ABSTRACT

FACULTY REACTIONS TO INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE
An Exploratory Study of the Development
Program of the University of the
Philippines College of Agriculture

BY

Higino A. Ables

The study was addressed to the question: What
aspects of institutional change do faculty members accept
and what do they resist, and why?

The setting for the study was the University of the
Philippines College of Agriculture which had implemented a
Five-Year DevelOpment Program designed to improve the
instructional, research and extension programs and to up-
grade the staff and physical plant.

The literature revealed no previous study dealing
with the same problem. Hence, a conceptual framework had to
be devised taking into account acceptance and rejection as
two possible reactions by one individual to a development
program.

From faculty members with at least five years experi-
ence and on campus at the time of the survey, 50 percent were
randomly chosen, yielding a sample of 78. The first phase

of the survey was personal interview using Open-ended questions

Higino A. Ables

to ascertain the level of knowledge about the develOpment
program, the nature of projects approved and disapproved.of,
and suggestions if the development program were to be under-
taken again.

The second phase was a self-administered question—
naire. Responses to the Open-ended questions were subjected
to content analysis in order to establish categories.

A summary of findings follows:

Generally, the faculty members responded favorably
to the various projects. They recognized the potential
benefits to the instructional and research objectives of
the College. More than 80 percent of the sample expressed
approval of at least one component of the Program. Almost
40 percent of the respondents did not express any disapproval,
while the other 60 percent did. Statements of disapproval
of physical development were classified into: extravagance,
inconvenience, priority conflict, and frustrated expectation.
Objections about the program development were directed at
the procedure followed in bringing about curriculum change.
Staff development projects were criticized for subjectivity
in the allocation of resources and the insufficient imple-
mentation of the salary schedule. Other negative reactions
dwelt on the means of obtaining funds and the notion of over-

expanding with limited resources.

Higino A. Ables

A large majority of the respondents felt that they
could easily adjust to changes, that changes should be
undertaken, and that the faculty could not have done as
well if things had not changed in the college. A majority
also perceived a low level of faculty participation in ‘
decision making. Faculty participation in decision making
was seen as legitimate by an overwhelming prOportion of
the respondents. While more than half liked the idea of
using committees as a means for faculty participation in
decision making, about the same proportion did not think.
that faculty viewpoints are adequately represented by those
who served on college committees.

If the college were to undertake the development
program over again, the respondents suggested: (a) con-
tinuation of physical improvement; (b) maintenance of staff
development, underscoring the need for less subjectivity in
the awarding of study grants and other faculty incentives;
(c) articulation between the curriculum and national goals;
(d) improvement of research program; and (3) concentrated
efforts in extension. On the matter of the decision-making
procedure, more than half of the respondents suggested
improving faculty participation by consultation and greater
information dissemination, as well as improvement in the
number, composition and use of committees. It was also sug-

gested that the development program be evolved from the

Higino A. Ables

departmental level. Other suggestions called for closer
study of needs, problems, and objectives.

Implications of these findings for academic admini-
stration and for future research are discussed in the body

of the report.

FACULTY REACTIONS TO INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE
An Exploratory Study of the DeveIOpment
Program of the University of the
Philippines College of Agriculture

BY
Higino A. Ables

A THESIS

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Administration and Higher Education

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

For whatever contribution the study makes, a number
of individuals merit acknowledgment.

This study could not have become a reality without

the c00peration of the faculty respondents in the University

of the Philippines College Of Agriculture. Thanks are due
Dean Dioscoro L. Umali and his administrative staff for
making resources available to me, and for the fellowship
grant which enabled me to pursue the doctorate at Michigan
State University. In connection with the fellowship,
special mention is made about the invaluable assistance of
Dr. Gil F. Saguiguit, Dr. Kenneth L. Turk, and Mr. Larry
Zuidema. The friendly advice of Dr. Gloria D. Feliciano
is also gratefully acknowledged.

I wish to express sincere appreciation for the con-
structive criticism and guidance provided by my doctoral
committee: Dr. Richard L. Featherstone, academic adviser;
Dr. Paul L. Dressel, thesis adviser; Dr. Harry L. Case;
Dr. Hideya Kumata, and Dr. Edward B. Blackman.

I consider it a pleasant and beneficial experience

to have associated with Dr. Dressel, Dr. Margaret Lorimer,

and the other members of the Office of Institutional Research

at Michigan State. Their personal interest in my work was

very encouraging indeed.

ii

This project was financed by the Ford Foundation.
I am deeply indebted to Dr. Case for this, as I am for
the enlightening discussions I had with him and for many
special favors too numerous to specify. The Ford Foundation
in Manila headed by Dr. Clark C. Bloom also deserves a word
of thanks for generous support. The suggestions and help
from Dr. Robert A. Bunnell are remembered with gratitude.
Responsibility for any shortcomings of the study

is solely mine.

iii

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER I:

CHAPTER II:

CHAPTER III:

CHAPTER IV:

CHAPTER V:

FOOTNOTES

BIBLIOGRAPHY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

0 O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O I O O O 1

THE PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Assumptions

Statement of the Problem

Importance of the Problem

Conceptual Framework

Overview of Succeeding Chapters

REVIEW OF RELATED STUDIES . . . . . . .13

Faculty Resistance to ITV

Resistance to A-V Materials

Innovation in a Hospital

Changing Administrative Style

Diffusion Research in Formal
Organizations

Summary

COLLECTION OF THE DATA. . . . . . . . .21
Sampling Procedure

Instrumentation

Interviewers and Interviewing

Summary

PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA .28

Characteristics of the ReSpondents

Level of Knowledge About Program

Factors Associated with Level of
Knowledge About the Program

Positive Reactions to the Program

Negative Reactions to the Program

Responses to Scaled Items

Suggestions on the Development Program

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION. . . . . . . . .63
Summary of Findings

Discussion of Findings

Limitations of.the Study

Implications fOr Academic Administration
Implications for Future Research

iv

Table

10

11

LIST OF TABLES

A tentative outline for the identification
of sources of acceptance and rejection of
institutional change processes. . . . . . .

Sex, rank and highest degree of reSpondents

Respondents' highest degree, where and when
Obtained. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

Divisional fields of study of the
reSpondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Frequency of mention of different components
of the development program. . . . . . . . .

Respondents' level of knowledge about the
development program, primary nature of work
and divisional field of study . . . . . . .

Distribution of categorized responses on
nature of projects most strongly approved of

Distribution of categorized responses on
nature of projects most strongly disapproved

Of. 0 I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Distribution of responses to the first
three scaled items. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Perceived level of faculty participation
in decision making. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Perceived legitimacy of faculty participation
in decision making. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Page

11

28-

29

31

32

36

38

44

51

53

55

INTRODUCTION

In 1962, the College of Agriculture of the University
of the Philippines formulated a pr0posal for a Five-Year
DevelOpment Program designed to achieve the following goals
for the College:1
. improve the quality and quantity of the staff,

2. expand and improve the physical plant,
. improve the quality of the instructional
program,
4. expand and strengthen the research program,
. expand and intensify the agricultural
extension program,

6. improve the efficiency in the conduct of

business and administrative affairs.
This Program, the first among the colleges of the Uni-
versity, was drawn up by a small administratively-selected
group of staff members of the College under the direction
of the dean and in collaboration with consultants from the
New York State College of Agriculture at Cornell University.
Subsequently, the College received financial support for
the Program from the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller
Foundation, the Congress of the Republic of the Philippines,

and the World Bank.

 

1References for this Introduction are listed under
Philippine Materials in the Bibliography.

 

Assistance from the Ford Foundation amounted to
$6,492,500 from 1962 to 1968. The Philippine Congress
provided matching funds for the $6-million loan from the
World Bank. A substantial amount also came from the
Rockefeller Foundation. These funds have made possible
the construction of new buildings, the purchase of new
equipment, fellowships and assistantships for advanced
studies of faculty members, eXpansion of library holdings,
scholarships for undergraduate and graduate students, and
assignment of visiting professors from Cornell University
and Asian institutions, among others. The ultimate goal
is to strengthen the College of Agriculture to enable it
to serve better the development needs of the Philippines

and Southeast Asia.

The Setting

The College is located in Los Banos, Laguna, about
40 miles south of Manila and of the main campus of the
University of the Philippines. In its vicinity are found
the College of Forestry of the same University, the
Community Development Training Center, the Agricultural
Credit and Cooperatives Institute, the Dairy Training and
Research Institute, and'the International Rice Research
Institute.

Yearly enrollment in the College in recent years

averaged 2,500 students, ten percent of whom were in

graduate studies, and more than a hundred were from other
countries. Degree programs include courses leading to

the Bachelor of Science in Agriculture, the Bachelor of
Science in Agricultural Chemistry, the Bachelor of Science
in Agricultural Engineering, the Bachelor of Science in
Home Technology, the Master of Science, and the Doctor of
PhilOSOphy. Graduates numbered 187 in 1966, 235 in 1967,
207 in 1968, bringing the total alumni to over 6,000.

The faculty totalled 451 in 1967-68, 17 percent of
whom had the doctor's degree, and 31 percent the master's.
The College is organized into 14 departments. The execu-
tive officer is the dean, whose staff includes a director
of research, a director of instruction, a director of
graduate studies, a director of extension education, and
a director of business affairs.

Founded in 1909, the College has had six deans,
the first two being Americans. Because of the destruction
wrought on the campus in World War II, the College under-
went a rehabilitation program from 1952 to 1960 financed
in part by the United States Government. Called the
"Cornell-Los Banos Contract" because of technical assist-
ance from Cornell University, this program made possible
the assignment of 51 American visiting professors, the
sending abroad of 55 of the College's faculty for advanced
studies, and many other developments geared to improve the

College in its pursuit of teaching, research and extension.

Previous Studies

 

Among the studies that have been conducted on the
College, two are worth noting here. One was a series of
case studies of certain faculty members who had received
job offers outside but who decided to stay. Reasons for
staying included proSpects of the develOpment program,
specifically as it promised salary increases, housing and
other facilities, travel and study opportunities. The
other was a review of the renewed UPCA-Cornell Program,
conducted as an evaluation of the program from 1962 to
1967.

The University as a whole has been the subject of
several surveys. Only one of these is considered relevant.
Still in progress, the study is entitled "The University of
the Philippines as an Agent of National Development." It
focuses on external assistance and its impact on the Uni-
versity during the post-war period.

Although many of these studies involved extensive
interviews with members of the college and university com-
munity, none has been aimed at the objectives of the present

study.

CHAPTER I: THE PROBLEM

Familiarity with the Development Program of the
College of Agriculture tends to give one the following
impression: that the College served as an agent of
change as well as the embodiment of the total change
process. When the College introduced the deve10pment
program in the University of the Philippines, it functioned
as an innovator. When it undertook its own development,
the elements in the change process were observable in itS“
own operation. The administration and the committeemen“
involved in the planning were the change agents; the
Program was the innovation; the other constituents of
the College were the innovation receivers. Of the many
consequences of innovation, personal and immediate reactions
of the innovation receivers were singled out as the focus

of this study.

Assumptions

 

At the outset, it was recognized in this study that
change is not easy to bring about in an organization, much
less in an academic organization. It was assumed that
five years after the initiation of the institutional develOp-

ment program described above, reactions to the Program would

be available from the faculty members who had presumably
participated in the change process. Another assumption
was that acceptance of and resistance to innovation:are
two distinguishable states of mind that may simultaneously

or sequentially reside in one individual.

Statement of the Problem

 

The present study is addressed to the question:
What aspects of institutional change do faculty members
accept and what do they resist, and why? It will be an
attempt to delineate attitudes that academic men hold
when confronted with an innovation of a particular kind:
the development program implied large scale consequences
in the lives of faculty members. The Program envisioned
a future for the institution, but it was also the future
of all individuals associated with the College. Moreover,
it was not only their professional goals and interests
that were involved but their personal lives as well.
Hence, the problem of what they approve of and what they
disapprove of in the Program, whether directed toward par-
ticular items of the Program or toward the procedures
followed in deciding and carrying out these projects,
seemed intriguing. It was recognized that behind an atti-
tude lies some level of knowledge about the attitude object.
Investigation of the relationship between level of knowledge

about the Program and attitudes toward it was also considered.

Homogeneity of faculty attitudes would be tested
when analysis is made of the relationship between faculty
characteristics and their attitudes toward the Program.
Faculty characteristics selected for this analysis were
age, sex, rank, highest degree, institution granting
degree, date of degree, primary nature of work, and
administrative experience in the College.

A major objective in this study is the develOpment
of a conceptual scheme for viewing the phenomena of accept-
ance and rejection of institutional change, vis-a-vis a
technological innovation. The survey findings will be
used in the develOpment of such a framework.

In sum, this study has three objectives:

1. To explore the nature of positive and negative
attitudes of faculty members toward a program of institu-
tional develOpment.

2. To investigate how different reactions to the
institutional development program are related to certain
faculty characteristics.

3. To develOp a conceptual scheme for dealing with

attitudes toward institutional change in higher education.

Importance of the Problem

 

The problem is important from two perspectives:

the process of institution-building that currently faces

develOping countries: and the study of the receptivity
of academic organizations to change.

Institution-building. New forces and pressures

 

are bringing about major changes in contemporary higher
institutions: social and economic pressures, increasing
knowledge, changes in students, changes in faculty orient-
ation, and changes in character of institutions.1 In the
area of administration, changes in the style of university
administrators have been reported.2 In a develOping
country like the Philippines, there is a need for insti-
tutions that can contribute to economic advance and
modernization.3 Because of the predominance of agriculture
in the economy of develOping countries, considerable atten—
tion is focused on agricultural colleges as instruments
for national growth.4 For this reason the colleges of
agriculture in these countries have been assisted by
international and philanthropic agencies.5

A college of agriculture is entrusted with a three-
fold function: instruction, research, and public service.6
How it undertakes these functions depends primarily on the
quality of its faculty, which in turn is highly dependent
on morale. It is necessary to look at faculty perceptions
of institutional develOpment because the whole image of

the new campus will depend on how the faculty may feel.

Parenthetically, the college would be able to contribute
to national development as effectively as the faculty would
allow.

[The shortage of studies on the process of institu—
tion-building was deplored in the summary report of the
Agency for International Development and the Committee for
Inter-Institutional Cooperation, two agencies experienced
in foreign technical assistance.7

In 1963, T. R. McConnell, while defining needed
research in college and university organization and admini-
stration, said that "it should be fruitful to select one
or more institutions in which significant changes in general
direction, organization or educational programs have taken
place and attempt to discover how these innovations had
been brought about."8

Adaptability to Change Among College Teachers. As
the review of literature in the next chapter will show,
there has been no previous study on faculty reactions to
institutional change. Eichholz succinctly stated that
the basic problem in research relating to change is to find
means of reducing the lag in time between the introduction
and the full acceptance of an innovation.9 To the academic
administrator, it is in shortening this lag that the identi-
fication and study of sources of acceptance and rejection

might prove valuable.

10

Conceptual Framework

 

This section will be an effort to define the place
of this study in organization theory, and how it contri-
butes to the fund of knowledge about adoption and rejection
of innovation in higher education.

Organization Theory. As a study of an organization,

 

this study derives its theoretical foundation from organic
zation theory. Argyris' definition of an organization is
adopted for this purpose. He defined an organization as:“
(l) a plurality of parts, (2) maintaining themselves
through their interrelatedness, (3) achieving speCific
objectives, and (4) while accomplishing 2 and 3 adapt to'
the external environment, thereby (5) maintaining the
interrelatedness of the parts.10
Argyris also postulated that organizations are de-
fined by a pattern of variables tending toward stability,11
and that changes would be resisted by the system. The
college or university organization apparently fits into
this paradigm. The literature of higher education is
replete with statements confirming the presence of the
phenomenon of resistance to change. Resistance has been

notably described among college and university faculty.12

11

Institutional Change and the Faculty. In concep-

 

tualizing the process of innovation, researchers have
concentrated on acceptance or adoption.13 However, a
theory of rejection has also been propounded.l4 For the
purpose of this study, neither of the two approaches was
found adequate. A tentative framework was then devised
to depict both acceptance and rejection as possible re—

actions to change, and considering certain critical elementS'

in the institutional change process. (See Table 1.)

Table l. A tentative outline for the identification
of sources of acceptance and rejection of
institutional change processes.

 

 

CRITICAL ELEMENTS IN THE REACTIONS
INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT ACCEPTANCE REJECTION
PROCESS

 

1. Nature of the Program
a. Program deve10pment
b. Human Resources dvlpt.
c. Physical Resources
dvlpt.
2. Communication Process
a. Information
b. Decision Making

 

Two critical elements in the process of institutional
develOpment are suggested in the framework. A major element

is the nature of the development program which can be broken

12

down into its probable components: improvement and/or
expansion of programs, human resources, and physical
resources. Program development is intended to refer to
curriculum changes, plans for research and public service,
or changes in general direction of the institution. Human‘
resources develOpment includes training and other policies
relating to personnel. Physical resources development
involves growth in campus plant, equipment and other
materials. The other element included in the outline is
the communication process surrounding the development pro*
gram, i.e., dissemination of information about the Program,
and the procedure in arriving at decisions.

The above outline was presented to delimit the focus
of this study and is by no means intended to suggest that
it is the complete picture of the institutional develOpment

process.

Overview of Succeeding Chapters

 

Studies related to the tOpic are reviewed in Chapter
II. A description of the methods used in determining the
sample, deveIOping the interview schedule and questionnaire,
and the interviewing situation is given in Chapter III.
The data is presented in Chapter IV, and discussed in

Chapter V.

CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF RELATED STUDIES

An observer of developments in higher education
once remarked that "one of the major paradoxes of our time
(is) that institutions of higher learning, which should
be preparing our young men and women to enter a world of
social and intellectual revolution, are themselves resist-
ant to change."1 Finding empirical evidence of not only
resistance to change but also acceptance of change is a
goal this study seeks to achieve.

The paucity of studies on faculty reactions to
institutional develOpment was noted earlier. Several
studies, however, are reviewed in this chapter because
of their relevant concepts and variables. Included are
reviews of: (l) a study that deals with faculty resist-
ance to an innovation in a university setting, (2) another
study of why teachers resist change in a non-university
setting, (3) a study that treats of the impact of changing
administrative styles, (4) a study of organizational
response to change in a hospital, and finally (5) two

studies from diffusion research in formal organizations.

13

14

Faculty Resistance to ITV

Evans, 33 31.2 of the University of Houston con-
ducted in 1962 a social psychological study of faculty
members and their attitudes toward an apparently threat—
ening cultural innovation, instructional television (ITV).
The study was designed to: (1) look at the attitude and
value systems of an urban university faculty, focusing on
attitudes toward ITV, (2) evaluate techniques of overcoming
resistance to ITV, thus testing certain hypotheses on atti-
tude change, and (3) examine relationships between general
faculty attitudes and extreme attitudes toward ITV. The
basic question pursued was: If two university departments
which were unwilling to employ telecourses were given
unrestricted opportunity to experiment with the medium,
ostensibly as a device for evaluating the video-tape recorder
as a means of qualitatively improving instruction, would
their attitudes toward ITV be affected in the process?
The findings revealed dramatic modifications of the atti—
tudes toward ITV in a generally more favorable direction.
One of the two departments studied, in fact, elected to
change its previous decision and present a telecourse,
while the other began to use its taped efforts as a standard
portion of regular courses. The results also showed stati—
stically significant differences in personality, philOSOphy
of education, and behavior, between professors favorable to

and unfavorable to teaching by instructional television.

15

The comment towards the end of the report by Evans,
et al. is significant:

In a broader sense, we would further
postulate that in order to influence hostile
ITV attitudes in specifically hostile uni-
versity departments, careful attention must
first be given to the utility and_profitable 'w
function of the medium. After that care mist
be taken that no vertical pressure is exerted.
...The faculty must see that ITV is an extension
of their talents and not an amputation.

 

To the present investigation, the main value of.
Evans' work is in having uncovered certain correlates of
both negative and positive attitudes. The stress placed
on the utility and profitable function of the medium also
reflects a consideration of a characteristic of the inno-
vation, an important factor in the innovation-adOption
process.4 However, no intensive analysis of resistance
to ITV was undertaken, nor were degrees of resistance

established.

Resistance to Audio-Visual Materials

 

Eichholz5 developed a scheme for classification of
negative attitudes of schoolteachers toward audio-visual
materials ranging from films to globes. Questionnaires
and personal interviews were used to collect data. Eichholz
identified five forms of rejection by elementary school-
teachers: ignorance, suspended judgment, situational rejection,
personal rejection, and experimental rejection. Ignorance

was attributed to lack of information: suspended judgment came

16

about when subjects found that the data was not logically
convincing: situational.rejection was related to the indi-
vidual's perception that the innovation was not economically
advantageous: and experimental rejection resulted when past
and present trials failed to satisfy the individual.
Eichholz' study provides a novel approach to the
understanding of the innovation process.3 Some of his
concepts have been infused into the present study. But
still, the objectives are limited to the perceptions of
the innovation, only slightly do they refer to the con-
text in which the innovation is introduced, and they

ignore the manner by which it was introduced.

Innovation in a Hospital

Another investigation in a non-university setting
is that by Hage,6 a case study of a hospital and the atti-
tudes of physicians toward a major change involving the
addition of full-time teacher physicians to the staff.
The change was called structural innovation because it
represented an addition of a new social position with new
activities. Its intended consequence was improved patient
care and medical education through adding new activities--
teaching rounds, morning report, etc. Physicians' predis-
position to accept or reject the change was found to be

related to these variables: work and education patterns,

17

and departmental characteristics. Departmental history
of change was seen as most important. Data showed that
a physician was more likely to accept the addition of

full-time teachers if he belonged to a department which
had a history of change. The study also underlined the
unanticipated consequences of innovation. Although con—
flicts resulted, these led to more and better communica-

tion between the administration and the staff.

Changing Administrative Style

 

The study by Demerath, Stephens and Taylor7 is
highly pertinent to a discussion of faculty reactions to
change. Conducted in a university, the work is unique
in that the survey was made before the change occurred
and again after the change. It was hypothesized that
the administrative styles of two Chancellors, one succeed-
ing the other, would affect the following outcome variables:

1. the general excellence of the University

as rated by the faculty,

2. faculty satisfaction with professional and

personal conditions,

3. faculty ratings of their influence on

educational policies.
Interaction variables considered were faculty participation
in university government, and adequacy of information and

communication as rated by faculty. The independent variable

was administrative style. The results confirmed the hypotheses.

18

Because Demerath followed a sociological approach,
perhaps he could not be blamed for failure to include in
his analysis personality variables that could contribute
to an understanding of the effects of change on the indi-
vidual faculty member. The composition of the faculty
was not defined in either of the two survey periods.
Could one correctly assume the constancy of faculty com-
position? Also, could the difference in the tenure of
office have a biasing effect on faculty perceptions of
administrative style? In short, a number of factors were

not accounted for in Demerath's quasi-experimental study.

Diffusion Research in Organizations

 

Diffusion research has had a tradition of investi-
gations on the innovation process. In an effort to bring
about a convergence between research in higher education
and diffusion, two research reports are cited.

Lin, 32 31.8 examined the process of innovation
assimilation by teachers in three Michigan high schools.
The unit of analysis employed was the individual teacher--
a departure from previous educational innovation research.
The investigation served as a pilot study for a similar
inquiry in Thailand which is reviewed below. Two new
dependent variables were felt important in studying dif-

fusion in a formal organization: Innovation internalization,

 

19

defined as the extent to which a member of an organization
perceived the innovation to be relevant and valuable to

his role performance; and Change orientation, an indivi-

 

dual's degree of general predisposition toward change.
The survey instrument was a questionnaire which teachers
completed in a meeting called for the purpose. The inno-
vation was "schedule modification" in the high school.
Results showed a profile of variables related to innovation
assimilation by teachers. It was found that information
level about the innovation, group norm, participation and
perceived legitimacy of participation were significantly
related to innovation internalization. On the basis of
the results, the researchers suggested that the social-
structural aspects of the institution be studied in order
to lessen potential resistance to change. Especially
mentioned was the relationship between teachers and the
principal, and among teachers in a school.

Rogers, 3E 21.9 investigated the spread and accept-
ance of ten different innovations in government secondary
schools of Thailand. Source of data was a questionnaire
accomplished by teachers and principals in 38 sample schools.
Correlation analysis yielded again a profile of variables
associated with the dependent variables (namely, time of
awareness, perceived time of school adoption, and perceived

beneficiality of innovation), many of which had rather low

20

correlation coefficients. Limitations of the study were
given, and these included cultural bias, and lack of
attention to social-structural effects of innovation and
system norms inhibiting change.

At least one other limitation that may be added has
to do with the knowledge or cognitive factor: no attempt
was made to determine how much knowledge the reSpondent
had about the innovations, the beneficiality of which he
was being asked to assess. Perhaps due to the emphasis
laid on correlational analysis, the qualitative aspects
of attitudes and the reasons behind them were not considered.
Lastly, the severe handicap of most diffusion research, the
reliance on memory to measure variables like time of aware-

ness and time of adoption, cannot be dismissed lightly.

Summary

Six studies were examined since they appeared to
bear relevance to the concepts and techniques adopted for
this study. No study was found dealing with the total
institutional development process. The studies reviewed
had one thing in common: the unit of analysis was the
faculty member or teacher, and this is a departure from
previous studies on educational innovation where institu-
tions were the unit of analysis. Not covered in the review
are researches on faculty in the Philippines and other faculty
studies in the United States, because they did not deal with

the problem of change in higher education.

CHAPTER III: COLLECTION OF THE DATA

The sampling procedure, the instrumentation and

the interviewing procedure are described in this chapter.

Sampling,Procedure

For purposes of this study, a faculty member was
defined as one listed by the Personnel Office of the College
as belonging to the academic staff. Only those on campus
at the time of the survey with at least five years experi-
ence as full-time staff members in the College were included
in the population. A list of 166 such faculty members was
obtained from the Personnel Office. Those individuals who
had had relatively close acquaintance with the Five-Year
Development Program were excluded. Eight individuals were
either so identified or on leave, and were excluded. The
remaining 158 members of the population were composed of
72 with rank of assistant professor or higher, and 86 with
rank of instructor. The names were listed in alphabetical
order, and numbered consecutively. Using a table of ran-
dom digits, 50 per cent of those with professorial rank
and 50 per cent of those with rank of instructor were chosen
as the sample.

The stratified-random sample yielded a total of 43

instructors and 36 with professorial rank. The latter

21

22

figure was diminished by one respondent who declined the
interview. Thus the final sample was a total of 78.
The pretest sample of 15 was drawn at random from

among the unselected members of the p0pulation.

Instrumentation

 

The survey was divided into two phases. The first
phase was an unstructured interview that included the
following questions:

1. What do you know about the Five-Year Develop-

ment Program?

2. What specific projects under the FYDP do you
most strongly approve of?

3. What.specific projects under the FYDP do you
most strongly disapprove of?

4. If the FYDP were to be done all over again,
what would you suggest regarding the kind of
projects that should be undertaken?

5. If the FYDP were to be done all over again,
what suggestions would you make with regard
to the procedure of planning and deciding on
specific projects?

These open-ended questions were intended to elicit deep-
seated feelings on the part of the respondents. Free
responses were considered necessary in getting at points
which the respondents were most concerned about. It should
be noted that the interview was prefaced with an assurance
from the interviewer that the responses would be kept con-
fidential.

In the second phase, each respondent was given a

questionnaire to fill out following explanation by the

interviewer. The first page of the self-administered

23

questionnaire contained 10 statements with a blank opposite
each where the respondent was to write down the number
corresponding to the word that best described his degree

of agreement with the statement. The directions read as
follows:

”Please indicate to what extent you would agree

with each of the statements below using the

following code:
3-Always
2-Usually
l-Sometimes
O—Never”

The first three statements (nos. 1—3) were designed
to measure ”Self-Perceived Orientation to Change in General."
This variable was adopted from Lin's study: the statements
were modified to suit the college faculty respondents.

When the scores on the three statements were tested for
interrelationships, the coefficients were not found to

be significant enough to warrant using the variable. Each
of the statements was then analyzed separately as were all
the rest of the scaled items on the first page of the
questionnaire. The first three statements were as follows:

1. When confronted with changes, I feel that I
can easily adjust.

2. To maintain a healthy and stable educational
system, we must keep it the way it is and not
undertake change.

3. The faculty could have done just as well if
things hadn't changed so much in this college.

The next four statements were significantly inter-

related, with coefficients reaching a significance level

24

of .001. The variable that was being measured was
"Perceived Level of Faculty Participation in Decision
Making," again adopted from Lin's work and modified
accordingly. These statements are the following:

4. The faculty of this college exerts a strong
influence on the administration in the
decision-making process.

5. Faculty members are consulted first before
the administration makes any decisions that
affect them.

6. College committees constitute an effective
means for involving the faculty in meaningful
participation in decision making.

7. Faculty vieWpoints are adequately represented
by those who serve in college committees.

Obviously, the statements go further than just level of
participation; the manner of participation is also in-
volved. If the responses would converge near or about the
"Agree always" point of the scale, then high satisfaction
would be inferred.

The last three statements were about "Perceived
Legitimacy of Faculty Participation in Decision Making,"
still another adaptation from Lin's variable. The obtained
correlation coefficients showed that the three statements
were significantly interrelated at the .001 level. The
statements:

8. Faculty members should be asked to take part

in decision-making discussions regarding
college matters.
9. If the administration of this college wants
to get things done, it should only go ahead
with what it thinks will benefit the college.
after consulting faculty members.

10. Faculty members should first be asked before

the administration makes any decisions that
affect them.

25

After asking the faculty respondents to describe
what i3, these last three statements now ask what ppght
to be. These two variables together are expected to pro-
vide certain clues as to the process of organizational
decision making which is considered here as an important
factor in institutional change.

The last part of the self-administered questionnaire
dwelt on faculty characteristics: per cent of time devoted
to certain kinds of activities, teaching, research, exten—
sion, administration and committee work: administrative
positions held, if any; highest degree held: when and where
highest degree was earned: academic rank. Data on age was
separately obtained from the records in the Personnel Office
of the College.

Pretests were undertaken to improve the questionnaire.

Interviewers and Interviewing

 

Three interviewers, of whom the author was one, ad-
ministered the survey instruments. The two other inter-
viewers were recruited from the survey staff of the Institute
of Mass Communication, another unit of the University of the
Philippines. Based on the recommendation of their immediate
superior, they were employed from pretest until the final
interviews. They were a male and a female, both research

assistants in the Institute who had actual experience with

26

field survey methods in social research. Of the 78 inter-
views, only six were conducted by the researcher himself.
Of the rest, 15 were done by the male interviewer who had
to leave the survey before its termination because his
services were needed at the Institute. It was interesting
to note that the respondents, predominantly male, seemed

to manifest greater willingness to respond at length to

the female interviewer than to the male interviewers, if
the length of transcribed responses is taken as the
measure. Since only about one-fourth of the interviews
were conducted by the male interviewers, this seemingly
biasing effect was considered minimal. Prior to the pre-
test, the interviewers were briefed on the purpose and
methodology of the study. The pretest phase helped bring
out the problems in the interviewing situation and remedies
to these were discussed. Interviewing time ranged from 30
minutes to one hour. Most of the interviews were by appoint-
ment. All interviews were held in the offices of the

respondents.

Summary

A total of 78 faculty members was interviewed using
structured and unstructured techniques. The interview
questions covered knowledge about the development program,

reasons for approval or disapproval of various components

27

of the program, and suggestions if the develOpment program
were to be undertaken all over again. A self-administered
questionnaire included questions eliciting personal data,
and reactions to statements on change orientation, level
of faculty participation, and legitimacy of faculty

participation in decision making.

CHAPTER IV: PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

The data is presented in the following order:
characteristics of the respondents, their level of knowledge
about the development program, bases for approval of the
program components, bases for disapproval of the program
components, suggestions regarding the nature of the pro-
gram and the decision-making procedure, faculty orientation
to change, and perceived level and legitimacy of faculty

participation in decision making.

Characteristics of the Respondents

 

There were 59 males (75.6%) and 19 females (24.4%)
in the sample. Of the males, 33 (56%) were instructors
and 26 (44%) were with professorial rank. The female group
had 10 (53%) instructors and 9 (47%) with professorial rank.
Table 2 shows how this classification was further grouped

into those with bachelor's, master's, and doctor's degrees.

 

 

 

Table 2. Sex, rank and highest degree of respondents.

Highest Male Female

degree Instr. Prof. Instr. Prof. Total %

Bachelor's 18 0 3 l 22 28.2

Master's 15 7 7 5 34 43.6

Doctor's 0 19 _Q _3 22 28.2
Total 33 26 10 9 78 100.0
% of Total 42.4 33.3 12.8 11.5 100.0

 

28

29

Advanced degrees were usually obtained from the
United States,as shown in Table 3. The other countries
from which advanced degrees were obtained included England,
Australia and New Zealand, with one graduate each. Besides
the University of the Philippines, two private universities
were represented by three respondents among those who
graduated from Philippine schools.

A significant chi-square was noted in the relation-
ship between highest degree and date of obtaining the
degree. The higher the degree, the more recent the date
of graduation tended to be (Table 4).

Table 3. Respondents' highest degree, where and when
obtained.

 

 

Highest Where obtained When obtained
degree Phil. U.S.A. Other* 6 yrs or less More than 6 yrs

 

B 22 0 O 7 15

M 12 20 2 22 12

D __o_ .2_1 _1 is .3.
Total 34 41 3 47 31
% 43.6 52.6 3.8 60.3 39.7

 

*England, Australia, New Zealand.

Administrative experience was claimed by 43 (55.1%)
out of 78. Administrative experience included any position
to which a faculty member was appointed, such as being

department chairman, head of division or chief of section.

30

When asked to indicate the percentage of time de-
voted to different duties, the respondents gave varying
replies which were then categorized into: "more teaching
than any other,” ”more research than any other," and
"other.” The primary nature of work of the 78 respondents
was divided among: teaching, 31 (39.7%): research, 18
(23.1%): and other, 29 (37.2%). The category of "other"
included combinations of teaching, research, extension,
or extension duties alone, or teaching and research com—
bined with administration, etc., not one of which amounted
to any significant number. Of the total respondents, only
six (7.7%) were not teaching, nine (11.5%) were not doing
any research at all, 46 (59%) were not assigned admini-
strative duties at the time of the survey, and 25 (32.1%)
had no committee work.

Age groups formed were the following: 26-31 years,
32-37 years, and 38 years or older. The resulting distri-
bution was as follows: 22 (28.2%) fell in the youngest
category: 32 (41%) were classified in the middle category:
and 24 (30.8%) belonged to the oldest group.

From the faculty roster furnished by the Personnel
Office the departmental affiliation of each faculty member
was Obtained. Departments were grouped into four fields
of study: physical sciences, animal sciences, plant
sciences, and social science and humanities. The distri-

bution of the respondents is shown in Table 4.

 

 

31

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4. Divisional fields of study of the respondents
Sample All Faculty
Division No. % 1 No. %
Physical 12 15.4 62 23.3
Animal 17 21.8 56 21.0
Plant 26 33.3 76 28.6
SS & Human. _23 29.5 72 27.1
Total 78 100.0 266 100.0

 

along with the distribution of full-time faculty with rank
of instructor or higher as gathered from the 1967-68
faculty roster.

The physical sciences division was composed of the
departments of agricultural chemistry, agricultural engi-
neering, soils, and applied mathematics. Animal sciences
included animal husbandry and entomology. Plant sciences
embraced the departments of botany, agronomy, and plant
pathology. Social sciences and humanities included the
departments of economics, communication, education, home
technology, farm and home development office, and humanities.

It can be seen from the table that the distribution
of the respondents does not seem to differ from the distri-
bution of full-time faculty with rank of instructor or
higher who were on campus at the time of the survey. Only
the physical sciences division registered a discrepancy

of eight per cent.

32

Level of Knowledge About the Development Program
What did the faculty members know about the Five—
Year Development Program?
Responses were subjected to content analysis and

grouped into four categories shown in Table 5.

Table 5. Frequency of mention of different components
of the develOpment program.

 

 

 

Program components mentioned -' a No. %

Physical develOpment only ("low") 17 21.8
Physical, staff dvlpt. ("moderate") 30 38.5
Physical, staff, program dvlpt. ("high") 22 28.2
All of above and admin. impvt. ("high") 9 11.5

Total 8 100.0

 

 

Under the first category, interpreted as "low"
level of knowledge, responses included those referring to
the building construction, the acquisition of laboratory
equipment, installation of an electronic computer, and
related projects. The second category, labelled as "moderate",
consisted of two elements in the Program. In addition to
the first category, mention was also made of opportunities
for advanced studies by faculty members. Among the responses
in this category were the following:

"Every year, staff members are sent abroad, some
to conferences."

"They are encouraged to go abroad for graduate
studies on their own or supported by Ford,
Rockefeller or others."

33

"There is a raise in salary after a certain period
once you earn a degree, but this has been only
partially implemented."

Mention was also made of the University of the Philip-
pines-Cornell Graduate Education Program, or UPCO for short.
This refers to the Ford Foundation-supported program of
graduate education and research providing for fellowships,
assistantships, visiting professors, and funds for research
projects and the library. Although having a distinct
appellation, this program was actually a segment of the
overall scheme of institutional development. Some faculty
members, particularly those respondents classified in the
first category above and who were aware of staff develop-
ment, thought that this UPCO program was not part of the
Five-Year Development Program. The following quotes bear
this out:

"Faculty improvement was not exactly under the

develOpment program, but through foundations--

Ford, Rockefeller..."

"UPCO handles staff development."

"I don't think there is any on faculty develOpment."

"There is a parallel program of faculty develOpment

which is not under the Development Program since it

is not covered by the 47-million-peso loan from the

World Bank."

Even salary increases were sometimes considered separate:

"The increase in salary is not a part of the develop—
ment program; it is from the University."

34

The third and the fourth categories were classified
as "high" level of knowledge about the program. The third
category included both physical and staff development, plus
mention of strengthening the research and/or instructional
program. More details and more program components dis-
tinguished the responses in this category from the previous
two. Respondents in this level recognized efforts to up-
grade course offerings, by revising existing courses,
instituting new ones, and lengthening the agriculture
curriculum to five years. The increasing emphasis on
graduate programs was also recognized. Increase in the
number of research projects, and the involvement of the
College in research oriented to the nation's problems were
cited-

Greater ability to articulate about the various
components of the development program was demonstrated by
respondents who were grouped into the fourth category.
Descriptions almost sounded like a recitation of the de-
velopment program as described in College publications.
Including the three categories mentioned above, statements
were made of efforts to improve extension and administration.
One observed the expansion of his department's function,
thus:

"Whereas before the...department was not involved

in extension, now we are being enjoined towards it

...conducting workshOps and seminars...using local
materials."

35

NOt one of the respondents mentioned only staff
development or only program development: each respondent
showed some knowledge of the physical development program.

If the categories in Table 4.4 were collapsed to
combine the first two into one and the last two into the
other, a majority (60.3%) would be found to be familiar
with only two components, the physical and the staff
development. The number that compose the "low" and the
"moderate" would be greater than those composing the "high"
level of knowledge.

The data reflected a tendency for faculty members
to dissociate the less apparent items from the Program and
to focus on the easily observable ones. Physical develop-
ment, as evidenced by the construction underway since 1965.
is not easy to overlook. Neither is staff development hard
to detect when every year department staffs witness the
departure of a number of faculty members going abroad for
graduate studies. But there seems to be a confusion about
what really comprises the development program.

Also, instead of viewing the changes or projects
as part of one package plan, they are seen as separate
entities. A complete, accurate picture of the development
program then cannot be said to have been acquired by the

majority of the faculty respondents.

36

Factors Associated with Level of Knowledge

 

Certain faculty characteristics were tested for
their possible relationship with level of knowledge about
the Program. The data is shown in Table 6 for the factors

that were found positively associated with knowledge level.

Table 6. Respondents' level of knowledge about the
development program, primary nature of work
and divisional field of study.

 

 

 

Level of Knowledge Nature of Work Field of Study
About Projects Res. Tchg.Other Phys. Ani. Plt. SS&Hum.

Low to moderate 9 17 21 7 13 ll ‘8

High 9 ii 8 4 4 13 15

Total 18 31 29 11 17 24 23

 

Only a slight association (chi-square of less than
.10) was found between nature of work and level of knowledge.
While both the "teaching" and "other" groups seemed to have
low to moderate level of knowledge, the situation was most
acute in the "other" group. Respondents who were doing
research more than any other work were equally divided
between the first and the second categories adOpted above.

Another factor was field of study. A majority of
the respondents whose departments were grouped under physical
and animal sciences were seen to possess "less" knowledge
than those in the plant sciences and social sciences and

humanities.

37

When only the male instructors and professors were
considered in testing the relationship between knowledge
level and rank, a significant chi-square at the .10 level
resulted. A similar test among the female instructors and
professors yielded insignificant results.

These other faculty characteristics were not associ-
ated with level of knowledge about the development program
to any statistically significant degree: administrative
experience, highest degree earned, where degree was ob-
tained, and academic rank. When the relationship between
knowledge level and nature of approved of projects was-
tested, no significant chi-square was found. However, it
was seen that the faculty generally approved of what they
knew comprised the Five-Year Development Program, regard-
less of their level of knowledge. Similar results and
observations were obtained between knowledge level and
nature of disapproved of projects. In the latter, however,
there was an implicit desire to criticize not the projects
themselves but the procedure in bringing about the program.

More will be said about this later.

Positive Reactions to the Program
To determine the objects of approval among the dif-
ferent components of the development program, the respondents

were asked: "What Specific projects under the Five-Year

38

Development Program do you most strongly approve of? Why?"

Responses were again subjected to content analysis and

classified according to the categories established earlier.
The physical develOpment aspect of the program

appeared to be most strongly approved. (See Table 7.)

Table 7. Distribution of categorized responses on
nature of projects most strongly approved of.

 

 

 

 

Nature of Projects No. Per cent
Physical development 29 37.2
Staff and Program development 10 12.8
Staff, Program, Physical develOpment 25 32.1
"All" (not specified) 10 12.8
None mentioned 4 5.1
Total 78 100.0

 

"All" the projects that they could think of were
agreeable to one out of eight reSpondents. Such projects
were not defined by them. On the other hand, a few were
evasive and did not mention any particular project nor
express any relevant reaction to the question.

It should be pointed out that a high percentage
(82.1%) of the respondents had something to approve of
specifically. In the succeeding section, an attempt will
be made to delineate the bases for acceptance or approval
of various components of the develOpment program starting
with physical development. A sampling of remarks will be
presented to illustrate how the faculty reacted positively

to each component.

39

Bases for Approval of Physical Development

 

Two kinds of reasons were found among the responses
as to why faculty members approved of physical development.

These are: functional and ppagmatic reasons. Function-

 

 

ality was the term given to a group of responses that seemed
to define the utility and necessity of additional space,
equipment, and other materials for instruction or research.
Pragmatism was used to refer to that group of responses
having to do with image-building and the affective benefits
of physical improvement.

A sampling of responses classified under Function-
ality follows:

"As of now our physical facilities are inadequate

so that the construction of new buildings is what

we need most."

"Of course the building plans. We really have to

renovate the College. Our buildings are too anti-

quated. Now with the growing concern over our

graduate programs, we cannot just have antiquated

buildings and obsolete equipment."

"Modern facilities and the new buildings will pro-
vide better research projects and results."

"The old buildings are so far apart and the stu-
dents are inconvenienced. Now, a number of depart-
ments are housed in one building. The college as

a regional center for agriculture means that there
really is a need for physical uplifting."

"These improvements enhance educational growth, and
the research output of the faculty is increased."

40

"We can't do anything without these physical
structures. ESpecially in chemistry, no matter
how creative they are, without the instruments,
they can't do anything."

"Because we are increasing in number, both in
staff and students, we have to get the necessary
space to accomodate all these peOple."

The pragmatic factor is illustrated by the follow-

 

ing remarks:

"The acquisition of facilities helped us a lot as
far as public relations is concerned. Before
these facilities came in, the College was con-
sidered second fiddler to the International Rice
Research Institute; now it rates as well if not
better."

"I strongly approve of physical plant development

because human beings, to be creative, should live
in an inspiring environment."

Bases for Approval of Program Development

 

Responses favoring program develOpment, i.e., changes
in the curriculum and research program, did not seem as
diverse as the bases for approval of physical development.
The respondents who expressed their approval of program
develOpment concentrated their comments on the paramount
importance of curricular and research innovation as a legi-
timate area of concern. Here is a sampling of the reSponses:

"Improvement of the curriculum has opened up

more Opportunities for the graduates especially

outside and it has kept us in step with other
institutions with the same offerings."

41

“I think that even without facilities and even
without enough faculty housing, we can serve
the students more. By and large, we will be
serving the country on the whole by producing
good students, by making full use of the faci-
lities on hand and the faculty material that
we have."

Bases for Approval of Staff Development

The orientation of the respondents on the subject
of staff development was focused on the need for advanced
training of faculty as well as for the retention of faculty
using appropriate incentives. The sampling below reflects
these two elements of concern:

"I approve of the sending abroad of qualified
staff members, so that 50-60 per cent will be
Ph.D.'s and the rest master's degree holders.
This will make for a strong faculty, especially
now that the College is being made the strong-
hold of education in the Far East."

"I strongly approve of staff development in all
its aspects. An untrained and undeveloped staff
would be misfits in a modern physical set-up."

"Salary improvements. As an academic institution.
we should have good people here and to keep these
people, good pay is necessary since there are
better offers outside."

"Upgrading of faculty members, because what's the
use of nice buildings if the staff is weak. Also
salary increase which is the only incentive for
efficiency in any kind of endeavor."

"Requiring graduate degrees of faculty members in
order to upgrade the standards of teaching."

“Encouragement of faculty members to finish graduate
courses--they can transmit their knowledge easier
and better to their students."

42

was brought about, as the following quotes show:

”I disapprove of the implementation rather than
the projects themselves. Because of the rush,
people involved in the academic program were not
involved as much as they should have been: and

if they were at all involved, they were not given
sufficient time to really weigh things."

"There wasn't very much done to justify the
lengthening of the agriculture curriculum from

4 to 5 years to convince us of the need for this.
Nor was there much thought put to mechanics of
planning courses."

These statements indicate that curriculum change was handed
down from the top, but scarcity of responses dealing with
this point prevents any generalization.

Staff development received criticism from.two vantage
points: the human factor, and the economic factor. Three
responses illustrate the human factor. These point‘to the
subjectivity in the manner of selecting the beneficiaries
of the staff development program:

"Faculty development is being implemented in a

highly subjective manner. No definite criteria

are set to select those who will be sent abroad.

They still choose their own man. There is

favoritism. This is the most serious problem."

"On the development of the staff. it seems that

there are many good materials that are not sent

at all. The mechanics of selection are faulty."

“I disapprove of the manner scholars under the

UPCO program abroad are being treated...no housing,

no cars: their living conditions are not taken care

of in contrast to how the Americans are being
treated here."

43

Two advantages of having visiting professors (sometimes
called consultants) were cited:
"Having visiting professors is good because there
are things we can learn from them and they can
learn from us."
"The number of teachers has been augmented. We
have benefitted greatly from UPCO because of the
availability of consultants."
These remarks point to the advantages of having visiting
professors augment the learning experiences and supplement
faculty resources made scarce by the departure of resident
faculty for graduate work abroad. In an annual report of

the Dean of the College, this contribution of the American

and other visiting professors was acknowledged.

Summary of Bases for Approval

On the whole, it can be said that the faculty re-
spondents strongly favored having the deve10pment program
undertaken. They recognized the benefits accruing from
the deve10pment program and its importance in achieving
institutional goals.

The factors of functionality and pragmatism were
identified among the reSponses favoring physical develop-
ment projects. The other responses did not lend themselves
to easy identification of descriptive factors, except in
the responses that signified approval of "all" the projects
‘where the interrelatedness of the projects and the relative

importance of each project was recognized.

44

Negative Reactions to the-Program

 

Almost four out of 10 respondents (38.5%) did not
express any disapproval on any of the projects. A little
over one-fifth (21.8%) had some objection about the
implementation or the nature of the physical development
program. One out of six (17.9%) disapproved of some
aspects of the staff and program deve10pment. Almost
one-sixth (15.4%) signified negative feelings toward the
other projects. No response to the question came from a
small minority (6.4%). As before, these categories were

established using content analysis.

 

 

 

 

Table 8. Distribution of categorized reSponses on
nature of projects most strongly disapproved
of.

Nature of Projects Disapproved of No. Per cent

None 30 38.5

Physical development projects 17 21.8

Staff/Program dvlpt. projects 14 17.9

Other 12 15.4

No answer 5 6.4

Total 78 100.0

 

In the following sections, the bases for disapproval
are classified and illustrated with direct quotes drawn
from the reSponses to the question, "What specific projects
under the Five-Year Development Program do you most strongly

disapprove of? Why?

45

Bases for Disapproval of Physical Development

Four kinds of responses were noted in this category.
Expressed in negative terms, they are: extravagance, in-
convenience, priority conflict, and frustrated expectation.
Each of these factors is explained and illustrated below.

Extravagance or unnecessary cost refers to responses

 

that deplored expenditures perceived as unnecessary by the

respondents. More than anything else, this includes the

demolition of buildings in order to make way for new ones.
"It would have been possible to save some buildings."
"The cost of new buildings is too extravagant. If
we cut down on the cost, we could build more

buildings."

"It puzzles me that all these old buildings had to
be torn down when they can still be used for years."

"I object to the demolition of a lot of buildings
which could have been used for something else."

Inconvenience was a factor mentioned by respondents

 

who were affected by the building construction. When a
building was torn down, temporary relocation of faculty

and students was made. Informal talks with staff members

of departments which were relocated bore out the inconvenience
that respondents mentioned during the formal interviews.
Inconvenience is also caused by "the slow pace of building
construction." This is most probable especially when con-
struction deadlines are set and re-set, thus lengthening

the time for waiting by staff and students. This feeling

is contained in the following statement:

46

"The planning of buildings is not too good. There
is confusion especially with regard to the target
date of occupancy."

Priority conflict is used to describe the dissatis-

 

faction of certain reSpondents with the setting up of
priorities. One respondent said: "We have money for
equipment, but where will we house this if we don't have
a building?" Another replied:
"The immediate construction of buildings has been
the priority of the administration in the Five—
Year DevelOpment Program. There are more important
concerns. Even with our old buildings we managed

to attain our objectives."

Frustrated expectation refers to the disappointment

 

expressed by certain members of the staff, particularly
of departments that felt left out in the building program.
A faculty member said:
"Years ago, we were prepared for changes in building,
and equipment. Now we are frustrated because we
weren't given a building."
Bases for Disapproval of Staff and Program Development
Objections from 14 (18%) respondents were directed
towards the staff and program development projects. Those
who had something to say against the staff deve10pment
usually had things to say also against the program deve10p-
ment projects.
Program development was considered particularly with
regard to curriculum revision. Here, the objection was

levelled purely at the manner in which curriculum change

47

was brought about, as the following quotes show:

"I disapprove of the implementation rather than
the projects themselves. Because of the rush,
people involved in the academic program were not
involved as much as they should have been; and

if they were at all involved, they were not given
sufficient time to really weigh things."

"There wasn't very much done to justify the
lengthening of the agriculture curriculum from

4 to 5 years to convince us of the need for this.
Nor was there much thought put to mechanics of
planning courses."

These statements indicate that curriculum change was handed
down from the tOp, but scarcity of responses dealing with
this point prevents any generalization.

Staff development received criticism from two vantage
points: the human factor, and the economic factor. Three
responses illustrate the human factor. These point to the
subjectivity in the manner of selecting the beneficiaries
of the staff development program:

"Faculty development is being implemented in a

highly subjective manner. No definite criteria

are set to select those who will be sent abroad.

They still choose their own man. There is

favoritism. This is the most serious problem."

"On the deve10pment of the staff, it seems that

there are many good material that are not sent

at all. The mechanics of selection are faulty."

"I disapprove of the manner scholars under the

UPCO program abroad are being treated...no housing,

no cars; their living conditions are not taken care

of in contrast to how the Americans are being
treated here."

48

One of the fringe benefits extended to a limited
number of faculty members is rental housing, now expanded
with the onset of the development program. One faculty
member bewailed this housing project, thus:

”Faculty housing-—this creates some kind of

sectionalism, that is, people living in housing

projects react differently--they feel more 'high
class'. This breeds segregation."

Negative responses that expressed faculty disap-
pointment with the salary scale were grouped into the
economic factor. The faculty were disappointed, accord-

ing to one respondent, "because it has not been implemented

to its fullest extent."

Bases for Disapproval of Other Aspects

Since the question as posed sounded broad, it in-
vited responses that were not easily classifiable under
any of the foregoing categories, and thus were subsumed
under "other" objects of disapproval. A principal concern
of the respondents who were thus classified was the danger
of "over-expansion" of the College, thus:

"The national involvement of the College tends

to rob it of attention to some of the teaching

functions. Both sides are legitimate--national

development or thorough instructional function-—

but which is to be attended to first with our

limited manpower?"

”If we are not careful, we might run into the

danger of over-expanding. We are attracting

too many people here. This can lead to too
fast a pace."

49

"Our involvement with regional programs-—SEARCA*--
is being done much too soon. We should be solving
local problems. We are spreading ourselves too
thinly; too much committee work, etc."

Quite related to this point of over-expansion is
the increasing involvement of faculty members, especially
the dean, in national programs. The dean served as under-
secretary for agriculture in the nation's cabinet.** A
respondent criticized the dean's status thus:

"The dean, as occupant of several offices, does

not have enough time for the College. It might

not reduce his efficiency, but certainly the

time allotted to the College is reduced."

Another point that disturbed certain faculty mem-
bers was the apparent indebtedness of the Philippine
Government to the World Bank which gave an unprecedented
loan of $6-million to finance the building program of the
College with matching funds from the Philippine Government.
The objection ran this way:

"I disapprove of the borrowing of money from the

World Bank, because the Philippine Government is

already deep in debt. It's going to be very
difficult to pay back such loans."

 

*Southeast Asian Regional Center for Graduate Study
and Research in Agriculture. The College became this center
in 1967.

**A few months after this survey was undertaken, the
dean was relieved of this undersecretaryship by the President
of the Republic, because it was one of the demands of a
campus demonstration.

50

The respondent, however, did not propose an alternative
for financing the project.

A basis for disapproval that probably belongs to
a later discussion deals with faculty-administration
relations as perceived by one respondent who said: "There
is status competition among staff members. The dialogue
between central administration and the faculty is not too

good."

Summary of Bases for Negative Reactions

 

Responses expressing disapproval of physical deve10p-
ment were classified into: extravagance, inconvenience,
priority conflict, and frustrated expectation. Objections
about the program development projects were directed at
the procedure followed in bringing about curriculum change.
Staff development projects were criticized for subjectivity
in the allocation of resources and the insufficient imple—
mentation of salary adjustment. Other negative reactions
were addressed to the mgggg of obtaining funds and the

notion of over-expanding due to limited resources.

ReSponses to Scaled Items

 

Change Orientation

 

Three statements adOpted from Lin, gt ol.'s study
were intended to measure faculty orientation to change.
However, as pointed out earlier, the intercorrelation coef-

ficients were not significant enough to allow treating the

51

three statements as one variable. Hence, analysis was
done singly on the three statements.

Table 9 shows that an overwhelming majority
described themselves as able to adjust easily to<:hanges.
either always or usually (totalling 92.3%). An exactly
similar proportion (92.3%) manifested a tendency to dis—
agree with the statement that no change should be under-
taken (Item No. 2). A slightly smaller proportion (86%)
tended to disagree with the statement that the faculty
could have done just as well if things had not changed so
much in the college.

Table 9. Distribution of responses to the first
three scaled items.

 

 

Extent of Agreement

Questionnaire item Always Usually Sometimes Never

 

1. When confronted with _
changes, I feel that 13 59 6 0
I can easily adjust (16.7%) (75.6%) (7.7%) (0%)

2. To maintain a healthy
and stable educational
system, we must keep
it the way it is and 2 4 17 55
not undertake change. (2.6%) (5.1%) (21.8%) (70.5%)

3. The faculty could have
done just as well if
things hadn't changed 0 9 34 33
so much in this college. (0%) (11.5%) (43.6%) (42.3%)

 

52

On the basis of these three statements and the
faculty reactions to them, one is tempted to conclude
that faculty members do welcome change. In fact, they
seem to place much value on change. The manner of bring-
ing change about, however, is entirely another matter,
as succeeding discussions will show.

Perceived Level of Faculty Participation
in Decision Making

 

 

More than half of the respondents said they agreed
only sometimes with the statement that the faculty of the
college exerts a strong influence on the administration
in decision making. About one-fifth of them indicated
that the statement was never agreeable to them, and
another fifth said they would agree always with the state-
ment. The preponderance of responses towards the side of
disagreement points to a confirmation of a respondent's
statement previously alluded to that "the dialogue between
central administration and the faculty is not too good."

Almost seven out of 10 respondents (67.5%) said
they would never agree or would only agree sometimes with
the statement that faculty members are consulted first
before the administration makes any decisions that affect
them. There is an overwhelming disagreement with this
statement. Only one-third (32.5%) testified in agreement

that there was faculty-administration consultation.

53

Hm.

Do college committees constitute an effective means

for involving the faculty in meaningful participation in

decision making?

in the affirmative.

Responses to this statement were largely

About two-thirds (65.4%) attested to

the value of college committees, if those who would agree

always (12.8%) and those who would agree usually (52.6%)

were totalled.

only sometimes or never.

Table 10.

in decision making.

About one—third said they would agree

Perceived level of faculty participation

 

 

Questionnaire Item

Extent of Agreement

Always Usually Sometimes

Never

 

4.

The faculty of this

college exerts a strong
influence on the admini-
stration in the decision 3

making process. (3.9%)
Faculty members are con-
sulted first before the
administration makes any
decisions that affect 3
them. (3.9%)

College committees con—
stitute an effective

means for involving the
faculty in meaningful
participation in decision 10
making. (12.8%)

Faculty viewpoints are
adequately represented by
those who serve in college 2
committees. (2.6%)

15
(19.2%)

22
(28.6%)

41
(52.6%)

32
(41.0%)

45
(57.7%)

46
(59.7%)

25
(32.1%)

35
(44.9%)

15
(19.2%)

(7.8%)

(2.5%)

(11.5%)

 

54

Are faculty vieWpoints adequately represented by
those who serve in college committees? Responses that
could be taken as positive (43.6%) were less than responses
that could be classified as negative (56.4%), implying that
the selection of those who serve in committees is dys—
functional. To summarize, the faculty respondents saw a
low level of faculty participation in decision making but
place trust in committees as the vehicle for meaningful
participation.

Perceived Legitimacy of Faculty
Participation in Decision Making

Granted that faculty members perceived a low level
of faculty participation in decision making, how extensive
would they want the participation to be? The statements
employed here were adopted and modified from those used
in Lin, gt ol.'s study. (See Table 11).

The first statement, "Faculty members should be
asked to take part in decision—making discussions regard-
ing college matters," received support from a large majority.
Only five per cent said they would agree only sometimes.
Nobody signified complete disagreement.

Similarly, almost three-fourths (73.1%) would like
to see the college administration consult faculty members
before going ahead with what it thinks will benefit the
college. The rest (26.9%) did not find the consultation

imperative.

55

Table 11. Perceived legitimacy of faculty participation
in decision making.

 

 

Extent of Agreement

Questionnaire Item Always Usually Sometimes Never

 

8. Faculty members should
be asked to take part
in decision making dis-
cussions regarding 53 21 4 0
college matters. (68.0%) (26.9%) (5.1%) (0%)

9. If the administration
of this college wants
to get things done,
it should only go
ahead with what it
thinks will benefit the 28 29 14 7
college after consult- (35.9%) (37.2%) (17.9%) (9.0%)
ing faculty members.

10. Faculty members should
first be asked before
the administration
makes any decisions 45 25 8 0
that affect them. (57.7%) (32.1%) (10.2%) (0%)

 

Nobody disagreed with the proposition that "Faculty
members should first be asked before the administration
makes any decisions that affect them." About one-tenth
said they would agree only sometimes. All the others said
they would agree "always" (57.7%) or "usually" (32.1%).

To summarize the perceived legitimacy of faculty
participation, the respondents strongly urged that the
faculty should be asked to participate in decision making.
Only a minority showed some reservation regarding this

matter.

 

 

56

Suggestions on the Five-Year-Program

 

In the interview, the respondents were asked to
make suggestions on the nature of the program and also

about the procedure followed in decision making.

Regarding the Nature of the Program

 

The question that elicited the responses to be dis-
cussed in this section was: "If the college were to under-
take a development program over again, what suggestions
would you make regarding the kind of projects that should
be undertaken?" The responses were grouped into three
categories: concern about human resource deve10pment,
concern about physical deve10pment, and concern for program
development. Nine respondents were excluded for not making
any suggestions or for making irrelevant ones.

Analysis of the suggestions seems to confirm the
findings discussed earlier on objects of approval and of
disapproval. Some suggestions also reinforce the choice
of projects in the deve10pment program, such as the up—
grading of faculty, salary increases, and greater recog-
nition for commendable work. These, obviously, fall under
the first category, the concern for human resource development.
Below is a sampling of such responses:

"I suggest that reexamination of the staff be made

by proper authorities. DevelOp personnel; if per-

sonnel running the labs are of poor quality, it
will just be a waste of expense."

57

"The presence of better teachers will depend on
how much they are getting. Higher salaries will
keep the better-prepared teachers here otherwise
they will seek employment outside."

"I suggest more motivation for the faculty mem-
bers--make them feel that they are working for
something. Right now the relationships are very
personalistic. They should in fact revamp the
whole administration. And it should give more
support for researchers not because of person-
alities but because of the topic. Give credit
where credit is due."

Several respondents moved for the continuance of
the staff deve10pment program, but added that selection
of faculty fellows or scholars should be less biased:

"Staff development should be continued. Set up a

body of unbiased people who interview and select

scholars from out of the staff so that there is
less politicking. A system of priorities based

on qualifications should be the basis for such
scholarships."

A significant suggestion also involved the use
made of these scholars when they return to the College with
their newly-earned degrees. "Ph.D.'s should be involved
in teaching, research and extension, and not be assigned

administrative work for which they were not trained."

Concern about physical resources. The inadequacy

 

of facilities for teaching and research was deplored again,
leading to the suggestion that these be improved. Housing
for faculty, graduate students and international students
was also suggested. However, a few of the reSpondents

adopted a "wait-and-see" attitude, saying: "I can't think

58

of anything to suggest because as of now they haven't really
finished the Five-Year DevelOpment Program." Still others
saw the need for a library building and for more laboratory
facilities:
"The building of a library is a very important
component for the project and should be given
priority."
"We need to furnish laboratory facilities for
graduate and undergraduate students. We might
have beautiful buildings but no facilities."
The last statement above denotes a certain priority con-

flict, as does the statement below:

"Facilities for research and instruction should re-
ceive priority rather than buildings."

Concern forpprogram development. The suggestions

 

in this category were grouped into curriculum, research,

and extension. It was interesting to note that suggestions
regarding the curriculum indicated the need for articulating
it with national goals, such as these comments:

"Curriculum should include and equally emphasize
technical skill that should cater to our develop—
ment as a country. We should not limit ourselves
to theory."

"First of all there should be a restudy of philOSOphy
and objectives that should relate to the university
objectives and national goals. I feel that there is
a lack of knowledge of the common goals we all should
have."

"We better be specific about the functions of the
college by relating functions to national programs."

59

Another respondent suggested that the curriculum should
be "based on a thorough survey of the demand outside and
on a projection of what will happen." Above all, it was
suggested that curriculum development "should take more
prior study."
Regarding the research program, suggestions were
many, and covered diverse points as the need for basic
or applied research, avoidance of duplication in projects,
reducing red tape in obtaining financial support, and
adapting research facilities to the specific problems of
the country. A specific suggestion ran thus:
"It will be better to have a Central Research
Institute like the International Rice Research
Institute that will look at the welfare of
agricultural science, its problems and solutions.
This would result in better coordination of
research projects, and avoid duplication of
projects occurring at present."
The question of proper or legitimate philosophy
of extension for the College has existed for several years.

Two respondents commented on this:

"The College should work with agencies and not
deal with farmers. It is just a waste of time."

"We should’have programs to help newly-established
agricultural colleges. We should put more emphasis
on extension."

Regarding the Decision—Making Process
The question was posed: "If the College were to

undertake a development program over again, what suggestions

would you make with regard to the procedure of planning and

60

deciding on specific projects?" Content analysis of the
responses resulted in three groups of suggestions: those
that suggested improving faculty participation (55.1%),
those that called for close study of needs and problems
(10.3%), and miscellaneous suggestions (12.8%). That the
decision-making process needed no improvement was attested
to by one out of 10 respondents (11.5%). About the same
fraction did not answer the queStion sufficiently to merit
any inclusion among the suggestions.

The respondents who fell into the first category
mentioned above included those who suggested increased
faculty involvement by consultation and information dis-
semination, as well as those who called for improvement
in the number, composition, and use of committees. Also
included in this category were those who prOposed that the
deve10pment program be evolved from the departmental level
upwards. Below are some responses selected to illustrate
this first category:

"They should give the job of initial planning,
that is, of buildings, to the department concerned."

"Decision making should start with individual de-
partments as to what they need. But priorities
should be considered and deve10pment should pro-
ceed keeping in view the welfare of the whole
college and not of individual departments."

"Firstly, there should be proper consultation with
the faculty. If a policy emanated from a standing
committee, it should be presented to the staff
members for criticism and suggestions."

61

"The faculty of the different departments should
be involved much more. They should sit down
together and lay down plans guided by the object-
ives of the College."

"Communication between faculty and administration
is very poor. Improvement can be made on this
aspect."

The second category consisted of responses calling
for closer study of needs and problems. A thorough study
of the needs of the different constituents of the College
was suggested. Below are some statements to this effect:

"The first thing to do is to find out whether there
is really a need for a development program, then

to determine what aspects such a program should
have. This survey should be done among the faculty,
students and responsible citizens in the country."

"The only way to know needs is to make a survey
first. In some programs, we involve the entire
technical staff. Better still, get an advisory
committee composed of technical advisers from
all departments which should also have a tech-
nical staff."

"Before we go into anything new, we should assess
the needs of the moment--the weak points. As a
public university, we should look into national
needs. Everything that should be undertaken
should be need-oriented. Even in the identifi-
cation of needs, there should be total involve-
ment. From bottom to top, there should be
crystallization, internal communication through
group discussions. There should be constant
interaction. By involvement, we should get more
ideas and commitment and support would be more
widespread."

It can be seen from the above statements that although
the respondents would like an opinion survey and a thorough
study of needs, they would also place importance on communi-
cation and constant interaction for maximum involvement of

the faculty in the decision-making process.

62

Six reSpondents suggested that students should be
involved in the program planning, but they were not quite
one in saying how the students can be involved or brought
into the decision-making process. Their only point of
agreement is that closer consideration of the students in
planning future development programs should be made. Their
responses are as follows:

"Students should have more participation. They

should help in the planning out of projects most

beneficial to them. Progress should be adjusted
according to their suggestions."

"Students should be taken into consideration but

not necessarily direct involvement. Students'

evaluation of faculty would be a good guideline

in the planning of the faculty development pro-

gram. Students can direct their suggestions to

the faculty."

The other responses that were classified into the
"miscellaneous" group were concerned about (a) stable
financing for the program, (b) strengthening of the faculty
association, (c) getting ideas from alumni, and (d) de-

fining college functions, all of which had been covered

in earlier discussions.

CHAPTER V: SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION

Summary of Findings

Generally, the faculty respondents gave favorable
reactions to the various projects under the Five-Year
Development Program. They recognized the potential bene-
fits accruing from the Program to the instructional and
research Objectives of the College. Their objections
were lodged in the procedure followed in arriving at
decisions, particularly the low level of faculty involve-
ment in the decision-making process, and the lack of
adequate dissemination of information about the Program.

The above is a capsule summary of the survey
results. A more specific resume follows. The develop-
ment projects were approved of on the basis of their being
functional to the attainment of institutional goals. State-
ments of disapproval of physical development were classified
into: extravagance, inconvenience, priority conflict, and
frustrated expectation. Objections about the program develop-
ment were directed at the procedure followed in bringing about
curriculum change. Staff development projects were criticized
for subjectivity in the allocation of resources and the in-
sufficient implementation of the salary schedule. Other

negative reactions were addressed to the means of obtaining

63

64

funds and the notion of over-expanding with limited
resources.

A large majority of the respondents felt that they
could easily adjust to changes, that changes should be
undertaken, and that the faculty could not have done as
well if things had not changed in the college. A majority
also perceived a low level of faculty participation in
decision making. While more than half liked the idea of
using college committees as a means for faculty partici-
pation in decision making, about the same proportion did
not think that faculty vieWpoints are adequately represented
by those who serve on college committees. Faculty parti-
cipation in decision making was seen as legitimate by an
overwhelming prOportion of the respondents.

If the College were to undertake the development
program over again, the respondents suggested: (a) the
continuation of physical improvement; (b) the maintenance
of staff deve10pment, underscoring the need for less sub-
jectivity in the awarding of study grants and other faculty
incentives; (c) articulation between the curriculum and
national goals; (d) improvement of research program; and
(e) concentrated efforts in extension. On the matter of
decision-making procedure, more than half of the respondents
suggested improving faculty participation by consultation

and greater information dissemination, as well as improvement

65

in the number, composition and use of committees. It
was also suggested that the development program be evolved
from the departmental level. The rest called for closer

study of needs, problems, and objectives.

Discussion of Findings

 

The first objective of this study was to identify
the sources of acceptance and rejection of institutional
deve10pment projects and processes. Evidence was found
supporting the framework adOpted: that attitudes of both
acceptance and rejection reside in one individual and to
focus on one and ignore the other would be erroneous.

True it is that the ultimate objective is to minimize the
negative attitudes toward an innovation, but it is equally
true that an implicit objective is to maximize the posi-
tive attitudes. Knowledge of the sources of positive
attitudes or acceptance would facilitate the pursuit of
such objectives.

Analysis of the negative attitudes revealed that
rejection or resistance was directed chiefly at the pro-
cedure followed in instituting the development program.
Limited participation in decision making was bewailed;
lack of information about the program was deplored; sub-
jectivity in the selection of beneficiaries of staff deve10p-
ment was criticized; and the expediency by which curriculum

change was undertaken was censured.

 

 

66

This finding should assure the administration that
what it set out to do was appreciated by the faculty.
The choice of projects themselves did not receive any Sig--
nificant criticism; in fact, they were approved of, con-
sidered functional and necessary for goal achievement.
Rather, the faculty generally rejected the inadequacy of
involvement of participants in the change process.

That resistance would be less if the participants
feel that the project is their own was earlier propounded

l The data here presented seems to indicate

by Watson.
that the faculty respondents did not agree with the pro-
cedure followed in undertaking the development program,
aand therefore they suggested wider participation of the
faculty, through departmental or committee channels. When
change is imposed from above, it tends to be resisted es-
pecially in an egalitarian society, according to Willower.2
The college under study is probably growing into this kind
of social organization, since there is an increasing pro-
portion of Ph.D.'s in its ranks. Could it be that the
"upgrading" of the faculty in terms of academic degrees is
giving rise to a desire for a "collegial style" of campus
governance?

The apparent enthusiasm of the faculty for partici-

pation in decision making in this study conflicts with the

findings of Hunter.3 She found that the faculty did not

67

want to participate in educational policy making and that
the faculty committee system was seen as an ineffective
device for involving the faculty in meaningful partici-
pation in decision making. The data in the present study
shows that most of the faculty wanted to participate in
discussing college matters, and considered the committees
as effective channels for participation. Respondents in
this study, however, were divided on whether faculty view-
points were adequately represented in college committees.
The data indicate that a majority of them had something
to say against the representation in college committees.
In Hunter's study, it was also found that the faculties
of the two liberal arts colleges felt that they had no
real authority in college government. A similar tone was
manifested by the faculty in the present study. This
finding is significant in view of the fact that the college
under investigation is situated in a socio-cultural system
where authoritarian or highly centralized forms of govern-
ment have been the norm in most organizational set-ups.
Certain propositions advanced by researchers of
innovation have found support in the data of this study.
For example, Lippitt, gt gt.4 stated that resistance to
change may occur when the prOposed change promises benefits
to one part of the organization at the eXpense of other

parts. In the present study, when staff members of a

68

certain department expressed dissatisfaction over the fact
that they did not have a new building, their source of
resistance would be explained by the above proposition.

Lack of information as a source of resistance was
suggested by Willower too. Certain respondents could not
demonstrate convincing knowledge about the development
program. They cut short their responses and registered
an air of indifference, whichto Willower is a safe form
of resistance.

The second objective of this study, to investigate
the relationship between faculty attitudes and their
characteristics indicated that on the whole the faculty
of the College comprised a homogeneous group in terms of
their attitudes toward the development program and their
perceptions of faculty involvement in college governance.
Reference to this is made in the Limitation of the Study.

The third objective was to develop a conceptual
scheme for dealing with faculty reactions to institutional
change. Two important elements have been identified in
the process of undertaking institutional change: the pro-
gram of change and its components, and the communication
process. The program of change can be considered as the
innovation,although multifaceted in character and less
discrete than most technological innovations that have been

studied. Nevertheless, the program and its composite

69

projects may be taken as the attitude object or objects,
initially distinctive and then aggregative, depending on
the tested homogeneity of the components.

In previous studies of innovation adOption, little
attention has been paid to the manner of introducing and
implementing change, as can be observed in the literature
reviewed in Chapter II. Studies have tended to focus on
the innovation itself when in fact the difficulty in
securing greater acceptance may lie in the methods employed
in initiating and effecting the change process. Bennis
acknowledged the lack of information about the process of

"implementation, which he defined as "the creation in a
client-system of understanding of, and commitment to, a
particular change which can solve problems, and devices
whereby it can become integral to the client-system's
Operations."5 Only theoretical or non—empirical statements
are available, such as Bennis' untested predictions.

Two of Bennis' predictions found support in this
study. One is that "an anticipated change will be resisted
to the degree that the client-system possesses little or
incorrect knowledge about the change, and has relatively
low influence in controlling the nature and direction of
the change."6 The other is that "the degree to which col-

laboration is required is probably related to the type of

change anticipated: the more it involves socio-psychological

70

factors--as Opposed to technical-—the more collaboration
is required."7 Hence, a relatively greater degree of
resistance by the faculty studied here was observed in

the reactions to the less technical projects as staff

and program development, compared to the physical develop-

ment projects.

Limitations of the Study

 

As an exploratory study of the reactions of faculty
towards an institutional development program in a non-
Western setting, the concepts and techniques employed here
are used on a trial basis and have not been validated..

No attempt was made to establish varying degrees of
resistance to or acceptance of institutional change. Closer
familiarity with the research variables is necessary before
measurement can proceed from the descriptive to the correla-
tional.

The possibility of errors in transcribing the oral
replies of faculty respondents are recognized. A more
accurate recording procedure should have been employed if
financial and other resources permitted.

Perhaps the low and the insignificant chi-square
values can be explained by the nature of the sample or by
a homogeneity of responses of individuals to phrases some-

what foreign to their own patterns of thought.

 

 

71

If a more comprehensive study were to be undertaken,“
added factors not crucial to this study should be included:
for instance, sources of information about the development‘
program, the channels of communication available to or used
by faculty members, and faculty peer groups, both formal
and informal, subsumed by Rogers, et a1.8 under social-

structural factors.

Implications for Academic Administration.

The findings in this study underscore the importance
of communication in the process of instituting a develop-
ment program. As Gardner said, "effective channels of
internal communication can prevent the erection of impen-
etrable walls between parts of the organization and by
doing so may do much to diminish the number of narrow,
over-specialized employees. All of this serves the cause
of renewal."9 A major factor in the change process seems
to be uncertainty: the feeling that leads people to ask
about an innovation--what is it all about, what is in it
for me, what will happen if I accept or reject it? Admini-
strators have to satisfy the cognitive as well as the

0 0 O I 0 lo
affective motives of the innovation receivers.

 

 

72

What if the rate of change is impeded by maximum
participation in decision making? Gardner warned against
superfluous communication which tends to inhibit creativity
and flexibility

by excessive demands for coordination, admini—

strative review and endorsement from collateral

branches of the organization. Experimental

ventures may quickly lose all freshness and

imagination if subjected to the withering heat

of criticism fromlmore conventional parts of

the organization.

In striking the balance between to communication and super-
fluous communication, perhaps we should err on the side of
superfluity, in the belief that the necessity for change
would spur it on and bring about action. The assumption

is also made that the individual is most receptive to change
when he has some influence over its nature and direction.

If a democratic society is to be aimed at in campus govern—
ance, it should be "based on extensive discussion, accurate
feedbacks, a network of mutual information channels, and an

12

absence of coercion." Thus did Boulding describe his

ideal image of democracy. Bennis also argued in favor of
democratic government because it is usually this type of
organization that is most adaptable to changing conditions.13
The structuring of the channels of communication may
also be modified to offset the tendency to inaction. Rourke

14

and Brooks suggested thatthe choice is between a system of

representative government where cumbersome large faculty

73

gatherings are replaced by the establishment of committees
to represent faculty opinion, and acceptance by faculty
members of a larger management role for academic admini-
strators. Faculty representation is preferred because

on "academic matters faculty advice is essential to the

deve10pment of rational university policy."15

Implications for Further Research

 

The contribution that this study makes to research
on innovation in higher education is that it has furnished
empirical evidence on the acceptance-and-rejection complex
as a twofold phenomenon. However, much remains to be done
in order that the process of institution-building would be
more fully understood. This and previous studies have
hardly scratched the surface. The classification of re-
actions to institutional deve10pment is but a first step
toward the formulation of generalizations regarding them.

One possible avenue for future research is the
analysis of attrition before, during, and after the develop-
ment program is instituted. The cognitive dissonance theory
might be tested using faculty members who have terminated
their employment with an institution that is now undergoing
change. Or one may pursue the question: Is faculty mobility
influenced more by a total change program than by "trouble-

shooting" or spot reforms at points of dissatisfaction?

 

 

74

Another area of concern is the rate of change:

At what rate can change be tolerated, and what personality
characteristics tend to be related to varying levels of
tolerance? If funds are available, an institutional de-
velopment program can proceed at a feverish pace. Is this
within the limits of tolerance of conservative faculty
members? March and Simon stated certain postulates con-
cerning "optimum stress" in the face of change,16 but
empirical evidence is still wanting.

The development program under study involved the
infusion of money into the system. Has this brought about
fundamental changes in the teaching—learning activity in
the college? Having financial resources at his command.
how effective can an academic leader be in persuading
the faculty to make some basic changes in the content and
methods of instruction? Would the faculty be more prone
to approve of or accept changes that are associated with
economic incentives but resist those that involve changes in
their teaching practices or may be linked only remotely to
financial rewards?

No study seems to have been published that deals with
teachers of different levels, e.g., elementary, secondary,
undergraduate, graduate faculties, comparing them on their
receptiveness or resistance to innovation. The studies
reviewed, for example, have focused on one educational

stratum each.

75

It was a major observation in this study that the
agriculture faculty tended to agree more than disagree
about various aspects of the development program. Whether
this homogeneity prevails in similar institutions or in
other professional colleges as well would be worth
investigating.

The identification of phases of the development
process paralleling that of the adoption process with re—
gard to a technological innovation is another worthwhile
endeavor. It would be interesting to find out the acti-
vities and attitudes during the different stages.

The impact of deve10pment on all members of the
academic community also needs study. How do these periods
of transition affect the student in his learning environ-
ment? The non-academic staff and the administrators
themselves presumably experience satisfaction and dis-
satisfaction before and after the projected goals are
achieved, and their reactions could be entirely different
from those of the academician.

The College of Agriculture of the University of the
Philippines belongs to that class of developing institutions
in developing countries. The paucity of information about
how academic organizations undergo change, and about the con-
comitant effects of institution-building eSpecially in the

less develOped countries of the world ought to attract

76

students in the social sciences to this area of study.
In view of the divergent cultural norms prevailing, there
is a special need to research concepts and variables in

a non-Western setting.

Footnotes

 

Chapter I

 

1.

2.

Paul L. Dressel, College and University Curriculum.
Berkeley, Calif.:_ McCutchan Publishing, I968, pp. 1-12.

 

Francis E. Rourke and Glenn E. Brooks, The Mgpagerial
Revolution in Higher Education. Baltimore: The Johfis
HOpkins Press, 1966. p. 101.

 

Alvaro Chaparro and Ralph H. Allee, "Higher Education
and Social Change in Latin America," Rural Sociology _
25:1 (March, 1960), pp. 9-25. Erven J. Long, Insti-
tutional Factors Limiting Progress in the Less
Developed Countries," in Albert H. Moseman (ed.)
Agricultural Sciences for the Developing Nations, 1964.
Washington, D. C.: Amer. Assn. for the Adv. of Sci.,
p. 13.

 

 

F. F. Hill, "DevelOping Agricultural Institutions in
Underdeveloped Countries," in Albert H. Moseman (ed.),
Ibid., pp. 141-61.

Hill, ibid. Also Howard Hayden, Higher Education

and Development in South-East Asig;_VoI. 2: Country
Profiles. Paris: Unesco and the International Assn.
of Universities, 1967. p. 615.

 

 

H. W. Hannah, Resource Book for Rural Universities in
Developing Countfies. Urbana: University Of IIlinois
Press, 1966.

 

 

Building Institutions to Serve Agriculture. Summary
Report, Agency for International DevelOpment and Com-
mittee for Inter-Institutional COOperation, 1968.

p. 42.

 

In Terry F. Lunsford (ed.), Study of Academic Admini-
stration. Boulder, Colorado: Western Interestate
Commission for Higher Education, 1963. pp. 113-31.

 

77

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

78

Gerhard C. Eichholz, "Why Do Teachers Reject Change?",
TheorygInto Practice. 2:5 (Dec., 1963), pp. 264-68.

 

Chris Argyris, Understanding Organizational Behavior..
Homewood, Ill.: Dorsey Press, 1960., p. 27a--m .'

Ibid., p. 117. This agrees with the framework of
Putney, Snell and Gladys J. Putney, "Radical Innovation
and Prestige," American Sociological Review. 27:4
(Aug., 1962) pp. 548-51).

 

See for instance: John J. Corson, Governance of
Colleges and Universities. New York: McGraw-Hill,
1960. pp. 174-75; Beardsley Ruml and Donald H.
Morrison, Memo to a College Trustee: A Report on
Financial and Structural Problems of the Liberal Arts
College. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959; SamueI Baskins,
Vibrations in the Ivory Towers," American Education
4:3 (March, 1968), pp. 12-13; Herbert Stroup, Bureau-
cracy in Higher Education. New York: The Free Press,
1966, p. 212.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Everett M. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations. New
York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1962; Matthew B,’
Miles (ed.) Innovation in Education. New York:
Teachers College Press, ColumBia University, 1964;
Donald H. Ross (ed.), Administration for Adaptability.
New YOrk: Metropolitan School Study Council, I958;
Goodwin Watson (ed.), Concepts for Social Change.
Washington, D. C.: National Training Laboratories,
National Education Association, 1967.

 

 

Eichholz, op. cit.

Chapter II

 

l.

2.

Samuel Baskin, op. cit.

Richard Evans, et at. The.UnivergityrFacultyand Edu-
cational TeleviEIOn: HostiIity, Resistance and Change.
A Sociai Psychological Investigation ifi’Depth. Houston:
University of Houston, 1962. p. 97. By the-same author:
Resistance to Innovation in Higher Education: A Social
Psychological ExploratiOn Focused on Television andithe
Establishment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1967. p. 11.

 

Ibid., p. 97.

79

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4. This characteristic was termed as profitability in
Rogers, gpr~cit. In another study by Lin, gt gt.,
this element was called beneficiality of innovation.

5. Gerhard C. Eichholz, op. cit.

6. Jerald Thore Hage, ”Organizational Response to
Innovation: A Case Study of Community Hespital."
Ph.D. Thesis, Columbia University, 1963.

7. Nicholas J. Demerath, gt_a;, Power, Presidents, and
Professors. New YOrk: Basic Books. 1967.

8. Nan Lin, EE.§L- The Diffusion of an Innovation in
Three Michigan Highchhools: Institution—Building
Through Change. East Lansing, Michigan State Uni-
versity, 1966.

9. Everett M. Rogers, gt_a;, Diffusion of Educational
Innovations in the Government Secondary Schools of
Thailand. Michigan State University, 1968.

Chapter V

l. Goodwin Watson, op. cit., pp. 22-23.

2. Donald J. Willower, "Barriers to Change in Educational
Organizations," Theory Into Practice. 2:5 (Dec.,
1963). pp. 257-63.

3. Pauline Faye Hunter, “An Exploratory Case Study of the
Formal Role of Faculty in Educational Policy Making."
Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, Berkeley, 1963.

4. Ronald Lippitt, Jeanne Watson, and Bruce westley, The
Dynamics of Planned Change. New Ybrk: Harcourt, Brace,
and Co., 1958.

5. Warren G. Bennis, Changing Organizations. New YOrk:
McGraw—Hill Book Co., 1966. p. 175.

6. Ibid., p. 175.

7. Ibid., p. 105.

8. Everett M. Rogers, gt_a;,, op, cit.

 

10.

ll.

12.

l3.
14.
15.

16.

80

John W. Gardner, Self-Renewal. New York: Harper
& Row, 1965. p. 77.

 

Bennis also said that "information and understanding
are necessary but not sufficient components for in-
ducing change. More is required if the change is to
affect important human responses"; and that "thinking
solely about the individual understanding of the

change and its consequences is not enough"; and
finally, "the change program must include emotional

and value as well as cognitive (informational) elements
for successful implementation." op. git. pp. 175—76.

Gardner, op. cit., pp. 77-78.

Kenneth E. Boulding, The Image. Ann Arbor: The
University of Michigan Press, 1956.

 

Bennis, EB. Cit. ' pp. 18-210
Rourke and Brooks, op. cit., pp. 27-29.
Ibid., p. 129.

James G. March and Herbert A. Simon, Organizations.
New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1958.

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

General

Abbott, Frank, "Critique: The Role of Faculty in College
Administration," in Studies of College Faculty.
Regional Institute on Institutional Research, 1961.

 

Allen, Lucille. "Faculty Expectations, Satisfactions and
Morale," in Studies of College Faculty. Regional
Institute on Institutional Research, I961.

 

Allen, William H. Self—Surveys by Colleges and Universities.
New York: World Book Co., 1917.

 

American Psychological Association. "The Discovery and
Dissemination of Scientific Information Among Psy-
chologists in Two Research Environments." in Reports
on Projects on Scientific Information Exchange in
Psyghology. v. 2 ISept., 1964), pp. 41—125.

 

 

Andersen, K. J. "The Ambivalent Department," Educational
Record. 49:2 (Spring 1968), 206-213.

 

Anderson, Robert C. "A Method and Instrument for Predicting
the Consequences of Intra-Organizational Action."
Ph.D. Thesis, Michigan State University, 1963.

Argyris, Chris. Understanding Organizational Behavior.
Homewood, Ill.: Dorsey Press, 1960.

 

Arrowsmith, William. "The Future of Teaching," in Improving
College Teaching. Calvin T. Lee (ed.) Washington,
D. C.: American Council on Education, 1967.

 

 

Ayres, C. E. "The Theory of Institutional Adjustment," in
Institutional Adjustment, A Challenge to a Changing
Economy. Carey C. Thompson (edIT’Austin: University
of Texas Press, 1967.

 

Barton, Allen H. Organizational Measurement and its Bearings
on the Study of College Environments. New York:
College Entrance Examination Board, 1961.

 

 

81

82

Baskin, Samuel. (ed.) Higher Education: Some Newer Develop:
ments. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1965.

 

Baskin, Samuel. "Vibrations in the Ivory Towers," American

Efipgatign, 4:3 (March 1968), 12-13.

Bellows, Roger. "Communication and Conformity," Personnel
Administration. 23:5 (Sept.-Oct. 1960), 21-28.

 

 

Bennis, Warren G. "A New Role for the Behavioral Sciences:
Effecting Organizational Change," Administrative
Science Quarterly. 8:2 (Sept. 1963), 125-65.

 

 

Bennis, Warren G. Changing Organizations. New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1966.

 

Blau, P. M. and W. R. Scott. Formal Organizations: A
Comparative Approach. San Francisco: Chandler, 1962.

 

 

Boulding, Kenneth E. The Image. Ann Arbor: The University
of Michigan Press, 1956.

 

Bridges, Edwin M. and Larry B. Reynolds, "Teaching Recepti-
vity to Change," Administrator's Notebook. University
of Chicago Midwest Administration Center, 16:6, Feb.
1968.

 

Building Institutions to Serve Agriculture. Summary Report,
Agency for International Development and Committee
for Inter-Institutional Cooperation, 1968.

 

Burns, Norman. "Higher Education," Review of Educational
Research. 22:4 (Oct. 1952), 375—85.

 

Burns, Tom G. and G. M. Stalker. The Management of Inno-
vation. London: Tavistock Publications, 1961.

 

Cammack, Elwin F. "A Study of Factors Related to Mobility
and Faculty Productivity and Achievement at Michigan
State University; a Follow-up Study." Ed.D. Thesis,
Michigan State University, 1964.

Carman, Harry J. "Campus Issues and Problems," The Annals
of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science (Sept. 1955), 53.

 

 

Cartwright, Dowrin, "Achieving Change in People," in The
Government of Associations. Wm. A. Glaser and David
L. Sills (eds.) New Jersey: The Bedminster Press,
1966.

 

83

Chaparro, Alvaro and Ralph H. Allee, "Higher Education
and Social Change in Latin America," Rural Sociology.
25:1 (March 1960), 9-25.

Clark, Burton R. "The Role of Faculty in College Administra-
tion," in Studies of College Faculty. Regional Insti-
tute on Institutional Research, 1961.

 

Clark, Frederick Reese, "The Functional Analysis of Conflict
in Catholic Higher Education." Ph.D. Thesis, Michigan
State University, 1968.

Collins, Barry E. and Harold Guetzkow. A Social Psychology
of Group Processes for Decision Making. New York:
John Wiley and Sons, 1964.

Corson, John J. Governance of Colleges and Universities.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960.

Davis, Frampton, "Developing Colleges Through Interinsti-
tutional Cooperation," Educational Record. 48:4
(Fall 1967), 348-54.

 

Demerath, Nicholas J., Richard W. Stephens, and R. Robb
Taylor. Power, Presidents, and Professors. New
York: Basic Books, 1967.

Dennison, Charles P. Faculty Rights and Obligations in
Eight Independent Liberal Arts Colleges. New York:
Columbia University Teachers College, 1955.

Dobbins, Charles G. (ed.) Higher Education and the Federal
Government, Programs and Problems. Washington, D.C.:
American Council on Education, 1963.

Dodds, Harold W. The Academic President - Educator or
Caretaker? New York: McGraw—Hill, 1962.

 

Dressel, Paul L. College and University Curriculum. Berkeley:
McCutchan Publishing, 1968.

Dressel, Paul L. and Associates. Evaluation in Higher Educa-
tion. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1961.

Dressel, Paul L. and Margaret F. Lorimer. Attitudes of
Liberal Arts Facultprembers Toward Liberal and Pro-
fessional Education. Columbia University Teachers
College, 1959.

 

84

Dykes, Archie R. Facultnyarticipation in Academic Decision
Making. Washington, D. C.: American Council on
Education Monograph, 1968.

Eble, Kenneth E. The Profane Comedy: American Higher Edu-
cation in the Sixties. New York: MacMillan Co.,
1962.

 

Eichholz, Gerhard C. "Why Do Teachers Reject Change?"
Theory Into Practice. 2:5 (Dec., 1963), 264-68.

 

Emch, Arnold F. "Long Range Planning for Colleges and Uni-
versities," Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the Association of Governing Boards of State Univer-
sities and Allied Institutions, Purdue University,
Oct. 13, 1958.

Evans, Richard I. Resistance to Innovation in Higher Edu-
cation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1967.

Evans, Richard I., gt gt. The University Faculty and
Educational Television: Hostility, Resistance and
Change. Houston: University of Houston, 1962.

Faust, Clarence H. "The Care and Feeding of Institutions,"
Saturday Review, March 30, 1968.

 

French, John R. P. Jr., C. John Tupper, and Ernest F.
Mueller. Work Load of University Professors. Ann
Arbor: Institute for Social Research, University
of Michigan, 1965.

Gardner, John W. Self-Renewal. New York: Harper & Row,
1965.

 

Gaus, John M. and Leon 0. Wolcott. Public Administration
and the U.S.D.A. Chicago: Public Administration
Service, 1940.

 

Griffiths, Daniel E. (ed.) Behavioral Science and Educa-
tional Administration. The Sixty-Third Yearbook of
the National Society for the Study of Education.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1964.

 

Gross, Edward and Paul V. Grambsch. University Goals and
Academic Power. Washington, D. C.: American Council
on Education, 1968.

 

 

7r——_

85

Hage, Jerald Thore. "Organizational Response to Innovation:
A Case Study of Community Hospital." Ph.D. Thesis,
Columbia University, 1963.

Hannah, H. W. Resource Book for Rural Universities in
Developing Countries. Urbana, Ill.: The University
of Illinois Press, 1966.

 

Harmon, Gary L. "Academic Policy Making: A Study of Organi-
zation and Decision Makers in a Liberal Arts College.
Ph.D. Thesis, Indiana University, 1966.

Hayden, Howard. Higher Education and Development in South-
'East Asia. vol. 2: Country Profiles. Paris: Unesco
and the International Association of Universities, 1967.

 

 

Hunt, Frederick J. "The Role of the Faculty in Organization
Change in Junior Colleges." Ph.D. Thesis, Stanford
University, 1965.

Hunter, Pauline Faye. "An Exploratory Case Study of the
Formal Role of Faculty in Educational Policy Making."
Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, Berkeley,
1963.

Ingraham, Mark H. The Outer Fringe: Faculty Benefits Other
than Annuities and Insurance. Madison: The University
of Wisconsin Press, 1965.

 

 

Innovation in Higher Education. Proceedings of a Conference
Sponsored by the University of the State of New York,
June 18-20, 1967.

 

Kahn, Robert L. and Charles F. Cannell. The Dynamics of Inter-
viewing. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1957.

 

Kahn, Robert L., et gt. Organizational Stress:1Studies in
Role ConfliEt and Ambiguity. New York: John WiIey
and Sons, 1964.

 

Kerr, Clark. The Uses of the University. New York: Harper
& Row, 1963.

 

King, Edmund J. Education and Social Change. Oxford:
Pergamon Press, 1966.

 

Lazarsfeld, Paul F. and Wagner Thielens, Jr. The Academic
Mind. Glencoe: Ill: The Free Press, 1958.

 

(Ir

.'V

II. 1

r.
‘4

. W

.“

86

Lin, Nan., gt at. The Diffusion of an Innovation in Three
Michigan High Schools: Institution-Building Through
Change. East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1966.

 

 

Lippitt, Ronald, Jeanne Watson, and Bruce Westley. The Dyna-
mics of Planned Change. New York: Harcourt, Brace,
and Co., 1958.

 

Litchfield, Edward H. "Organization in Large American Univer-
sities: The Faculties," Journal of Higher Education.
30:7 (Oct. 1959), 489-504.

 

Longenecker, Herbert E. University Faculty Compensation
Policies and Practices in the United States. Urbana:
The UniverSity of Illinois Press, 1956.

 

 

McConnell, T. R. "Needed Research in College and University
Organization and Administration," Study of Academic
Administration, Terry F. Lunsford Ted.) Western Inter-
state Commission for Higher Education, 1963.

 

 

McGee, Reese. "Needed Research in Special Areas: Faculty
Characteristics, Non-Academic Personnel, Graduate
Students," in The Role of Institutional Research in
Planning. L. Joseph Lins (ed.) Madison: University
of Wisconsin, 1963.

 

March, James G. and Herbert A. Simon. Organizations. New York:
John Wiley and Sons, 1958.

 

Mechanic, David. "The Power to Resist Change Among Low—
Ranking Personnel," Personnel Administration. 26:4
(July-Aug. 1963), 5-11.

 

Miles, Matthew B. (ed.) Innovation in Education. New York:
Columbia University Teachers College, 1964.

 

Miller, Paul A. "Clearing the Way for Innovation," Educational
Record. 48:2 (Spring 1967), 138-43.

 

Millett, J. D. The Academic Community: An Essay on Organization.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962.

 

Nuner, John B. Studies in Management Education. New York:
Springer Publishing Co., 1965.

 

87

Mooney, Ross L. "The Problem of Leadership in the University,"
Harvard Educational Review. 33:1 (Winter 1963), 42-57.

 

Moseman, Albert H. (ed.) Agricultural Sciences for the Devel-
opinngations. Washington, D.C.: American Association
for the Advancement of Science, 1964.

 

 

Newburn, H. K. Faculty Personnel Policies in State Universities.
Montana State University, 1959.

 

Parsons, Talcott. "A Paradigm for the Analysis of Social
Systems and Change," in System, Change and Conflict.
N. S. Demerath III and Richard A. Peterson (eds.)
New York: The Free Press, 1967.

 

Pinnell, Charles. "Application of Scientific Management
Techniques to College and University Administration,“
in The Academic Administrator - 1967. Proceedings of
the First Annual Seminar on Academic Administration,
Texas A & M University, 1967.

 

Putney, Snell and Gladys J. Putney. "Radical Innovation and
Prestige," American Sociological Review. 27:4 (August
l962),548-51.

 

Read, William H. "Communication in Organizations," Personnel
Administration. 26 (1963), 4-10.

 

 

Reeves, Floyd W. and John Dale Russell. College Organization
and Administration. Indianapolis: Board of Education,
Disciples of Christ, 1929.

 

 

Rogers, Everett M. "The Communication of Innovations in a
Complex Institution," Educational Record. 49:1
(Winter 1968), 67-77.

 

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

 

 

Rogers, Everett M., gt gt. The Diffusion of Educational Innov-
ations in the Government Secondary SEhooIs of Thailand.
East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1968.

 

 

Rosecrance, F. C. The American College and its Teachers.
New York: MacMillan, 1962.

 

88

Rosenberg, Milton J., gt gl. Attitude Organization and Change:
An Analysis of Consistency Among Attitude Components.
New Haven: Yale University Press, 1960.

 

 

Ross, Donald H. (ed.) Administration for Adaptability.
New York: MetropOIitan School Study Council, 1958.

 

Rourke, Francis E. and Glenn E. Brooks. The Manggerial Revo-
lution in Higher Education. Baltimore: The Jons
Hopkins Press, 1966.

 

 

Ruml, Beardsley and Donald H. Morrison. Memo to a College
Trustee. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959.

 

Russell, John Dale. "Changing Patterns of Administrative
Organization in Higher Education," The Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science.
(Jan. 1955), 22-31.

 

 

Russell, John Dale. "Faculty Satisfactions and Dissatisfactions,"
The Journal of Experimental Education. 31:2 (Dec. 1962)
135-39.

Schilling, Warner R. "Scientists, Foreign Policy, and Politics,"

in Scientists and National Policy—Making. Robert Gilpin
and Christopher Wright (eds.) New York: Columbia Uni-
versity Press, 1964.

 

Selznick, Philip. Leadership in Administration: A Sociological
Interpretation. New York: Harper & Row, 1957.

 

Shear, Twyla M. "An Evaluation of Core Curriculum in the
College of Home Economics" Ed.D. Thesis, Michigan
State University, 1964.

Shryock, Richard H. The University of Pennsylvania Faculty:
A Study in American Higher Education. University of
Pennsylvania, 1959.

 

Smith, C. G. "A Comparative Analysis of Some Conditions and
Consequences of Intra—Organizational Conflict,"
Administrative Science Quarterly. 10 (1965-66), 50-59.

 

Stecklein, John E. "Research on Faculty Recruitment and
Motivation," in Studies of College Faculty. Papers
presented at the Third Regional Institute on Institu-
tional Research, Berkeley, Calif., 1961.

 

89

Storm, William B. and Jason Finkle. American Professionals in
Technical Assistance: A Preliminary Report. Los
Angeles: University of Southern California School of
Public Administration, 1965.

Stroup, Herbert. Bureaucracy in Higher Education. New York:
The Free Press, 1966.

Terreberry, Shirley. "The Evolution of Organizational Environ-
ments," Administrative Science Quarterly. 12:4 (March
1968), 590-613.

Thelen, Herbert A. "New Practices on the Firing Line,"
Administrator's Notebook. The University of Chicago
Midwest Administration Center, 12:5 (Jan. 1964).

 

Theophilus, Donald R. "Professorial Attitudes Toward Their
Work Environment at the University of Michigan: A
Study of Selected Incentives." Ph.D. Thesis, The
University of Michigan, 1967.

Thompson, James D. (ed.) Approaches to Organizational Design.
Pittsburgh: The University of Pittsburgh Press, 1966.

Voos, Henry. Orggnizational Communication: A Bibliography.
New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1967.

Watson, Cecily. "Educational Planning," Canadian Education
and Research Digest. 7:1 (March 1967), 24-28.

 

Watson, Goodwin. (ed.) Concepts for Social Changg. Washington,
D.C.: National Training Laboratories, National Educa-
tion Association, 1967.

Waugh, Frank A. The Agricultural College: A Study in Organ-
ization and Management and Especially in PrOblems of
Teaching. New York: Orange Judd Co., 1916.

Weidner, Edward W. "The Role of Universities" in Education
and Training in the Developing Countries. William Y.
Elliott (ed.). New York: Frederick A. Praeger, Inc.,
1966.

White, David G. "Criteria for Biological Research to Improve
Agriculture in Less Developed Countries," BioScience.
April 1966, 255-59.

90

Williams, Robert L. The Administration of Academic Affairs in
Higher Education. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan
Press, 1965.

 

 

Philippine Materials

 

Hannah, John A., gt gl. A Study of the University of the
Philippines. Quezon City: University of the
Philippines, 1958.

 

 

Cornell-Los Banos Contract 1952-1960. The Final Report.

 

Cruz, Nora J. "The U.P. College of Agriculture, 1909-1959,"
The Philippine Agriculturist. 43:1 (June 1959), 6-46.

 

A Development Program for the College of Agriculture Univer-
sity of the Philippines. February 1962.

 

 

A Development Program for the College of Agriculture Univer-
sity of the Philippines. Final Report of the Special
Review Team of the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations and
Cornell University. July 1962. mimeo. 105. pp.

 

 

 

 

 

Proposed Development program for the College of Agriculture
University of the Philippines. A Consolidated Proposal.
Revised. August, 1962. mimeo. 194 pp.

 

 

 

Development and Planning of the University. Papers and Pro-
ceedings of the 1964 Faculty Conference. Teachers Camp,
Baguio City.

 

Feliciano, Gloria D., gt gl. And So They Left College. Case
studies based on interviews with former UPCA personnel,
1964. mimeo. 48 pp.

 

Feliciano, Gloria D., gt gl. And So They Stay On ... Case
studies based on interviews with key UPCA personnel,
1965. mimeo. 56 pp.

 

Guidelines on the Effectiveness of an Agricultural Institu-
tion. U.P. College of Agriculture, July 15, 1965.
mimeo. 90 pp.

 

Los Banos Today and Tomorrow. U.P. College of Agriculture.
Aug. 1965, 32 pp.

 

Reappraisal and Rededication. Papers and Proceedings of the
1966 U.P. Faculty Conference, Pines Hotel, Baguio City.

 

91

Chandrastitya, Insee, Amando M. Dalisay and J. NOrman
Efferson. Review of the UPCA-Cornell Program in
Graduate Education and Research at Los Banos. May
1967. mimeo. 20 pp.

Annual Reports of the Dean, College of Agriculture, to the
President, University of the Philippines, 1962-1968.

Annual Reports of the UP—Cornell Graduate Education Program,
1964—1968.

Summaries of Studies in Agricultural Education in the
Philippines 1960-1968. An Annotated bibliography.
College, Laguna: College of Agriculture, 1968.

 

_gpiversity of the Philippines College of Agriculture Catalog.
1967-68.

Case, Harry L. and Robert A. Bunnell. The University of the
Philippines as an Agent of National Development.
(in progress).

NIV. LIBRRR ES

I
IIHHIIWN (HI
4- 3

1 1 '7 557'

ICchaN STATE u
\I)ll(WIWINIIIWIWN
3129310