who may perhaps unintentionally communicate negative
evaluations concerning achievement. The professional orientations
characteristic of groups formed, whether high or low achievement groups,
will in large part be influenced by the type of organizational climate
dominating the institution. Again, throughout this discussion, the
assumption made is that high and low achievement is associated with
high and low self investment, except in the case of faculty members

in their early career stage. Exceptions to these general statements
are possible, but on a whole, it is expected that the above stated

relationships will hold for most of our population.

Hypothesis 3

 

H : The greater the self investment in a particular work-
related activity, the greater will be self investment
in work in general.

Justification for this hypothesis is derived, in part, from

the literature on work studies. Evidence suggests that there is a

19

link, for example, between job involvement and the Protestant Ethic
construct (Robinowitz and Hall, 1975). A more detailed discussion
of this topic will be deferred until Chapter II. While there are
differences between self investment in work and the Protestant Ethic,
the similarities outweigh the differences to the extent that they both
measure feelings of self worth in conjunction with work. This hypoth-
esis is also intuitively appealing in that it is difficult to imagine
achievement without work. An important question, however, is how
important is work for feeling good about oneself as a person. Does
inactivity produce self depreciation and prolonged states of unhap—
piness? The issue does not reside with the actual mechanics of work
alone. The main point is that work produces certain outcomes, that
when recognized as achievement by significant others, will enhance
one's self esteem and in this sense make one feel good about one's
self. Although the application of work in some activities will not
always produce results, the prospect of success for most of us is
enough of an incentive to continue making work a habit. Therefore,
self investment in work will increase self investment in the related
activity to the degree to which achievement is recognized. In this
sense, both forms of self investment are related as our study will
show.

The self investment process is an embodiment of the status
assignment system insofar as it is dependent upon the attraction of
statuses as evidenced by those variations of social prestige and

material rewards attached. Social stratification theory is useful

20

for comprehending the nature of the role of statuses in connection
with the social structure. Some social statuses (e.g., lawyer,
doctor, professor, businessman) are assigned more prestige and

rewards partly because role encumbents provide specialized services
for society that are regarded as highly important in contrast to other
services (e.g., janitor, dish washer, street cleaner).

The status assignment system for our study is found in the
academic community, which, in turn, is a subsystem of the status
assignment system for the whole society. For the general public,
the status of a professor has a relatively consistent meaning to it,
but for those who are members of the academic community, status dis-
tinctions are made according to those standards established within
each discipline and academic department. Academic traditions, the
division of academic labor as characterized by prestige differences
among universities and colleges and the omnipotence of social recog-
nition attached to research productivity have all contributed to the
greater prestige and rewards attached to research activity. Therefore,
we expect that self investment in work associated with research efforts
as well as self investment in research itself will be greater and that
teaching will assume secondary importance with regard to levels of
self investment. In general, granting the importance of work for
achievement at all occupational levels, self investment in work itself,
as it relates to feelings of self worth, will tend to increase as the
social stratification ladder is ascended. Unfortunately, the ultimate

consequences of these relationships for the problem of social inequality

21

is that for those who are politically and economically remote from

the main stream of society, few incentives remain to alter the course

that influence their lives.

Hypothesis 4

 

H4: The greater the cosmopolitan orientation, the greater

the likelihood of more frequent contacts with colleagues

within the discipline as a whole, including both depart-

mental faculty and referent contacts outside of the
institution.

This hypothesis is designed to test the thesis that cosmo-
politanism is an outgrowth of recognition for achievement within the
discipline as a whole. In the same way that referent contacts of
nonprofessional workers, assuming at least moderate levels of self
investment in work, are found mainly on the job, we expect that
referent contacts for our subjects will also be found on the job
which includes contacts in the department as well as outside of
the university but within the discipline. The research literature
dealing with the cosmopolitan-local construct has emphasized the whole
institution as an important factor associated with professional orien-
tations while devoting little attention to academic departments where
most social interaction occurs. As an example, Gouldner's sociometric
analysis was conducted on a random sampling basis that included a
total population of 125 of which 26 subjects were drawn (Gouldner,
1957, 1858). His sociometric selections were based on the criteria

of social popularity so that, in essence, the analysis was more a

measure of orientation of organization as a whole than of professional

22

orientations. We hope to derive a more accurate picture of professional
orientations by dividing our analysis into research, teaching and social
sociometric networks. From this three-way analysis of professional
associations, we expect that the professional orientations typical

of that institution will emerge in the social networks. In general,
referent contacts within the research sociometric networks of the
departments and within the discipline as a whole should increase

with cosmopolitan status.

In terms of self investment theory, we expect these
relationships partly because one's professional self image is the
result of evaluations from referent others within the discipline.

It is difficult to imagine the possibility of maintaining high status
as a cosmopolitan without also having a high status within one's
academic department, unless, of course, the purpose as well as the
orientation of the department is teaching. The intense nature of
day-to-day contacts with colleagues in the department, compared to
referent contacts outside of the university, is bound to produce
strong feelings of concern for professional recognition, especially
under conditions of high self investment in one's job. Moreover,
the academic job in itself demands certain commitments requiring
collegial recognition in order to function well as a faculty member.
In the short run, it may be possible to avoid colleague evaluations
within the department by focusing attention primarily on referent
contacts outside of it, but eventually, unless recognition within

the department improves, it will become necessary to move to another

23

academic department where recognition for cosmopolitan status is
more likely.

In the next chapter, theoretical concerns relating to the
cosmopolitan-local construct, organizational climate and. self
investment theory will be discussed insofar as these concerns bear
on our hypotheses, findings and conclusions. Chapter III deals mainly
with methods of data collection and Operationalization of variables in
connection with our hypotheses. The findings of our study, which are
reported in Chapter IV, specifically deal with the results of the
hypotheses tested and in addition, reveal some interesting findings
with regard to the consequences of achievement for exclusivity and
frequency of contact with referent others. Chapter V condenses much
of the discussion of our research findings and also extends these
findings to include possible implications and directions for further

research of academic and nonacademic occupational groups.

CHAPTER II

THEORY

As already mentioned, this is a social psychological study
and the area of inquiry is the academic community. Throughout the
early development of this study and later during the analysis of data,
however, macro theoretical assumptions derived mostly from sociology
of science literature and organizational studies have informed the
research design of this study. This is the first attempt to study
entire populations of academic departments. Questions have been
formulated to attend to the status assignment system which is also
the evaluative framework utilized by colleagues in their day-to-day
encounters with one another. The daily functions of academic depart-
ments, even though somewhat autonomous, cannot be studied in isolation,
but must be interpreted within the context of the universities or
colleges where they are situated. Notwithstanding these points of
convergence between the social psychological and organizational levels
of analysis, careful attention should be maintained when moving from
one level of analysis to another because different levels of inquiry
demand different modes of theoretical abstraction and different
methodological frameworks. Therefore, studies like this one
attempting to focus on social status and interaction processes

related to work and comparative studies of formal organizations

24

25

that attempt to derive traits characteristic of them should be
considered as primarily complementary in the information gained
(Blau, 1974, p. 2).

The first part of this chapter will review the literature
on work studies written primarily from the psychological perspective.
Although this research is circumscribed by the symbolic interaction
perspective, the psychological perspective is in many ways compatible
with it. Next, studies of scientific productivity, mostly from the
sociology of science literature, will be discussed insofar as topics
bear on this research. The cosmopolite-local construct as it has been
developed will be discussed insofar as it relates to the research
design of this study. Formal organizational theory will be discussed
and employed as an explanation of the external influences impinging
upon academic departments which therefore constitute an intervening
variable for our research design. Symbolic interaction postulates,
especially as they are connected to the theory of self investment,
will be summarized as a perspective mediating analytical models and
tools of this study. Finally, the main focus of attention will be
directed to the theory of self investment itself to explain the

crucial elements of social interaction linked with academic achievement.

Job Studies

 

Although workers at all occupational levels share a need for
positive evaluations, the degree of these needs is contingent upon the
status assignment system that allocates prestige and material rewards

for performance. On a whole, most studies have shown that professional

26

workers have higher levels of job involvement than do nonprofessional
workers. Orzack, as an example, tested Dubin's "central life interests"
theory of a group of professional nurses. Dubin had selected a group
of industrial workers for his study and hypothesized that they would
rate non-job-related activities closer to their own value orientations
and thus more important to their life concerns than job—related activ-
ities. Dubin administered a questionnaire to 491 workers and found
that "only 24% of all the workers studied could be labelled job
oriented in their life interests" (Dubin, 1956, p. 135). In contrast
to Dubin's findings, Orzack found that of the 150 professional nurses
participating in the study, 79% considered work as their central life
interest (Orzack, 1959). Although some methodological problems such
as limitations of samples with regard to sex and type of profession
studied prevent us from making generalizations to all professional
groups, the remarkable differences of job involvement between these
two occupational categories are significant enough for us to begin
to make conclusions that extend to other professional communities
as well.
Also, related to this discussion, although speculative in

nature, is an important comment by Vroom.

Persons high in ego-involvement and occupying positions at

higher occupational levels may be more likely both to value,

and to regard themselves as possessing, abilities which are

relevant to performance in work situations. Consequently

one might expect the nature of the work, particularly those

aspects of work which are relevant to the abilities in

question, to be more important in the determination of
their satisfaction. (Vroom, 1962, p. 176)

27

Faunce also makes this speculation and in addition postulates that "it
may be possible to resolve some of the many discrepant and disparate
findings from job satisfaction studies by inferring differences in
self investment in work" (Faunce, monograph, p. 5).

Degree of involvement in work may be closely associated with
the social status and material rewards attached. In "A Comparative
Study of Work Centrality, Job Rewards and Satisfaction" by Mannheim,
the "work centrality thesis" was tested on 625 males whose socioeconomic
characteristics were fairly representative of the population as a whole
for four of the largest cities of Israel, except that there was an
over representation of professional and administrative workers. Data
collected from questionnaires revealed that work centrality "is strongly
affected by the rewards the worker perceives on his job, i.e., the more
reward he feels in all aspects of his job, the more will he think
about it, prefer it above other roles, devote time and concern to it"
(Mannheim, 1975, p. 101). Again, differentiation of reward structure
favors professionals and higher administrative workers who in this
study scored higher on work centrality scales than other occupational
groups lower in status and job responsibilities. Mannheim's occupa—
tional study is excellent from a comparative point of view because
it includes in the analysis several occupational groups representing
a variety of socioeconomic class distinctions.

Although evidence strongly suggests that there is an association
between the status level of an occupation and job involvement, care

should be taken not to attribute job involvement entirely to structural

28

factors of the occupation. Possibly, there is a strong social class
influence that mediates job attitudes and at least indirectly affects
workers' level of commitment and willingness to become completely
involved in work. This position concerning job involvement may be
viewed from the perspective of alienation in that low job involvement
is a consequence of felt lack of control and autonomy (powerlessness)
and felt lack of satisfaction and fulfillment about one's job (self
estrangement). In a study using these alienation variables, it was
found that, in a longitudinal analysis of 442 high school students at
two points of time with a fifteen-year interval in the interim, there
was an overall negative correlation between socioeconomic status
variables and alienation and, in particular, "occupational socio-
economic status is negatively related to both forms of alienation,
as predicted" (Otto and Featherman, 1975, p. 716). Early integration
into societal values and dominant institutions is a necessary precon—
dition for success and for nonalienating adaptation to social roles
that becomes functional in the work setting. Thus, social class
persists as an impetus to achievement.
The net effect of being reared in a family of higher socio-
economic status is to feel more control of one's circumstances.
Families of higher socioeconomic statuses have resources with
which to indulge themselves. This sense of mastery is conveyed
from father to son. Family background statuses (a social setting)
differentially affect the two variants of alienation. (Otto and
Featherman, 1975, p. 717)
In a study of job satisfaction, job enlargement and individual

differences, it was found that some communities foster malintegration

of workers, or youths, into middle class norms and work ethics which

29

has the effect of producing alienating predispositions for those
workers that becomes translated into low levels of job satisfaction
(Hulin and Blood, 1968). Therefore, those reared in higher socio-
economic families where exposure to middle class values and norms
is greater will have a better chance of achieving professional status
and, in comparison to those who have not had the same advantages, they
will probably be more successful at executing professional obligations.

When occupational groups of similar social status are studied,
few, if any differences emerge. In such a study of engineers, nurses
and students, Lodahl and Kejner found with regard to job involvement
"the scale items seem to be general over different populations, in that
roughly the same factorial structure appeared in groups of engineers and
nurses" (Lodahl and Kejner, 1965, p. 32). Also, in terms of level of
job involvement it was found that "the students have lower job involve-
ment than either the nurses or the engineers, who do not differ from
each other" (Lodahl and Kejner, 1965, p. 30). We may begin to conclude
from this study that job involvement varies significantly between
professional and nonprofessional groups, especially for those at the
extreme ends of the job scale; it does not vary, however, to the same
degree where material rewards, recognition for achievement and social
status are nearly equal for those occupying similar occupational posi-
tions. Thus, we would expect that academic professionals rate high on
job involvement measures.

In the Lodahl and Kejner study (1965), performance and social

interaction on the job seem to be linked to job involvement which

30

suggests that social contact on the job should be afforded more
attention. It was found that two out of thirteen variables were
correlated with the job involvement scale with the result that "the
number of people contacted per day on the job (.30) and the inter-
dependence of the job (necessity of working closely with others)

(.34) are both associated with high involvement, at the .01 level"
(Lodahl and Kejner, 1965, p. 31). Moreover, the findings of another
study concluded that interpersonal relations with one's supervisor is
significantly correlated (.05 level) with job involvement (Weissenberg
and Gruenfeld, 1968). In neither study, however, was social contact
with fellow employees or supervisors regarded as a necessary precon-
dition for job involvement. In other words, social contact was not
treated as an important theoretical issue. If, for instance, a symbolic
interaction model had been employed, then different conclusions would
have emerged because of the emphasis on the influences of Significant
others for levels of concern with achievement.

Other studies have also indicated both implicitly and expli-
citly the importance of social contacts related to work but without
drawing major theoretical conclusions from the evidence. In a study
by Korman, however, one general conclusion comes nearest to the theory
proposed by this research.

Social evaluations of one's competence for a task, even when
it is not based on previous task experience but rather on
subjective dimensions of a nonexperimentally based nature,
appear to become internalized by the individual in such a

manner as to affect his performance for the task.
(Korman, 1970, p. 39)

31

Although Korman doesn't contend that frequent evaluations are necessary
to maintain sufficient effort to perform, he does infer that competent
performance as judged by others is linked to high self esteem and that
those with high self esteem succeed more often in task performance
areas than those who have low self esteem.

Success has been regarded as an important variable in several
studies of job involvement (Lodahl and Kejner, 1965; Gurin, Veroff and
Feld, 1960; French and Kahn, 1962; Vroom, 1962; Lawler, 1969). Gen-
erally, findings have indicated that high levels of job involvement
are associated with high job performance. This is an important finding
for self investment theory because recognition for achievement is a
necessary precondition for maintaining levels of self investment or
concern for achievement at or near the aspiration levels of individuals
necessary for self esteem maintenance. Job involvement and self invest-
ment are similar concepts and yet different in some important respects,
which will be explained toward the end of this chapter.

One of the most widely recognized methods for predicting job
performance is the "expectancy model" (Lawler, 1968; Goodman et al.,
1970; Lawler and Porter, 1967; Hackman and Porter, 1968). Expectancy
theory states that an individual's tendency to perform a particular
task is directly related to the perceived importance of the rewards
associated with successful performance of the task. Thus, if the
perceived rewards are great, then the tendency to perform will also
be high. In studies based on expectancy theory, subjects were asked

to rank order job activities or outcomes according to their perceptions

32

of the related rewards. The results of these tests are that there
is a significant association between perceptions of rewards and
actual achievement in related areas of task performance. The
self investment model also accounts for perceived importance of
job outcomes, but, in addition, measures the frequency of contact
with fellow workers or colleagues as a determinant of concern and
commitment to work.

The status assignment system peculiar to the academic
community provides norms or guides for behavior often resulting
in performance outcomes uncharacteristic of other professional
communities. Professional groups found in business, industry,
government and the academic community alike all share similar
backgrounds and ethics of professionalism, but academicians remain
relatively unfettered by organizational goals and demands of loyalty
characteristic of other professional communities. Even though the
bulk of academic funding for research and development in the social
sciences is derived from federal sources, the major goal of research
has been the advancement of knowledge and not government's need to
make investments in the expectation of a profitable return as many
critics have suggested (Useem, 1976). From this evidence, it is
understandable that conditions in the academic world are more conducive
to freedom to do research that is of vital interest for those within
the discipline and for the discipline itself. These factors promoting
open research, traditional expectations of scholarship, the security

of tenure, and related criteria for promotions and salary increases

33

all produce stimulating environments for creative activities and
achievement not available to other professional communities. The
main contention of this research however is that, while the ethics
of professionalism and the general research climate of universities
is important, the primary stimulation for productivity occurs among
colleagues within the social environment of academic departments.
Probably for these reasons, aside from upward and downward mobility
within the academic community as a whole, the vast majority of academic
professionals remain dedicated and committed members of their academic
departments.

Moreover, academicians'commitment to the academic community
is not surprising in light of the identification process associated
with one's profession prior to employment. It has been suggested that
graduate school engenders pride in accomplishment, ideologies supporting
research beliefs and activities, and internalization of motivations
necessary to sustain efforts toward completion of academic assignments
and that sponsorship speeds the whole process along by directing one
to specialized fields and even future prospects and positions within
the academic community (Becker and Carper, 1956). These factors no
doubt contribute to job satisfaction of professionals. It is
hypothesized here that social support received in academic
departments greatly improves job satisfaction.

Some research findings suggest that job satisfaction may
be more closely linked with job design factors of organizations and

that job involvement may be mostly a function of individual differences

34

that persons take with them from job to job (Hulin and Blood, 1968;
Lawler and Hall, 1970). As we move up the socioeconomic ladder,
opportunities for controlling one's work environment improve, power
over decision—making increases, and greater prestige and material
rewards accrue. Job satisfaction like job involvement can therefore
be conceived as more likely in higher occupational statuses (Vroom,
1962, p. 176; Mannheim, 1975). Job involvement, as a separate measure,
has been positively linked with higher educational and urban back-
grounds, both of which lead to greater participation in decision-
making processes (Siegel and Ruh, 1973). Taking the above factors

into account, it is reasonable to assume that there is relatively

high job satisfaction among faculty members especially because academic
settings provide for greater autonomy, participation in departmental
decision-making and greater status rewards for achievement.

Job satisfaction is not a major thrust of this research nor
has it been incorporated into the study as a variable. It has been
mentioned, however, because by establishing associations among back-
ground factors (integration into middle class norms and ethics of
work), interoccupational positions, job involvement, recognition for
achievement and job satisfaction, it is easier to understand why
academic commitments and achievement can be relatively high in the
absence of other rewards such as high income and those fringe benefits
common to other professional groups. Moreover, the powerful influences
of intrapositional status distinctions among academicians plays an
important role in the determination of professional commitments and

the maintenance of high expenditures of effort.

35

Expanding on the concept of collegial evaluations, faculty
members establish collective criteria for regulating and evaluating
one another, are relatively autonomous in selection of research assign-
ments; and as a collectivity, they are responsible for fulfilling the
educational goals of the institution. Under these circumstances, self
regulation is an essential ingredient likely to culminate in job satis-
faction. Colleagues bestow recognition on one another and, in many
instances, they have a strong impact on administrative decisions
concerning tenure, salary increases, and promotions. Under these
circumstances, job satisfaction, while partly dependent on inter-
positional status distinctions, is largely a consequence of collegial
recognitions for achievement.

The relationship between job involvement and job satisfaction
can be viewed differently depending on the job satisfaction items
under consideration. Weissenberg and Gruenfeld tested a "two-factor
theory of job satisfaction" formulated by Herzberg (1959). The first
set of factors are motivators and they are "recognition, achievement,
advancement, responsibility, and the work itself." The second set
of factors are hygiene conditions and they are:

interpersonal relations with peers and with superiors, company
policy and administration, superiors' technical competence,
working conditions, and job security. Hygiene conditions have
also been referred to as extrinsic or work-context conditions
because they are all derived from the environment surrounding
the job. (Weissenberg and Gruenfeld, 1968, p. 470)

The results of the above study indicated that the motivator

items correlated with job involvement at the .05 level of significance

in contradistinction to the finding that the hygiene items did not

36

correlate with job involvement. Furthermore, the motivator items

or variables accounted for more of the variance in job satisfaction
than did the hygiene items. The motivator items significantly linked
with job involvement were recognition, achievement, and responsibility.
These findings are important because recognition and achievement, in
particular, are crucial concepts for the theory of self investment.
Recognition for achievement is a necessary precondition for enhancing
self esteem required to produce high levels of effort and for main-
tenance of self investment in the related areacflfactivity. When little
recognition for achievement produces low involvement, then in the
absence of motivational factors, job satisfaction may be higher

than expected when the hygiene conditions are favorable.

As an interesting note related to our study, for the above
study the only hygiene variable that correlated with job involvement
was "interpersonal relations with the superior." The importance of
this one significant relationship was overlooked in the final analysis,
which is observed from a concluding comment. "This finding lends
further support to our hypothesis since it indicates that, in general,
satisfaction with hygiene variables seems to be unrelated to job
involvement" (Weissenberg and Gruenfeld, 1968, p. 471). Actually,
from the point of view of symbolic interaction, the interaction with
the superior variable should have been combined with the motivational
factor variables because interaction with one's superior is a form of
recognition on many jobs where employees are not likely to interact

with their superior under circumstances of poor performance records

37

and where these records are important sources of evaluation among
fellow employees. Moreover, superiors may be deemed as significant
others due to the importance of their evaluations regarding task
performance, assuming, of course, a reasonable degree of concern

for achievement. Self investment theory recognizes this association
with job involvement as an essential link between recognition and
achievement enhancing self esteem.

Most empirical studies concerning the academic world have been
primarily restricted to the physical and biological sciences which in
part reflect the impact of funding by industry and government. Also,
most of the data from these studies have been drawn from large national
samples and they have been intradisciplinary in approach. There have
only been a few interdisciplinary empirical studies (Allison and
Stewart, 1974; Fulton and Trow, 1974; Blau, 1973; Dornbusch and Scott,
1975). Empirical studies of social scientists are very sparse, and
meaningful comparisons between the "hard" and "soft" sciences have
not been attempted except in an almost speculative fashion. Some
of the basic approaches for studies about academia are those that
have focused on personality traits of scientists while taking into
account organizational influences (Pelz and Andrews, 1966; Taylor
and Barron, 1963), the importance of the prestige level of graduate
school (Crane, 1965), the consequences of associations with eminent
scholars (Zuckerman, 1967; Griffith et al., 1973), relationships
between types of organizations and productivity (Fulton and Trow,

1974; Blau, 1973), external scientific networks or "invisible colleges"

38

(Crane, 1972; Gaston, 1973; Griffith and Mullins, 1973; Price, 1961;
Lemhardt, 1977), visibility and diffusion of knowledge (Cole and Cole,
1973), exchanging information for recognition (Hagstrom, 1965; Mulkay,
1972; Jevons, 1973; Reskin, 1977) and the process of accumulative
advantage or the "Matthew effect" (Merton, 1968; Allison and Stewart,
1974; Cole and Cole, 1973). This study is partly intended to provide
the "missing link" to the recognition for achievement thesis to explain
variations in research productivity. By connecting internal and
external research networks together, it is hoped that a total picture
of the variations in achievement determinants will begin to emerge.

In particular, the frequency and intensity of interaction contacts
between colleagues is expected to be a strong indicator of academic
interests and achievement. Other topics to be explored in this study
and related to the above approaches are: organizational climate,
prestige level of graduate schools, orientations of academic admin-
istration, prestige level of academic departments and university,

research and teaching networks and recognition for achievement.

Cosmopolitan-Local Construct

 

In order to differentiate between those who have strong
commitments to either research or teaching, or strong commitments
to both, the cosmopolitan-local construct has been incorporated into
the research design of this study. Our definition, however, differs
slightly from the definition proposed by Gouldner in that research
output and participation in national professional associations are

all factors composing cosmopolitanism, which is strongly associated

39

with referent contacts both internal and external to the university.
Because of the way in which these concepts are utilized in our study,
direct parallels cannot be drawn between our study and those which
have replicated the cosmopolitan-local construct as conceived by
Gouldner (1957, 1958). We are also testing the conclusion by Glaser
(1963) that loyalty to both the local organization and the universal
ethics of science or professionalism are not incompatible. For our
analysis, the most important concept is reference groups that are
bounded by the status assignment system and which in combination with
each other are the essential sources of recognition for achievement
necessary for self esteem maintenance.

Despite differences in emphasis, an analysis of Gouldner's
treatment of reference groups is an important matter as it directs
attention to the possible consequences of referent contacts in rela-
tionship to the research climate of the institution. Gouldner's
theoretical concern was with the relationships of latent role functions
of cosmopolitanism and localism with the manifest role functions of
professionals that are found in academic communities. The main thrust
of this analysis was to measure attitudes concerning involvement and
loyalty to the local institution. Questionnaire items were directed
at the local institution (Co-op College) to ascertain degrees of
acceptance of and loyalty to educational policies and issues of
concern related to students, colleagues, departments, administrative
rules and the administration. As expected, the faculty are distributed
on a continuum of cosmopolitanism and localism, depending upon their

overall degree of loyalty to the local institution.

40

Gouldner's initial assumption concerning reference groups is
that for cosmopolitans they are probably external to the university
or college: "Those low on loyalty to the employing organization,
high on commitment to specialized role skills, and likely to use
an outer reference group orientation" (Gouldner, 1957, p. 290).
However, further refinement through factor analysis of the data
of the cosmopolitan-local construct resulted in six types, one of

which is "Empire Builders, that in addition to having cosmopolitan
orientations, "are committed to their specific academic departments,
particularly in the physical sciences and the creative arts (which

are especially strong and cohesive on this college campus). This
departmental commitment is suggested . . . by their expressed feelings
that there was too much thoughtless criticism of departments and

their members" (Gouldner, 1958, p. 450). This classification of
cosmopolitans is close to the one proposed by Glaser of dual loyalty
(1963). Although Gouldner does not expand on this finding, one may
make the inference that strong commitments to one's department and

to the discipline as a whole may not be incompatible, especially

when conditions for both are prOVided.

This is not inconsistent with Glaser's contention that
basically the distinction between local and cosmopolitan scientists
"derives from conflict between the two goals" (Glaser, 1963, p. 250).
Conflicts between these two goals are resolvable depending on the free-

dom and resources available to pursue research activities as well as

fulfilling the educational goals of the institution. Although

41

Glaser's thesis was tested in an industrial setting, we should be at
liberty to apply it to academic communities as well. In this context,
it is possible that those who are extreme cosmopolitans may also have
strong ties within the local institution or department, assuming that
they are of the "Empire Builder" variety.

Although, as will be discussed shortly, the best conditions for
both research and teaching activities to flourish are probably found in
large public institutions with a large body of both undergraduate and
graduate students, there are a few smaller universities where these
conditions also exist. Dean E. McHenry reports that at the University
of Santa Cruz, which is a smaller university, a plan to emphasize
excellence in undergraduate teaching but not at the expense of research
has been successfully instituted (McHenry, 1977, pp. 86-116). This
university has been able to recruit highly qualified researchers and
scholars, who, while devoting considerable time to undergraduate teach-
ing, have also performed exceptionally well as researchers. The pub-
lishing awards and recognition afforded this faculty have placed them
in the top percentage bracket of the country. One of the most attrac—
tive features of this campus for faculty is the opportunity to become
closely involved with undergraduates. Moreover, the undergraduate
population of this campus has earned more than their share of national
academic awards and acceptance to prestigious graduate schools has been
high. The main point of this discussion is that evidence suggests that
it is possible for faculty members to be simultaneously committed to
research and teaching while being accomplished in both areas of

activity.

42

In part, Gouldner depended on sociometric analysis to support
his contention that cosmopolitans in general have fewer associations
within their local institutions. He did not, however, concentrate on
his subjects' academic departments, but instead relied on a list of
names consisting of 26 faculty members randomly selected from a survey
population of 125. Subjects were requested to indicate their level of
contact with these faculty members based on social popularity, which
in the final analysis may be merely an indication of the weak research
climate of the university itself. Because Gouldner's Co-op College,
according to the description given, had a weak research climate, we
may conjecture that his sociometric analysis revealed the strong local
orientation of this campus without any indication of the climate of any
individual academic department. Evidence for the types of faculty on
this campus is found in Gouldner's data (1957, p. 295). Gouldner
established four categories on a continuum from cosmopolitanism to
localism in orientation for the 125 faculty members. He found that
only 29 faculty members were "extreme cosmopolitans," while 43 were
"extreme locals" and that those in the two categories on the cosmo-
politan side of the continuum consisted of only 52 of the 125 faculty.
Therefore, we cannot be certain of Gouldner's assertion that the low
profile of cosmopolitans on this campus is evidence for the tendencies
of cosmopolitans to have referent associations outside of their
institutions. Given a strong research climate, it is possible that
a social popularity sociometric analysis would reflect this research

climate, thereby showing cosmopolitans to be more popular than locals,

43

even though, as Gouldner suggested, their orientations may be
cosmopolitan in nature. Had Gouldner obtained sociometric data

in both research and teaching networks, which is the case in our
study, then he would have undoubtably found that cosmopolitans would
be highly active in these networks while locals would be inactive in
them.

In our sociometric analysis, as an example, we found that those
who selected one another for nonwork-related reasons, which is similar
in intent to Gouldner's social popularity concept, were, in the majority
of cases, the same subjects who selected one another for exchanging
research ideas and papers in the research sociometric network. For
our population, social popularity choices reflect the strong research
Climate of the university. Also, follow-up studies of the cosmopolitan-
local construct (Berger and Grimes, 1970, 1973; Goldberg et al., 1965;
Glaser, 1963; Flango and Brumbaugh, 1974) do not include sociometric
analysis but instead rely heavily on attitudinal data with a few ques-
tions asking for the number of department and nondepartment faculty the
respondent was best acquainted with, which again, is a measure of popu-
larity and not of associations based on either teaching or research
interests. Cosmopolitan orientations have been assumed to be an indi-
cation of outside reference group association. A careful search of the
literature on the cosmopolitan—local construct uncovered no serious con-
cern for organizational climate. While attention was paid to the type
of institution or industry selected for analysis, in no case were either

teaching or research organizational climates incorporated into the

44

research design of any study as an intervening or control variable.
However, these observations are not true for studies that have focused
on academic productivity, primarily because research output is greater
in highly prestigious universities.

The basic argument that has been presented here is that
Gouldner's six academic types are probably excellent concepts for
understanding academic orientations but not necessarily good indicators
of the location of reference groups. An improvement on Gouldner's
sociometric method of analysis, such as the one employed in our study,
will lead to a more precise measure of the type and frequency of col-
legial associations, especially where the mode of analysis includes
all tenure track faculty within the department. In this way, a better
picture of the research and teaching networks may be obtained. Also,
by adding a sociometric analysis of social popularity and contrasting
this network with the other two networks, a better indication of the
true nature of the research or teaching climate of the institution

may be determined.

Organizational Climate

 

In general, all of the various combinations of cosmopolitanism
and localism to be found in academic departments are contingent upon
the size of the educational institution, ratio of graduate students
to undergraduate students, availability of research facilities,
academic orientations of the faculty, research output of the faculty,
evaluative criteria used for promotions, tenure, salary increases and

special privileges (Fulton and Trow, 1974; Blau, 1973). The actual

45

interaction among these factors may be conceptualized as a reciprocally
reinforcing process between personality and social structure as deter-
mined by the institutional environment, whereby one set of conditions
(e.g., peer pressures for research output) is accompanied by another
(e.g., availability of time and research facilities) and also certain
patterns of interaction emerge from policy changes and external soci-
etal pressures such as social movements, government priorities, foreign
investments, and economic demands and fluctuations. Those universities
that qualify as the strongest research oriented are found among the
most prestigious in the nation.

An interesting finding to support the above observation is that,
in the large public institutions studied that have a high ratio of grad-
uate students, high percentage of faculty members with Ph.D. degrees,
and a variety of graduate programs, the overall productivity of the fac-
ulty as a rule is relatively high (Fulton and Trow, 1974; Blau, 1973).
These social factors combined produce a social environment highly con-
ducive to strong research orientations for most faculty members, and
evaluations of professional performance based mainly on research pro-
ductivity. Thus, while personal characteristics are important, social
influence on one's immediate environment may have a significant bearing
on the type of professional activities selected. This evidence also
advances the argument that organizational climate should not be ignored
or reduced in significance when studying academic institutions.

While the university administration establishes a general set
of guidelines for hiring, tenure, promotions, and salary increases,

academic departments have relatively more autonomy than do organizations

46

where performance is based on nonprofessional standards. Bureaucracy
is an important control mechanism by which the norms of job performance
are structured and attitudes toward work are influenced. Weber's "ideal
type" of bureaucracy emphasizes the formal aspects of organizations
where rational planning, strict divisions of labor, and an authoritative
control over work are most often found. Under these circumstances,
skilled and unskilled workers compose the majority of the work force
with professionals occupying most of the management positions. Weber's
"ideal type" however is not found in most organizations where the major-
ity of workers are professionals (Stinchcombe, 1959; Blau, 1974). As a
substitute for the bureaucracy proposed by Weber, highly valued profes-
sional skills and achieved statuses found among the faculty of academic
departments constitute the normative system whereby faculty members
rely on one another for helpful assistance and allocation of rewards
for achievement. An indication of how the social systems of academic
institutions may operate to influence professional activities is
explained by Blau.

Whether a faculty member's research interests are stimulated

or stifled in an academic institution depends on his colleagues,

on how many of them have completed graduate education, which has

socialized as well as trained them for research, and which makes

it probable that they are actually engaged in research.

(Blau, 1973, p. 269)

Again, organizational climate exerts pressures to "publish or

perish" on faculty that have an important bearing on the evaluative

criteria found in academic departments. Thus, the academic climate

may be regarded as almost "independent of the individual's own training

47

and of institutional conditions" and exerts "an influence nearly as
strong as his or her training" (Blau, 1973, p. 268).

Understanding the social exchange processes found in pre-
dominately research—oriented departments leads to a clearer formulation
of a theory explaining productivity which is a major concern for this
research. Positive evaluations of research performance exchanged during
social encounters are the essential ingredients for enhancement of self
esteem necessary to maintain efforts to further research achievement.
Blau discusses the exchange processes found in research oriented
departments as follows:

Colleagues with research skills facilitate one's own research by
tending to give advice when needed, since being asked for advice
is a welcome sign of respect for their superior skills, and they
make working on research more gratifying by furnishing attentive
listeners in hearing about promising leads and suggestive results.
These processes of social exchange are a continual source of
rewards for scholarly endeavors, and create group pressures

to engage in scholarly research by depriving those failing

to do so of social rewards. (Blau, 1974, p. 269)

In effect, we have concentrated on the internal processes of
departmental activities and research productivity. While these con-
siderations directly concern the empirical data collected in this study,
some of the variations in interaction processes can be attributed to
the organizational climate external to the departments studied. Some
of the important factors influencing the internal dynamics of academic
departments are: general administrative policies, college deans,
student enrollments, job market demands and community pressures.

Even at the national level, large granting agencies may have a

powerful impact on research interests and activities insofar as

48

faculty members may become busily engaged in applying for research
grants to advance their own areas of interest and thus place themselves
in positions of advantage for promotions and salary increases as well
as recognition for achievement. Despite these external pressures on
academic departments, considerable autonomy remains, especially at the
university level. The fact that an academic department that was desig—
nated as a teaching unit in the university we studied could become
research-oriented is an indication of the possibilities for freedom
available to academic departments, even though this anomaly may be
partly the product of the strong research climate of the university.

It is relatively clear at this point, however, that administrative
bureaucracy does not always control or have unrestricted jurisdiction
over academic departments. Again, this may be partly attributed to the
role of professionalism within academic departments. In this context,
tenure is a buffer between capricious administrators and faculty members
which allows freedom that might otherwise be impossible. Without the
protection of tenure, it is doubtful that some faculty members would

be permitted to exercise as much independence as they do.

A factor contributing to greater academic freedom of the
faculty of large prestigious institutions is that more elite insti—
tutions allow their academic departments greater academic freedom.

In a study conducted by Baldridge et a1. (1978), the degree of control
of professional behavior was compared among different types of colleges
and universities. Measures of bureaucratic control centered on "faculty

contracts, professional travel, and control of the curriculum" (p. 114).

49

In particular, they found large differences between degree of
bureaucratic control between elite and nonelite institutions. "In
the public sector there were more rules and regulations in community
colleges, less in prestigious institutions; in the private sector
there are more in private junior colleges, less in the elite univer—
sities" (p. 114). Because of the elite nature of our institution
studied, we must consider this factor as an important variable in
our explanation of why our academic departments may be conceived

as relatively autonomous except for obvious limitations such as
curriculum responsibilities, budgetary restrictions, and general
administrative criteria for evaluation of faculty that must be
maintained. Therefore, these conditions allowing for more autonomy
for academic departments as well as the prevalence of professionals
in these departments is bound to encourage peer evaluation of academic
performance as a valuable source of self esteem maintenance for the
majority of faculty.

In essence, these factors that contribute to academic freedom
also place more importance on peer evaluations of academic performance.
The prestige ranking of the institution, the tradition of academic
freedom, the role of professionalism, and the policy of tenure are
all conditions contributing to the relative importance of peer eval-
uation for self esteem maintenance. Furthermore, these factors assist
us in understanding why intrapositional status distinctions appear to
be the most important sources for sustaining efforts to achieve in the

face of public apathy or lack of interest in academic achievement,

50

unless, of course, products of research found mostly in the biological
and physical sciences have a direct bearing on their lives. In most
cases, recognition of achievement is highly valued when the sources

of recognition are perceived as having high status.

The Symbolic Interaction Perspective

 

This research has been circumscribed by the symbolic interaction
perspective with particular emphasis upon the impact of significant
others on identity formation and self esteem. Relatively few attempts
have been made to lend empirical support to the symbolic interaction
approach to explain social action (Manis and Meltzer, 1972). This study
is expected to contribute empirical evidence of the kind necessary to
bring credibility to the interactionist perspective. Also, as already
mentioned, the theory of self investment is a unique social psycholog-
ical theory designed to redirect research questions into more fruitful
areas of inquiry leading to a clearer understanding of social action
from a basic framework that is closer to symbolic interaction than
any other perspective.

Unlike psychological explanations of social behavior that tend
to stress the "normal" unfolding of innate traits through proper
nurturement, the symbolic interaction perspective stresses the con-
sequences of a variety of different social influences that are judged
as either common or unique depending on social outcomes and the inter-
pretations of others. In general, the behavioristic approach and the
symbolic interactionist's approach are alike in stressing the influ-

ences of others on social learning, but they differ in the crucial

51

area of "self concept." According to the interactionist perspective,
man is not simply determined by others' influences but he possesses
the capacity for reflexive thinking uncharacteristic of other species.

Symbolic interactionists, in the tradition of William James
(1890), Charles Cooley (1902), George Herbert Mead (1934) and Harry
Stack Sullivan (1947), discuss the self as a detached observer of the
mind whereby emotions that accompany thinking and social action may
become partly suspended to afford the opportunity for evaluation of
ideas and conduct in a more object way. Ideal social models are called
upon as appropriate guides and measures for these monitoring functions
and the successful outcome of thought processes depends on the accuracy
of the social models used. While others' evaluations of us is an
important factor influencing our conduct, it is the self—evaluation
process that is the crucial element producing self esteem or our
feeling of self-worth.

In brief, the symbolic interaction concepts that are most
applicable to this study are: (1) social interaction, (2) mediating
symbols, (3) objective self awareness, and (4) significant others.

For explanatory purposes, these concepts may be formed into a series

of relationships. Admonishments by words alone by significant others
leads to self-evaluations to assess the truthfulness of these asser-
tions and subsequently to affect the formulation of strategies designed
to resolve any ensuing conflict. In the case of praise, self-evaluation
will lead to enhancement of self esteem that encourages additional

efforts to maintain a good image. These concepts and relationships

52

form the basic theoretical framework for our discussion of the theory

of self investment.

The Self Investment Theory

 

This section is intended only to address those issues and
topics of self investment that have a direct bearing on the research
questions. For a more detailed and scholarly elaboration of the theory
of self investment, reference is made to Faunce's monograph (n.d.).
The major issues to be discussed here are: selective self investment,
objective self awareness, subidentities, inclusiveness of self identi-
ties, social status, self esteem, inter- and intrapositional status
distinctions, recognition for achievement, significant others, fre-
quency of contact with significant others, and withdrawal of self
investment. Although many of the self investment propositions to
be discussed may be found in the psychological literature, the main
perspective for this discussion is symbolic interaction.

While we may think of ourselves as a whole self reacting
differently depending upon our goals and the structure of the social
situation at hand, we may, for analytical purposes, discuss the self
according to the most commonly recognized differences that emerge from
those situations. For the most part, professional activities entail
a set of social roles to which self identities are attached and which
become competing elements of self insofar as their importance for self
esteem maintenance is concerned. Those professional roles (i.e.,
researcher, teacher, administrator) that are functionally important

for self esteem maintenance are, in most cases, those roles that derive

53

the most recognition from colleagues or others who are regarded as
competent judges of performance. Thus, success or failure in executing
one's professional obligations results in some professional roles
becoming important for self esteem maintenance while other roles
become too risky. As one's professional career unfolds, the accumu—
lation of successes and failures deriving from involvement in profes-
sional activities will tend to structure the self into a hierarchy of
subidentities with varying degrees of self investment. The greater the
recognition for achievement in research, as an example, the more the
self investment in that activity will increase as a consequence of
self esteem enhancement. Because of recognition for achievement in
several areas of activity, there may be several areas of professional
commitment dominating the top of the hierarchy of subidentities and
self esteem will therefore be relatively high for the professional
identity as a whole. Assuming success in only one area of professional
activity, it is possible that a "core" identity will emerge with other
professional identities descending in importance. Because of competing
demands characteristic of professional obligations, the limits of time
and energy will require that, for most professionals, resources be
directed to areas where the pay-off is most likely. Thus, successes
in subidentity areas of professional activities facilitate selective
self investment in those areas and subsequent feelings of self worth
as a professional.

In addition to professionally related recognition for success,

public recognition of professional status also contributes to the self

54

investment process. As a general rule, the more highly valued the
status, the more likely that others will display deference with respect
to it. In most social situations outside of the academic community, the
majority of those individuals encountered by professors will be lower
on the occupational status hierarchy. The importance of these status
distinctions follows from evidence suggesting that occupational status,
especially in industrialized communities, is the most important social
indicator of status in the community. Professional status tends to be
a dominant self identity due to its high visibility in most social
situations outside of work resulting in deference being displayed
to it by the majority of those encountered. These interstatus dis-
tinctions may in part be responsible for initiating high self investment
in work and selection of professional areas of commitment. Inordinate
expenditures of time and energy required to complete graduate training
is evidence for this assertion. Thereafter, high self investment in
professional careers, especially within academic communities, appears
to be mainly the result of recognition for achievement from specific
referent others, as well as from general others. Under circumstances
of lack of recognition for achievement within academia, interpositional
status distinctions may become an exclusive source for confirmation of
status claims.

While professional identities tend to be highly visible
in social encounters, they also tend to be inclusive of other self
identities. The more often objective self awareness is produced

through social encounters that draw attention to professional

55

characteristics of the actor, the more elaborate will become one's
self defining traits with respect to that identity. This is partic-
ularly true under circumstances of intraposition distinctions where
other professionals will invoke evaluations of professional conduct or
initial discussions that center upon professionally oriented activities.
In effect, those professional self identities called on most often to
form frameworks for objective self awareness in relationship to typical
social encounters become more inclusive self identities. "These two
dimensions of the inclusiveness of a self identity-~the number of
self defining traits included and the range of social relationships
to which the identity is relevant--should be highly intercorrelated"
(Faunce, n.d., p. 37). The combination of these two variables should
be associated with high self investment in one's professional identity.
This assumption takes into account recognition for achievement in
those activities that are most often the focus of attention in social
encounters. Professional self identity will diminish in importance
under circumstances of failure to gain recognition for achievement.
Most often, differences in levels of self investment found
among professionals are a consequence of deference displayed in social
encounters with those who apply interpositional status distinctions

in combination with recognition for achievement from those who apply

 

intrapositional status distinctions. Frequent evaluations from those
both within and outside of the academic community, assuming academic

achievement, will strengthen these associations. Within the academic
community, some important sources of recognition are: salary, promo-

tions, tenure status, professional titles, election to important

56

advisory councils, election to offices of professional associations,
receiving research grants, having articles and books accepted for
publication, and receiving good reviews of publications. These forms
of acknowledgment of performance confirm status claims and can be
conceived as payment for the worth of the performance according to
the judgments of significant others, i.e., as forms of social exchange
for services deemed to have high value for the discipline. This con-
ceptualization of relationships is within the tradition of Romans and
others who emphasize the importance of social approval for rewarding
and sustaining productivity.

If social exchanges involve some calculation of gains, costs,

and profits, then self esteem may be seen as one medium of

exchange in terms of which profit or loss is defined. In

social encounters in which self esteem is invested--conse-

quently risked--the anticipated return from the "commodity"

exchanged is an enhancement or reaffirmation of social status

which, in turn, produces either an increment in self esteem

or confirmation of an already positive self identity.

(Faunce, n.d., pp. 2-3)

Considering the importance of social exchange for determining
levels of self investment allows us to propose that social recognition
is the essential ingredient for self esteem enhancement required to
maintain efforts to achieve. In the absence of recognition for
achievement from referent others, faculty members will most likely
withdraw self investment from professional areas of concern and,
possibly, increase self investment in, for example, community or
fraternal organizations where confirmation of status claims is less

problematic. It is assumed, however, that, for most academicians,

there will be high self investment in at least one area of professional

57

activity. Although an unlikely possibility for most professionals,
failure to gain recognition in any area of achievement may result in
little or no discomfort because of little self investment in profes—
sional areas of concern. However, the most likely outcome for lack
of recognition in one area of professional activity is to withdraw
self investment from that area of concern and to increase self
investment in another area of concern where recognition for effort
is more likely.

Again, the self investment process may be viewed as selective
in the sense that some self identities become of paramount concern for
feelings of self worth. Recognition for achievement is considered to
be the most important factor contributing to this process.

Self investment is conceived of here as a process through which
the degree of effect of social encounters upon self esteem
becomes differentially distributed among social roles. It
seems clear that success or failure in performance of some
social roles has much greater impact upon self esteem than
success or failure in others. Self investment is seen as a
selective process in which the extent of investment of self

in any role is dependent upon the amount of return on such
investments in the past and the anticipated amount of return

in the future. (Faunce, n.d., p. 2)

In terms of subidentities, those professional activities
selected over others will be the ones that receive the most recognition
for achievement by referent others on the most frequent basis. There-
fore, we may conceive of subidentities, at least in the ideal sense,
as forming a pyramid where the subidentity at the top receives the
greatest amount of social recognition and the subidentity at the

bottom the least. The sum of these subidentities constitutes feelings

of self worth as a professional. A strategy intended to buffer the ill

58

effects of negative evaluations concerning professional self identity
is to withdraw self investment from that area of concern and also to
reduce frequency of interaction with referent others, thereby dimin—
ishining in importance to the self that subidentity. In this way,
mechanisms operate to assure that the loss of self esteem in one
aspect of professional role commitments will not have a decided
impact on one's total self image.

Imagined presence of significant others is a form of self
evaluation in that the criteria by which we imagine that they evaluate
us become part of our self—evaluative framework. The actual presence
of significant others, however, provides evaluations of self that are
relatively free from those distortions that might occur where the
evaluation is imaginary instead of real. The greater the frequency
of actual encounters with significant others, the more unambiguous
and experientially based become evaluations and the stronger will be
the impact on feelings of self worth. Frequent reminders of failure
will surely result in loss of self esteem and, eventually, withdrawal
of self investment in that area of activity. In essence, self per—
ceptions of self worth are to a great extent a measure of how others,
especially significant others, judge us with regard to specific
presentations of self or with regard to task performances. The
image that we hold of ourselves can therefore be conceived as the
totality of both external and internal sources of evaluation, both
of which constitute a continuum rather than a dichotomy of social

perceptions and evaluations of achievement. The greater our

59

achievements, both past and present, the higher will be our feelings
of self worth or self esteem as a consequence of these evaluative
processes.

Experimental evidence supports this assertion that external
sources of evaluation are often more important for feelings of self
worth. In experiments conducted by Wicklund and Duval (1971), it was
found that performance of assigned tasks was greater under conditions
where images of the self were reflected on mirrors or reproduced
through television cameras. It was found that while viewing oneself
through an external medium, there is a greater inclination to become
aware of one's performance level in the task area. Experimental
evidence clearly indicated that efficiency rates in the task per-
formance areas improved as a consequence of external presence of
images of self. In a later study by Ickes, Wicklund and Ferris (1973),
it was found that there is a relationship between objective self
awareness and self esteem. Experimental subjects who listened to
their own voices on a tape recorder tended to focus attention on
themselves to a greater extent than for those who did not listen to
their own voices but who listened to another person's voice. Depending
upon the source of feedback, results clearly showed that estimates of
self worth either increased or declined more often for the subjects
in the presence of conditions producing objective self awareness than
for subjects in conditions where these conditions were absent.

A probable explanation for the outcomes of those experiments

where either images of the self or voices of subjects produced

60

objective self awareness is that observing oneself or listening to
oneself through another medium produces a surrogate alter ego within
the self. This surrogate alter ego then evokes an evaluative framework
consisting of the total extent of accumulated social knowledge and
experiences including significant others'evaluations concerning the
task performance area in question. In the absence of external sources
of evaluation, subjects may elect to ignore the relative merits of
success in the task performance area which, in effect, shields them
from feelings of low self worth in the event of any critical
evaluations.

For faculty members, objective self awareness is a daily
occurrence among departmental colleagues and the relative impact on
feelings of self worth is partly dependent upon the status ranking of
the colleague encountered. This proposition is partly derived from a
series of empirical studies, one of which is by Webster and Sobieszek
(1974). One proposition that they tested with their findings empha-
sizes the importance of ability for assessing the legitimacy of
evaluations. "If the evaluator is perceived as having high task
ability, or if he is known to have access to objective standards,
his opinions are likely to be significant, if he is thought to have
low ability, he is likely to be ignored" (p. 161). In the academic
community, achievement is usually given priority over ability as a
basic criterion of status within academic departments. Achievement
demonstrates the presence of ability and also one's degree of commitment

to and concern for professional standards and goals. Without any

61

visible evidence of one's ability, status ambiguity is likely to
be experienced and eventually the role incumbent will descend the
status hierarchy as failure to achieve will be viewed as a sign of
incompetence. During the early stages of academic careers, collegial
perception (If ability is an important criterion for evaluation of
performance since other sources of evaluation have not yet emerged.

Knowledge of social statuses is acquired through early social-
ization and becomes the basis of values attached to objects and people
and when carried into adulthood it becomes the basis for social action
in the form of striving for status attainment. Throughout this process
of development, significant others play an important role as social
agents who transmit knowledge of culture and without whose influence
it is difficult to conceive of a social structure or a society. Some
significant others assume more meaning and importance in our lives than
others in that we model our behavior after them or strive to attain the
same goals that they hold. This category of significant other may be
termed "referent other" in that they are members of reference groups.
For the purpose of our study, subjects' colleagues and others within
their discipline but outside of the institution constitute the primary
reference group. While other reference groups undoubtedly have a
bearing on the lives of our subjects, the focus of this study is upon
disciplinary reference groups and henceforth, for the sake of brevity,
these reference group members will be called "referent others."

If we had selected work groups at the bottom of the occupa-

tional hierarchy, then the term "referent other" would in most cases

62

be inappropriate when making references to fellow workers. It is
unlikely for most unskilled workers, as an example, especially for
those in their early career stages, that reference groups would be
found exclusively at work. Job involvement studies suggest that those
who occupy low status jobs generally have lower levels of involvement
in their jobs which roughly translates into low self investment in
work. According to self investment theory, where there is high self
investment there will also be significant others who provide the neces-
sary recognition for achievement that enhances self esteem which has
the effect of sustaining self investment. Several factors have already
been mentioned that explain why faculty members rely heavily on their
colleagues for confirmation of status claims. Again, these factors
include strong career commitments, importance of recognition from
colleagues and relative autonomy of academic departments that leads
to reliance on these status assignment systems to regulate and conduct
academic affairs. Also, the above-mentioned factors give credibility
to the position that academic departments should be regarded as
important social systems influencing the self investment process.
Sufficient evidence has been presented to allow us to begin
studying academic social systems as functional units which, while not
immune to organizational influences of parent institutions, are semi—
sustaining and semigoverning social worlds. From this perspective,
universities, especially elite universities, may be regarded as a
conglomeration of academic worlds whose clients are students but whose
primary source of recognition are those status assignment systems found

within academic departments and related disciplinary social networks.

63

All of the above-mentioned conditions are expected to establish
an environment highly conducive to objective self awareness for those
faculty members who have high self investment in their professions.

The nature of our subjects' evaluative frameworks depends in large

part upon the status criteria of the majority of colleagues. Where
these status criteria include research and scholarly publications,

then those disciplinary social networks outside of the university

may be regarded as extensions of departmental research networks insofar
as essential sources of recognition for achievement may be concerned.
Several studies support the contention that recognition for achievement
according to disciplinary standards and measures of performance persist
as the most essential sources of recognition (Mulkay, 1972; Hagstrom,
1965; Reskin, 1977; Jevons, 1973). Frequent self examination or
objective self awareness is a common outgrowth of the many years of
graduate training, academic pressures to publish and frequency of
evaluation from referent others. Under conditions of lack of recog-
nition for achievement, objective self awareness relating to academic
activities is expected to diminish.

Several types of definitions of self esteem can be found in
the literature, each of which depends on the general perspective of
the discipline, type of research problem under analysis and level of
generality. The most common definition found is the one used for this
study. According to this definition, self esteem consists of attitudes
that we hold about ourselves resulting in self evaluations of approval

or disapproval (Wells and Marwell, 1976, pp. 64-65; Rosenberg, 1965).

64

This general principle operates at the global level as well as at

the level of specific self identities. In terms of self investment
theory, whether the judgment that we hold for ourself is harsh or
complimentary depends on our success or failure in the particular

area of activity, assuming, of course, self investment in that area.

In the absence of self investment, success will not necessarily enhance
self esteem because of the lack of concern for this particular self
identity for feelings of self worth. It is likely, however, that where
there is a continuation of success in a particular area of activity
that self investment will increase and subsequently this subidentity
area will become more essential for self esteem maintenance.

According to this perspective, we may relate self identities,
as expressions of personality, to separate domains of self esteem.
Success in one area of self identity may exclude other self identities
in importance, in that, high self investment and, therefore, a need for
high self esteem in that particular area of activity will overshadow
any manifest need for maintaining self esteem in other areas of self
identity. High self investment in one's professional role, as an
example, will surely at some level exclude other self identities in
importance if for no other reason than for economies of time and
resources that exclude possibilities in other areas.

In a discussion of self, we may refer to global self esteem as
the equivalency of self evaluations concerning the most important self
identities. High self investment in one's profession accompanied by the

necessary recognition for achievement will result in a strong dominance

65

of the professional self identity over other self identities and of
global self esteem as well. A long combination of achievement tends

to gradually include most subidentities or professional roles that

make up the professional self identity. In this context, professional
commitments to achievement may be strong and subsequently recognition
for achievement will result in this subidentity dominating all others
and hence high global self esteem. Thus, while success may not be
related to all self identities, it may be sufficiently strong in one
self identity area where there is high self investment to suffice for
self esteem maintenance. These relationships will be more likely under
circumstances where the status of the social or occupational role in
question is relatively high. Even under circumstances where the number
of successes in professional subidentities is low, inclusiveness of
professional status in general may produce sufficient self esteem
enhancement to maintain at least moderate levels of self investment

in professional areas of activity.

Another likely possibility is for aspiration levels to increase
in several areas simultaneously in response to increasing recognition
for achievement. The outcome of this process is for self investment
in all of the related areas of activity to increase in response to
these changes to the point where recognition for achievement levels
off and self esteem remains constant. In essence, what has been
suggested is that self esteem is not a simple process, but, instead
it entails various combinations of social recognition for achievement,
level of self investment, status of the activity related to the self

identity, and frequency of evaluation from referent others.

66

Research findings strongly suggest that for those with
a college education, there is a closer link between occupational
prestige and self esteem than there is between income and self esteem.
For those without any college education, income is more closely linked
with self esteem (Luck and Heiss, 1972). Based on these findings, for
the academic community as a whole, it is likely that frequent evalua-
tions by colleagues is a primary source of self esteem enhancement
because this source of recognition is linked to prestige that is
associated with high levels of education and occupational status.
Thus, during the early stages of socialization into professional roles,
the anticipation of professional status and interpositional status
distinctions by graduate students are important sources of self esteem
maintenance. As the concern for concentrated areas of study increases,
recognition for achievement in these areas from professors and later
from colleagues narrows the range of significant others' influence
to the point where intrapositional status distinctions become more
important for self esteem maintenance.

Three categories of self investment have been incorporated
into the research design of this study to measure the degree of
commitment and concern for professional achievement. These categories
are research, teaching and nonwork-related activities. The underlying
proposition in this design is that where there is a strong need to suc-
ceed there will also be recognition for achievement as an enhancement
to self esteem. Two measures of professional subidentities have been

devised to examine the cosmopolitan—local construct and also to

67

facilitate studying the range of academic activities. The cosmopolitan
subidentity measure includes: publishing articles and books, receiving
research grants, election to national professional associations and
recognition as an especially creative and productive academician.
Although this cateogry does not exclude recognition by departmental
colleagues, it is mainly directed to recognition with referent others
outside of the university. The second category is intended to measure
degree of commitment and involvement with the local institution and
includes: recognition as an especially good teacher, recognition for
advising students, election to important committee assignments, and
degree of concern for student responses in classes. The third category
of self investment is intended to measure degree of concern and commit-
ment to nonacademic areas of activity. It is expected that where there
is low self investment in professional activities there will be increased
self investment in nonacademic activities to compensate for losses

in self esteem. The nonacademic category includes: recognition for
membership in local community and fraternal organizations, pride in
home ownership, recognition for achievement in hobbies or leisure
activities, and a reputation for being active in political affairs

in the community. The purpose of this research design is to measure
the degree of concern for recognition from those reference groups
associated with each of the above-mentioned areas of activity. In

this way, we have set up a test of the basic self investment prop-

osition linking self investment with recognition for achievement.

68

Although the main purpose of this discussion has been to
relate self investment theory to our research questions for an
explanation of typical outcomes, the fact that each person possesses
unique personality characteristics has not been overlooked. For the
most part, however, depending upon recognition for achievement, our
study centers upon the strength of commitment to particular professional
activities. For variations in outcome, we may conceive of different
patterns of professional role playing within subidentity areas. In
this context, "a subidentity represents a cluster of all the attributes
manifested by a person, not the minimal requirements for a position. A
role can be played by a number of people, a subidentity, like a finger—
print, is unique to one individual" (Miller, 1963, p. 675). Miller's
definition is an apt one for our discussion because it focuses atten—
tion on the processes of individual adaptation to professional role
commitments. Self investment theory suggests that while each individual
possesses a unique personal history, levels of concern and commitment
to particular areas of professional activity are in general predictable
in the sense that recognition for achievement in any one subidentity
area will enhance self esteem and thereby increase self investment in
that area of activity. Therefore, variations in self investment in
subidentity areas of professional activities may be explained with
reference to related differences in achievement. We do not hold that
recognition for achievement is the only factor contributing to varia-
tions in levels of self investment; but if we can empirically confirm
the significance of this relationship, then perhaps we have made good

progress toward development of a sound social psychological theory.

69

During graduate training and the early stages of professional
careers, commitments to both teaching and research appear to be equally
strong for most professionals. Thereafter, commitments and, of course,
self investment assumes one of two forms, depending on both personality
and social structural variables. Assuming a history of success in
research areas of activity and a strong research climate for the
institution and within the academic department, then the most likely
outcome will be for research to become the subject's primary goal.

Most academic careers appear to take either research or teaching
directions of development, depending on the degree of recognition
for achievement in these broad categories of activity. In addition
to the above-mentioned factors contributing to career selections,
the economies of time and resources place restrictions on academic
careers so that often concentration of efforts will be confined to
one of the two areas of activity at the expense of the other.

Another purpose of this study is to measure self investment
in work as a concept apart from self investment in any particular area
of activity and then to test for any differences in relationship to
research output between these two measures of self investment. This
type of analysis is not unlike those studies that have correlated job
involvement with the Protestant Ethic for work groups where the two
measures were found to be highly correlated with one another (Ruh and
White, Rabonowitz, cited in Rabinowitz and Hall, 1975). The Protestant
Ethic construct has also been found to be a fair indicator of individual
differences among employees in the effects of job satisfaction upon job

behavior (Wanous, 1974).

70

Our self investment in work construct and the Protestant Ethic
construct are alike in that they both direct attention to the importance
of work for feeling good about one's self. They are different in that
the Protestant Ethic construct expands the concept of feeling good
about one's self to include beliefs concerning the moral worth of
people based on commitments to work. However, because it appears
that the similarities between the two concepts outweigh their dif—
ferences, we expect to find that self investment in work and in
particular areas of activity to be correlated in the same way that
job involvement and the Protestant Ethic are correlated.

It is intuitively appealing to link self investment in work
to success in task areas of activity in that it is difficult to imagine
success without high expenditures of effort. Although work may occur
in almost all types of activity, for most people, the meaning of work
is culturally bound to those areas of activity from which they derive
some remuneration in the form of income or barter for goods or services
rendered. Therefore, we expect most of our subjects to conceive of
work in terms of their professional commitments.

Challenge and mobility responses to the lack of recognition
for achievement are self investment concepts that are important to
the theory of self investment but are not included in the research
design of this study primarily because the time frame of our analysis
does not provide for sufficient latitude in examining these possible
outcomes. Also, gathering data regarding these concepts entails

questions that would, in most cases, invade the privacies of faculty

71

members who would normally be unwilling to admit to the existence of
conflicting departmental situations producing challenge or mobility
responses to failure. In brief, a challenge response occurs under
circumstances where there is a lack of recognition for success because
the activity under self evaluation is low on the departmental status
hierarchy. By challenging the low status of the activity, it may be
possible to convince the majority of faculty members to elevate in
importance the status criteria related to this activity. A mobility
response occurs when there is a lack of recognition for achievement,
but instead of changing or repositioning the status criteria in ques-
tion, additional efforts are expended to achieve within the same area
of activity. For our population, a likely example of a mobility
response is for faculty members who are attempting to gain recognition
for achievement in research to continue their efforts at an increasing
rate. This possibility is more likely during early career stages when
failure to achieve in research areas of activity is not a significant
loss to self esteem because similar situations are found within the
same faculty cohort which, in effect, alleviates invidious comparisons.
Assuming a continual history of failure to achieve, either self invest-
ment will be withdrawn or else faculty members will move to other
academic departments where their accomplishments will be appreciated.
While recognition for research publications and scholarly work
by one's colleagues may be the main impetus for activity in research,
it is also possible that the need to retain one's academic job is also

important. In order to maintain a favorable image with one's colleagues,

72

it may be necessary for some faculty members to become engaged in
activities where they have little self investment. Given a strong
research climate, as an example, some research output is necessary to
maintain at least a minimal degree of credibility. These circumstances
are likely for typical untenured faculty members whose research output
may result from a strong desire for job security and a niche in the
academic community rather than from a concern for advancing knowledge
within the discipline or becoming enthralled with intellectual questions
and topics of the day. This explanation may also account for some
discrepant results found with some work studies measuring job involve-
ment. A more obvious example of the "manifest need for occupational
achievement" resulting from self investment in some other activity is
found among factory workers whose only purpose in working is to earn
enough money to maintain a particular standard of living or to purchase
a business of their own (Faunce, monograph, p. 177).

Having explained the main propositions of self investment theory
contributing to our study, it is useful at this point to examine how
these propositions are operationalized in the form of a model explaining
the determinants of cosmopolitanism, which is an important focus of our
study. A model (Figure 1) has been constructed to illustrate self
investment variables influencing localite and cosmopolite orientations.
This model may be conceived as a container of possible outcomes for
faculty members. In general, recognition for achievement produces
frequency of evaluation from referent others and increasing levels

of self investment. As an example, a true cosmopolite has acquired

73

 

 

High

 

Level of ,p ,/
Self #’ 4
Investment
in Research

 

 

 

 

 

 

Frequency of Contact
with Referent Others

Figure 1. Self investment variables related to localite
and cosmopolite orientations--a three dimensional
illustration of the determinants of cosmopolitanism.

74

high status within the discipline through recognition for achievement
from those referent others who have acquired recognition from other
referent others. High status as a cosmopolitan is associated with
high self investment in research. Those who have high cosmopolitan
status occupy the upper right hand corner section of the container
toward the back of our model. Localites, on the other hand, have
failed to achieve high recognition for research productivity.
Therefore, they will have fewer research contacts with referent

others, lower self investment in research and, thereby, occupy the
lower left hand corner section of the container toward the front of

our model. The most likely outcome for localites will be that they
will have high self investment in teaching as recognition for profes-
sional achievement derived primarily from this source. Localites will
also be more inclined to move into administrative positions, therefore,
shifting their reference group orientations from research networks to
administrative and, bureaucratic networks to derive recognition for
achievement. Furthermore, it is expected that localites will generally
have a stronger interest in and orientation toward student needs and
interests than cosmopolitans.

The social environment impinging upon the evaluation processes
among faculty is a combination of organizational climate, either
research or teaching in orientation, and the status criteria for
the majority of faculty. Both of these factors are, of course,
interrelated in the sense that organizational constraints and policies

of the administration will affect the allocation of money and resources

75

of the department as well as influencing faculty decisions concerning
tenure, promotions, salary increases and granting of special privileges.
The publication records of the faculty will also have a bearing on the
selection of status criteria. The designated function of the department
is important inasmuch as administrative expectations influence faculty
decision-making and evaluations for promotion in the direction of
either teaching or research. Also, the quality of faculty hired will
be influenced by the designated function of the department. It is
expected, however, that the organizational climate of the institution
will have a strong impact upon the daily social exchanges among the
faculty, even though these exchanges may not have legitimate ties to
the formal evaluative criteria derived from the designated function

of the department.

As a way of summarizing this chapter, eleven statements have
been formulated to synthesize the theories and propositions discussed
in this chapter. This list is not intended to exhaust the total number
of possibilities afforded by the material of this chapter, but it
represents those ideas directly related to the research questions
of this study.

1. The higher the occupational status, the more likely will the
rewards for achievement accruing to role incumbents be suffi-
ciently strong so as to engender high levels of self investment,
dedication and commitment to perform successfully, and these
relationships will be stronger under conditions of frequent
evaluation of performance by referent others.

2. Organizational climate is important insofar as expectations
and policies of academic administrators establish criteria

for decision making influencing tenure, salary increases,

promotions, and special privileges facilitating research
efforts and, most importantly, departmental status criteria,

which, in turn, is highly dependent upon professional
orientations of departmental faculty.

10.

11.

76

In general, administrative control of academic departments
is relatively unrestrictive in comparison to other work
organizations, especially with regard to nonprofessional
work groups.

The cosmopolitan-local construct is useful for understanding
professional orientations. However, for cosmopolitans, fre-
quency of contact with departmental colleagues will in large
part depend upon the type of organization climate.

For academic professionals in general, interoccupational status
distinctions, the long ordeal of graduate training, demands for
high standards of performance, and peer pressures produce
higher levels of self investment than is characteristic

of other occupations.

For academicians, in contradistinction to many other
occupational groups, intrapositional status distinctions
are more important than interpositional status distinctions
for determination of the importance of achievement and for
self esteem maintenance.

The more frequent are evaluations by referent others in either
teaching or research areas of activity, the more likely will
expenditures of effort remain high; providing, of course, that
there is high self investment and recognition for achievement
in those areas.

In general, academicians will develop professional sub-
identities as they concentrate on fewer and fewer areas of
study to the exclusion of others and their levels of self
investment will correspond to an hierarchy, in terms of
importance, of these professional subidentities.

The greater the achievement in either teaching or research
activities, the greater will be self investment and frequency
of contact with others in relationship to these activities.

Failure to achieve in professional subidentity areas of
activity will result in withdrawal of self investment in

those activities and, as a form of compensation, there will

be increasing self investment in nonacademic areas of activity.

In the academic community, exchanging papers, acknowledging
scholarly contributions, working together on research projects,
papers, articles and books and publishing research findings
are the primary sources of social recognition and, in part,
substitutes for material rewards that provide for the major
source of social recognition found in other occupational groups.

CHAPTER III

METHODS

The method for collecting data in this study was mainly
personal interview, supplemented by data from vitae. Most of the
hypotheses have been tested by statistical routines employed through
computer facilities. To insure confidentiality, the normal procedure
of assigning numbers instead of names to each questionnaire was adopted.
A letter was sent to each subject disclosing the purpose and intent of
the study, followed by a visit or phone call to arrange for an
appointment.

The campus site for this study is a big ten university. Faculty
commitments are to excellence in undergraduate teaching as well as
emphasizing graduate education. This university is also ranked among
the top twenty-five public and private universities in the nation.
Because of difficulties encountered in locating academic departments
of comparable size in the physical and biological sciences and due to
the lack of attention afforded to social science disciplines in research
studies, only social science departments were selected. Because of the
importance placed on research and teaching orientations in the litera-
ture and because of the research questions of this study relating to
these issues, social science departments were selected to represent

both of these orientations. One of the three departments selected.

77

78

has been designated by the administration as a teaching unit, while
the other two departments, although committed to undergraduate teaching,
have overriding concerns for research output. It is noteworthy, how-
ever, that faculty members from all three departments share in common
strong research orientations. Maintaining the confidentiality of the
departments selected has been accomplished by naming the two research
oriented departments as $81 and SS3 and the teaching oriented
department as 882.

Only tenure track faculty members were included with the
exception of those who were functioning in administrative roles at
the time. The exclusion of nontenure track faculty should make our
population consistent in terms of shared goals and loyalties to the
department and university. The assumption is that those who have
temporary appointments will lack the incentive to form firm commit-
ments to the local institution and that, in particular, they will
probably not be well integrated within most faculty groups or share
in the decision—making processes essential to the conduct of depart-
mental business. Those faculty members currently involved in admin-
istrative work were excluded mainly because the burden of administrative
tasks may at least temporarily reduce their involvement in important
issues relating to their discipline.

Prior to each interview, a vita was requested to reduce the
time for each personal interview and also to obtain accurate information,
especially in cases of long publication lists, and for the most part

this attempt was successful. In most cases where a vita was secured

79

prior to the interview, the interview time did not exceed forty-five
minutes. This was fortunate because the initial response from most
subjects was that they would not consent to an interview unless it

was limited to an hour or less.

Collection of Data

 

During the beginning interview phase of this project, an attempt
was made to ascertain the status hierarchy rankings of faculty members,
but after several interviews, this attempt was abandoned.1 The main
purpose was to test the general hypothesis that the resolution of status

ambiguity is partly contingent upon one's level of self investment and

 

1Included in the original proposal for this study was the prop-
osition that high self investment in a particular area of professional
activity is associated with high achievement and high status placement
in the departmental status hierarchy related to that area of concern.
Therefore, questions were devised requesting each faculty member to
rank departmental colleagues on two ten-step ladders by placing cards
with faculty members' names on the steps corresponding to their status
placement in both research and teaching status hierarchies. In connec-
tion with this ranking procedure, follow-up questions requested faculty
members to indicate their certainty concerning their own status place-
ment and degree of perceived assessment of how others would rank order
status criteria in both areas of concern. For younger faculty members
in particular, it was hypothesized that status ambiguity would be expe—
rienced prior to tenure. Under circumstances of general dissension
concerning status criteria, there would be more self perceived inci-
dences of status ambiguity, and for those who are most uncertain about
their status placement, self investment in that area of concern would
be greater due to tendencies to select out those status criteria most
conducive to high self esteem.

The main problem encountered was that several faculty members,
during the initial stages of interviewing objected to ranking their
colleagues on a status hierarchy, even though adequate allowances
were provided for anonymity of all subjects. Questions relating to
the above issues were then deleted from the interview schedule and
replaced by questions asking for personal ranking of professional
criteria used in collegial evaluations.

80

that general consensus among departmental faculty regarding the
ranking of status criteria will produce social certainty concerning
professional status and, for those who are ranked low on the status
hierarchy, withdrawal of self investment will be likely. Other ways
of testing parts of this hypothesis were devised.

Completion of the interviews took about one term, after a
pretest with eight faculty members. Fortunately, only two faculty
members from Department 882 were unavailable because of other obli—
gations. Also, excluded were faculty members who were away from the
university because of other commitments. The departmental distribution
of our population is as follows: Department SSl= 21 subjects, Depart-
ment SSZ=.19 subjects, Department SS3==27 subjects. In general, the
interview schedule may be separated into five broad areas of concern.

First, personal background information, including professional
training, employment experiences, academic mobility, professional
associations, research productivity, and family status, have been
addressed with questions 1-8 and 10-16 (see Appendix A). Self
investment in work, which is actually part of the other self
investment questions (34A to 48B), is covered by question 9.

The second set of questions (17-21) is intended to obtain
information concerning the allocation of professional duties within
the department including courses normally taught, credit hours taught,
committee obligations, and degree of involvement with graduate students.
The amount of time allotted for research activities is addressed by
question 49. Questions 50 and 51 are intended to measure the amount

of time spent preparing to teach courses.

81

The third set of questions (22-23) is intended to measure
degree of consensus regarding the ranking of professional status
criteria. The questions take two forms with regard to ranking. One
method consists of allowing the subject to select his or her own set
of professional criteria used for evaluation of colleagues in the
department. The other set of questions confines the ranking of pro-
fessional criteria to eight pre-selected status criteria. Following
these questions are questions requesting the subjects' perceptions of
consensus with regard to faculty ranking of these criteria. Surpris-
ingly, it was discovered that in all three departments there is high
consensus with regard to ranking of professional status criteria.

The fourth set of questions (34A to 40B) is intended to
measure levels of self investment in research, teaching and nonwork—
related activities. Also, included in this set of items is question 9
that measures self investment in work. Further discussion of these
self investment items is reserved for the "HYPOthESiS 1" SECCiOD Of
this chapter.

The fifth set of questions (51 to 54) is intended to measure
sociometric associations for the research, teaching and nonwork-related
networks within each of the three departments. Also, associations
within research networks outside of the departments but within their
disciplines were requested. Mainly, these questions are intended to
ascertain total levels of commitment to professional areas of concern

with particular emphasis upon research networks.

82

For all the interview schedule items, interval scales were
devised when possible (e.g., age, grant dollars, number of publications,
etc.). It was necessary to use nominal scales for questions 2A, 3, 4,
25, 28, 32, 49 and 50. Open ended questions (13, 22, 26, 29, 33, 52,
and 53) were coded by first listing all of the responses to each of
the questions and then deriving the most common categories for ordinal
scaling with the exception of questions 22 and 29 which required
nominal scales. For the remaining questions, where interval

scaling was impossible, ordinal scales were used.

Operationalization of Variables

 

Hypothesis 1

 

H1: The greater the achievement in a particular area of
professional activity, the greater will be the self
investment in that activity.

To test this hypothesis, self investment variables were
correlated with measures of research output. Because, as previously
noted, many faculty members were reluctant to rank their colleagues
on measures of teaching performance, and because student evaluations
of teaching performance are not accessible for data analysis, research
output became our only objective criterion of academic performance.
The following self investment items were used for this test:

The next set of questions relates to how much you are concerned
or bothered by the possibility of failure with regard to certain
outcomes of your life. Here is a card with a scale of responses

to the following items. Please tell me the number which corre-
sponds with your responses to each of the following situations.

83

In order to assess the effects of achievement on levels of

self investment, each self investment item was divided into achievement

and nonachievement categories of response. This was accomplished by

beginning each item with a question asking whether or not the subject

had achieved in that particular area of activitiy. The item response

was then categorized as either an achievement or a nonachievement

answer .

The subjects were handed a response card with the following

scale on it:

 

Little effect on how I feel Would bother me
about myself very much

I I I I I V F I I l

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Research

Items

34A.

35A.

(If subject has published a book.) You said that you have
published a book. Did it receive a favorable evaluation by
others in your field? yes a , no b

a. How would you feel if you published another book but this
time it did not receive a favorable evaluation by others
in your field?

b. How would you feel if you published another book which
again did not receive a favorable evaluation by others
in your field?

(If subject has not published a book.) You said you have not

published a book. How would you feel if you published a book

which did not receive a favorable evaluation by others in your
field?

(If subject has belonged to a professional association.) You
said you have held an office in a professional association of
your field.

a. How would you feel if you never again were elected to a
professional association of your field?

84

B. (If subject has not belonged to a professional association.)
You said you have not held an elected office to a professional
association of your field.

b. How would you feel if you were never elected to such an
association?
38A. (If subject has received a research grant.) You said that you
have not received a research grant.
a. How would you feel if you never again received a research
grant?

B. (If subject has not received a research grant.) You said that

you have not received a research grant.
b. How would you feel if you never received one?
40. Are you recognized by your colleagues as an especially creative
and productive scientist? yes a , no b
a. How would you feel if you never again receive recognition
as an especially creative and productive scientist?
b. How would you feel if you never receive recognition as an
especially creative and productive scientist?
42. Have you published an article in a leading journal of your
field? yes a , no b
a. How would you feel if you never again publish an article
in leading journal of your field?
b. How would you feel if you never publish an article in a
leading journal of your field?
Teaching
Items
37. Are you generally recognized by your colleagues as an

especially good teacher? yes a , no b

a. How would you feel if you were never again recognized
as an especially good teacher?

b. How would you feel if you were never recognized as an
especially good teacher?

41.

44.

45.

47.

48.

85

Are you sought out by colleagues for advice concerning matters

of teaching? yes a , no b

a. How would you feel if you were never again sought out for
advice concerning matters of teaching?

b. How would you feel if you were never sought out for advice
concerning matters of teaching?

Have you been selected to an important college or university

committee assignment? yes a , no b

a. How would you feel if you were never again selected to an
important college committee assignment?

b. How would you feel if you were never selected to an
important college committee assignment?

Do you have a reputation for being successful at counseling

students? yes a , no b

a. How would you feel if you never again receive recognition
as a successful counselor?

b. How would you feel if you never receive recognition as
a successful counselor?

Have you been elected to the (department advisory committee)?

yes a , no b

a. How would you feel if you were never again elected to the
department advisory committee?

b. How would you feel if you were never elected to the
department advisory committee?

Have you been getting good responses from students in classes?

yes a , no b

a. How would you feel if you never again get good responses
from students in classes?

b. How would you feel if you never get good responses from
students in classes?

86

Nonwork-
Related
Items
36. Do you have a reputation for being active in political affairs
in your community? yes a , no b
a. How would you feel if you were never again recognized by
anyone as being active in political affairs of your
community?
b. How would you feel if you never were recognized by anyone
as being active in political affairs of your community?
39. Do you own a home that others compliment you about? yes a ,
no b
a. How would you feel if you never again receive compliments
about your home?
b. How would you feel if you are never complimented about a
home that you own?
43. Do you have a hobby or leisure activity that others regard
you as especially good at? yes a , no b
a. How would you feel if you were never again recognized as
being good at that activity?
b. How would you feel if you were never recognized as being
good at any hobby or leisure activity?
46. Are you recognized by others as being active in a local

community or fraternal organization? yes a , no b

a. How would you feel if you were never again recognized as
being active in a community or fraternal organization?

b. How would you feel if you were never recognized as being
active in a community or fraternal organization?
Six composite variables were created by combining all achieve-
ment items into the three general areas of self investment shown above
(research, teaching and nonwork-related) as well as combining all

nonachievement items in each of three areas. As an example items 37,

87

41, 44, 45, 47 and 48 were combined to form an achievement composite
variable, which consists of all of the part (a) item responses, and a
nonachievement composite variable, which consists of all of the part (b)
item responses. It is important to bear in mind that all references
throughout the remainder of this dissertation refer to the achievement
composite variable as "high achievement" variables and all of the non-
achievement composite variables are referred to as "low achievement"
variables. The reason for this distinction is because nonachievement
item responses, as an example, do not mean that our subjects have failed
to achieve in any aspect of that area of self investment. As a matter
of fact, analysis of our data shows that all of our subjects have
achieved in some aspects as well as not achieved in other aspects of
all three self investment areas. Therefore, the appropriate label for
either achievement or nonachievement composite variables is either high
or low achievement corresponding to subjects' actual state of achieve-
ment for that category of self investment. To eliminate the effects
of computing only a fraction of a subject's total self investment in
a particular area of activity, which is the case for either low or high
self investment categories, three additional variables reflecting the
'three self investment areas were created to measure the total levels
of self investment by combining low and high achievement categories.
The basic purpose underlying the construction of the self
investment items was to pose each question in view of the most relevant
reference group. In some cases, this was accomplished by making direct

references to those groups most concerned about achievement in that

88

particular activity (questions 34, 37, 40, 41), while for the remainder
of cases, references were made to include others who are concerned about
that area of achievement without specific mention of any particular
reference group. However, for most faculty members, general approval

of achievement is related to academic reference groups. If reference
group alter egos related to the activity in question are unimportant

for the subject's feelings of self worth, then the prospects of failure
in the particular area of concern is of little importance. In this con—
text, those significant others whose evaluations of our performance are
most important for feelings of self worth may be called "orientational
others" because they direct our attention and stimulate our interests

in activities that are most important to us. A major reason for the
design of the self investment questions selected is the belief that
responses to the prospect of failure are a better indication of the
importance of achievement in a particular activity than responses to

the prospect of success. Strong cultural expectations are attached

to the concept of success in that few people will deny its importance
for general social recognition. However, by concentrating on the pos-
sibility of failure, then these normative expectations influencing
responses to failure are reduced.

The primary selection criterion for the self investment in
research items was to equate them with those professional achievements
that have been assigned the most importance by academic peers. Actually
these items are criteria used in all of the disciplines to assess the

academic worth of faculty members. Item 40, however, is an exception

89

because it lacks precision with regard to the basis of evaluation but
instead is intended to obtain a general impression from each subject
concerning his or her reputation within the discipline. Only the most
recognized forms of achievement have been included as items. It is
possible that other forms of recognition may exist within academic
departments, but, in general, the criteria selected allow for more
general conclusions and applicability to the disciplines in
relationship to cosmopolite statuses.

With the exception of question 34, all of the self
investment items have the same format for measuring responses to
failure. Question 34 has two sections to the achievement part of
the question because sometimes books are published which do not receive
a favorable evaluation by referent others in the field or discipline.
In the case of articles, research grants, and election to professional
associations, acceptance or rejection is more clearly defined since
acceptance by companies, agencies, and professional associations is
tantamount to acceptance by referent others.

Self investment in teaching was measured for the most part by
raising questions that relate to the most important performance criteria
for general recognition as a competent or even excellent teacher. Each
of these items is intended to elicit the subject's concern about the
responses of referent others to their teaching performance. While some

of these items do not directly concern teaching, they do relate to

90

purely local concerns and commitments. Another justification for
including items relating to administrative functions is because of
the theoretical assumption that for those who have low levels of self
investment in research, active involvement in teaching and administra-
tive functions of their departments affords social recognition that may
be essential for self esteem maintenance. In general, depending on the
colleague climate of the university, acceptance by local peer groups is
the next best alternative to acceptance by reference groups within the
discipline itself. These items also reflect the basic concern in the
literature for localites as a distinct analytical category. We did
find however that one-fourth of our population are both research and
teaching oriented and have achieved in both areas of activity. Thus,
we are not discounting the possibility of faculty members possessing
loyalties to both their local institutions and the discipline itself.
The nonwork-related self investment items are intended to tap,
among other things, those dimensions of self concerned with active
involvement with fraternal and community organizations. In terms of
our theoretical assumptions about professional recognition for achieve-
ment, these nonwork—related activities provide the next best alternative
for gaining recognition for achievement. Recognition for achievement
by fellow club members and community leaders supplies the necessary
enhancement to self esteem that may be lacking in the professional
community. In particular, involvement in local community affairs is
a rewarding experience in terms of deference paid by others to profes-

sional status. This does not discount the possibility, of course, for

91

high academic achievers becoming involved in community functions.

This likelihood is remote, however, considering the pressing demands

of professional commitments. In addition to high self investment in
local community affairs, it is expected that these faculty members will
take a more active role in family activities than those who are high
academic achievers. Therefore, we have included item 39 to tap this
dimension of self investment.

The self investment composite variables were correlated with
three measures of research output. Most studies assign weights to
different types of productivity and then compute a total as a final
measure of research achievement. In addition to research total, our
study includes a yearly average of productivity and trends in research
output as measures.

The following weights were assigned to categories of research
output: books==8, edited books==4, journal articles==2, and papers
presented at professional associations==l. These assigned weights
are based on Diane Crane's measures of productivity. Crane designated
one book the equal to four journal articles. The main criteria for
selection were "fullness of the publication, relevance to the disci-
pline, and the extent to which publications are available in a rea-
sonably well stacked library" (Crane, 1965, p. 702). Research total
is the sum of all weights assigned for each category of research output.

The average of research output was established as a measure to
determine whether or not there is a relationship between consistency

in research output and self investment in research activities. In

92

part, the assumption being tested is that productivity in relation tor
professional career is associated with a high level of self investment
in research. Excluded from this analysis were those subjects who have
been in their departments for a year or less because insufficient time
had elapsed for them to begin to fulfill their research potentials.
Average research output was measured by dividing subject's research
total by the total number of years within the profession.

Research trend isithe third measure of research output intended
to detect both increasing or decreasing rates of productivity for our
subjects. Because three time segments were required for each subject
to compute research trend, two years as a department member was
selected as the cutoff point. Two years is too short a span of time
from which to calculate a research trend with any reasonable degree
of accuracy. In most cases, subjects' vitae were secured to obtain
a chronological picture of research output and when vitae were not
available, information was obtained through personal interviews.
Research trend is computed by computing the percentage increase or
decrease of research output in time segment three, latter one-third
of professional career, in comparison to time segment one, beginning
one-third of professional career. Research output in each career time
segment was computed in the same way that the total of research output
was computed for the whole professional career. The coding scheme for
research trend is as follows: 1= 50% or greater increase, 2= 20% to

50% increase, 3= less than 20% increase, 4==20% to 50% reduction in

93

output and 5==more than 50% reduction in output. It is noteworthy
that research trend became the best indicator for cosmopolitan
orientation and reputation within the disciplines. This suggests
the importance of the career stage at which achievement occurs.
The ranking of professional criteria was also correlated

with the research output variables to determine the association
between the subject's personal criteria of academic success with
his or her actual research performance. In large part, the assump-
tions for this analysis follow from cognitive dissonance theory, in
that we tend to judge others according to those standards reflecting
our most important self defining traits and accomplishments. This is
a form of selective perception resulting in greater personal satisfac-
tion from interpersonal association with those who are most like us.
Therefore, if these assumptions are true, then we should find that
faculty members judge the merits of one another's professional achieve-
ments according to their own performance record. In terms of symbolic
interactionism, this analysis is a test of the assumption that we tend
to seek the evaluations of those who are important significant others
in our lives. Furthermore, establishing professional criteria that
favor one's own record of accomplishment results in a form of self
esteem enhancement by drawing attention to one's own self worth.
The open ended question (22) intended to discern professional
criteria is as follows:

Now I have some questions of a different sort. We are interested

in the kind of criteria that are used in collegial evaluations

in this department. We are not so much interested in the formal
criteria used in making tenure decisions as we are in the everyday

94

evaluations that colleagues make of each other's work. Different
people may use different bases for making those evaluations. What
are the criteria that you personally regard as most important?
The next item is an instruction (23) requesting each subject to rank
order these criteria. Later this rank order of criteria was coded
into general categories.
You have mentioned (repeat all criteria). Now would you please
rank those criteria in order of importance. Which is the most
important? Which next? (etc.)

The other item tapping professional criteria is question 30
requesting subjects to rank order universal status criteria (publishing
books, teaching undergraduate students, receiving research grants,
editing books, teaching graduate students, publishing articles,
consulting work external to the department, and community services).

Now here are a set of cards containing categories commonly used
in universities for evaluating performance. Please rank order
them in terms of the importance of each category for how you
personally evaluate your colleagues in the department.

Because we expect a relationship between self investment in
a particular work-related activity and in work in general (Hypothesis 3),
we also expect that self investment in work is associated with achieve-
ment. Question 9 measures self investment in work by using a scale of
from one to ten. The response category for the lower end of the scale
is "important that I succeed at work to think well of myself" and the
upper end of the scale has a response category of "not important that

I succeed at work to think well of myself." The response statement is

as follows:

95

Here is a card with a scale from one to ten on it. The scale is
intended to represent the range in the extent to which success or
failure at work affect our feelings about ourself. A person for
whom work is the most important thing in life and who must be
successful at work in order to think well of himself (herself)
would be at the extreme left end of this scale. The other end

of the scale would represent a person who regards other things

as being more important than work and who does not need to
succeed at work in order to feel that he (she) is a success.

a. What point on this scale represents the importance of
work to your feelings about yourself?

b. At what point would you say you were five years ago?

____ c. How about five years from now?

We do not expect self investment in work to be equally corre-
lated with each area of activity, but instead to be related to those self
investment areas in which there is the most recognition for achievement.
For the majority of our subjects, academic achievement is restricted to
either research or teaching, but not both areas of activity simultan-
eously. In terms of the academic status assignment system, we expect
that self investment will be greatest in the self investment area of
research where social status and rewards are greatest, moderately high
in teaching activities, and low for nonacademic activities. Thus, as
a general rule, self investment in work will be associated with those
activities where there has been the greatest recognition for achievement.

In essence, the level of self investment in work is a function of the

salience of rewards and social recognition afforded for achievement.

96

Hypothesis 1A

 

HlA: Where there is a lack of recognition for achievement in

a particular area of activity, self investment in that

activity will diminish with age.

This hypothesis was tested by correlating subjects' ages
with their level of self investment in both high achievement and low
achievement areas of research, teaching and nonwork-related activities.
For high achievers, self investment was expected to either remain
constant or increase with age. The greater the recognition for
achievement, the more likely will self investment increase with
age. For low achievers, self investment in the related areas of
activity should diminish with age. It is unlikely, however, that
low self investment will persist in all areas of professional activity.
Under circumstances of failure to gain recognition for achievement in
one type of activity, self investment will be withdrawn from that
activity and increased in another activity where recognition for
achievement is more likely. During early career stages, self investment
in research activities is most likely to be high primarily due to the
high prestige and rewards afforded to research output. These circum-
stances are especially true in an institutional setting where the
colleague climate strongly favors research productivity. In the long
run, failure to gain recognition for research will lead to increasing

levels of self investment in teaching as a form of self esteem

compensation.

97

Hypothesis 2

 

H2: The greater the frequency of contact with colleagues in
relationship to a particular area of activity, the greater

will be self investment in that activity.

This hypothesis was tested by correlating frequency of contact
among colleagues in the three sociometric networks with self investment
in the related areas. As an example, subjects' level of self investment
in research was correlated with frequency of contact with colleagues in
the research sociometric network and similar procedures were employed
for each of the other two networks. Sociometric data for this hypoth-
esis were derived from question 51. The instructions read to each
subject for this part of the interview were as follows:

This last set of questions is intended to ascertain the nature
and frequency of your contacts with members of your department.
Here is a card showing categories of contact: (1==very frequent,
2= frequent, 3= infrequent, 4= never). I will first read to you
the faculty member's name. Please tell me the number for each
of the three categories that best reflects your level of contact
with this colleague. We will proceed in this manner through a
list of faculty members of your department.

Following this question was a list of all tenured faculty from
the interviewee's department. Each name was followed by these cate-
gories of contact with colleagues. These categories were intended to
correspond with the three self investment areas. A card was given to
each subject, listing levels of contact with colleagues for research,
teaching and nonwork-related sociometric networks. The captions
describing participation in these networks are as follows: (1)
"Exchanging ideas on research projects, papers, articles or books,"

(2) "Exchanging ideas on course-related material," and (3) "Getting

together mainly for nonwork-related reasons." A sociometric analysis

98

of interpersonal contacts for each subject was then conducted, the
result of which is a sociogram of each sociometric category for each
department.

In most studies, questions relating to sociometric analysis
request frequency and nature of social contacts vis-a-vis specific
time frames (e.g., once a week, every two weeks, once a month, etc.).
This format was avoided mainly to insure that subjects' responses
center on the subjective importance of collegial contacts rather
than on the purely quantitative aspects of association. This pro-
duces an overall picture of frequency of contacts with colleagues
that are probably most relevant to self esteem by permitting subjects
to select levels of association that, while lacking in current fre—
quency of contact, may assume the greatest significance for the related
subidentity areas. Also, even though current academic schedules may
have an important bearing on frequency of contact among colleagues,
these influences are reduced with this method. Current academic
schedules are expected to have the strongest impact on the teaching
sociometric networks.

A special computer program was enlisted to organize our

sociometric data into reciprocal dyadic links at each of the three

levels of association ("occasionally, very frequent, and "frequent").
Sociograms were produced for each of the three sociometric networks in

each of the three departments. The sociometric categories selected for
final analyses were frequency of contact at all three sociometric levels

of intensity, strength of sociometric contacts, and frequency of contact

99

at the high frequency level (very frequent). Frequency of contact
at all three sociometric levels of intensity simply includes all
reciprocal links regardless of the level of intensity (very frequent,
frequent, and occasional). Strength of sociometric contacts is defined
as the total of the weights attached to each reciprocal link divided by
the number of reciprocal links. Weights are the sum of the intensity
levels of contact (very frequent==3, frequent==2, occasional= 1).
Frequency of contact at the high frequency level is simply the total
number of social contacts at the "very frequent" and "frequent" levels.
These sociometric categories were then correlated with the
related areas of self investment. In particular, our analysis con-
centrated on the high frequency of contact category as the best indi-
cator of involvement with colleagues because this category reduces
the possibility of incidental or occasional collegial association
that may have little bearing on self esteem maintenance. It is
natural to expect that sociometric selections concerning each faculty
member will overlap in the three areas of association. In general,
however, the most crucial contacts in relationship to self esteem

maintenance are those where subjects have the most self investment.

Hypothesis 2A

 

H Frequency of contact among faculty members will be more
exclusive under conditions of having similar levels of
self investment and also when these faculty have achieved

in that particular activity.

2A‘

Nonstandard routines of analysis were employed to compute the

frequency of contact among colleagues above and below the mean for each

100

self investment item to determine degree of association for those

who share similar levels of self investment. For a few self investment
items, especially in the nonwork-related areas, many subjects' responses
clustered near the lowest response category (1 or 2) for which the
related response is "little effect on how I feel about myself." Thus,
it was difficult, if not impossible in some cases, to establish a cut-
off point for evenly distributing subjects above and below the mean.
Because of these problems of uneven cell size and skewedness toward

the lower end of the scale, the subjects were divided at the median
rather than the mean.

In general, the procedure in testing this hypothesis was to
first isolate those who have high self investment from those who have
low self investment in each category of self investment by dividing
each self investment variable into two groups, one below and one above
the mean. The next step was to compare frequency of contact among
colleagues by doing a within-the—group and between-the-group
sociometric analysis.

The technique of analysis entailed first organizing thirty
sheets of paper corresponding to the thirty self investment items.

The I.D. numbers for all subjects who were above the mean for self
investment in all thirty categories were listed on the top half of
each sheet and the same method was repeated at the bottom half of

each sheet for those below the mean. Next, under each I.D. number,
all reciprocal links in the related sociometric network along with

degree of association (very frequent, frequent, occasionally) were

101

recorded. While all reciprocal links were recorded, only those at

the very frequent and frequent level of association were selected for
testing of the hypothesis because these links represent exclusivity

of contact. A separate part of each sheet was set aside to record the
I.D. numbers for all of those subjects who had reciprocal associations
with those from another mean group and these data were used in the
between—the-mean group analysis. The results of these computations
were then submitted to a mathematical routine for analysis.

The mathematical routine employed is called "urn randomization"
because the procedure employed is based on mixing different numbered
objects in an urn for random selection (Stanley and Campbell, 1966,

p. 24). The basic assumption is that each subject has an equal chance
of being selected by all departmental colleagues, and, assuming no
predictable methods of selection, frequency of association will be
random in nature.

To begin, the total number of exclusive links are summed up
for the self investment item under analysis and then, based on this
sum, a potential number of links is assigned to each of the three
groups (above the mean, below the mean, and across the mean). Our
formula assumes an even distribution of the total number of links
that exist for that variable or area of self investment for above,
below and between the mean groups. The actual number of exclusive
links for the three groups is then compared to the potential based
on the expectation of randomness for the groups to derive ratios of
association. The definitions of symbols and the formula used to

derive the distribution of potential links is as follows:

102

N = Total number of subjects above and below the mean,

N1 = Number of subjects above the mean,
N2 = Number of subjects below the mean, and
Na = Total number of reciprocal links.
N1(Nl-1)
Above the mean group X = Na x 2
N2(N2-1)
Below the mean group Y = Na x-—-—§-—-
leN2
Between the mean group A = Na x NYN:I)
2

Having derived the potential distribution of reciprocal links
for the three groups, the actual distribution of reciprocal links is
then compared to this potential to determine exclusivity of contact.
Assuming that the number of potential and actual reciprocal links is
equal, then this would result in a ratio of zero suggesting a random
distribution of contacts. Positive numbers mean that the ratio of
actual to potential links is greater than zero and negative numbers

mean that the ratio of actual to potential links is less than zero.

Hypothesis 3

 

H3: The greater the self investment in a particular
work-related activity, the greater will be self
investment in work in general.

This hypothesis was tested by correlating the self investment

composite variables in research, teaching and nonwork-related areas of

103

activity with the measure of self investment in work in general.

A detailed explanation of the composite variables developed from

the thirty self investment items and of the measure for self investment
in work in general are found in the discussion of Hypothesis 1.

Self investment in work is expected to be closely associated
with those activities where there is high self investment and also
where there has been recognition for achievement. Under conditions
where there is recognition for achievement in all areas of self
investment, then self investment in work will be associated with self
investment in each of these activities. Otherwise, self investment in
work will only be associated with those activities where there has been
achievement. For our population, those who have very high levels of
self investment in research are not expected to have high self invest-
ment in teaching. It is possible, however, to have some self investment
in both research and teaching simultaneously.

In terms of self investment theory, the strength of the
relationship between self investment in work and self investment in
particular areas of activity is a direct function of the degree of
prestige and rewards attached to that activity. The status assignment
system for society as a whole and for the academic community in partic-
ular constitutes the incentive structure for these relationships. In
general, both the societal and the academic status assignment systems
allocate greater rewards, especially in terms of prestige, for those
who have achieved recognition for research activities. This prestige

is translated into more attention and deference being afforded on a

104

day-to-day basis to researchers in comparison to teachers. By
virtue of the heavy demands placed on research activities for time
and resources, teaching activities will normally receive less

attention by research-oriented social scientists.

Hypothesis 4

 

H4: The greater the cosmopolitan orientation, the greater the
likelihood of more frequent contacts with departmental
colleagues.

In general, this hypothesis was tested by correlating
cosmopolitanism with departmental sociometric networks. Question 14,
15 and 53 were selected to represent cosmopolitanism because they
represent the faculty's involvement with referent others in external
academic networks as well as recognition within the discipline as a
whole. The cosmopolitan indicators are as follows:

14. Do you now hold or have you in the past held any elected
offices with local or national association? yes ,
no . Which ones?

Local, regional and national categories of office holding were created
from question 14. The national category of office holding was used as
one-third of the cosmopolitan variable.

15. Have you presented papers at meetings of professional
associations? yes , no . If yes, how many?
and which associations?

Again, national, regional and local levels of professional associations
were derived from this question. Papers presented at national profes-

sional associations was used as one-third of the cosmopolitan variable.

105

53. Are there (type of social scientist) outside of this
university with whom you are working on research projects,
professional articles, books, etc.? yes ___3 no . If
yes, how many (type of social scientist) are there?

How often have you done this?

 

When was your last contact?

 

What is the nature of your correspondence?

Are these contacts increasing ___3 decreasing ___) remaining

about the same?

The number of social scientists indicated was taken from the first
part of question 53 as one-third of the cosmopolitan variable.

A major assumption concerning cosmopolitan status is that high
research productivity is associated with it. One problem with this
assumption, however, is that it infers that the mere accumulation of
publications will result in cosmopolitan status in one's discipline.
In order to resolve this issue, our first test was to correlate the
eight measures of research productivity with cosmopolitanism while
controlling for age to discover its effects. The measures of produc-
tivity used were number of books edited, books published, articles
published, dollar amount of grants received, papers presented at local
professional associations, consultation at national level, and prestige
level of journals in which articles were published. All of these
measures, except for prestige level of journals in which articles
were published, required only the sum of the number of accomplishments
in each category of productivity.

The method used to calculate prestige level of journals in
which articles were published requires a more detailed explanation.

The following question was used to measure this variable.

106

10. Have you published any articles in professional journals?
yes , no . If yes, how many? . In what
journals?

Three faculty members were selected from Department 881 and
three members from Department 883 to rate the quality of each journal
published in by faculty members according to how they perceived that
these journals stand in terms of prestige within their disciplines.

The rating levels used were: l==very prestigious, 2= prestigious,

3= acceptable, 4==low prestige, and 5==not prestigious. Faculty members
from Department 882 did not participate in the judging of journals
because this department is composed of a variety of social sciences.
Therefore, for Department 882, we used those ratings from the faculty
judges of the other two departments. This did not present a major
problem, however, because the majority of journals in which articles
were published in Department 882 were found within the disciplines of
the other two departments and also because the publication rate for this
department is generally low in comparison to the other two departments.

Agreement among the judges selected to rate journal articles
was high. In Department 381, there was total agreement for thirteen
out of twenty-five journals and of the remaining twelve journals
there was only one case where the difference in rating among the
judges was greater than one rating level. In other words, there
was complete agreement in 52 percent of the cases and the degree of
disagreement for the remainder of cases was very slight. In Department
883, agreement among the judges was also very high. In effect, there

was complete agreement in ratings for forty-five out of fifty-six

107

journals among the three judges and the differences among them in
rating the eleven remaining journals did not exceed one level. In
other words, for Department SS3, there was complete agreement in 80
percent of the cases. Hence, we may accept that those ratings assigned
to journal articles are reasonably valid.

After testing for the effects of age on cosmopolitanism, a
multiple regression analysis was conducted with the above research
variables and additional variables relating to cosmopolitanism
(research grants received, consultation at the national level and
prestige level of journals).

Having established the relationship between cosmopolitanism
and research productivity, our next task was to test the link between
cosmopolitanism and colleague contacts in each of the three sociometric
networks. The Operationalization of these variables has already been
discussed.

It was expected that the strongest link would be between the
research sociometric network in the departments and cosmopolitanism.
The lack of a link between the research and teaching sociometric net-
works has already been discussed as a reflection of the strong research
orientations of the faculty and of the colleague climate of the insti-
tution. In general, the teaching sociometric network should not link
up as well with cosmopolitanism as the other two networks.

The expected relationship between external referent contacts
and colleague contacts in departmental research networks (question 51)

was tested by correlating the research network variables with the

108

external contact variables (question 52 and 53). Except for
question 53, all of the items relevant to the Operationalization
of this hypothesis have been discussed. Item 53 is the same as
item 54 except for the emphasis on working relationships.

53. Are there (name of social science) outside of this

university with whom you are working on research projects,

professional articles, books, etc.? yes , no . If

yes, how many (name of social science) are there? .

How often have you done this?

Establishing the link between external and internal referent
contacts within faculty members' disciplines supports our assertion
that the discipline itself is a primary source of self esteem main—
tenance equivalent to a nonprofessional job environment. Furthermore,
rather than viewing cosmopolitanism as a condition that detracts from
local commitments and involvements, our intention is mainly to
redirect attention to the necessity of referent contacts for self

esteem maintenance within departments which leads to another way of

conceptualizing cosmopolitanism.

CHAPTER IV

FINDINGS

Overall, the findings of our study support the self investment
model and, in addition, through a serendipitous finding, a new insight
into the frequency of interpersonal associations has been gained. A
thorough discussion of the implications of our findings is reserved for
the concluding chapter. In order to facilitate a clearer understanding
of the major propositions of this study, some additional tables, not
suggested in the methodology chapter, have been added to illustrate

some important points relevant to self investment theory.

Research Findings

 

Hypothesis 1

 

H1: The greater the achievement in a particular area of

activity, the greater will be self investment in

that activity.

The primary test for this hypothesis was obtained through
Pearson correlations between the achievement and nonachievement self
investment items that have been collapsed into composite variables
with the three measures of research productivity. For the purpose
of this analysis, because each of the three areas of self investment

tested taps one general subidentity area of the self, spillover

effects from one self investment area to another are expected.

109

110

For our pOpulation, professional commitments and demands that reflect
the colleague climate of the institution should produce extensive
utilization of time and resources for research purposes that results
in higher self investment in research activities than in other areas
of activity. Therefore, we will be particularly attentive to the
research area of activity as the most important source of professional
recognition for our population as a whole.

The findings in Table 1 show significant relationships between
self investment in research and the research output variables. In
another analysis, not shown here, we found no significant associations
between self investment in teaching or nonwork-related activities with
the research output variables. The relationships between self invest-
ment in research and research productivity are clearly significant for
the total of research output (r= .49, p= .001), average of research out-
put (r= .46, p= .001) and trends in research output (r= .48, p= .001).
It is noteworthy that the differences in association for these research
output variables is almost minimal.

Our professional criteria items are rough measures of self
investment in research if we assume that people are most likely to
evaluate others in areas where their own self investment lies. By
correlating these scales with research output, an additional assessment
of the merits of the self investment model may be made. The individual-
ized version of the professional criteria model, which is based on an
open ended response to ranking of professional criteria, appears to be

a more reliable indicator of research output than the universal version

111

Table 1. Relationship Between Self Investment and Research Output
Variables: Zero Order Correlations

 

 

Research Output

 

 

Total of Average of Trend in
Research Research Research
Output Output Output
High achievement category r= .49 r= .46 r= .48
of self investment p= .001 p= .001 p= .001
N= 67 N= 67 N= 66

 

of the professional criteria model, which is based on eight standard
criteria used for assessing professional performance. Perhaps this
difference in results may be explained in terms of tendencies of sub-
jects to rank order standard universal professional criteria (Table 3)
according to normative prescriptions of success closely linked to the
academic status assignment system in contrast with individualized
selection of professional status criteria allowing for a greater
range of flexibility because of the open ended nature of this item.
Both professional criteria models are excellent indicators for
average of research output (Tables 2 and 3). However, in neither model
is trend in research output significantly associated with ranking of
professional criteria. The individualized version of the professional
criteria model (Table 2), however, approaches significance (r==.17,
p==.087) and is significant in the case of total of research output

(r= .20, p= .054). The findings of these series of tests also confirm

112

Table 2. Effectiveness of Professional Criteria Model (Individualized
Version of Ranking Status Criteria) as an Indication of
Research Output: Zero Order Correlations

 

 

Research Output

 

 

Total of Average of Trend in
Research Research Research
Output Output Output
Professional criteria model r= .20 r= 34 r= .17
(individualized version) p= .054 p= .003 p= .027
N= 66 N= 66 N= 65

 

Note: A scale ranging from research over teaching to teaching
over research for evaluation of professional performance was used for
both professional criteria models.

Table 3. Effectiveness of Professional Criteria Model (Universal
Ranking of Eight Standard Status Criteria) as an Indication
of Research Output: Zero Order Correlations

 

 

Research Output

 

 

Total of Average of Trend in
Research Research Research
Output Output Output
Professional criteria model r= .ll r= .34 r= .03
(standardized universal p= .193 p= .003 p= .417
criteria version) N= 65 N = 65 N= 64

 

Note: Association between the two professional criteria models
is (zero order correlation) r= .71, p= .001, N= 62. See remarks in
Table 2 for the type of scale used.

113

what one would expect to find according to the theory of cognitive
dissonances, in that, individuals tend to evaluate others according
to their own predispositions and achievements in order not to create
discomforting inner conflicts. For self investment theory, however,
it reveals that individuals tend to establish criteria that corresponds
with their own areas of self investment. This conclusion also relates
to our finding (Hypothesis 2) that individuals tend to associate
mostly with those who Share their level of self investment since
it is difficult to imagine associations where there are different
systems of professional status criteria in existence among the actors.
In general, the results of our analysis indicate that in order
for self investment to be sustained, there must be recognition for
achievement. It is this recognition process that enhances self esteem
sufficiently to encourage the actor to continue efforts required to
achieve or, alternatively, to increase efforts required for reaching
higher plateaus of achievement. Data bearing on Hypothesis 2 will
Show that frequency of contact with referent others is the other link
in the self investment chain that is necessary to maintain high self
investment in a particular activity. Without social recognition,
little incentive will remain for the continuation of efforts to
succeed. The absence of social recognition, however, is almost
impossible to imagine because the mere acknowledgment of success
stimulates the emergence of social norms of recognition relating to
favorable social outcomes. In other words, to succeed is to fulfill

those desirable expectations learned during one's formative years of

114

socialization. Those who have succeeded will seek out social
recognition from those who place importance on the achievement in
question. In most cases, these evaluators will be members of one's
reference group. Praiseworthy evaluations are not always deliberately
sought, but they will be elicited through a number of communication
ploys whereby success becomes the main topic of conversation or else
indirect references are made to it. In general, in order to insure
recognition for achievement, those whose evaluations of performance
may be negative will be avoided in favor of those whose evaluations
are most rewarding. Thus, even when recognition for success is not
expected, the most likely alternative to negative evaluations is to
withdraw from these unrewarding social encounters in favor of those
encounters that contribute to one's feelings of self worth or in which
evaluations of performance are at least neutral. Avoidance of job
performance evaluations may be accomplished through membership with
fraternal organizations where interactions are often expressive in
nature in that evaluative criteria are based on club activities.

In effect, active involvement in fraternal organizations may be a
form of self esteem compensation for failure to gain recognition

for achievement on the job.

In this sense, social action partly consists of a series of
events that become part of the internal processes of self evaluation
depending on their importance to self esteem. Where others communicate,
either verbally or nonverbally, their approval or disapproval of per-

formance in high self investment areas, the impact upon self esteem

115

will be substantial and strongly associated with degrees of commitment
and levels of effort required to achieve.

The remaining part of our analysis of Hypothesis 1 is con-
cerned with the relationship between self investment in work and self
investment in research activity. It should be recalled here that self
investment in work focuses on how important work is for feeling good
about oneself. An analysis, not shown here, revealed that there is
no relationship between self investment in work and the research out-
put composite variables. Although, as Hypothesis 3 suggests, there
is a relationship between self investment in research and research
output. Therefore, the following analysis is mainly concerned with
explaining the reason for this discrepancy.

As already noted in Chapter III, self investment in work in
general may be associated with either research or teaching but not
necessarily with both areas simultaneously. Because, as previously
noted, the high achievement categories of self investment also include
low achievers, it was necessary to isolate high achievers as much as
possible from low achievers in order to test the group that best rep-
resents high achievement in research activities. This was accomplished
by splitting this variable at the mean, thus, creating a high achieve-
ment group (above the mean) and a low achievement group (below the
mean). Because all of our subjects responded to at least one achieve-
ment and one nonachievement item for all three self investment areas,
splitting the population at the mean results in high achievers
emerging in the above the mean group, even though the entire vari-

able was intended to represent achievement in research. The self

116

investment in research of these groups was then correlated with self
investment in work, the results of which are shown in Table 4. It is
apparent that self investment in research for high achievers is sig—
nificantly correlated with self investment in work (r= .32, p==.036),
which is the expected outcome according to self investment theory.
This relationship, while not as strong as most of our correlations,

is sufficient to suggest that the two areas of self investment are
related to each other as well as with achievement in research activ—
ities. Self investment in work is not associated with self investment
in research among those with low achievement in research; but for most
of our population who have not achieved in research activities, teaching
activities provide the necessary substitute for research achievement,
a finding which will be discussed in more detail in a later section

of this chapter.

Table 4. Association Between Self Investment in
Work and in Research (Above and Below
the Mean): Zero Order Correlations

 

 

 

Above the Mean Below the Mean
r=.32 r= ll
p=.036 p=.272
N=33 N=33

 

117

Further evidence for the effects of achievement on levels of
self investment is shown in Table 5. Overall, the mean level of self
investment for the high achievement items is 4.88 compared to 4.00 for
the low achievement items. This table is not as effective, however, in
revealing the consequences of achievement as the correlative analysis
with the research category variables (Table l) partly because it fails
to show the variations of self investment associated with achievement.
However, even taking this exception into account, the evidence pre-
sented in Table 5 is still convincing support for our hypothesis.

It is especially noteworthy that there are clear differences in

levels of self investment between high and low achievement categories
of self investment for all three areas. Furthermore, self investment
in professional activities is greater than self investment in nonwork—

related activities as expected.

Hypothesis 1A

 

HlA: Where there is a lack of recognition for achievement in
a particular area of activity, self investment in that
activity will diminish with age.
The impact of achievement on levels of self investment with
age is shown in Table 6. In effect, what these findings suggest is
that for high achievers, self investment in the three areas of activity
will remain relatively constant. Whereas, for low achievers, lack of

recognition for achievement will result in gradual withdrawal of self

investment from the related areas of activity (Table 7).

Table 5.

Items

118

Mean Levels of Self Investment for All Fifteen Self Investment

 

 

High Achievement

Low Achievement

 

 

 

 

 

Self Investment Areas Categories Categories
Research Items:
34. Publishing books 6.12a 6.29
35. Membership in professional
associations 2.00 2.40
38. Receiving research grants 5.43 4.74
40. Exceptionally creative and
productive scholar 6.81 5.93
42. Publishing journal articles 6.38 6.33
TeachingiItems:
37. Exceptional teaching 7.15 5.11
41. Teaching advice requested 4.63 2.88
44. Appointment to important
committee assignments 3.63 2.52
45. Reputation for advising
students 5.71 2.57
47. Appointment to advisory
committee 3.35 4.84
48. Good student responses 8.43 6.33
Nonwork-Related Items:
36. Involved in political
affairs 3.00 1.88
39. Proud of own home 2.87 2.44
43. Good at hobby or leisure
activity 4.21 3.27
46. Membership in local
fraternal organizations 3.42 2.54
Average means 4.89 4.00

 

a
Self investment scale ranges from one to ten.

scale corresponds to high self investment.

High range of

119

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 6. Relationship of Age to High Achievement Areas of Self
Investment: Zero Order Correlations (N==65)
Self Investment Categories
Research Teaching Nonwork-Related Total
Age r = .01 r = .15 r = .05 r = .13
p = .476 p = .116 p = .373 p = .154
Table 7. Relationship of Age to Low Achievement Areas of Self
Investment: Zero Order Correlations (N==65)
Self Investment Categories
Research Teaching Nonwork—Related Total
Age r = -.45 r = -.43 r = -.34 r = -.50
p = .001 p = .001 p = .003 p = .001

 

120

In particular, the negative correlations for research
and teaching areas of activity are impressive (Table 7, research,
=-.45, p= .001; teaching, r=—.43, p= .001). An interpretation
of these results is that in the face of persistent failure to gain
recognition for achievement, self investment will be withdrawn from
the area in question. Withdrawal of self investment is partly a
defensive strategy, whereby, in order to retain a positive self image,
it becomes necessary to avoid social encounters where attention might
be directed to shortcomings in particular areas of professional activ-
ity. Self investment in unrewarding activities will decline to the
point where it ceases to be of any real importance to self esteem.
Consequently, another area of professional activity will be selected
where recognition for achievement is most likely. Failure to gain
recognition in research activities, as an example, may lead to
increasing self investment in teaching where recognition for
achievement will compensate for self esteem losses suffered.

The lower, but significant correlation between low achievement
in nonacademic activities and age (Table 7, r==-.34, p==.003) may be
partly explained by the fact that for most faculty members, community
activities assume a low priority of importance. Therefore, failure
in these activities is less likely to result in withdrawal of self
investment, because self investment in these activities is already
low (Table 5). However, the relative strength of this relationship
is not sufficient to warrant conclusions concerning any major differ—
ences in response to failure between nonacademic and professional

activities.

121

Again, because self investment in achievement related
activities and self investment in work in general are expected to
be related, we expect that lack of achievement in research activities
will also produce decreasing levels of self investment in work with
age. However, the interaction effects found with the self investment
composite variables, as the preceding discussion of the problem indi-
cates, makes it inadvisable to test the above assumptions without
first taking the proper precautions to avoid distortions. Therefore,
in order to isolate high from low achievers to avoid interaction
effects for research and teaching activities, both of these self
investment composite variables for achievement were combined to form
one composite achievement variable and then this variable was split
above and below the mean to create high and low achievers for research
and teaching activities combined. Each of these groups was then
subjected to a correlative analysis between self investment in work

with age, the result of which is displayed in Table 8.

Table 8. Association Between Self Investment in Work and Age for Above
and Below the Mean Groups of High Achievement for the Combined
Categories of Self Investment in Research and Teaching: Zero
Order Correlations

 

 

 

Above the Mean for Below the Mean for
Research and Teaching Research and Teaching
r = .49 r = -.40
p = .031 p = .062

N = 15 N = 16

 

122

An important observation from our analysis is that for those
who are high achievers, self investment in work will increase with
age (r= .49, p==.03l). This association may be partly explained by
virtue of the type of population under study. Those who are high
achievers, which consist of about one-fourth of our population, must
maintain high self investment in work mainly because of the amount of
effort required to achieve in both areas of activity simultaneously.
For those who are low achievers in both professional areas of activity,
we find the same tendencies to withdraw self investment in work
(r==—.40, p= .062) that are found with the separate areas of self
investment (Table 7).

The strong research orientations of our population contribute
to tendencies to engage in research activities even though success
may appear to be remote, but in those cases where research output
is apparently impossible, withdrawal of self investment in research
activities is more evident due to consensus of those around concerning
the importance of research output, thus, producing strong social
sanctions for failure. Most evaluations of academic performance
having either positive or negative outcomes for self esteem are
found among academic groups where day-to-day social encounters occur.
In contrast, faculty members located in less prestigious institutions
where less emphasis is placed on research activities, may pursue
research projects without great fear of social sanctions in the event
of failure primarily because research output is placed lower on the

evaluative hierarchy of that institution. It is also possible that

123

under circumstances of lower placement of research output on the
criteria hierarchy, there will be less consensus concerning its
importance among faculty groups. Given recognition of the potential
of future success for younger faculty members, then a strong research
climate will tend to produce continuous or reoccurring efforts to
succeed in those activities. In essence, the amount of self investment
attached to any professional area of concern is dependent upon the
social atmosphere of academic departments and the institution alike.
The stronger the research climate and the degree of consensus with
regard to it, the more negative will be social sanctions with regard
to failure in research. Lack of achievement in research activities
will most likely lead to withdrawal of self investment from those
activities. Accordingly, self investment in teaching or administra—
tive activities will occur where recognition for achievement is more
likely and, hence, self esteem enhancement will result.

The evidence presented corroborates our hypothesis that
achievement has a significant impact on levels of self investment.
Our assumptions for self investment in work also hold, but only after
taking into account the combined effects of high and low achievers
who compose the research variables. It has been found, according to
another analysis not presented here, that one-fourth of our population
are high achievers in research but low achievers in teaching and one-
fourth of our population are high achievers in teaching but low
achievers in research. Thus, high self investment in work will

be associated with those areas of self investment related to

124

achievement but not with those areas of activity where there has been
little achievement. Further clarification of the relationships between
self investment in particular areas of professional activity and in
work will be discussed in the section of this chapter dealing with
Hypothesis 3. Suffice it to say for now that the two areas of self

investment are related.

Hypothesis 2

 

H2: The greater the frequency of contact with colleagues

in relationship to a particular area of activity, the

greater will be self investment in that activity.

The empirical evidence supporting this hypothesis is found in
Table 9 where the effects of achievement on levels of self investment
are clearly shown. The strongest link with self investment is with
the research sociometric networks. The strongest of these links are
the relationships between self investment in research and frequency
of contact at all frequency levels and also with the strength of
sociometric links (r==.40, p==.001, for both measures). This finding
is related to our finding from Hypothesis 1 that the level of self
investment is related to recognition for achievement. The strength
of association, which means the ratio of high frequency contacts to
low frequency contacts, is greater for the research network than for
the other two sociometric networks, as an indication of the lively
interaction that exists among colleagues with regard to research
interests. The link between self investment in research and socio-

metric links at the high frequency levels of contact is also suffi-

ciently high to warrant attention (r= .30, p= .008). Actually, this

125

Table 9. Relationships Between Three High Achievement Areas of Self
Investment and Related Sociometric Networks: Zero Order
Correlations (N= 63)

 

 

 

Self Sociometric Links Strength of Sociometric Links
Investment at A11 Frequency Sociometric at High Frequency
Areas Levels Links Levels (Exclusiveness)
Research r= .40 r= .40 r= .30
p= .001 p=.001 p=.008
Teaching r= .18 r= .28 r= .38
p= .078 p= .014 p= .001
Nonwork- r = -.04 = -.04 = -.09
related p= .369 p= .385 p= .240

 

latter category of analysis is the most reliable measure of contact
because it is based on "frequent" and "very frequent" reciprocal
contacts representing more firmly committed interpersonal associations
rather than those that are casual by nature.

The relatively strong research climate of this university in
addition to the strong research orientations and publishing records
of the majority of our subjects explain, in part, the high level of
activity in the research networks. The greater the number of faculty
members involved in research then the greater the possible combinations
of reciprocal contact among these colleagues. Increasing levels of
self investment in relationship to greater numbers of contacts with
colleagues is the result of being rewarded in these everyday encounters
because of recognition for achievement in research areas of professional

activity. Self esteem is enhanced through daily reminders of success

126

and high status placement in the departmental status hierarchy.
Actually, this process is reciprocally reinforcing because those
who have achieved recognition for research will tend to associate
more with one another. This has the effect of producing self eval-
uation concerning one's professional image and it also maintains one's
desire to continue to succeed. In this context, high expenditures of
effort to succeed along with frequent evaluations are most likely to
result in accomplishing academic tasks related to the evaluative area.
The relationships between self investment in the achievement
area for teaching and frequency of contact with colleagues in the
teaching sociometric networks is weak at the total of all frequency
contact levels, but it is strong for exclusiveness of contact with
colleagues. As an interpretation, the main reason for the weak
association at the total contact level has already been explained,
in that, fewer colleagues compose the teaching networks in comparison
to the research networks. The relationship with the exclusiveness of
interpersonal contacts in the teaching networks is, however, impressive
(r= .38, p= .001) and warrants further comment. The high exclusiveness
of these associations is partly due to the organizational constraints
found in Department 882 where there are several teaching committees
assigned to a few specific instructional fields to coordinate teaching
activities within these areas of instruction. Faculty members who
compose these teaching groups are required to meet several times each
term, which partly accounts for the strong exclusiveness of contact for
our population as a whole. However, the relative weakness of the teach-

ing network in comparison to the research networks is evidenced by the

127

moderate correlation of self investment in teaching with strength of
sociometric links (r= .28, p==.014). A plausible explanation for

this weak correlation is that for those faculty in Departments 881

and SS3, frequency of association in the teaching networks is probably
at the weakest level of association, which, in combination with exclu-
siveness of contacts for Department 832, results in the moderate
correlation. In contrast, a greater proportion of research contacts
are at the high frequency level of association. Again, this is
probably a consequence of the strong research orientations for these
faculty as well as of the fact that their research publications assist
in providing for the recognition for achievement sufficient for self
esteem maintenance.

The relationship between the nonacademic areas of self
investment and the nonwork-related social networks is almost non-
existent for the achievement categories. The correlations for all
three levels of association is almost zero (r==-.04, r==-.04, r==-.09).
This may be explained by the fact that for most faculty members, self
investment in nonacademic areas of activity is very low in comparison
to the two other areas, which is evident from Table 5 and also because
the nonwork-related sociometric network mostly consists of those who
have high self investment in research activities. Because the nonwork-
related sociometric network is defined as a "social choice" network, it
does not necessarily draw those who have nonacademic interests, but
instead it reflects the socialization patterns for the most dominant

professional orientations of the faculty, which for our population is

128

research. This association between self investment in research and
contacts with colleagues for nonwork-related reasons is illustrated
in Table 10.

The significant association for self investment in research
and social contacts at all frequency levels (r==.37, p= .002) and
strength of sociometric links (r= .39, p. .001) and with exclusiveness
of contact (r= .31, p= .006) clearly indicates the dominance of research
orientations among the faculty. Further evidence of the link between
the research and nonwork-related sociometric networks is provided in
the section of this chapter dealing with Hypothesis 2A. The associa-
tions between self investment in teaching and social contacts is not

significant, but almost random in nature.

Table 10. Relationships Between Professional High Achievement Areas of
Self Investment and "Getting Together for Nonwork-Related
Reasons": Zero Order Correlations (N==63)

 

 

Nonwork-Related Sociometric Network

 

 

High
Achievement Sociometric Strength of Sociometric Ties
Self Ties at All Sociometric Ties at High Frequency
Investment Frequency at All Frequency Levels of Contact
Area Levels Levels (Exclusivity)
Research r = .37 r = .39 r = .31
p = .002 p = .001 p = “006
Teaching r = -.13 r = -.07 r = -.14
p = -164 p = .293 p = .145

 

129

A conclusion drawn from self investment theory explaining the
findings from Table 9 is that a necessary precondition for self esteem
maintenance is the attainment of social approval as a consequence of
academic achievement through day-to-day contacts with fellow colleagues
in the department. Without collegial recognition for achievement in
particular areas of activity, self investment will be withheld or
withdrawn from those activities and increased in other activities
where the prospects of recognition for achievement are more likely.

In this way, lost self esteem will be regained in the new areas of
activity. This principle of self investment theory may partly explain
why occupational careers are sometimes abandoned for new life styles
where success is more promising.

It should be born in mind throughout this analysis that each
of the three sociometric networks merely reflects a subidentity role
relationship for each faculty member. Therefore, we expect that for
most faculty members, sociometric choices for each of the three net-
works will overlap to some extent and will correspond to one role
relationship with that faculty member rather than a choice based
exclusively on that area of activity. In the context of this under-
standing, one type of role relationship may dominate the other two.
For our population, the research network appears to be the most
dominant of the three sociometric networks. Evidence for this
assertion is found in Table 10 that clearly shows that the research
and the nonwork-related sociometric networks are linked closely
together, thus, suggesting that those who share research interests

also get "together for nonwork-related reasons."

130

Additional evidence to support our contention that the research
and social networks are strongly linked is found in Tables 11 to 13.
In general, both research and social sociometric networks correlate
more significantly with the research output variables than does the
teaching network for reasons already suggested. It is noteworthy
that for the social network, the correlations for the total research
output (Table 11) at the exclusive level of contact is significant
(r= .32, p= .005) and the correlation for the average of research
output variable (Table 12) is also significant (r= .34, p==.003) and
greater than for the research networks. This appears to be conclusive
evidence that those who are active in the nonwork-related networks are
also highly productive researchers and scholars.

Failure of frequency of network contact in the research
network to significantly relate to the total of research output
variable (Table 11) may be partly explained in terms of the cumulative
nature of this variable which is not necessarily associated with cur-
rent research activity. The significant relationship for the research
network at the exclusive level with the trend in research output vari—
able (Table 13) may be partly explained by noting our findings from
Hypothesis 4; this variable is the best of the three research output
variables for predicting cosmopolitanism, which, in turn, is related
to high referent associations within the department. This finding
also follows from what you would expect from those who are currently
increasing their research output. As current research output increases,

so will collaboration with referent others' increase on research

131

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 11. Relationships Between the Three Sociometric Networks and
"Total Research Output": Zero Order Correlation (N==63)
Sociometric Networks
Sociometric Links Strength of Sociometric Links
Type of at All Frequency Sociometric at High Frequency
Network Levels Links Levels
Research r = .25 r = .23 r = .16
p = .026 p = .033 p = .113
Teaching r = .24 r = .13 r = -.03
p = .031 p = .155 p = .420
Nonwork— r = .29 r = .34 r = .32
Related p = .001 p = .004 p = .005
Table 12. Relationships Between the Three Sociometric Networks and
"Average of Research Output": Zero Order Correlations
(N= 63)
Sociometric Networks
Sociometric Links Strength of Sociometric Links
Type of at A11 Frequency Sociometric at High Frequency
Network Levels Links Levels
Research r = .38 r = .37 r = .29
p = .001 p = .001 p = .015
Teaching r = .23 r = .21 r = .12
p = .033 p = .049 p = .176
Nonwork- r = .36 r = .36 r = .34
Related p = .002 p = .002 p = .003

 

132

Table 13. Relationships Between the Three Sociometric Networks and
"Trends in Research Output": Zero Order Correlations

 

 

 

 

(N= 62)
Sociometric Networks
Sociometric Links Strength of Sociometric Links
Type of at All Frequency Sociometric at High Frequency
Network Levels Links Levels
Research r = .23 r = .28 r = .29
p = .035 p = .015 p = .012
Teaching r = .14 r = -.10 r = .13
p = .144 p = .229 p = '152
Nonwork- r = .27 r = .25 r = .17
related p = .016 p = .027 p = .092

 

projects, articles and books. The moderate, but significant
relationship found with the research networks for exclusiveness
of referent contacts and the average of research output (Table 12;
r= .29, p = .015) is a clear indication of the general association
between steady research output and collegial recognition. In general,
these findings supplement the evidence presented so far that achievement
is associated with referent other contacts and levels of self investment.
Furthermore, this evidence points to the relative isolation of the
teaching networks with regard to associations of low research output
and referent associations, especially at the high frequency level of
contact.

Because referent contacts within disciplinary networks outside

of the university may reflect an extension of internal referent

133

associations, we have tested for degree of association in these
networks. The assumption of this analysis is that the higher the

number of referent contacts within the discipline, the higher the
professional status within that discipline. The result of this analysis
shows that self investment is significantly associated with referent
contacts outside of the university (Table 14). The association with
external referent contacts defined as "mostly exchanging ideas and
papers" is moderately strong (r= .20, p= .055) while the relationship
with referent contacts "mostly actively working on research" is stronger
(r==.28, p==.014). It is obvious that the associations between teaching
and nonwork-related areas of self investment with external academic

networks is almost nonexistent.

Table 14. Relationships Between Self Investment in Three Achievement
Areas of Activity and Frequence of Contact with Colleagues
in External Research Networks: Zero Order Correlations

 

 

 

(N= 63)
Self Referent Contacts for Referent Contacts for "Mostly
Investment "Mostly Exchanging Actively Working With on
Areas Ideas and Papers" Research"
Research r = .20 r = .28
p = .055 p = .014
Teaching r = -.02 r = .06
p = .427 p = -310
Nonwork— r = .03 r = .00
related p = .413 p = .490

 

134

The stronger association found for relationships based on
"actively working with on research" (r = .28) may be explained in
terms of the intensity of this form of relationship in comparison
to one based on "mostly exchanging ideas and papers." An ongoing
working relationship entails stronger concerted efforts to succeed
and therefore to work with referent others to avoid negative eval-
uations. Also, the frequency of contact under these circumstances
is greater which tends to produce more frequent self evaluations of
performance which, in turn, affects feelings of self worth which can
also be translated into self investment theory with respect to the
degree of concern for achievement in the evaluative area of activity.
In essence our findings support the hypothesis that self
investment in particular areas of activity is related to the frequency
of contact with referent others in the related sociometric networks.
These expected associations hold for both collegial associations within
the department and external to it within disciplinary networks. Also,
as expected, primarily those who have high self investment in research,
as well as high research output, will have frequent contacts with
referent others in external disciplinary networks. In another analysis
not shown here, it was found that the relationships between low achieve—
ment categories of self investment and frequency of contact with
referent others is negative, thus, supporting our assertion that

achievement has a significant impact on levels of self investment.

135

Hypothesis 2A

 

H2A: Exclusiveness of contact among faculty members will be

greater under conditions of similar levels of self

investment. Also, these exclusive relationships are

stronger under circumstances of achievement.

The data used for testing this hypothesis have been organized
into contingency tables to show the effects of both high and low levels
of self investment as well as high and low achievement levels. This
hypothesis is corroborated in the self investment areas of research
and nonwork-related activities, but not in the area of teaching for
some reasons to be discussed.

The main evidence supporting our hypothesis is found in
Table 15 where the ratio of actual to potential links is particularly
strong (+.42). It is important to recall throughout this analysis
that potential means reciprocal link distribution expected on the
assumption of randomness. The interpretation for this finding is
that those who have either high or low levels of self investment in
research, under circumstances of achievement, will tend to associate
more with each other than with those who have different levels of self
investment in research. The ratio of actual to potential links for the
nonwork-related sociometric network is also strong (+.29). Again, it
appears that even in the area of nonwork-related activities, exclusive-
ness of contact is associated with similar levels of self investment
and achievement. Moreover, for the nonwork-related networks, the ratio

of actual to potential links (-.31) is strong in the negative direction,

as expected. This means that there is little association between

136

Table 15. Exclusiveness of Group Associations Relating to High
Achievement Areas of Self Investment

 

 

 

 

Sociometric Networks Exclusiveness of Contact
Corresponding to High
Achievement Areas of Above and Below the Means Between the
Self Investment Groups Combineda Mean Groups
b
Research +.42 -.06
N = 139C N = 139
Teaching +.02 -.04
N = 197 N = 197
Nonwork-related +.29 -.31
N = 81 N = 81

 

8Above the mean groups have high self investment and below the
mean groups have low self investment in that particular activity.

bRatios reflect the relationships of actual reciprocal links
to potential reciprocal links, assuming randomness of distribution.

If all reciprocal links are distributed randomly, then the ratio of
actual to potential links is zero or the number of actual links equals
the number of potential links for that particular group. If the number
of actual reciprocal links exceeds the number of potential reciprocal
links or the number of links expected by randomness alone, then a
positive (+) valence is assigned to that ratio. If the number of
potential reciprocal links exceeds the number of actual reciprocal
links, then a negative (-) valence is assigned to that ratio.

c"N" represents the total number of times subjects responded to
self investment items for that particular area. The size of the N is
partly dependent on the number of items that comprise that particular
category. The small "N" for nonwork-related networks reflects only
four items for this category; the larger "N" for the teaching networks
reflect the six items for this category and the medium size of N for
the research category reflects the five items for that category.

137

faculty members who have high self investment in nonwork-related
activities, under circumstances of achievement, and those who have
low levels of self investment in those same activities.

In the teaching sociometric networks, the ratios of actual
to potential links for both high and low levels of self investment
(+.02) and for the between-the-mean groups (-.04) are very weak. The
reasons for these weak associations are related to our previous find-
ings that in relative terms the teaching networks are inactive and
mostly isolated from the other two sociometric networks. In effect,
associations based on teaching—related reasons provide only the most
basic instrumental interactions needed for the efficient functioning
of academic departments insofar as institutional prerequisites of
undergraduate teaching are concerned. According to our findings in
Table 10, faculty members who get together for teaching-related reasons
do not normally associate with one another for nonwork-related reasons.
Assuming strong professional concerns regarding teaching, you would
expect that these same faculty members would associate with one
another for purely social reasons as well. It is also evident from
Table 16 that the absence of achievement makes little difference on
exclusivity of contact (+.06, -.O9) for the teaching networks, but
it does make a difference for research networks primarily because
sociometric choices in the area of research are relatively unrestrained
by the organization and therefore more conducive to free choices of

faculty.

138

Further evidence of the relative isolation of the teaching
networks is found in Table 17. From this analysis, it is clear that
only self investment in teaching is significantly associated with the
teaching sociometric networks at the high frequency level (r = .38,
p==.001)and strength of sociometric links (r= .28, p==.001). These
significant associations may be explained, in part, by another analysis
that revealed that members of Department 882, where teaching is empha-
sized, compose 29 out of 52 of the actual reciprocal links above the
mean (high self investment) in the high achievement category of self
investment in teaching. In other words, without Department 882, there
would be very little association for teaching related reasons. Again,
it may be recalled that the major reason for association in the teaching
networks of Department 832 is because the primary purpose of this
department is the team approach to teaching that requires that teaching
sections function as groups that meet regularly to attend to problems
and development of course curriculum and teaching methods. Also,
faculty members of Department 882 are required to teach twelve units
per term in comparison to faculty members of the other two departments
who are required to teach no more than two courses per term.

The consequences of low achievement on exclusivity of contact
in all but the nonwork-related sociometric networks is clear from
Table 16 where the associations are weak. The ratios of actual to
potential links for teaching (.06, -.09) and for research (.06, -.08),
while in the expected directions, are not sufficiently strong to support

our hypothesis. These low ratios may be due to chance alone, but the

139

Table 16. Exclusiveness of Group Associations Relating to Low
Achievement Areas of Association

 

 

Exclusiveness of Contact

 

Sociometric Networks

 

Corresponding to the Above and Below
Low Achievement Areas the Mean Groups Between the
of Self Investment Combined Mean Groups
Research +.06a —.05
N = 153 N = 153
Teaching +.06 -.09
N = 126 N = 126
Nonwork-related +.12 -.21
N = 109 N = 109

 

aSee footnotes in Table 15.

Table 17. Relationships Between High Achievement Categories of Self
Investment and the Teaching Sociometric Network: Zero Order
Correlations (N= 63)

 

 

 

 

High Teaching Sociometric Networka
Achievement
Self Sociometric Strength of Sociometric Links
Investment Links at All Sociometric at High Frequency
Areas Frequency Levels Links Levels (Exclusivity)
Research r = .19 r = .12 r = .08
p = .069 p = .175 p = .259
Teaching r = .18 r = .28 r = .38
p = .072 p = .001 p = .001
Nonwork- r = .02 r = .03 r = -.01
related p = .443 p = .401 p = .481

 

aAll three high achievement categories of self investment are
correlated here with the teaching sociometric networks found in all
three departments.

140

evidence presented so far suggests that achievement has a decided impact
on self investment and frequency of association with others. Social
recognition for achievement strengthens commitments to work resulting
in productivity by enhancing self esteem essential for maintenance of
a positive self image. Lack of achievement apparently contributes to
weak group cohesion and to low self investment, and, in the long run,
results in withdrawal of self investment in that area of activity.

Examples that illustrate the powerful influences of achievement
on group cohesion may be drawn from many areas of activity. For a
basketball team, as an example, winning games assures the continuation
of public recognition enhancing self esteem of the players necessary
for a strong team spirit. As the team continues to win games, the
players will form into a more tightly knit group. In contrast, losing
games often leads to a lack of cooperation and dissension among the
players. Also, a closer knit group facilitates more frequent contacts
among the players that will enhance self esteem for the better players
and, perhaps, produce negative self images for the poorer players who
may avoid negative evaluations under conditions of fewer contacts with
teammates. In a similar manner, those who have achieved in the same
areas of professional activity, will tend to seek one another out on
a more frequent basis to make status claims through the process of
exchanging papers, knowledge and advice and by working together on
research projects, etc.

For the nonwork-related sociometric networks, the absence of

achievement appears to have little affect; the ratio of actual to

141

potential links for the high and low self investment groups combined
is moderately strong (-.12) while for the between mean groups, the
ratio of actual to potential links is strong (-.21) in the negative
direction, as expected. The main reason for this finding is the close
link between the research and the nonwork-related networks. Thus,
achievement in nonwork-related areas of activity does not have an
important bearing on "getting together for nonwork—related reasons."
For the most part, these relationships are expected because most of
our subjects have high self investment in research-related areas of
concern and, subsequently, they will tend to socialize with each
other more frequently as work is a "central life concern" for them.

A further indication of the link between the research and
nonwork—related networks is found in Tables 18 and 19. In Table 18,
the total number of item responses for the high achievement area of
high self investment in research (78) almost equals the total number
of item responses for the low achievement area of low self investment
in nonwork-related activities (77) found in Table 19. Moreover, the
ratio of high frequency contacts to item responses for this research
category (.69) is almost the same for the nonwork-related category
of colleague association (.62). In large part, the strong research
orientations among our subjects accounts for the strong links between
the research and nonwork-related networks.

The primary purpose for Tables 18 and 19 is to further
illustrate the impact of achievement on frequency of association
among faculty. In all but one category, which is below the mean

group for teaching, the ratios of high frequency reciprocal links

142

Table 18. Distribution of the Ratios of High Frequency Contacts to the
Total Number of Responses to Self Investment Items for All
Three High Achievement Categories

 

 

High Achievement Self Investment Categories

 

 

Sociometric Above the Between the Below the
Areas Mean Groups Mean Groups Mean Groups
Research .698 b .49 .48
N = 78 N = 139 N = 61
Teaching .53 .43 .22
N = 98 N = 197 N = 99
Nonwork- .27 .27 .72
related N = 37 N = 81 N = 44

 

aThis ratio represents the total number of reciprocal high
frequency contacts (scaled responses at the very frequent and fre—
quent contact levels) to the total number of respondents for that
self investment category.

bSee footnotes in Table 15.

143

Table 19. Redistribution of the Ratios of High Frequency Contacts to
the Total Number of Responses to Self Investment Items for
All Three Low Achievement Categories

 

 

Low Achievement Self Investment Categories

 

 

Sociometric Above the Between the Below the
Areas Mean Groups Mean Groups Mean Groups
Research .583 b .39 .35
N = 72 N = 153 N = 81
Teaching .25 .24 .27
N = 63 N = 126 N = 63
Nonwork- .16 .21 .62
related N = 32 N = 109 N = 77

 

8This ratio represents the total number of reciprocal high
frequency contacts (scaled responses at the very frequent and fre-
quent contact levels) to the total number of respondents for that
self investment category.

bSee footnotes in Table 15.

144

to the total number of item responses for each category of social
contact is less in the low achievement categories (Table 19) than

in the high achievement categories (Table 18). For both high and low
achievement categories, high self investment is generally associated
with greater high frequency contacts with colleagues, but achievement
appears to be the most consistent factor influencing high levels of
high frequency contact.

By comparing the lower item responses (81) for the high
achievement nonwork-related categories with the low achievement
categories (109) for the same area of self investment, we find that
our suspicion is confirmed, that our population generally consists of
low achievers in nonwork-related activities. Also, supporting this
conclusion is the evidence from Table 5 that shows that the level of
self investment for our population as a whole in nonwork-related
activities is comparatively low.

Taking into account the documented argument that the teaching
networks are relatively inactive, it appears that our hypothesis is
supported. Exclusivity of associations are related to high self
investment and these relationships are more likely under conditions
of achievement in the area. It appears evident that both high and
low self investment groups who are low achievers do not form exclusive
collegial contacts to the same degree as high achievers. In the
absence of achievement, it seems that socio-emotional needs can be
a firm basis for exclusivity of association, but apparently for our

population, achievement is the essential factor. In the absence of

145

achievement, for the research networks, however, while exclusivity

of contact is low (Table 16), the ratios of high frequency contacts
to item responses for high self investment groups is greater than for
the low self investment groups (Table 19).

Assuming that these conclusions apply to other social groups
as well, we may begin to focus on these important factors that con-
tribute to strong commitments to activities. Also, where groups
form an integral part of the job environment, group cohesiveness
and association may be partly conceived as a product of recognition
for achievement. In the broadest sense, we may begin to develop a
theory explaining how highly successful group efforts and individual
successes perpetuate power and control over important segments of
society. By virtue of the fact that these groups or individuals
associate more often with referent others, the retention of their
achieved statuses and the continuation of rights and privileges
attached to their positions will probably persist. In contrast,
those who remain unrecognized for achievement tend to have fewer
referent contacts leading to withdrawal of self investment, which,
in turn, contributes to their lack of effectiveness in achieving

status or operating as social change agents.

Hypothesis 3

 

H3: The greater the self investment in a particular
work-related activity, the greater will be self
investment in work in general.
This hypothesis has logical appeal since the idea that one will

work hardest in those activities where there is high self investment

146

is difficult to dispute, especially under circumstances where the
rewards for productivity are great. The concept of work, as culturally
defined, is the accomplishment of a particular task that is valuable to
the society and of great importance to the identity of a group whose
evaluative frameworks are strongly embedded in successful task per-
formances. Our measure of self investment in work is linked to the
group's consensual validation of criteria of performance that for most
of its members becomes the link to the evaluative framework for self
evaluation. When the group values the end product of one's efforts,
then the task performer will ordinarily feel good about being involved
in work that leads to social recognition for achievement, providing
that there is high self investment in that area of activity. Assuming
high self investment in a task area, then achievement in that area of
activity will lead to enhancement of self esteem necessary for the
encouragement of continued efforts to succeed. This whole self
investment process is dependent on successful outcomes for the

task performer.

When, as an example, there is only one basic indicator for
successful job performance, such as fitting parts on an assembly line,
then self investment in work is more likely to be associated with a
weekly pay check. It is difficult to possess a strong feeling of
accomplishment for something that requires little or no skill.
Professional accomplishments, on the other hand, provide an extreme
contrast in the variety of task areas whereby many alternatives are

available that require creativity and adroitness for successful

147

outcomes. In general, there are many guidelines and limitations
inherent within each discipline that may hamper truly creative
efforts. As a general rule, however, the ethics of professionalism
promote innovative ideas and assimilation of knowledge to maintain
flexibility and change necessary for healthy growth in the disciplines.
At the basis of evaluative frameworks, however, are the fundamental
guidelines by which most academic accomplishments are judged. Thus,
eminent scholars within each discipline are the main reference points
for self evaluation of performance in research.

Therefore, for most workers who perform tasks that require
little skill or education, annual income is the primary gratification
derived from work, although there are other benefits from work such as
companionship and relief from boredom. The main point of this discus-
sion, however, is that the primary source of recognition for academi-
cians is scholarly performance, which, in turn, is essential for
self esteem maintenance. Self investment in work and in the
professional activity are linked to the degree of recognition
for achievement in that activity.

Support for this hypothesis is found in Tables 20 and 21
where self investment in work is found to be associated with all
three areas of activity. As expected, these associations are
particularly strong in the research and teaching areas of activity
primarily due to the high prestige and rewards attached. Also, many
years of dedication and effort have preceeded professional status so
that high self investment in professional activities has become both

necessary for achievement and essential for the arduous tasks that

148

Table 20. Relationship Between Self Investment in Work and in
Professional Areas of Activity: Zero Order Correlations

 

 

 

 

(N= 64)
Self Investment Categories

High and Low

Self Investment High Low Achievement
in Work Achievement Achievement Categories Combined

Research r = .17 r = .37 r = .46
activities p = .092 p = .001 p = .001
Teaching r = .25 r = .23 r = .41
activities p = .022 p = .034 p = .001

 

Table 21. Relationship Between Self Investments in Work and Nonwork—
Related Areas of Activity: Zero Order Correlations (N==64)

 

 

High and Low

 

High Low Achievement
Achievement Achievement Categories Combined
Self investment r = .08 r = .29 r = .26
in work p = .267 p = .010 p = .019

 

149

must be overcome to attain professional recognition. The strongest
support for Hypothesis 3 is found in Table 20 for the combined areas
of high and low achievement in research (r= .46, p= .001) and in
teaching (r= .41, p= .001).

While all of the relationships in Table 20 are in the expected
direction, only the high achievement category of research is not
significant at the .05 level. However, the interaction effects of
high and low achievers explains why this correlation (Table 20,
r= .17, p==.092) is relatively low and our analysis of this variable
above and below the mean with work (Table 4) illustrates that those
who have the highest self investment in research also have high self
investment in work (r==.32, p= .036). This is an important finding,
because it clearly demonstrates that there is a significant relationship
between high self investment in research and in work for those who have
achieved.

The reason for combining both high and low achievement self
investment categories is because this form of analysis allows an exact
comparison to actual levels of self investment in either research or
teaching. Combining achievement and nonachievement items produces a
total score reflective of self investment in that area of activity to
a greater extent than correlating either achievement or nonachievement
items only because, in the first case, we have derived a fair average
of self investment whereas, in the second case, we have derived a
fraction of the total depending upon the number of items responded

to in either achievement or nonachievement categories. Differences

150

for the two types of analysis is peculiar in nature to the composite
variables that have been created from the several items in each self
investment area. In general, what is occurring is that in the case
of correlating either the high or low achievement composite variables,
the total of all scores is the measure of self investment, which, for
those who have responded to only a few items, may be very low and
therefore not truly representative of their self investment for that
entire area of activity. According to this analysis, the lower cor-
relation for the high achievement category of research (r==.17, p= .092)
may be explained, in part, in terms of the aggregate of items responded
to by our population, which is 139, compared to 153 items responded to
for the low achievement in research category. The same item response
analysis may be applied to the nonwork-related area of activity (Table
21), but in the opposite direction, where there are only 81 item
responses in the high achievement category and 109 item responses in
the low achievement category which reflects the lack of interest that
our subjects have in nonwork-related areas of activity. This explains,
in part, the insignificant relationship between self investment in work
and in the high achievement category for nonwork-related activities
(r==.08, p==.267). Also, self investment in work in general is not
expected to relate to nonwork-related activities.

A noteworthy aspect of this analysis are the variations of
relationships depending upon the reward structure attached to the
activities in question. Self investment in work is least associated

with self investment in nonwork-related activities (r= .26, p= .019)

151

as expected. While self investment in work is related to self
investment in research activities (r= .46) to greater extent than

to self investment in teaching activities (r==.4l), the difference

is not sufficient to warrant comment. In general, it appears that

our hypothesis is supported for all three areas of activity. Moreover,
the rewards attached to particular activities are more conducive to
high levels of self investment in work than to other activities, which
follows from Self investment theory. The higher the status attached

to a particular area of achievement, the greater will be social rec-
ognition and hence the more likelihood that role encumbents will have

high self investment in work in order to achieve in those activities.

Hypothesis 4

 

H4: The greater the cosmopolitan orientation, the greater

the likelihood of more frequent contacts with departmental

colleagues.

Confirmation of this hypothesis involves a series of tests,
the first of which establishes the relationship, if any, between age
and cosmopolitanism. Because cosmopolitanism is supposed to reflect
academic productivity and national recognition within disciplines,
variables relating to these parameters were employed in our analysis.
Cosmopolitanism was also correlated with all three areas of self
investment to determine whether or not it is characterized exclusively
by research concerns. Because the category of external referent con-
tacts is one-third of the cosmopolitan composite variable, any corre-
lation with other variables includes this assumption of outside referent

associations. In general, the basic relationships between internal and

external referent contacts is confirmed by the following analysis.

152

It may be argued that research output and national recognition
relating to cosmopolitan orientations may be a natural outgrowth of
career advancement. Therefore, our first test was to compute partial
correlations for the research output variables and cosmopolitanism
while controlling for the effects of age. The relationship between
age and cosmopolitanism is almost nonexistent (r==.003) and the partial
correlation test revealed that age has almost no effect on the relation—
ship between research output and cosmopolitanism. It may be inferred
from this analysis that cosmopolitan orientations are related to active
involvements in external research networks in conjunction with research
productivity that results in national recognition within disciplines.

In order to specify the relationship between productivity
and cosmopolitanism, the link with the research output variables
must be established. The regression analysis employed to test the
relationships between research output variables and cosmopolitanism
is found in Table 22. The results of this analysis is particularly
impressive (p<<.001) and indicates that the selection of variables
comprising the cosmopolitan composite variable partly fulfills the
purpose for which they were intended.

Apart from some notable exceptions, Table 22 represents those
research output variables previously selected to create the composite
variables. Consulting work at the national level is one of those
exceptions because it represents recognition for achievement and not
achievement itself. It was included in our analysis because it is an

indication of one's professional reputation within the discipline's

153

Table 22. Relationships Between Research Output Variables and
Cosmopolitanism: Regression Analysis (N==67)

 

 

 

Research Output Variables Simple Correlations
Books published . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . r = .02
Books edited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . r = .32
Articles published in professional journals . . . . r = .24
Research grants received (dollar amount) . . . . . . r = .32
Consulting work at the national level . . . . . . . r = .24

Papers presented to regional professional
associations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . r = .34

Papers presented to local professional
associations 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O r = .24

Prestige level of articles published . . . . . . . . r = .16

 

R = .63 (p< .001), R2 = .40.

characteristic of cosmopolitan status. Another exception is research
grants received which is an indication of recognition for competent
research potential but not necessarily for research output. Prestige
level of journals in which articles were published is an indication of
cosmopolitanism because it represents national recognition within the
discipline, although it does not necessarily qualify as a measure of
research output because the prestige rank of journals does not always
represent the quality of articles contained. While quality of perfor-
mance is important for national reputation of scholars, it is difficult
to measure unless citation index analysis is conducted which for the

purpose of our study was impractical due to the many diverse social

154

science disciplines and the variety of interests represented by our
population. With the exception of books published, most of the
variables selected are fair indicators of cosmopolitanism. The
very few members of Department 883 who have published an inordinate
number of books in comparison to most other cosmopolitans accounts
for much of this low correlation.

Recognition of cosmopolitans within their departments is
suggested by the data in Table 23 where it is clear that there is a
strong link with the research sociometric networks (r==.32, p==.005)
at the high frequency level of contact and a moderately strong link
for the nonwork—related sociometric networks (r==.21, p= .046) for
the same category. These associations found in the research and
nonwork-related networks may be explained in the context of our
previous analysis revealing that these two sociometric networks
are closely linked. Because of the relative isolation found for
the teaching sociometric networks, the insignificant relationship
(r==.15, p= .110) at the high frequency contact level is understandable.
The stronger associations for the teaching networks for reciprocal links
at all frequency levels (r==.28, p= .001) and for strength of socio-
metric links (r= .24, p==.026) may be partly explained by noting that
these associations are based on "occasional" contacts and, in most
cases, these contacts are natural outcomes of the more frequent con-
tacts with the same colleagues for "getting together for research
related reasons." Thus, it appears evident that there is a strong
link between cosmopolitan status within the disciplines and recognition

by colleagues within academic departments.

155

Table 23. Relationships Between Cosmopolitanism and Frequency of
Contact with Departmental Colleagues for Three Networks:
Zero Order Correlations

 

 

 

 

Cosmopolitanism
Sociometric Links Strength of Sociometric
Sociometric at All Frequency Sociometric Links at High
Networks Levels Links Frequency Levels

Research r = .31 r = .31 r = .32
network p = .005 p = .007 p = .005

N = 67 N = 64 N = 67
Teaching r = .28 r = .24 r = .15
network p = .011 p = .026 p = .110

N = 67 N = 64 N = 67
Nonwork- r = .25 r = .27 r = .21
related p = .019 p = .016 p = .046
network N = 67 N = 64 N = 67

 

Confirmation of the tie between external referent contacts and
collegial associations within the departments is found in Table 24.
The strongest associations appear to be at the level of all frequencies
of contact for "exchanging ideas and papers" (r==.49, p==.001) and for
"actively working on research projects, professional articles, books,
etc." (r= .51, p= .001). For sociometric links at high frequency
levels, we find strong associations with "exchanging ideas and papers"
(r= .48, p==.001) and a moderate association with "actively working on
research projects, professional articles, books, etc." (r= .27, p= .016).
Also, for the strength of sociometric links, there are significant cor-

relations in both areas of referent contact. This means that in general

156

Table 24. Relationships Between Internal (Departmental) and External
(Disciplinary Networks) Research Networks (N==63)

 

 

Departmental Research Networks

 

 

Disciplinary Sociometric Links Strength of Sociometric
Research at All Frequency Sociometric Links at High
Networks Levels Links Frequency Levels

Exchanging r = .49 r = .40 r = .48

ideas and p = .001 p = .001 p = .001

papers

Actively r = .51 r = .21 r = .27

working on p = .001 p = .050 p = .016

research

projects,

professional

articles,
books, etc.

 

the ratio of high frequency contacts to low frequency of contacts is
high.

While previous studies (Gouldner, 1957, 1958; Blau, 1973)
emphasize that those with cosmopolitan orientations tend to hold strong
commitments to external research networks and weak loyalties to their
local institutions, these studies do not address the question of actual
contact with departmental colleagues. It is possible, for example, that
Gouldner would have arrived at the same conclusions in his study of
Co-op College that we did, if he had conducted sociometric network
analysis on both research and teaching networks instead of concentrating
exclusively on one network where participation was based entirely on

"social popularity." This shortcoming has persistently plagued

157

cosmopolitan and local studies ever since Gouldner's study. As an
example, Berger and Crimes (1973) in their analysis of the cosmo—
local construct found little evidence to support a "reference group
orientation" situated mainly outside of the local institution.

Several studies have involved a comprehensive analysis of
external research networks for particular disciplines by relying
primarily on citation data (Mullins et al., 1977; Small, 1977;
Mulkay, 1974, 1975; Mullins, 1972; Breiger, 1976; Crane, 1972),
and until now, there has been no attempt to link these external
scientific networks with research networks within academic departments.
Thus, by linking both networks together a more complete picture of
collegial association results.

It is likely that by applying the research design of our
study to a primarily teaching-oriented institution, the opposite
patterns of referent contact will emerge insofar as dominant social
networks are concerned. Strong teaching orientations among the
majority of faculty members will result in teaching and social
networks being linked. Testing for both research and teaching
networks, however, probably would reveal active research networks
within these institutions linked with external disciplinary networks.
However, these research networks are not expected to be particularly
active in comparison to those found in most prestigious universities.
It is likely that these conditions prevailed at Gouldner's Co-op
College, but because of the sociometric methodology used, this

information was not obtained. Having a cosmopolitan status does

158

not mean a lack of commitment or loyalty to the local institution.

It merely points to a firm reliance on recognition for achievement

from referent others within one's own discipline. This recognition

is crucial for self esteem maintenance necessary for continuing efforts
to succeed. In this context, commitments are to professional networks
serving faculty members most essential needs, but not necessarily to
the organizational commitments and goals of the local institution where
professional needs may remain unmet.

It is probably true that national recognition and strong ties
to external networks lead to weaker ties with local institutions, but
at the same time cosmopolitan status is certain to attract attention
and deference from colleagues and students alike. Virtually all of
the items used in the cosmo-local studies to test for professional
orientations and loyalty to the local institution have concentrated
on concerns for students and administrative rules governing student
affairs rather than on faculty needs for research facilities and ties
with research networks within the local institution. It is therefore
suggested that two areas of commitment exist. These commitments may
be categorized as the business of teaching undergraduate students and
the business of teaching graduate students and doing research work
that partly depends on local referent contacts that, in effect,
strengthen attachments to the local institution. Having adequate
research facilities contributes to these attachments by providing
the means to retain and perpetuate cosmopolitan statuses. Tenure
also adds to the strength of these loyalties by providing job

security and academic freedom to pursue research interests.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

In general, empirical support has been found for all four of
the hypotheses tested. Discussion of these findings in this chapter
includes summary statements of the results and directions for fruitful
applications of self investment theory. The findings corroborate the
main propositions of self investment theory and, in addition, have
given new meaning to the concept of cosmopolitanism. Moreover, a new
finding concerning the relationship between frequency of contact with
referent others and achievement emerged. Although our survey population
consisted of academic Professionals, the theory of self investment is
intended to apply to the entire area of occupational achievement as a
practical theory for understanding important social factors associated
with work. Previous research conducted in industrial organizations has
strongly suggested that interaction with colleagues is associated with
high levels of performance in the laboratory. "There seems to be a
consistent trend for those who exchange information with many people
to perform at high levels" (Pelz and Andrews, 1966, p. 41). Because
of the importance of social recognition for maintenance of self esteem,
self investment theory is an important framework for comprehending the
most essential interrelationships between personality characteristics

and social structure.

159

160

We have attempted to avoid applications of lineal causal models
to frame the variables of our study. Although self investment theory
implies causal links between self investment, frequency of evaluation
and recognition for achievement, it doesn't restrict analysis to
independent, intervening and dependent variables. This does not
negate the possibility of defining social psychological variables
as being causally related, especially for heuristic purposes. It
is more convenient, however, to treat social factors as reciprocally
linked with one another without specifying a direction of causal
relationships.

Achievement is the most important factor of our study mainly
because frequency of contact with referent others and self investment
are regarded as being dependent upon it. In this context, achievement
may be defined as an independent variable. Alternatively, achievement
may be treated as a dependent variable because self investment in work
is essential for the attainment of success. To avoid unnecessary con-
fusion, relationships among self investment variables are regarded as
reciprocally related with achievement posited as the most important
factor for our analysis.

Our findings clearly show that there is a direct relationship
between self investment and levels of achievement. Relationships between
the three research output variables and self investment in research
are all clearly significant (p= .001). Moreover, to illustrate the
impact of achievement on self investment, Table 5 shows that the mean

for all self investment items in areas where there has been achievement

161

is 4.89 compared to 4.00 for the item in areas where there has been
no achievement, which, overall, constitutes an 18 percent difference.
The effects of achievement on levels of self investment is also
clear from our analysis of achievement with age (Table 6). Thus, fail-
ure to attain recognition for achievement in research activities tends
to result in withdrawal of self investment with age (r==—.45, p==.001).
These same withdrawal tendencies are found for those who fail to gain
recognition for teaching (r==-.43, p==.001). The same type of rela—
tionship also holds for nonacademic activities (r==-.34, p==.003),
but to a lesser extent. An interpretation of these findings is that
failure to gain social recognition for achievement threatens self
esteem resulting in less concern for achievement, which means lower
self investment.
Changes in levels of self investment with age were minimal
for those who have achieved. The obvious differences found between
high and low achievement self investment categories may be due, in
part, to the high levels of self investment of most of our subjects
in professional activities. It is possible that these differences
would not emerge to the same extent for nonprofessional occupational
groups. For assembly line workers, as an example, other activities
found outside of work may be more important and necessary for self
esteem maintenance than work. Thus, leisure activities, commitments
to fraternal organizations and the family may suffice as primary sources

for self esteem maintenance.

162

As expected, frequency of contact with referent others in the
research networks is significantly associated with self investment in
research (r= .30, p= .008). Frequency of contact with referent others
in the teaching networks is correlated with self investment in teaching
(r= .38, p==.001). Failure for Hypothesis 2 to hold for the relation-
ship between frequency of contact in the nonwork-related sociometric
networks and self investment in nonwork-related self investment activ-
ities has been explained by noting that those who are most actively
involved in the nonwork-related networks have high self investment in
research but low self investment in nonwork-related activities at the
high intensity level of contact (r= .31, p= .006); thereby establishing
the strong link between the research and nonwork—related sociometric
networks.

The relative isolation of the teaching networks from the
research and nonwork-related networks is mainly the consequence of
faculty members of Department 852 being required to participate in
scheduled curriculum meetings of their department. Most of our pop-
ulation have high self investment in research activities as well as
being actively involved in the research networks of their departments.
The strong link between the research and the nonwork-related networks
can be attributed to the strong research climate of this university.
Under conditions of a weak research climate, the most likely link
will be between the teaching and the nonwork-related sociometric

networks.

163

Again, the close associations between the research and
nonwork-related sociometric networks explains why active participation
in both of these networks is related to the three measures of research
output (Tables 11-13). Failure of the teaching sociometric networks
to be significantly related to the three research output measures of
achievement at the high frequency level of association, which is the
most dependable category of referent contact, supports our contention
that the teaching networks are relatively isolated from the other two

networks. This analysis has shown that frequency of contact with

 

referent others, in addition to being associated with self investment,

 

is also significantly associated with academic achievement.

 

Previously, Gouldner and others have concluded that cosmo-
politanism is primarily associated with loyalty and commitments that
are outside of the university. Our findings clearly show that cosmo—
politanism is related to referent associations within academic depart-
ments as well as referent associations within disciplinary networks.
Partial support for this assertion is found in Table 14 where self
investment in research is associated with participation in disciplinary
networks outside of the university in the category of "mostly exchanging
ideas and papers" (r= .20, p==.055) and in the category of "mostly
actively working with on research projects, articles, books, etc."

(r= .28, p= .014).

Our contention that exclusivity of social contact is associated

with similar levels of self investment is confirmed (Table 15) for

professional activities in which there has been some achievement.

164

Failure for the teaching sociometric networks to form into exclusive
group associations has been explained, in large part, as a consequence
of the relative inertness of these networks compared with the research
and nonwork-related networks. For the low achievement categories of
activity, lack of exclusivity of contact, except for the nonwork-
related networks (Table 16), may, for the most part, be explained

by the absence of achievement associated with these categories, as
already suggested. Although our analysis reveals that generally low
achievement reduces exclusivity of contact, we also found that, in the
absence of achievement, high self investment contributes to greater
exclusivity of contact (Table 19). Thus, an important finding to
emerge from our study is that exclusivity of contact with referent
others is primarily associated with achievement and also high levels
of self investment.

Taking into consideration both achievement and high levels of
self investment, achievement appears to have the strongest impact on
frequency of contact with significant others (Table 18). You would
expect, on the basis of expressive needs alone, that those who have
low self investment in activities will tend to form exclusive group
associations to the same extent as those who have high self investment
in those same activities. Evidence from Tables 18 and 19, however,
refutes this expectation for our population. In the absence of
achievement, for eight out of nine self investment categories of

association, exclusivity of association is lower (Table 19).

165

This finding concerning the strong impact that achievement
has upon frequency of contact with referent others may have broader
consequences. In effect, these strong occupational reference group
associations may facilitate the formation and perpetuation of powerful
group conditions. Those who have achieved less and who are therefore
at the bottom of the status hierarchy of society are generally more
vulnerable to the control and influence of the more powerful social
classes perhaps because their relative inactivity within occupationally-
related social networks makes it more difficult for viable group coali-
tions to form. Active involvement in nonwork-related activities often
provides compensation for self esteem lost at work, but for the most
part, removes workers from sources of power and influence in society.
Therefore this type of analysis is most fruitfully applied to occupa-
tions where most of the high status positions of society are located.
The lack of membership participation in union activities as compared
to management participation in business-related activities can also
be partly understood as a consequence of the effects of high status
and related high levels of self investment found among managerial
workers as compared to unskilled and semi-skilled workers. Although
as with any fledgling development of ideas, the general applications
of our findings require further analysis and testing, we may begin to
apply the principles derived from this study to other work settings
as well as to most groups, institutions and organizations where wealth

and power are maintained.

166

An important, but not unexpected, finding of our study is that
self investment in particular activities is related to self investment
in work in general. Furthermore, these relationships appear to be
stronger under conditions where the status and rewards attached to that
activity are greatest. Because each of the high and low achievement
categories of self investment comprise a fraction of the total responses
for that area of self investment, any correlations with the one item
response for self investment in work in general is bound to reflect
only part of the total picture. A more accurate picture emerged when
we combined both high and low achievement categories for each of the
three self investment areas. The result of these correlations with
the combined categories is convincing evidence for our hypothesis.

The relationships between self investment in work in general and self
investment in research (r==.46, p= .001) and with self investment in
teaching (r= .41, p==.001) are strong associations.

In comparison to other occupational groups that are lower on
the status assignment system for society as a whole, especially for
those on the very bottom (e.g., janitors, laborers, etc.), professional
occupations stimulate high levels of self investment in work as a
result of the prestige and rewards attached to the positions. It
is also likely that professional occupations attract those who have
high self investment in work in the first place. Also, recognition
in professional activities strengthens these commitments. During
early career stages, before the demands of specialization dominate

most professional activities, self investment in work probably became

 

167

manifested in other activities as well. For our population as a
whole, however, the relationship between self investment in work and
in nonwork-related activities is moderate (r==.26, p= .019). The fact
that this correlation is lower than that between self investment in
work and self investment in professional activities may be explained
by the lower levels of self investment for our population in nonwork-
related activities which, in part, may be the result of lower prestige
and rewards attached to these activities.

Cosmopolitan orientations of our population are related to
frequency of contact with referent others and also correspond to high
levels of research output, as expected. Because of the strong research
climate for this university in combination with the strong research
orientations of our subjects, departmental research networks dominate
most professional activities. Extent of participation in these research
networks links up significantly with cosmopolitan orientations (r= .32,
p==.005). Participation in nonwork-related sociometric network also
links up with cosmopolitanism (r= .21, p= .046).

Moreover, departmental research sociometric networks link up
significantly with the external research networks where the criterion
of association is "exchanging ideas and papers" (r==.48, p==.001) and
also with the external research networks where the criterion of asso-
ciation is "actively working with on research projects, professional
articles, books, etc." (r==.27, p==.016). Thus, it is apparent that
research activities, as reflected by participation in both internal

and external research networks represent the degree of concern for

168

achievement within the disciplines as a whole. In this context,
recognition for achievement among departmental faculty is as important
for enhancement of self esteem as recognition for achievement from
referent others outside of the university. Actually, disapproval by
departmental colleagues is probably more likely to have negative con-
sequences for self esteem maintenance than disapproval by referent
others outside of the university unless departmental colleagues lack
strong research orientations, in which case, their evaluations will
have less of an impact on self esteem. The research climate of the
university is an important factor for determining the frequency of
contact and exclusivity of association in departmental research and
social networks. The higher the research output of the faculty, the
more likely will they have high self investment in research activities
as well as possessing cosmopolitan orientations.

Several research goals have been incorporated into this study,
the most important of which is validation of the theory of self invest-
ment. The results of our tests clearly corroborate the basic self
investment propositions. Currently, Faunce is conducting a series
of tests among a variety of work groups and other studies are planned
for the future in other countries as well as the United States. This
study is unique, however, because it centers entirely on the academic
community. To date, this is the only known attempt to concentrate
an entire study on academic departments that, in essence, constitute
separate social environments influencing professional orientations.

While several studies have been concerned with academic departments,

169

they have not conducted sociometric analysis within these departments,
but, instead, they have either concentrated on specific academic
disciplines or else total college or university environments. This
may be partly the consequence of the reluctance of faculty members

to participate in the type of study that we were fortunate enough to
conduct. Further development of this study is necessary to obtain
additional data and insight into the social factors influencing pro-
fessional commitments, loyalties and research output. In particular,
this research should be extended to other universities and colleges
where different types of organizational climates exist.

A major reason underlying our heavy reliance on data regarding
actual interaction processes among faculty members was to avoid the
pitfalls of relying exclusively on attitudinal data regarding cosmo-
politanism which has plagued research efforts in the past. Although
some agreement between attitudes and social action is expected, there
are also some distortions on account of normative responses derived
from professional orientations, societal expectations, degree of self
investment in the areas in question, and reactions to the status and
demeanor of the interviewer. Some problems relating to these issues
are unavoidable whenever personal interviews are conducted, but these
effects may be reduced providing that care is taken to concentrate most
questions on subjects that may be confirmed through vitae information
and sociometric network analysis. It would be useful, however, to
obtain attitudinal data from the same population, especially where
there appears to be obvious discrepancies between cosmopolitan

attitudes and actual reference group associations.

170

A large study of university settings encompassing referent
associations outside of academic departments is necessary to gain a
better understanding of different types of social and research networks
influencing self investment and achievement. An obvious advantage
in enlarging this research effort is that additional subjects, given
variations in social environments, would allow for a more thorough
testing of our hypotheses. Additional hypotheses may then supplement
our study to include interdepartmental referent associations. Inter-
departmental sociometric analysis is especially required in those
universities and colleges where there are only a few faculty members
in each department. Therefore, more interdisciplinary association is
expected. It is also necessary to study interdepartmental referent
associations in larger research-oriented universities. As an example
Friedkin contends that in the area of the physical sciences inter-
departmental social networks exert the strongest influence on research
communication among faculty (Friedkin, 1978). Friedkin's study did
not, however, deal with the relationships between frequency of contact
with colleagues and academic achievement that we regard as crucial for
the self investment process. Hence, what is required to gain a more
complete understanding of the social processes associated with academic
achievement is to combine the analysis of departmental collegial asso-
ciations with collegial associations within interdepartmental networks
as well as with those outside of the university.

In conclusion, we have found significant interrelationships

among the most important self investment variables: level of self

171

investment, frequency of contact with referent others, exclusivity

of referent contacts and recognition for achievement. Our analysis

of cosmopolitanism has revealed that it is significantly associated
with high self investment in research, high academic achievement,

and referent contacts within academic departments as well as within
research networks outside of the university. The theory of self
investment places strong emphasis upon the status assignment system
as the main impetus for social action vis-a—vis the prestige and
rewards attached to social outcomes. For our study, faculty members
relate to a unique status assignment system and, as Hagstrom (1965)
has suggested, both informal and formal sources of recognition pro-
vide rewards for academic achievement. For those faculty members who
are high achievers as well as having high self investment in research,
frequency of contact with referent others is greater and more rewarding
than for those who are low achievers. Also exclusivity of collegial
association is greater for high achievers. This results in self
esteem enhancement through social recognition sufficient to sustain

efforts to achieve.

APPENDIX A

INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE

APPENDIX

INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE

I.D. #

Dr. Faunce has sent you a letter briefly explaining the nature of this
study and why you have been selected to be interviewed. I will ask you
the questions and record the information myself so that you do not have
to bother with filling anything out.

An identification number appears on this questionnaire instead of your
name to insure that the information obtained in this interview remains
in the strictest confidence. You may rest assured that all of the
information exchanged in this interview will be confidential. No one,
not even members of my committee, will know which members represent
which persons. The first set of questions pertains to yourself and
your profession.

1. What is your age?
2. Marital status? Number of children? Their ages
3. Sex? (1) Male (2) Female

4. Profession?

 

5. What academic degrees have you earned?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Year Received Institution
[ ] B.A or B S
[ ] Ph.D.
[ ] M.D.
[ ] Other
(Specify)

6. Now I would like to know something about your occupational back-
ground. Have you any positions at this university that are sub-
stantially different from the one you have now? An administrative
position, for example? If yes, what was that job and how long did
you have it?

Position Period of Occupancy
From l9__ to l9___
From 19__ to 19 ___
From l9__ to 19 __

 

 

 

 

172

7.

10.

11.

12.

13.

173

Beginning with the job you had prior to your present one, please
list the full-time jobs you have had since leaving graduate school.

Employing Organization Job Period of Employment

 

 

From 19 __ to l9___
From 19 to 19
From 19 __ to 19
From 19 to 19

From 19 to 19

 

 

 

 

 

Do you have tenure? yes , no . If yes, what year were you
tenured?

Here is a card with a scale from one to ten on it. The scale is
intended to represent the range in the extent to which success of
failure at work affect our feelings about ourselves. A person for
whom work is the most important thing in life and who must be suc-
cessful at work in order to think well of himself (herself) would
be at the extreme left end of this scale. The other end of the
scale would represent a person who regards other things as being
more important than work and who does not need to succeed at work
in order to feel that he (she) is a success.

a. What point on this scale represents the importance of work
to your feelings about yourself?

b. At what point would you say you were five years ago?

c. How about five years from now?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Have you published any articles in professional journals? yes ,
no . If yes, how many? . In what journals?
9 9 9
9 9 9
9 9
Have you published any books? yes , no . If yes, how many of
these were written? . How many of these were edited? .
Do you referee articles for any journals? yes , no . Which
journals?

9 9

 

Are you now doing or have you done any outside consulting work?
yes , no . If yes, what is the nature of this consulting
work?

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

174

Do you now hold or have you in the past held any elected offices
with local or national associations? yes , no . If yes,
which ones?

 

Have you presented papers at meetings of professional associations?
yes , no . If yes, how many? and which associations?

9 9 9

 

Have you obtained any research grants where funds were primarily

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

external to the university? yes , no . If yes, what were

the appropriate dollar values of these grants?

$ ,$ ,$ ’$ ’$ 9

s ,3 ,3 :3 9$ ‘

What courses do you normally teach? , ,
9 9 9

How many credit hours are you teaching this term? . How

many credit hours are you obligated to teach this year?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Are you a member of any committees at the college level? yes ,
no . If yes, which ones? , ,
9 9 °
At the university level? yes , no . Which ones?
9 9
Do you chair any of these committees? yes , no . Which ones?

(numbered above).

For how many graduate students do you serve as principal advisor?
At the M.A. level . Ph.D. level

How many of these students are actively working with you on their
theses or dissertations? M.A. level . Ph.D. level .

Now I have some questions of a different sort. We are interested
in the kind of criteria that are used in collegial evaluations in
this department. We are not so much interested in the formal cri-
teria used in making tenure decisions as we are in the everyday
evaluations that colleagues make of each other's work. Different
people may use different bases for making those evaluations. What
are the criteria for evaluation that you personally regard as most
important?

Are there any others? (probe)

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

175

You have mentioned (repeat all criteria). Now would you please
rank these criteria in order of importance. Which is the most
important? Which next? (etc.)

How much agreement would you say there is in this department
regarding the way you have ranked these criteria?

Almost complete , some , little , very little

(If less than almost complete) Would you say that a majority of
members of your department share your view? yes , no

If no, what are the differences in criteria used?

How certain are you about how you are evaluated by your collegaues
in the department?

very certain , certain , uncertain , very uncertain

(If less than certain) Is that a result of the differences in
criteria being used? yes , no

If no, why?

Now here are a set of cards containing categories commonly used
in universities for evaluating performance. Please rank order
them in terms of the importance of each category for how you
personally evaluate your colleagues in the department.

publishing books

teaching undergraduate students

receiving research grants

editing books

teaching graduate students

publishing articles

consultation work external to the department
community service activities.

 

How much agreement would you say there is in this department
regarding the way you have ranked these criteria?

almost complete , some , little , very little

32.

33.

176

(If less than almost complete) Would you say that a majority of

members of your department share your view? yes , no

If no, what are the differences in criteria used?

The next set of questions relates to how much you are concerned or
bothered by the possibility of failure with regard to certain outcomes
of your life. Here is a card with a scale of responses to the following
items. Please tell me the number which corresponds with your responses
to each of the following situations.

34A.

35A.

 

Little effect on how I Would bother me
feel about myself very much

IIIITTIIII

l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Response categories for questions 26—42

a. If yes, this question is read and the subject's response from
the scale is recorded.

b. If no, this question is read and the subject's response from
the scale is recorded.

(If subject has published a book.) You said you have published a

book. Did it receive a favorable evaluation by others in your

field? yes____, no ___

a. How would you feel if you published another book, but this
time it did not receive a favorable evaluation by others in
your field?

b. How would you feel if you published another book which again
did not receive a favorable evaluation by others in your field?

(If subject has not published a book.) You said you have not

published a book. How would you feel if you published a book

which did not receive a favorable evaluation by others in your
field.

(If subject has belonged to a professional association.) You said
you have held an office in a professional association on your
field.

a. How would you feel if you never again were elected to a
professional association in your field?

36.

37.

38A.

39.

40.

177

(If subject has not belonged to a professional association.)
You said you have not held an elected office in a professional
association of your field.

b. How would you feel if you were never elected to such an
association?

Do you have a reputation for being active in political affairs

in your community? yes , no

a. How would you feel if you were never again recognized by
anyone as being active in political affairs of your
community?

b. How would you feel if you were never recognized by anyone
as being active in political affairs of your community?

Are you generally recognized by your colleagues as an especially
good teacher? yes , no .

a. How would you feel if you were never again recognized as an
especially good teacher?

b. How would you feel if you were never recognized as an
especially good teacher?

(If subject has received a research grant.) You said that you
have not received a research grant.

a. How would you feel if you never again received a research
grant?

(If subject has not received a research grant.) You said that
you have not received a research grant.

b. How would you feel if you never receive one?

Do you own a home that others compliment you about? yes ,

no .

a. How would you feel if you never again received compliments
about your home?

b. How would you feel if you are never complimented about a
home that you own?

Are you recognized by your colleagues as an especially creative
and productive scientist? yes , no .

a. How would you feel if you never again received recognition
as an especially creative and productive scientist?

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

178

b. How would you feel if you never received recognition as an
especially creative and productive scientist?

Are you sought out by colleagues for advice concerning matters

of teaching? yes , no .

a. How would you feel if you were never again sought out for
advice concerning matters of teaching?

b. How would you feel if you were never sought out for advice
concerning matters of teaching?

Have you published an article in a leading journal of your field?
yes , no .
a. How would you feel if you never again publish an article in

a leading journal of your field?

b. How would you feel if you never publish an article in a
leading journal of your field?

Do you have some hobby or leisure activity that others regard
you as especially good at? yes , no

a. How would you feel if you were never again recognized as being
good at that activity?

b. How would you feel if you were never recognized as being good
at any hobby or leisure activity?

Have you been selected to an important college or university

committee assignment? yes , no .

a. How would you feel if you were never again selected to an
important college committee assignment?

b. How would you feel if you were never selected to an important
college committee assignment?

Do you have a reputation for being successful at counseling
students? yes , no .

a. How would you feel if you never again received recognition
as a successful counselor?

b. How would you feel if you never received recognition as a
successful counselor?

46.

47.

48.

This
your

49.

50.

51.

179

Are you recognized by others as being active in a local community

or fraternal organization? yes

a. How would you feel if you were
being active in a community or
b. How would you feel if you were

, no .

never again recognized as
fraternal organization?

never recognized as being

active in a community or fraternal organization?

Have you been elected to the (department advisory committee)?

yes ,

no

a. How would you feel if you were
department advisory committee?

b. How would you feel if you were
department advisory committee?

never again elected to the

never elected to the

Have you been getting good responses from students in classes?

yes 9

no

a. How would you feel if you never again got good responses

from students in classes?

b. How would you feel if you never got good responses

students in classes?

from

next set of questions is intended to ascertain how you allocate
time with regard to your profession.

a. Are you writing a book? yes
hours per week.

b. Are you editing a book? yes
hours per week.

an article for
If yes,

c. Are you writing
yes , no .
d. Are
yes .

no . If yes,
Are you

If yes, hours per week.

, no

, no

revising or preparing a new course?

If yes,

If yes,

a professional journal?
hours per week.

you currently involved in preparing a research proposal?

hours per week.

yes , no

Approximately how many hours per week do you normally spend

preparing for your courses?

hours per week.

180

This last set of questions is intended to ascertain the nature

and frequency of your contacts with members of your department.

Here is a card showing categories of contact (l==very frequently,

2= frequently, 3= infrequently, 4= never). I will first read to you
the faculty member's name. Please tell me the number for each of the
three categories that best reflects your level of contact with this
colleague. We will proceed in this manner through a list of faculty
members of your department.

 

Exchanging ideas Getting together
on research Exchanging ideas mainly for
projects, papers, on course nonwork-related

Names of faculty articles or books related material reasons

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

52.

53.

54.

181

Excluding former colleagues and students, are there people in
your field outside of this university with whom you exchange
papers or correspond about work-related matters? yes ___,

no ___, If yes, how many? . How often do you do this?

What is the nature of your correspondence?

When was your last contact?

 

Are these contacts increasing , decreasing , remaining
about the same

Are there (name of social science) outside of this university
with whom you are working on research projects, professional
articles, books, etc.? yes____, no ___. If yes, how many
(name of social science) are there? . How often are you
or have you done this?

 

 

When was your last contact?

 

What is the nature of your correspondence?

Are these contacts increasing , decreasing , remaining
about the same

Please think of five families with whom you or your family
(if married) most often get together on social occasions.
What is the occupation of the principal wage earner of each
family? Please be specific (e.g., professor of botany). If
any of these friends are colleagues from your department,
please identify them by name.

Occupations Name, if in the Department

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

UiwaH

 

 

APPENDIX B

DISTRIBUTION OF FACULTY BY AGE

APPENDIX B

DISTRIBUTION OF FACULTY BY AGE

Table B.l Age Distribution of Faculty by Academic Department

 

 

 

 

Age
Academic
Departments 26-34 35-44 45-54 55-64
881 N = 10 N = 5 N = 1 N = 5
882 N = 2 N = 9 N = 2 N = 6
SS3 N = 7 N = 7 N = 4 N = 9
Total N = 19 N = 21 N = 7 N = 20

 

Table B.2 Distribution of Research Output for Department 881 by Age

 

 

 

 

Age
Research
Variables 26-34 35-44 45-54 55-64
Books 4 5 1 13
Books edited 0 0 2 1
Journal articles 55 32 15 48
Papers delivered 23 29 5 19
Grants received 7 4 l 7
Dollar amount of
grants received 470M 193M 25M 60M

 

182

183

Table B.3 Distribution of Research Output for Department 582 by Age

 

 

 

 

Age
Research
Variables 26-34 35-44 45—54 55-64
Books 0 3
Books edited 0 0 O 4
Journal articles 6 25 58
Papers delivered 5 47 19 46
Grants received 2 3 O 3
Dollar amount of
grants received 13:! 59.5fl1 0 42M

 

Table B.4 Distribution of Research Output for Department SS3 by Age

 

 

 

 

Age
Research
Variables 26-34 35-44 45-54 55-64
Books 4 11 31
Books edited 1 4 0 5
Journal articles 34 93 138 227
Papers delivered 21 110 46 19
Grants received 6 3 7 7
Dollar amount of
grants received l62fi1 400fl4 70fi4 17154

 

APPENDIX C

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF VARIABLES

184

.manmflum> sumo mo mama“ w>flm Ham pom noncommmu u:mEum¢>Cw mamm mo Hmuou osmmmuaou mmfiuowmumom

 

304
mno
cane
mHuHH
omuofi
mNIHN
omuow
mmnam
I- u- u: H .. moqnom

swam

r-ld'NNI-nlnN

ma q N
q c m
o m H
N n N
H o m
II m N
H

 

ucmam>mficomcoz ucmEo>mwno< ucmam>mfinomcoz unmEm>mH£o< unm5m>mwzomcoz unwEw>mwnu< unmaumw>cH
mawm mo Hm>mq

 

AmNnuzv mmm ucmEuummwo Aoanuzv Nmm unmEuummom AHNnuzv Hmm unmauumawn

 

ucoEuumamQ ha moanmwpm> wufimanou ucmaumm>cH «How

 

 

mmNUH>Huo< copmmmom CH ucmauwm>cH mamm mo cofiuanwuumfin zoamsvmum H.u manme

185

.oHanum> Sumo mo mEouH xwm Ham How mmcommmu ucmsumm>cH mamm mo Hmuou ucmmmuamu mmfluowmumom

 

 

304
oH H OH II a H m-o
m N m II N m OHIO
N m H H m s mHIHH
II oH H N m s oNIcH
H H N H N o mN-HN
- m II N H N om-oN
II H II q II H mm-Hm
-- N II -I II II oqum
- H II M II II mq-Hs
I- II - H II II mNmqu

amHm

ucmam>mwnumcoz ucwam>mfico< ucosm>wwsomcoz ucm5m>mfino< ucmSm>0H50mcoz ucmEm>mfino< ucoaumm>aH

wamm mo Hm>MA

 

 

ANNIIzV Nmm nameuumamo HmH..zV Nmm Hameuumama

AHNnuzv Hmm ucoauumaon

 

ucmauumama >3 mmaamwum> wufiwoasoo ucmsumm>cH mamm

 

 

mmfluw>wuo< weazomme cw acmEumm>cH «How mo coausnwuumwn mocmnvmum N.o maan

186

.mHanHm> zoom wo mama“ HDON Ham HON mmmconmu ucmsumm>cfi “How «0 Hmuou ucmmopmmu mmwuowmumum

 

 

30A
mH mH NH NH «H mH mIo
m m m s s N oH-o
H m H N N N mHIHH
H H II H H H ONIoH
H H H II II II mNIHN
II II II II II H omIoN
II II II II II II mmIHm
I- II II II II II mos-om

anm

ucme>wwcomcoz acmEm>wHLo< ucwEm>mwcumcoz ucmEm>mH£o< uame>mwzomcoz quEw>mfico< ucmEumm>cH

HHmm Ho Hm>mH

 

 

ANN..zv mmm Hameuumamo HmH-Izv Nmm ucmaunmama HHN-.zv Hmm ocmEBNmamn

 

acmEuummmo kn mmHanHm> muHmanoU unmeumm>cH «How

 

 

mmHuH>Huo< woumammlxuo3coz CH ucmEumm>cH maom mo :oHunnwuumwo zocmskum m.o anmH

187

Table C.4 Frequency Distribution of Sociometric Links for the Research
Sociometric Networks by Department

 

 

Academic Departments

 

Reciprocal Department 881 Department 882 Department SS3

 

Links (N= 21)a (N= 19)b (N = 27)

26-30 —— —_ __
Frequency
of contact 21-25 -— I" "
at all 16-20 2 -- 11
frequency 11—15 5 5 8
levels 6’10 7 ll 4

0-5 5 2 4
Frequency 26-30 -- —- ——
of contact 21-25 —- —_ --
at high 16-20 1 —— 6
intensity 11-15 1 -- 4
frequency 6-10 8 ll 8
levels 0-5 9 7 9

 

aThe total number of possible reciprocal links is two less than
the faculty population because of missing data for this department.

bThe total number of possible reciprocal links is one less than
the faculty population because of missing data for this department.

188

Table C.5 Frequency Distribution of Sociometric Links for the Teaching
Sociometric Networks by Department

 

 

Reciprocal Department 881 Department

Academic Departments

 

882 Department SS3

 

Links (N= 21)a (N= 19)b (N = 27)
Frequency 26'30 " -- -—
of contact 21-25 -- -- 1
at all 16-20 -- -- 10
frequency 11-15 1 11 6
levels 6-10 10 7 8

0-5 8 -- 2
Frequency 26-30 -- —_ __
of contact 21-25 -- —— __
at high 16-20 -- 1 1
intensity 11-15 -- 5 3
frequency 6-10 4 6 9
level 0-5 15 6 14

 

3The total number of possible reciprocal links is two less than
the faculty population because of missing data for this department.

bThe total number of possible reciprocal links is one less than
the faculty population because of missing data for this department.

189

Table C.6 Frequency Distribution of Sociometric Links for the Nonwork-
Related Sociometric Networks by Department

 

 

Academic Departments

 

Reciprocal Department 881 Department

S82 Department 853

 

Links (N= 21)a (N= 19)b (N = 27)
Frequency 26-30 -_ —- --

21-25 -- -- 5
of contact
at all 16-20 -- -- 7
frequency ll-15 5 3 7
levels 6-10 8 8 2

0-5 6 7 6
Frequency 26-30 -- -- l
of contact 21-25 -- -- 2
at high 16-20 -— -- 4
intensity 11-15 -- -— 6
frequency 6-10 5 3 6
levels 0—5 14 15 8

 

aThe total number of possible reciprocal links is two less than
the faculty population because of missing data for this department.

b

The total number of possible reciprocal links is one less than

the faculty population because of missing data for this department.

190

Table C.7. Frequency Distribution of Self Investment in Work by

 

 

 

 

Department
Academic Department
Self Investment Department 881 Department 382 Department SS3

in Work (N=21) (N=19) (N= 27)81
High 1 l 3 --

2 4 6 9

3 8 3 4

4 4 4 4

5 l l 4

6 2 -— --

7 l 2 2

8 -- -- 2

9 -- -- 1
Low 10 -- -— --

 

8The total number of reciprocal links is one less than the
faculty population because of missing data for the department.

Table C.8 Frequency Distribution of Cosmopolitanism by Academic

 

 

 

 

Department
Academic Department
Department 881 Department 882 DepartmentaSSB

Cosmopolitanism (N = 21) (N = 19) (N = 27)
Low -5-0 8 12 9

1—5 11 3 10

6-10 1 2 3

11-15 1 l 3
High 16-21 -- 1 l

 

3The total number of reciprocal links is one less than the
faculty population because of missing data for the department.

191

Table C.9 Frequency Distribution of Research Total by Department

 

 

Academic Department

 

 

Department 881 Department 382 Department SS3

Research Total (N = 21) (N = 19) (N = 27)
Low 0-25 12 15 11
26-50 4 3 3
51-75 4 l 4
76-100 —- -— 4
101-125 -- _- 1
126—150 -- q -- 1
151-175 -- -- 1
176-200 -- -— 1
201-225 -- -- 1
High 226-255 1 -- --

 

Table C.10 Frequency Distribution of Research Average by Department

 

 

Academic Department

 

 

Department 881 Department 882 Department SS3
Research Average (N = 21) (N = 19) (N = 27)
Low 1 4 10 5
2 7 5 4
3 2 3 2
4 3 -- 6
5 3 l 1
6 l -- 4
7 -- -- 2
8 __ __ __
9 l -- 2
High 10 -- -- l

 

192

Table C.ll Frequency of Research Trend by Department

 

 

' Academic Department

 

Department 881 Department 882 Department SS3

 

Research Trend (N = 21) (N = 19) (N = 27)
High increase 1 2 -- 3

2 5 5 3
No change 3 4 5 10

4 2 l 4
High increase 5 3 -- 2
Minimal
productivity 6 -- 6 2

Two years or
less 7 5 2 3

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allison, Paul D., and John A. Stewart
1974 "Productivity Differences Among Scientists: Evidence for
Accumulated Disadvantage." American Sociological Review
39:596-606.

 

Baldridge, J. Victor, David R. Curtis, George Ecker, and Gary L. Riley.
1978 Policy Making and Effective Leadership, San Francisco, Calif.:
Jossey—Bass Publishers.

 

Bayer, Alan E., and John Folger
1966 "Some Correlates of a Citation Measure of Productivity in
Science." Sociology of Education 39:381-390.

 

Becker, Howard S., and James Cooper
1956 "The Development of Identification with an Occupation."
American Sociological Review 61:289-298.

 

Berger, K., and A. J. Grimes
1973 "Cosmopolitan-Local: A Factor Analysis of the Construct."
Administration Science_guarterly 18(21):223-235.

 

Blau, Peter M.
1974 On the Nature of Organizations. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

 

1973 The Organization of Academic Work. New York: John Wiley
& Sons.

 

Blood, M. R.
1969 "Work Values and Job Satisfaction." Journal of Applied
Psychology 53:456-459.

 

Brierger, Ronald L.
1976 "Career Attributes and Network Structures: A Blockmodel Study
of a Biomedical Research Specialty." American Sociological
Reveiw 41:117-135.

Campbell, Donald T., and Julian C. Stanley

1966 Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research.
Chicago: Rand McNally.

193

194

Cole, Jonathan R., and Stephen Cole
1973 Social Stratification in Science. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.

 

Cooley, C. H.
1902 Human Nature and The Social Order. New York: Charles
Scribner's Sons.

 

Crane, Diana
1965 "Scientists at Major and Minor Universities." American
Sociological Review 30:699-714.

 

Dornbusch, W., and Richard Scott
1975 Evaluations and the Exercise of Authority. San Francisco,
Calif.: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

 

Dubin, R.
1956 "Industrial Workers Worlds: A Study of the 'Central Life
Interests' of Industrial Workers." Social Problems
3:131—142.

Faunce, William A.
1972 "Self Investment in the Occupational Role." Paper
presented at meetings of the Southern Sociological Society,
New Orleans.

n.d. "Work, Status, and Self Esteem." (Unpublished monograph,
Michigan State University.)

French, J., and R. Kahn
1962 "A Pragrammatic Approach to Studying the Industrial
Environment and Mental Health." Journal of Social Issues
18:1-47.

Flango, Victor E., and Robert B. Brumbaugh
1974 "The Dimensionality of the Cosmopolitan-Local Construct."
Administrative Science Quarterly, June, pp. 198-210.

Friedkin, Noah E.
1978 "University Social Studies and Social Networks Among
Scientists." American Journal of Sociology 83(6):
1444-1465.

Fulton, Oliver, and Martin Trow
1974 "Research Activity in American Higher Education."
Sociology of Education 47:29-73.

 

195

Gaston, Jerry
1973 Originality and Competition in Science: A Study of the British
High Energy Physics Community. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.

 

 

Glaser, Barney G.
1964 Organizational Scientists. New York: Bobbs-Merrill.

 

Goldberg, Louis C., Frank Baker and Albert H. Rubenstein
1965 "Local-Cosmopolitan: Unidimensional or Multidimensional?"
American Journal of Sociology 70:704-710.

 

Gouldner, Alvin W.
1957-58 "Cosmopolitans and Locals: Toward an Analysis of Latent
Social Roles: I and II." Administrative Science Quarterly
2:281-306, 444-480.

 

Goodman, P.S., H. H. Rose and J. E. Furcon
1970 "Comparison of Motivational Antecedents of the Work
Performance of Scientists and Engineers." Journal of
Applied Psychology 54:491-495.

 

 

Griffith, Belver C., and Nicholas C. Mullins
1972 "Coherent Social Groups in Scientific Change." Science
l77(4053):959-964.

Griffith, Belver C., Virginia L. Maier and A. James Miller
1973 "Describing Communication Networks Through the Use of
Matrix-Based Measures." Drexel University, Graduate
School of Library Science.

Gurin, G., J. Veroff and S. Feld
1960 Americans View Their Mental Health. New York: Basic Books.

 

Hall, D. T., and K. E. Nougain
1968 "An Examination of Maslow's Need Hierarchy in an Organization
Setting." Organization Behavior and Human Performance 3:12-35.

Hackman, J. Richard and Lyman W. Porter
1968 "Expectancy Theory Predictions of Work Effectiveness."
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 3:417-426.

Hagstrom, Warren
1965 The Scientific Communi_y. New York: Basic Books.

 

Hargens, Lowell, and Warren Hagstrom
1967 "Sponsored and Contest Mobility of American Scientists."
Sociology of Education 40:24-38.

196

Herzberg, F., B. Mausner and B. B. Snyderman
1959 The Motivation to Work. (2nd ed.) New York: Wiley.

 

Hulin, C. L., and M. R. Blood
1968 "Job Enlargement, Individual Differences, and Worker
Responses." Psychological Bulletin 69:41-65.

 

Ickles, William John, Robert P. Wicklund and C. Brian Ferris
1973 "Objective Self Awareness and Self Esteem." Journal
of Experimental Social Psychology 9:202-219.

 

James, William
1890 Principles of Psychology. New York: Henry Holt.

 

Korman, Abraham K.
1970 "Toward an Hypothesis of Work Behavior." Journal of Applied
Psychology 54(1):31-4l.

 

 

Lawler, E. E., III
1968 "A Correlational-Causal Analysis of the Relationship Between

Expectancy Attitudes and Job Performance." Journal of
AApplied Psychology 52(6):462—468.

 

 

1969 "Job Design and Employee Motivation." Personnel Psychology
22:426-435.

 

Lawler, E. D., III, and L. W. Porter
1967 "Antecedent Attitudes of Effective Managerial Performance."
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 2:122-142.

 

Lawler, E. E., III, and D. T. Hall
1970 "Relationship of Job Characteristics to Job Involvement,
Satisfaction, and Intrinsic Motivation." Journal of
Applied Psychology 54:305-312.

 

 

Leinhardt, Samuel (ed.)
1977 Social Networks: A Developing Paradigm. New York: Academic
Press, Inc.

 

Lodahl, T. M., and M. Kejner
1965 "The Definition and Measurement of Job Involvement."
Journal oprpplied Psychology 49:24-33.

 

Luck, Patrich W., and Jerald Heiss
1972 "Social Determinants of Self-Esteem in Adult Males."
Sociology and Social Research 57:69-84.

 

Manis, Jerome G., and Bernard N. Meltzer (eds.)
1972 Symbolic Interaction. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.

 

197

Mead, George H.
1972 (1934) Mind, Self, and Society. Chicago, 111.: The University
of Chicago Press.

Merton, Robert K.
1968 "The Matthew Effect in Science." Science 159:56-63.

Jevons, F. R.
1973 Science Observed. London: Ruskin House, Museum Street.

 

McHenry, Dean E. and associates
1977 Academic Departments. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.

 

Mannheim, Bilha
1975 "A Comparative Study of Work Centrality, Job Rewards and
Satisfaction." Sociology of Work and Occupations 2(1):79-102.

 

Miller, D.
1963 "The Study of Social Relationships: Situation, Identity, and
Social Interaction," pp. 639-737, in_P§ychology: A Study of
Science, ed. S. Koch, 9th ed., vol. 5. New York: McGraw-Hill.

 

Mulkay, M. J.
1972 The Social Process of Innovation. London: MacMillan.

 

Mullins, Nicholas C.
1972 "The Development of a Scientific Specialty: The Phage Group
and the Origin of Molecular Biology." Minerva 10:51-62.

Mullins, Nicholas C., L. L. Hargens, P. K. Hecht, and E. L. Kick
1977 "The Group Structure of Cocitation Clusters: A Comparative
Study." American Sociological Review 42:552-562.

 

Orzack, Louis H.
1959 "Work as a 'Central Life Interest' of Professionals." Social
Problems 7:73-84.

Otto, Luther B., and David L. Featherman
1975 "Social Structural and Psychological Antecedents of Self-
Estrangement and Powerlessness." American Sociological
Review 40:701-719.

 

Pelz, Donald C., and Fran Andrews
1966 Scientist in Organizations: Productive Climates for Research
and Development. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

 

 

Price, Derek J. DeSolla
1975 (1961) Science Since Babylon. Enlarged ed. New Haven: Yale
University Press.

 

198

Reskin, Barbara F.
1977 "Scientific Productivity and the Reward Structure of Science."
American Sociological Review 42:491-504.

 

Richards, William D.
1975 A Manual for Network Analysis. Palo Alto, Calif.: Institute
for Communication Research, Stanford University.

 

Riesman, David
1958 Variety_and Constraint in American Education. Lincoln, Nebr.:
University Press.

 

Robinowitz, S.
1975 "An Examination of the Influence of Individual Difference
Variables and Perceived Job Stimulation on Job Involvement."
Unpublished Master's Thesis, Michigan State University.

Robinowitz, Samuel, and Douglas T. Hall
1977 "Organizational Research on Job Involvement." Psychological
Bulletin 84(2):265-288.

 

Roose, Kenneth D., and Charles J. Anderson
1970 A Rating of Graduate Programs. Washington, D.C.: American
Council on Education.

 

Rosenberg, M.
1965 Sociegy and the Adolescent Self-Imago, Princeton, N.J.:
University of Princeton Press.

Siegal, A. L., and R. A. Ruh
1973 "Job Involvement, Participation in Decision Making, Personal
Background and Job Behavior." Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance 9:318-327.

 

Small, Henry
1977 "A Cocitation Model of a Scientific Specialty: A Longitudinal
Study of Collagen Research." Social Studies in Science 7:

Stinchcombe, Arthur L.
1954 "Bureaucratic and Craft Administration of Production."
Administrative Science Quarterly 4:168-187.

 

Sullivan, Harry Stack
1947 Concepts of Modern Psychiatry. Washington: Wm. A. White
Psychiatric Foundation.

 

Taylor, Calvin W., and Frank Barron (eds.)
1963 Scientific Creativityi_ Its Recognition and Development.
New York: Wiley.

199

Wanous, J. P.

1974 "Individual Differences and Reaction to Job Characteristics."

Journal of Applied Psychology 59:616-622.

 

Webster, Murray, Jr., and Barbara Sobieszek
1974 Sources of Self-Evaluation. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

 

Weissenberg, Peter, and Leopold W. Gruenfeld
1968 "Relationship Between Job Satisfaction and Job Involvement."
Journal of Applied Psychology 52(6):469-473.

 

Wells, L. E., and G. Marwell
1976 Self-Esteem. London: Sage Publications.

 

Wicklund, Robert A., and Shelley Duval
1971 "Opinion Change and Performance Facilitation as a Result of
Objective Self-Awareness." Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology 7:319-342.

 

 

Vroom, Victor H.
1962 "Ego-Involvement, Job Satisfaction, and Job Performance."
Personnel Psychology715:159-l77.

 

Zuckerman, Harriet
1967 "Nobel Laureates in Science: Patterns of Productivity,
Collaboration, and Authorship." American Sociological
Review 32:391-403.