AN fNVESTiGATI’ON oreuqmsimm ..
. FACULTY mmunas TOWARD. A A ;~_; i; -
PROPOSED CURRICULUM iNNOVATlQN ; * :  

Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D, ,
MlC-HIG’AN STATE UNNERSITY
7R. DALE LEFEVER
1:97 2 ' r

 

Whi l e
3

tut;cr.s are c

cation of S"C

q
13:}. Of succe
reSistame to
:E-al'aCteristi

I ‘I , y
‘IA‘.OYJ

ation,

Notic

‘
u . v- F,
Wed Chan:

 

ABSTRACT

AN INVESTIGATION OF ENGINEERING FACULTY
ATTITUDES TOWARD A PROPOSED
CURRICULUM INNOVATION

BY

R. Dale Lefever

While proposed innovations in educational insti-
tutions are common practice, the successful implemen—
tation of such new ideas lacks similar frequency. This
lack of success has prompted much rhetoric describing
resistance to change and has focused on the individual
characteristics of potential adopters as barriers to
innovation.

Noticeably absent from much of the research on
planned change, however, has been the examination of
organizational variables. Despite the fact that faculty
work in an institutional setting, individuals have been
viewed as independent adopters in the diffusion process.
Such an approach ignores the influence of the social sys-
tem on individual members and the complex nature of
organizational change.

The purpose of this study, therefore, was to

examine a proposed curricular innovation employing the

organization a
grail! purpCS
if. the Col-leg"
m internali;

the Bachelor '

'1

(3

fKelnan (39
which a facul
rant and valu
purpose was t
varieties W171
bility in in:
:hese variahl
2f department
:unications ,

c: the innove

The 1

.f internal i 2-

 

R. Dale Lefever

organization as the unit of analysis. Specifically, the
primary purpose was to measure the degree to which faculty
in the College of Engineering at Michigan State University
had internalized the proposed curriculum innovation--

the Bachelor of Arts in Engineering program. The concept
of internalization employed followed the develOpment

of Kelman (39) and Lin (46) and described the degree to
which a faculty member perceived the innovation as rele—
vant and valuable to his role performance. An additional
purpose was to explore the relationship of six independent
variables which might help explain any degree of varia-
bility in internalization among the faculty. Individually,
these variables were job satisfaction, leadership styles
of department chairman, group cohesiveness, formal com-
munications, and the relative advantage and compatibility
of the innovation.

The population selected for this study was the
full-time faculty in the College of Engineering at
Michigan State University. This population was selected
basically because it represented a target system at a
strategic phase in the innovative-decision process.

Since the new program had not been implemented at the
time of this study, faculty perceptions were reported
in isolation from actual experience with the innovation.
This research context facilitated the study of attitudes

apart from behavior.

Since .

scale develop"

 

igd'gstrial r85
pilot study wa
to increase t:
The Method of

this purpose.

   

faculty with '_
The S‘
accomplished ‘.
the "least sq
a;;roach was

v 3 +' ‘
.E.a.lons 331C.

 

lepenclent van
acvantage of
tr. 4

e .egree tc
.0 Luternali:

..r;er indenej

The

R. Dale Lefever

Since comparable research was not available,
scale development was facilitated by adapting items from
industrial research and secondary education contexts. A
pilot study was conducted within the College in an effort
to increaSe the internal consistency of the instrument.
The Method of Reciprocal Averages (RAVE) was used for
this purpose. The final instrument was mailed to ninety
faculty with over 83 per cent returning usable responses.

The statistical treatment of the data was
accomplished by the multiple correlation analysis using
the "least squares delete" format. The goal of this
approach was to determine the existence of simple cor-
relations and to predict a maximum of variance in the
dependent variable, internalization. One distinct
advantage of this approach was the ability to disclose
the degree to which each independent variable was related
to internalization, while controlling the effects of all
other independent variables.

The results of this analysis supported three of
the six hypotheses at the .05 level of significance. The
three correlations involved were those between the depen-
dent variable of internalization and the independent
variables of relative advantage, compatibility, and
formal communications. An analysis of the combined cor-

relation matrix, however, revealed significant

 

:crrelaticns t
39 lack of it".

With I
sis, .68 of t:
explained by f
It was furthe:
advantage was
ac ticn. Ir.

ether single

:c‘entif ied .
One f

 

taking styles
leck‘s (29) d
Fired With d(
new CUrricul'
{rat was E‘Ji
Strugglen a1-

“akiflg . c '1'

I ,

thas Clea
rm“

“(lag lode
°3§ar

R. Dale Lefever

correlations between the same predictor variables, denot-
ing lack of independence in these variables.

With reference to the multiple regression analy—
sis, .68 of the variance in the dependent variable was
explained by the six independent variables examined.

It was further discovered that the variable of relative
advantage was the most potent variable in the regression
equation. In fact, this one variable combined with any
other single variable could account for the total variance
identified.

One final area of discovery involved decision-
making styles in the College of Engineering. When Have-
lock's (29) decision-making styles in general were com-
pared with decision-making styles with reference to the
new curriculum, very little discrepancy was revealed.
What was evident, however, was the predominance of "power
struggle" and "informal influence" styles of decision-
making. Since no hypotheses were purported with respect
to these styles, no specific relationships between
decision-making and internalization were describable.

It was clear, however, that participative decision-
making models were not predominant in this specific

organizational context.

AN INVESTIGATION OF ENGINEERING FACULTY
ATTITUDES TOWARD A PROPOSED

CURRICULUM INNOVATION

BY

1
0'

R1 Dale Lefever

A THESIS

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
College of Education

1972

The a

 

 

 

for their sag:
appreciative
rent offered
icctoral gui.
research. '1
Cf the com:
:CVYIKSOY), an

I a
“1" George

Cf the Col

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author is indebted to a number of individuals
for their support and assistance. In particular, he is
appreciative of the guidance, suggestions, and encourage-
ment offered by Dr. James H. Nelson, chairman of the
doctoral guidance committee and director of the thesis
research. Thanks are also extended to the other members
of the committee, Dr. Michael L. Moore, Dr. Vandel C.
Johnson, and Dr. C. Keith Groty.

I also wish to express my appreciation to
Dr. George M. VanDusen and the entire faculty and staff
of the College of Engineering for their cooperation and
support. Without their assistance, this research would
have been impossible and void of its central purpose.

And I am especially grateful to my wife, Marty,
for her continuous support and understanding throughout
the completion of this study; also to Krista and Douglas

who were patient and understanding during this time.

ii

"'1

(0'70

 

 

 

 

Chapter

I.

II.

III.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

THE PROBLEM . . . . . .

Introduction. . . .
Need for the Study. . .
Statement of the Problem.
Purpose of the Study . .
Scope of Study . . . .
Theoretical Assumptions .
Statement of Hypotheses .
Overview of the Study. .

REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . .

Introduction. . .

Traditions of Diffusion Research
Basic Concepts of Diffusion Research

Organizational Change. .
Social System . . . .
Summary . . . . . .

DESIGN OF THE STUDY . . .

Introduction. . . . .
Population . . .
Limitations of the Study.
Instrumentation. . . .

Internalization. .

Relative Advantage and Compatibility.

Leadership Styles . .
Job Satisfaction . .
Decision-Making Styles
Group Cohesiveness .
Formal Communications.

Pilot Study . . . .
Collection of the Data .
Treatment of the Data. .
Summary . . . . . .

iii

Page

30

3O
32
39
51
60
66

68

68
68
69
71

71
76
77
83
86
88
90

91
94
97
99

Chapter

IV. AI‘JALYS

Int.
Hyp,
Mal

Decl
Sun.

V I S L. M‘klj“;

u

i

IntE

5117'

Co:

Re:

In;

In

BIBLIOGRAPHY
PEPEIJDICES
Appendix

A. APICJ

Of?

Mi'

5' Intrc

C' Orig;

I

D' First

E' 8600:

F' Facuf

 

Chapter Page

IV. ANALYSIS OF DATA . . . . . . . . . . 100
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . 100
Hypotheses Testing . . . . . . . . 102
Multiple Regression Analysis . . . . . 113
Decision-Making Styles . . . . . . . 119
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS. . 127
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . 127
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . 134
Recommendations for Further Research . . 140
Implications for Educational Practice . . 141
In Retrospect . . . . . . . . . . 144
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
APPENDICES
Appendix

A. A Proposal for Development of a Bachelor
of Arts Degree in Engineering at

Michigan State University . . . . . . 154
B. Introductory Letter . . . . . . . . . 166
C. Original Letter . . . . . . . . . . 169
D. First Reminder Letter . . . . . . . . 170
E. Second Reminder Letter . . . . . . . . 171
F. Faculty Questionnaire . . . . . . . . 172

iv

 

«L. .

Tazie

hi.

$2.

$1.

3-2.

M.

H.

4-2.

4~3.

4~4.

4~5.

Compar
Tra

Types
ple

Suma;
Wit
Sh:

Ratio;
th'

Descr

4.
L.

Hoyt

 

 

Table

2-1.

LIST OF TABLES

Comparison of the Major Diffusion Research
Traditions . . . . . . . . . .

Types of Diffusion Research Analysis Com-
pleted or Possible . . . . . . .

Summary of Results of Sortings by Judges
With and Without Definitions of Leader-
ship Categories . . . . . . . .

Rationale for the Twelve Items Included in
the Job Satisfaction Check-List . . .

Descriptive Definitions of Eight Decision
StYleS O O O O O O O I O O O

Hoyt Internal Consistency Reliability
Coefficients on Pretest. . . . . .

Summary of Participating and Nonparticipat-

ing Subjects . . . . . . . . .

Summary of Multiple Correlation Analyses of

Innovativeness. . . . . . . . .

Combined Correlation Matrix with Criterion
Ineluded O O O O O O O O O I 0

Multiple Correlation Obtained from Least
Squares Delete Equation. . . . . .

Variable Significance, Order of Deletion,
and Simple Correlations. . . . . .

Analysis of Variance Summary . . . . .

Page

33

36

82

84

87

94

96

101

105

114

115

117

 

 

Table Page

4-6. How College of Engineering Decisions Are
Made: Decision Styles Pertaining to
New Curriculum (Percentage Distri-
bution) . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

4-7. How College of Engineering Decisions Are

Made: Decision Styles in General (Per-
centage Distribution) . . . . . . . 123

vi

 

Figure
1. Taradi

1. Graphi
Be1

3. Decie
er

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page
1. Paradigm of the Innovation-Decision Process . 46

2. Graphic Representation of Relationships
Between All Variables . . . . . . . 109

3. Decision Styles in General and with Refer-
ence to New Curriculum-eMean Responses. . 120

vii

 

It 1

Change

3

Ecre than 1
tO‘elard C113

Ziiign I e5

behav ‘1 Or

«Ev‘rel E
Sta“? 2‘
t‘tg" .

CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM

Introduction

 

It is an underlying assumption of this study that

the healthy organization anticipates and prepares for
change. The readiness of an organization for change is
more than the attitudes of the tOp administrators
toward change. The effectiveness with which an organi-
zation reacts to the need for change is a function of the
behavior of each individual within the organization.
Prior research (Coch) has demonstrated that the success-
ful introduction of change into an organization is in
large measure a function of the responses of the employees
who are the recipients of the change. Decisions to change
made at the administrative level do not guarantee the
success of a change. Decisions are made at the employee
level as well--decisions to resist or facilitate the
change--which can profoundly affect the success of the
change and the health of the organization (72).

Primarily as a result of the empirical evidence

provided by the research of Bavelas and Coch, coupled

 

   

with the thee
conceptualiz;
n‘ r
.ne term, re:

has found its

 

The phrase h.
unfortunate
the {1118' 8‘}
and always 1

Gro
2.53398 wher
Cal and SO

celiber at e

that the I“

with the theoretical contributions of Kurt Lewin, some
conceptualizations of response to change have been made.
The term, resistance to change, is one such concept that
has found its way into the literature of social psychology.
The phrase has carried with it, however, the perhaps
unfortunate implication that resistance to change is

the rule, experienced to an equal degree by all employees,
and always negative or unhealthy in its consequences.

Gross recognized this biased position toward
change when he stated, "An examination of the sociologi-
cal and social psychological literature on planned or
deliberately instituted organizational change reveals
that the most common explanation of why innovations
introduced into organizations do or do not have their
intended effects places primary emphasis on the ability
of a change agent to overcome the initial resistance of
organizational members to change" (27, p. 1).

While much of the research focusing on resistance
to change emanates from the industrial context, such
awareness is not a phenomena peculiar to industrial
institutions. Educational reformer, Henry Wriston,
for instance, stated,

Reform easily exhausts the energies of its prOpo-
nents. The stubborn, silent, but destructive effect
of passive resistance is continuous, pervasive,

and insidious. A change voted is merely a challenge

to resistance; the vote is preliminary to the real
battle. (76, p. 39)

 

c.P. Show
note,
In a s<
more 5.
Englan‘
loosen
hard t
schola
revolu
optimi
In
resistance
Organizati
mflerstand
Organizatj

requires

g

C. P. Snow struck a similar note of pessimism when he

wrote,
In a society like ours, academic patterns change
more slowly than any others. In my lifetime, in
England, they have crystallized rather than
loosened. I used to think it would be about as
hard to change, say, the Oxford and Cambridge
scholarship examination as to conduct a major
revolution. I now believe that I was over-
optimistic. (68, p. 186)

In an attempt to understand such pervasive
resistance, J. B. Lon Hefferlin (31) cited several
organizational variables that deserve attention in
understanding the change process. One basic variable
is that academic or curricular change is first of all
organizational change and that to understand its dynamics
requires an understanding of academic organizations.

A second factor is that curricular change seems difficult
because colleges, just like other institutions, exist

for the sake of order in human life. They function to
routinize interaction between people. Consequently, they
are naturally and inherently antithetical to change. To
alter the educational program of a college is to threaten
its very rationale and existence. And thirdly, collegiate
reputations do not hinge on curricular innovation.
Instead, the highest status colleges and universities

are not noted for experimentation, but rather for admit-

ting elite students and for quality performance of

generally accepted programs. The ideology of professors

an teachers
for resistin
an outsider
Lon
Openness
mentihg
of advo<
ticular
bution
has a g
innovat

this DC
and EXP

The
iSClated i:
to the grox
a Period 0
Point is t
noted and

Ha
“e End re

EdulcaiLion

T:
{tars}, . In
tr‘at al ti:
highs):

I
Conflict
ing the .
i-

and teachers as professional experts provides a rationale
for resisting pressure for change from nonprofessionals
and outsiders.

Lon Hefferlin continued his analysis by stating,
Openness to change is structural in nature. Comple-
menting the psychological and environmental variables
of advocacy and resources, it involves openness par-
ticularly in an institution's norms and its distri-
bution of power. Every college and every department
has a general attitude about the limits of tolerable
innovation, and its sanctions against violations of
this norm range from ostracism to censure, suspension,
and expulsion. (31, p. 5)

The above statements represent extreme, but not
isolated impressions. In fact, such comments give support
to the growing contention among educators that we are in
a period of great innovation, but little change. The
point is that while there are many new ideas being pro-
moted and even adopted in our educational institutions,
the end result is little alteration in the corpus of
education.

The attempts to explain such a phenomena are
many. In mass, however, they all point to the conclusion
that although innovations are surfacing in unprecedented
numbers, one can readily point to evidence that the
conflict between the forces for change and those support-

ing the status quo is equally present in educational

institutions (22).

In
change pro
interactio
recent nod
maker (63]
Process cc
:odel (64
adOption
CORfirmat
in agrieu
Educaticlr

q

mefi‘ic ine

Need for the Study

 

In attempting to understand the nature of this
change process, many researchers have applied the social
interaction change model in their analysis. The most
recent model in this area is that of Rogers and Shoe—
maker (63). Their model of the innovation-decision
process consists of a revised paradigm of Rogers' earlier
model (64) and identifies four critical stages in the
adoption process: knowledge, persuasion, decision, and
confirmation. Variations of this model have been used
in agriculture, anthropology, medicine, and more recently
education (21, 54, and 10).

In the areas of agriculture, anthropology, and
medicine, the adoption studies have generally dealt with
the diffusion and adoption of technical innovations or
products among individual farmers or doctors residing
in a particular community, state, or society. In the
area of education, these studies have primarily dealt
with adoption rates of innovations in school systems (9).

Gross challenged the relevance of this model
for explaining the success or failure of the implemen-
tation of innovations in schools or other types of
organizations. He stated,

Its lack of utility is due to certain of its

assumptions which are not applicable to the imple-
mentation of organizational innovations. One of
its basic assumpt1ons is that during any of the
intermediate stages between awareness and use, the
individual is free to decide himself whether the

   

major ed;
ations, '
asked to
mates, 0
lower-cl;
administ:
Moreover
administ
Will be
level.
with th(
by indi'
ianVat
SUPPOrt
VatIOUE
and ca:
haVe tfl
(27, p

  

Th
kmovatiOf

ad Varia1

:hls r1886

iehi C h h av

ea“Patio:
sn '1.
tie .
relg.

c

Ce. value

p

we Cult;

the in

innovation shall be tried, whether it should be
continued. . . . This assumption does not apply to
major educational innovations in most school situ—
ations, for example, those in which teachers are
asked to redefine their roles by their superordi-
nates, or in cases where compensatory programs for
lower-class urban schools have been designed by tOp
administrators and teachers must carry them out.
Moreover, the adoption of a particular program by
administrators does not necessarily mean that it
will be instituted or implemented at the school
level. . . . Further, the Rogers model is concerned
with the adoption of simple technological innovations
by individuals, and it assumes that they can try out
innovations on a small scale without the help or
support of other persons. Many educational inno-
vations, however, cannot be tried on a small scale
and cannot be implemented by teachers unless they
have the c00peration and support of their colleagues.
(27, pp. 21-22)

The logic of the above criticism suggests that
innovations in organizations require some new assumptions
and variations in research approach. Carlson supports
this need when he cites only two studies (16 and 20)
which have paid any attention to concepts related to
organizational theory in the study of diffusion of
educational innovations. He concluded,

Social structure has been neglected in studies of
educational innovations. The reasons are largely

the same: the school system has been taken as the
adopting unit and social structure deals not with
relationships among school systems but with relation-
ships among people. (9, p. 23)

In this same regard, Carlson also cited a neglect
of values or culture and the compatibility or fit between

the culture of a group or personality and the elements of

the innovation.

 

 

As far a.
vations
we draw 3
drawn upl
for the
of adopt

A f1

'u’lth attituz

me O! bLls (

ience w i th—

As far as the compatibility of educational inno-
vations with the culture of a group is concerned,
we draw a blank, inasmuch as no researcher has
drawn upon culture or values to aid in accounting
for the spread of educational innovations or rates
of adoption. (9, p. 25)

A further need in diffusion research is to deal
with attitudes toward innovations apart from adoption
behavior. The essential point is that an individual's
perceptions of an innovation are likely to change after
he or his organization adopts it. If his actual exper-
ience with the innovation is satisfactory, his per-
ceptions probably will become more favorable. For this
reason, many of the research studies completed on per-
ceptions of innovations and their rate of adOption have
a very serious weakness. The positive relationship
between perceptions and rate of adoption may partly be
an artifact of the tendency for individuals who have
adopted an innovation to rationalize their decision in
terms of relatively positive perceptions (63, p. 169).

Thus, the research technique of measuring per-
ceptions in retrospect by asking respondents to recall
how they perceived an innovation at some previous time
is questionable at best. What is needed to overcome this
methodological defect is an attempt to gather data on
perceptions of innovations before they are actually
adopted (63).

Still another need in this regard is to question

the assumption that organization members are automatically

and uniforn‘.

 

vations. Gr[

assmption a

I
We belie
in most
deqree c
horeove:
may be :
innovat;
our res:
investir
nentatij
to treat
zation
"Organi;
enPiric

 

Two

IESistanCe

avoid any

sarily det

The i:
that ‘
Chara,
Rest
EXPEI
part1
he is
i.e_,
natiu
ratic
quit.
than

this

may 1

and uniformly resistant to the introduction of inno-
vations. Gross challenged this "resistance-to-change"
assumption and stated,

We believe it will be more heuristic to assume that
in most organizations members will vary in their
degree of resistance or receptivity to innovations.
Moreover, for a specific organization some members
may be positively predisposed to certain kinds of
innovations and negatively predisposed to others.
Our research experience leads us to conclude that
investigators of the introduction or the imple-
mentation of an innovation would be well advised not
to treat the degree to which members of an organi-
zation are initially resistant to change as an
"organizational given," but as a matter requiring
empirical examination. (27, p. 204)

Two final needs or perhaps cautions in conducting
such research are (l) to avoid the temptation of viewing
resistance to change as irrational behavior, and (2) to
avoid any preconceptions of such resistance as neces-
sarily detrimental to the organization. Havelock stated,

The image of the recipient of new knowledge is
that while he is greatly affected by such enduring
characteristics as his values and deep personality
needs acquired during his early socialization
experiences, while he is greatly affected by the
particular situation in which he finds himself,

he is also a person who makes rational choices,
i.e., decisions based on an evaluation of alter-
natives in terms of knowable priorities. These
rational choices may seem to the outsider to be
quite irrational, but the individual more often
than not is aware of his alternatives. And, for
this reason, opposition to a particular innovation
may be desirable. (29, p. 42)

Also in this regard, Likert (45) cited a frequent
finding of behavioral scientists: that nearly everyone

regards his own behavior as sensible and justifiable.

In other words, people are usually behaving in ways that
make sense to them, based on their understanding of the
circumstances in which they find themselves. Of course,
that same behavior may seem quite irrational to someone
else. According to Likert, the difference probably
lies in the fact that they are not making the same
assumptions about those circumstances. To occupy the
same physical environment is not necessarily to see it
the same way or to share the same attitudes toward it.
And, as Klein argued,

What is often considered to be irrational resistance

to change is, in most instances, more likely to be

either an attempt to maintain the integrity of the

target system to a real threat, or opposition to

the agents of change themselves. This may be

especially true where changes are irreversible and

far reaching, thus ensuring the prolongation of

error as well as accuracy. (40, pp. 500-01)

In view of the above discussion, there exists a

need to study individual attitudes toward change apart

from adoption behavior and as rational reactions of an

individual within a social system.

Statement of the Problem
The primary problem of this research is to
determine what factors contribute to the variability
in the degree of internalization of a curriculum inno-
vation among faculty in the College of Engineering. And,

since there is evidence to support a discrepancy between

h

-—:‘I“_‘FV"‘

L...

attitudinal
decision st.

innovation

'7“

in

the degree
ing have

the Eache
rhx A) ,
Ship of
explain

along t:

are job

Chair?“

‘5. ~,_ .
k°‘e 1r;

10

attitudinal and behavioral variables, the innovation-
decision stage prior to actual experience with the

innovation has been chosen for this study.

Purpose of the Study

 

The primary purpose of this study is to measure
the degree to which faculty in the College of Engineer-
ing have internalized the proposed curriculum innovation—-
the Bachelor of Arts in Engineering Program (see Appen-
dix A). An additional purpose is to explore the relation-
ship of several independent variables which might help
explain the degree of variability in internalization
among the faculty. In specific terms, these variables
are job satisfaction, leadership styles of department
chairmen, the relative advantage and compatibility of
the innovation, group cohesiveness, internal communi-
cations, and the decision-making process itself.

The focus of the study is strictly on faculty
perceptions and should provide valuable information for
understanding the innovation decision process from the
perspective of members of an educational institution.
These findings can also have the practical advantage of
aiding those in the College of Engineering whose respon-
sibility it will be to implement the proposed innovation

or plan future ones.

 

 

The
full-time fa
Michigan St
fOI two has

Fi.
gram repre
engineeril
is a tota
By the Cc
SUCCESsE‘

tYPe i or

his

as t‘h

‘
~E

ll

Sc0pe of Study

 

The population selected for this study is the
full-time faculty in the College of Engineering at
Michigan State University. This population was selected
for two basic reasons.

First, the Bachelor of Arts in Engineering Pro-
gram represents an innovation of major significance in
engineering education at Michigan State University. It
is a totally new innovation and represents an attempt
by the College to assume leadership in this area. If
successful, this new curriculum could represent a proto-
type for colleges across the country.

A second reason for selecting this faculty is
that they represent a target system at a strategic phase
in the innovative-decision process. Since the program
has not been implemented at this time, attitudes toward
this innovation are not contaminated by experience with
the actual innovation. A study at this critical stage
represents an opportunity to study attitudes in isolation

from specific behavior with the innovation itself.

Theoretical Assumptions

 

One initial and general assumption underlying
this research is that the educational change process is
just as critical to the implementation of an innovation

as the content of the desired change itself. The

  

.
‘Nhh

dwetion of

automatic p~

ind N 16“) a 1

1n.

 

innov a t i on s

“A kind of

12

adoption of an innovation in an organization is not an
automatic process. It is a dynamic one. A process in
which both the innovation and the accepting system or
individual is altered.

In making some summary comments on educational
innovations, Miles supported this position when he stated:
"A kind of axiom seems visible in almost any of the
studies reported: educational innovations are almost
never supported on their merits" (54, p. 635).

The importance of this assumption is that it
emphasizes the receiver variable in the adoption process.
As Rogers stated:

It is the receiver's perceptions of the attributes

of the innovation and not the attributes as classified
by experts or change agents, which affect their rate
of adoption. Like beauty, innovations exist only

in the eye of the beholder. And, it is the beholder's
perceptions which influence the beholder's behavior.
(64, p. 138)

Most attempts to understand the change process
from the receiver's or target system's perspective have
used the communication and diffusion model which empha-
sizes the message effects on the receiver. In this
regard, communications is defined as the process by
which messages are transferred from a source to a
receiver. An oversimplified but useful model of this

process is called S-M-C-R-E: a source (S) sends a

message (M) via certain channels (C) to the receiving

individual
with an eii
In
smunicatj
are iF-POrt.
Coznmuiquat
tend to e)
CCUIZSisten
Further '
PreViOus.‘
out Our
Of a “.95
With “hi

13

individual (R), who responds or reacts to this stimulus
with an effect (E) (64).

In this model, the receiver is the target of
communication and the selective mechanisms of the receiver
are important determinants of effectiveness in specific
communication acts. As research has demonstrated, we
tend to expose ourselves only to those messages that are
consistent with our current thinking (selective exposure).
Further, communication messages are filtered through
previously held attitudes and beliefs which often, with-
out our knowing, warp our perceptions of a source and/or
of a message. We also tend to perceive in accordance
with what we already believe, filtering out that which
is alien (selective perception). And, finally, we tend
to remember best that which agrees with, or is consistent
with, our current attitudes (selective retention) (64,
pp. 30-31).

As Rogers and Svenning concluded,

The receiver is the most important element in the
communication process as he is the target of the
source's communication. The source's skill in
tuning his selectivities to the receiver's atti-
tudes, knowledge, communication skills, and back-
ground is vital to effective communication. If the
source's message is not designed to get through to
the receiver, he might as well not have bothered
for he communicates only with himself. (64, p. 31)

In transferring this communication model to the

diffusion model several essential facts are altered. By

definition, diffusion is the process by which innovations

 

spread anon:

fusion, mes

   
  
   
 

fact sets t
general cor:
The:

is overt be
are direct
rid/01’ Chad
however, gc
i5 the ado‘
use 0}: IEE
Di

in the (it
is CWRun

PEr 10d of

l4

spread among members of a social system. And, in dif-
fusion, messages deal primarily with new ideas. This
fact sets the diffusion process somewhat apart from the
general communication process.

The ultimate objective in the diffusion context
is overt behavior change. Many communication messages
are directed toward increasing knowledge among receivers
and/or changing their attitudes. Diffusion messages,
however, go one step further in that their desired end
is the adoption or rejection of new ideas, the actual
use or refusal to use an innovation.

Diffusion research shows that the crucial elements
in the diffusion process are (l) the innovation (2) which
is communicated through certain channels (3) over a
period of time (4) among members of a social system.

The resemblance between the diffusion model and the
S-M-C-R-E model of communication is obvious in this
description. One significant disparity, however, is the
addition of the social system variable.

The net result of such a process is a decision by
members of the target system to either accept or reject
the innovation. The model of this innovation-decision
process is described by Rogers (63) as having four
stages. There is the knowledge stage, where the indi-
vidual is exposed to the innovation's existence and gains

some understanding of how it functions. This is followed

15

by the persuasion stage, where the individual forms a
favorable or unfavorable attitude toward the innovation.
The third stage is the decision where the individual
engages in activities which lead to a choice to adopt

or reject the innovation. And, finally there is the con-
firmation stage, where the individual seeks reinforcement
for the innovation-decision he has made, but he may
reverse his previous decision if exposed to conflicting
messages about the innovation.

In applying this adoption model, the emphasis is
clearly upon the attitudes and perceptions of the indi-
vidual. Such responses, however, are not formed in
isolation. The diffusion process includes the social
system element. And, since it is unlikely that all
social system members will respond to the adoption pro-
cess in like manner, some assumptions need to be offered
as explanations of any such variations.

While an individual's own psychological charac-
teristics are critical variables in understanding his
attitude toward change, it is also necessary to under—
stand his relationship with the change agent and the
change agent attempts to influence the individual.
Kelman (39) presented a particularly useful model for
understanding such a relationship.

Building on a great deal of literature on atti-

tude change, Kelman proposed three influence processes

16

and the manner in which individuals react to such
influences. One process he called "compliance," where
an individual accepts influence from another person or
group because he hopes to achieve a favorable reaction
from the other. When an attempt at such control is made,
the individual will typically react with external con-
formity, but maintain his private attitudes without any
significant change. A second process is "identification"
where an individual ad0pts behavior derived from another
person or a group because this behavior is associated
with a satisfying relationship to this person or group.
Again, it should be noted that this response does not
necessarily change an individual's private attitude and
such identification continues only as long as the relation-
ship is attractive to the individual. A final process is
referred to by Kelman as "internalization," which occurs
when an individual accepts influence because the induced
behavior is congruent with his value system. It is the
content of the induced behavior that is intrinsically
rewarding. This process does not require the continuance
of any external force or relationship in order for it to
be maintained. Because the new information is accepted
and internalized, it is maintained by the individual
without further external influence.

This last process of internalization is especially

critical in this study, since faculty participation will

17

be voluntary and in addition to present responsibilities.
In the paradigm of innovation-decisions, the decision in
the College of Engineering is a collective-contingent
decision. Operationalized, this is a decision voted on
by the College Curriculum Committee, but with individual
adoption choices being made by the faculty member with
regard to his participation in the implementation phase.
Internalization, or the extent to which a faculty member
perceives the innovation or change as relevant and valuable
to his role performance in the organization, is central in
this study.

As stated in the purpose of this study, it is
assumed that engineering faculty will vary in the degree
to which they have internalized this curriculum innovation.
The next logical need then is to explore some factors
which might help explain such variability.

Perhaps the most obvious variable to be con-
sidered is the perception the faculty have of the inno-
vation itself. According to Rogers the five major attri-
butes of innovations are: (1) relative advantage,

(2) compatibility, (3) complexity, (4) trialability,

and (5) observability (63, p. 137). Havelock in his
review of the literature on such classification found

it helpful to make the distinction, also made by Barnett
(5), between intrinsic and extrinsic characteristics.

Intrinsic characteristics are those which are inherent

18

in an innovation, while extrinsic characteristics are
those which have meaning only in the context of specified
audience or adoption settings (29, p. 38). This study,
with its focus on the faculty and their perceptions, will
concentrate only on the extrinsic characteristics of
relative advantage and compatibility.

The general definition of relative advantage is
the degree to which an innovation is perceived as being
better than the idea it supersedes (63). The degree of
relative advantage is usually expressed in economic terms.
This is true because in most cases, innovations are in
the form of new products, procedures or methods of doing
things more efficiently and economically. Thus, the
motivating factor is usually financial reward. With edu-
cational innovations, however, it is rather difficult to
promote adoption of new ideas on the basis of financial
gain. In fact, many curriculum innovations, if they are
adopted, cost more than the existing methods or at least
require a significant reallocation of existing resources.
This does not mean that innovations in education are
void of this specific attribute. What is required is
that factors other than cost must be studied. These
might include such aspects as status, psychological gain,
or other nonmaterial costs and rewards. As Lon Hefferlin
concluded:

Every organizational change is linked to individual

change and that the common denominator of all
advocates for change is their perception that the

19

potential benefits of change outweigh the liabili-
ties. . . . All of us support changes when we sense
more is to be gained from them than from maintaining
the status quo, and we resist them if we have more
to lose from adopting the unknown and the unfamiliar
than we have to win. (31, p. 4)

The concept of relative advantage is thus a viable
one in understanding educational innovations, but one
which requires some additional study beyond sheer
economics.

The second attribute of innovations to be studied
is compatibility. Rogers defines compatibility as the
degree to which an innovation is perceived as consistent
with the existing values, past experiences, and needs
of the receiver (63). It is important to bear in mind
that "compatibility" of an innovation with different parts
of the receiver system can be judged only by the per-
ception of its members and may or may not have any objec-
tive validity. Nevertheless, any innovation implying
or requiring important value changes in acceptors will
encounter difficulty, since more than the nature of the
innovation itself is at stake (54). An extreme position
on this subject was taken by Hearn when he stated:

Changing pe0ple is not an academic exercise that
can be accomplished by memoranda. It is a process
that tampers with people's cherished value systems.
As persons and as a group, innovators represent

a real threat to the psychological, social, and
economic "health" of many individuals. (30, p. 360)

The assumption then is that values, when seen

as highly integrated and persuasive attitudes, tend to

   
 

be inportar
to adopt 0:
innovation
the values
when innov 1.

reiig ions ‘

 

IEgarding
cattle [60
women's pt

W:
in the ed
ValL1es if
in Study-
StudY1nq
“Sufism

""51 lue o:

is: the
fatigue
many

iQEaS
and a:

that»:

git] Q.

20

be important determinants of an individual's decision

to adopt or reject an innovation--provided that the
innovation is seen as conflicting with, or supporting

the values. Generally, the literature indicates that
when innovations run counter to important values (such as
religious beliefs in a supernatural being) to values
regarding the elements being changed (sacredness of
cattle [60]) or to values about social customs (Moslem
women's purda [49]) the innovation will be rejected.

While these examples are not reflective of values
in the educational institution, the applicability to
values in education would seem logical. Carlson (10)
in studying programmed instruction and Evans (22) in
studying instructional television give support to the
assumption that educators will respond in terms of their
value orientations as well.

Another set of variables that will be explored
for their relationship with internalization are organi—
zational variables. Although social scientists have for
many years studied the process of the diffusion of new
ideas through a social system and the eventual acceptance
and adOption of the ideas by the social system, higher
education has shown little if any interest in studying
change in its own organizational context.

A social system or social organization has been

given various definitions. Griffiths (26) has succinctly

~‘..;‘

".V -... OJ" §“!:.fl

defined it
a task san
in which i
functions,
pleted.“
Engineerin
fore, fit
Or
leadershi;
was select
that the 3'
plays a 6“.
Change an:
Partly a
Or illduSt:
Viewed as
Of this
‘v’iSOr and
E

AlthC
to err
epar
becau
TOnQ:
In C}
to Fr

 

 

21

defined it as "an ensemble of individuals who perform

a task sanctioned by the society in which it functions,
in which its members perform interrelated and coordinated
functions, in order that one or more tasks may be com-
pleted." For the purpose of this study, the College of
Engineering was considered a social system, and there—
fore, fit within Griffiths' construct.

One variable to be studied in this regard is the
leadership style of department chairmen. This variable
was selected because industrial studies have indicated
that the immediate work environment or social climate
plays a determining role in employee attitudes toward
change and performance, and that the social climate is
partly a function of leadership behavior. In the business
or industrial organization the first-level supervisor is
viewed as the logical change agent. For the purposes
of this study, an analog between the first-level super-
visor and the department chairman is being assumed.

Davis supports the central role of department
chairmen when he states:

Although faculty may lend support and give consensus
to change, it is the administrator or head of the
department who promotes or prevents innovation
because he is powerful. It is not due to his
monopoly on imagination, creativity, or interest

in change, but simply because he has the authority
to precipitate a decision. (16, p. 117)

Another social system variable to be explored is

that of group cohesiveness. Again, the basis for this

22

concept is industrial research. And, the general position
is that response to change is a characteristic of the
work group. Furthermore, these studies indicate that
the primary group may be a determiner of member attitudes
and performance, particularly with regard to change. The
classic work in this area was done by Seashore (67)
where he showed that groups will lower or raise their
productivity on the basis of the members' cohesiveness
and conformity to certain norms. The assumption then
is that individuals, who, for any one of a number of
reasons, are strongly attracted to other members of a
group will be greatly influenced by the norms of the
group. If the norms of the group are congruent with the
influence attempts, the likelihood of acceptance is very
great. On the other hand, if a deviation from the group
norms is required, the group will be resistant to the
attempted change (29). This study will explore the
academic department as the primary group for faculty
and relate group cohesiveness in this context with
internalization of the innovation.

Still another variable to be explored is that of
job satisfaction. Herzberg, gt_al., (32) identified
ten on-the-job factors in employee attitudes of job
satisfaction: (1) intrinsic aspects of the job,
(2) supervision, (3) working conditions, (4) wages,

(5) opportunity for advancement, (6) security,

23

(7) company and management, (8) social aspects of the
job, (9) communication, and (10) benefits. These factors
were presented in order of the number of times they were
mentioned in about 150 studies. The difficulty with
these aspects of job satisfaction, however, is that
their relationship with attitudes toward change are not
readily apparent. If one conceives of internalization
of an innovation as reflecting the desire to avoid,
through change, unpleasant aspects of the job, a nega-
tive relationship between internalization scores and
job satisfaction scores would be predicted. There is
some support in the literature for this position in that
early adopters of innovations are usually marginal to the
system and tend to violate the norms of the community.
In fact, as Hearn contended, "most real innovators
(about 2 1/2%) end up being transferred or fired" (30,
p. 359). From another point of view, however, it may
be speculated that internalization reflects a high degree
of adjustment to the work situation, including inevitable
changes in procedures and working conditions. Beginning
with this assumption, a positive relationship would be
predicted.

Two final and related variables to be explored
are deCision-making styles and internal communications.
Perhaps the most accepted and researched concept in

social psychology is that of participative decisionemaking.

  
  
  
  

bowin pr or
when he 51'

319a:
organ;

the Ccmuno
Control C
and Sati:
thEir jc
afloptior

“OpticI

uSe the

24

Lowin provided a precise definition of this process
when he stated:
By participative decision—making we mean a mode of
organizational operations in which decisions as to
activities are arrived at by the very persons who
are to execute those decisions. Participative
decisiondmaking is contrasted with the conventional
hierarchial mode of operations in which decision
and action functions are segregated in the authority
structure. (48, p. 68)

The stress on participation is usually based on
the common sense notion that individuals who have some
control over their own work will be more committed to
and satisfied with the functions required to perform
their job. This premise is then generalized to the
adoption of innovations where it is concluded that such
adoption is facilitated by involving those who actually
use the innovations in the adoption-rejection process.

While this view of participation has numerous
advocates, strong criticism of participative decision-
making is developed by Gross. He stated:

. . . evidence to test the relative effectiveness
of strategies of initiation that stress partici-
pation in comparison with other methods, for
example, imposition from the top, is not available.
Most proponents of subordinate participation use
as the basis for their advocacy of this approach
personal experience, logical argument, or the
findings of a few empirical studies. (27, p. 26)

The basic position taken by Gross is that the
assumption of increased participation resulting in

greater acceptance of or increased commitment to an

innovation is too broad of a generalization to accept

25

without continued empirical evidence. Participation can
mean real influence or just involvement and subordinates
can lack the competence or even the desire to participate
in major organizational changes.

Thus, while the "participation principle"
initially proposed for industrial management (45) would
also appear valid for educational systems, there appears
to be a need for additional validation of this fact.

Perhaps the most recent research done in this
regard was Havelock's (28) study of Highway Safety
Researchers and Decision Makers. In this study both
styles and roles of decision-making were examined. In
the area of styles, he generated brief descriptions of
research—based, autocratic, informal influence, bureau-
cratic, rational, power struggle, consensus-compromise,
and opinion balance decision styles and compared a
specific decision with decisions in general. These
methods go beyond the more general areas of participative
or authoritarian types so often used. These styles or
categories also appear to be applicable for decisions
made in educational institutions and will be one measure
of the decision process under study.

The final variable of formal communications is
taken as the transmission of information initiated by
management for "consumption" by all individuals within

the formal organization. In this sense, the communicative

26

act is here delimited to the downward flow. In this
particular research setting, this form of communication
is additionally limited in that it is differentiated

from specific "job knowledge" because it does not con-
stitute an immediate and necessary prerequisite for
effective work performance on the part of the engineering
faculty. 2

Nevertheless, a management decision to introduce
a college-wide curriculum innovation offers a logical
reason for launching a communications program. As
Jacobson and Seashore (35) indicated, communications
are important because of their function in a situation
where attitudes are not yet crystallized. In a natural-
istic setting where implementation is still to be
accomplished, the assumption of a functional relation—
ship between formal communications and internalization
seems legitimate.

In summary, it is concluded that not only is
there a need to study internalization within the organi-
zational context, but that ample research is available
to guide such a study in terms of established theory.
And, following Katz's (38) categorization of field
studies it can be affirmed that this study represents
a combination of both an exploratory and an hypothesis-

testing study. It is exploratory in attempting to find

   
  
  

out what 1
the extent

predic at e;

l:

 

purPOSE Q:
h' I
Sdlps bet‘
and the v
30b Sat—is
men, 91‘01

t‘ne deci

('1 (i: :1

fl)

27

out what relationships exist and hypothesis-testing to
the extent that it will attempt to obtain proof for the

predicated relationships.

Statement of Hypotheses

 

In view of the above discussion, it will be the
purpose of this study to explore some specific relation-
ships between the concept of innovation internalization
and the variables of relative advantage, compatibility,
job satisfaction, leadership styles of department chair-
men, group cohesiveness, internal communications, and
the decision-making process.

The following statements of hypotheses constitute

the exact nature of such a study.

Hypothesis 1:

 

The greater the degree of relative advantage of the
innovation, as perceived by the faculty member, the
more likely he is to internally accept the inno-
vation.

Hypothesis 2:

 

The greater the degree of compatibility of the inno-
vation, with faculty values, as perceived by the
faculty member, the more likely he is to internally
accept the innovation.

Hypothesis 3:

 

The greater the degree of job satisfaction, as
reported by the faculty member, the more likely he
is to internally accept the innovation.

28

Hypothesis 4:

 

The greater the degree of group cohesiveness, as
perceived by the faculty member, the less likely
he is to internally accept the innovation.

Hypothesis 5:

 

The greater the level of formal communications con-
cerning the innovation, as perceived by the faculty
member, the more likely he is to internally accept
the innovation.

Hypothesis 6:

 

Faculty who score their department chairman high on
the Human Relations Scale will internalize the
curriculum innovation to a greater degree than
faculty who score their chairman low on this scale.
In regard to the variable of decision-making
styles, no specific hypothesis is being stated. Neither
decision scale is appropriate for summating items and
represents an effort to explore such conditions in a
more qualitative fashion. Nevertheless, the absence of

any specific statistical hypothesis should not detract

from the relevance of this aspect of the study.

Overview of the Study

 

A review of the relevant literature is presented
in the following chapter. Chapter III contains a
description of the population, scale development, perti—
nent pretest results, and an explanation of the methodo-

logical procedures. The findings are described in

29

Chapter IV. The summary and conclusions as well as a
discussion of the findings and their implications for

educational practice are discussed in Chapter V.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Introduction

 

As was noted in Chapter I, proposed innovations
in education are a continuing phenomena. Yet, there
have been continuing criticisms of educational insti—
tutions for what has been termed a "lag" in adopting
new innovations.

In attempting to understand such "lag" in
adoption, individuals have traditionally been the units
of response and the focus has primarily been upon indi-
vidual, intra-personal variables, largely to the exclusion
of social structural and organizational variables. As
Rogers contended,

It has been erroneously assumed that because
individuals were the units of response, indi-
viduals need also be the units of analysis. But
the point is that teachers do work in organizational
settings like schools, even if farmers do not. And,
the organizational environment does have an impor-
tant influence on teachers' innovative behavior.
(9, p. 67)

In this study, the basic concern with individuals

as units of analysis has been abandoned in favor of

relations between individuals. Such an approach seems

30

31

consistent with the basic communication process which
involves a series of transfers of messages from sources
to receivers. One noted example supporting this approach
is offered by Mortimore (56) in his analysis of the
diffusion of innovations to teachers in Thai government
secondary schools. Mortimore found very low correlations,
most of which were not significant, between fifty-one
independent variables and (l) teacher's awareness of new
educational innovations, (2) favorable attitudes toward
these new ideas, and (3) innovativeness. One reason
suggested for the low relationships is the fact that
structural effects were almost totally ignored. The
fifty-one variables, mostly drawn from U.S. educational
diffusion studies, measured individual characteristics
and attitudes, but paid no attention to school effects
on teacher behavior. As Mortimore concluded,

In other words, the analysis treated the teachers

as if they did not work in schools, and as if the

school did not have a considerable effect on each

teacher's diffusion behavior. Yet it is one's

fellow school teachers with whom one interacts

most about innovations. Their characteristics and

beliefs thus have great effect on one's knowledge,

attitude, and adoption of educational innovations.

(56, p. 73)

The approach of this study is to explore the
structural or organizational elements in the diffusion
process as units of analysis. And, in order to meaning-
fully represent the theory and research supportive of

this approach, this chapter will be divided into several

distinct segments.

32

The initial segment outlines briefly the tra-
ditions of diffusion research with an emphasis on the
area of educational studies. The following segment
presents the basic concepts and operational definitions
applicable to educational diffusion research. The third
segment reviews the organizational theory underlying the
hypotheses of this study, while the final segment reviews
actual research based upon organizational analysis of

diffusion.

Traditions of Diffusion Research

In attempting to condense the broad spectrum of
diffusion research, it is apparent that the problems of
diffusion and dissemination have been studied in various
kinds of research traditions. And, although such research
has focused on common phenomena, the contents and variables
are inevitably diverse.

In their book (63, pp. 48-69), they discuss
anthropology, early sociology, rural sociology, education,
industrial and medical sociology, and marketing as the
seven major research traditions. The various intellectual
traditions and their respective contributors which have
studied the diffusion process are presented in Table 2-1.

In stating general observations concerning this
research tradition, Gross concluded that: (1) they
generally deal with the spread or adoption of rather

simple technical innovations such as hybrid seed,

33

.wcauoocfluco anguumnuca

.am-om .mn .aama .uoxnaoonm on: «homes
coma .mash .huauuo>«:u ouaum unmanUAm .uoucou uucOESUOG acuuauuuo ”oounom

.mndoumoom .nUALocooo «unmade .aooHonuaum .nu«&ocooo auudu41UAumo .5m0~o«o°u anuonoo nooaaucH

.uuonuo mdhfl>0u one
Q

.:0«unusuo saunnouxo no

newuwvawunnn Gnu ca .ucwxooaa hauUwuuu .onu vac» nCOAuoOAHA=n auco>wu nouaaucu amaoauUQ coauqvuuu unbaoquoa Hausa echo

 

cognauuuu an
QannuouQOH acucuno
unawuooouau uoumoca
uo nowuuuuouonuqzo

amended newnaao

we use .ueuuooouno
nuanced no .nuoxocx
cued one amuse uo
nowuuauououudzu “anon
laud coHnwoootco«uu>
noccw on» :« unmouu an
uaoccdno newuauwcsalou

uncooua
acanwuovlcoaua>ocdu Gnu
ca uomuun an unoccnzu
noduqoaqdaaoo “nuance
.Ouno nouaoua no auauuw
uuouuuudno ”cod-sumac
:a awnmuovoOH codewao

nowuoo

Luann Houmova uo nowunu
uuouoouonu “Goduanauu
luau uoumova voannnom

.auoooou sausage no
nowuuauououuogu “no.0
name cod-«uovlco«ua>
aocca ozu cw noon».
an unaccdzu ceauau
na:5§§00 “acauaoui.uo
ounu uwosu one unawun>
noun“ «0 nounbauuua
nabuouuou “nuwuooOUoo
pounced «0 ocean“
:uouonuozo "cowuanuuu
auao noumovn woman-um

nowuouOu-u

nouoooa no uuwuua
uuouuouuno “sawuanwuu
undo uoumova nouns-um

canon:

omcano «o .0000:-
o>wuaaou loc04u0>
’02:“ no .0060550-600

Ougflcou
Hosna>avcn

nausea>aucu

.Haaoa>aucu

nuanced» no
cadumxu Hoozom

now»
nacnfifiou Hanna :«
Chafiuau Haavq>wocH

unusua>anca
no noduwcsaeou

noouaaa>
ace-com no H235.

awnxadCQ
gaudy-«uau. ode
n30u>uouza ao>u9m

nanxauca
anoauuauauu one
u).«>h0u:« ho>usm

nwuxaqu
«nuauuaucuu use
nio«>uuu¢« >o>usm

uanxaacn Hanan
unwuoun one .-)o«>
nuouca >o>uau .ouwnc
ncoauuoau wanna:

nuoaadcd
debaucauau- nan
arbu>uouca >o>u=m

uuuzadca ducau
unauaun one arousa-
aucucouou sown auco

nououaoa augu-

o-uo on» on: couuu>
uuooao ucaawo«uu¢a
3:0: and uconuoauuam

A.u.o .n:o«nnuu
unanuoHu .oconaouou
ocouunusoa can .933
ocuuoo no nuuauoun no:

occauu>occ« «and»
taaoauod .uu:o>o uni:

mew:
nodad >«afldu .ICOwun:
squuu> .uosuv «deduct

ceauunuuonu ucfiauuv0nn
.nuoa cuouoa .ucAcauuu
uo>uuv .ucouuqououCAK

..o.o .uocwuuua .uGOAUIa
aquuc>v added guano:

can A.u.o .nudnuauu

Inca .600. Mann»: .ohquau
nous. cocoa aaunuuauuumd

newton ad:
.nosduu Oman-on aqua
ucuo>ou uouqcufl huuu

70.0 5.333-300)
.oauo: on» .xd Huey-c
undue Hoodoo~o::009

voo.~
bNN

9o

#0

on

an

oov

0a

mo

M6009

auscuuwvauu aunuo a

unauoxun: s

nodunUacsllOU o

mooHOAOOQ Hoodoo: m

cauuuoaua v

caveaowuoo «anon n

>00a0a00u manna n

macaoaounuat H

 

nucuvcwh uo
ooa>h hone:

oaauaand
uo awn:
can:

canaa¢c<
an. mean-sung
quaa «0 vogue:

333m
needy-baccn
aaoanse

oanuaaa><
occauaoaansa
3338
no nanny:

caucuulhh
condo-Ia
cod-sauna

IflOdUwahU 58'...“ sdIDNHHV HO“: £0 NO BOIflH'n'OUlI-HIN New“?

34

tranquilizers, or audio-visual aids; (2) the agricultural
studies have focused on the spread or adoption of inno-
vations among individual farmers residing in a particular
county, state, or region; (3) the studies of medical
innovations have primarily dealt with their diffusion

and adoption by doctors in a single community; (4) the
anthropological studies have focused on the spread of
such practices as the use of new tools, wells, and modern
farming techniques within nonindustrial societies; and
(5) the education studies have primarily dealt with
adoption rates of innovations within school systems (27,
p. 20).

Although Gross presented this summary as a
general observation, his analysis was clearly a criti-
cism of this diffusion research tradition. It was his
position that while such studies may be useful in
understanding the adOption of simple innovations among
aggregates of individuals, they are of little value in
explaining the implementation of organizational inno-
vations.

While Gross' position may reflect simply a dif-
ference in research approach, it does serve to focus
attention upon one of the most prevalent traditions
in diffusion research-~the primacy given characteristics
of individual adopters. At the Diffusion Document

Center at Michigan State University, after reviewing

35

2,400 empirical findings from the diffusion research on
file, representing fourteen main research traditions,
researchers were able to identify fifteen separate
variables that were positively related to the dimension
of innovativeness (65). They are as follows: (1) edu-
cation, (2) literacy, (3) income, (4) level of living,
(5) knowledgeability, (6) attitude toward change,

(7) achievement motivation, (8) aspirations for chil-
dren, (9) cosmopoliteness, (10) mass media exposure,
(11) contact with change agents, (12) deviance from
norms, (13) group participation, (14) interpersonal
communication exposure, and (15) opinion leadership.

In addition to the diffusion research traditions
and these fifteen dimensions of innovativeness, a third
indication of diffusion research emphasis is summarized
by Rogers (63) in the form of a typology. Table 2-2
shows eight different types of diffusion analyses that
are completed or possible and the relative amount of
attention paid to each in past inquiry. Of particular
note is the emphasis on variables related to individual
innovativeness. More than half (58.4%) of all of the
empirical generalizations reported deal with this
variable.

As noted in Table 2-1, education represents one
of the larger traditions. The majority of educational

diffusion studies, however, has been carried out at one

36

.mnunn .aa .nkmn .nmxuauonm can mnomom

u ”UNA—OM

.coduoawxonmmo onoao u an unofinou pmnwnun0AHMEm one noonoa no hvsun Homewam can
cwa>wx on» amaonuau .ow non occauo>onad no nouaawnuuo on oaaowna> uconcomoo on» song: an nGOMumNnaonocom o: and onmnam

 

 

 

Amooav
Ham.w
.am.n~v
Hom.a II I! mnonuo
Smé: fiounwm fiancee suntan H300» on...
we no ononaoz no ensue: on» can unoaaua no uoauunnouoononu coHum>oncw on» no moocoowmmooo m
Adanuwooo ucOnuo>occw on» no
unanun>osan nounnwnuum Adena: Baum». “AnuocouwHOQOEmoo «uneconomnoucn
Awh.wv on» no” Eouuhu ..m.ov Bunch» H0400: a no anoneoe «o no canoe anus nonuona ..m.ov
mmv a mo unease: mowunnnouoondno nozuo can unoco>auo>ocou on: Hocconu newuoowndeeou n
omens
Hosanna :Owumowssasoo “nuanunnn> EU»
.m~.mv Bowman «Macon Imam nonuo and «Enos Eounhm “Ammocouwaom macaun>OGCw mow
own a no anonsoz losuoo ..m.ov nnonfius no nonununouoondnu umsuuwp an manunoomoa cencwmo o
omen: cowuoowcaaaoo “nodaowno> Eu» Seaman Monaco
Amm.vv sauna» Hannah luau nonuo and «anon fiuumhn «Auuocouaaom o no anonaua an canuo>occn
Hon 0 mo anoneoz noeuoo ..m.ov unonaoe mo nonunwnouoonono so usonm mcw3ocx mo moonwanom m
omen: Hosanna cowumoncofiaoo “moanowna>
Seaman deacon adumhn nonuo poo wane: Seaman «anuocouwaoo Bowman fiancee
vnm.m o no nnmneuz :ofimoo ..m.og anonaufi uo nonunwnouomndnu o no mnonfioe uo mmoco>nuo>occu v
..uum .munnna
Inuomeoo .aunxwameoo ..w.oc emu
Seaman Honoon sundae danced u no mnonsos swim HMHUOn o no mnonfioe an oo>noo
oo u no unease: mo monumnnmuomnoso nacho can unoco>wum>oan Inmm mm unenuo>occn mo mouznwnuu< m
«sawwwoooicowuu>occn
no woman “Romance no nonmouunum nwonu
..m.og moanowno> ucomo mucosa u.m«£unovooa
.wn.~v acncnmo uo cannonucoocoo ..m.ov Renown mauunhn Hanna» aconouwwo on
«ma mamunan aunoom amwoon on» we oowunwnouounonu “canon sounhm acowuo>occw no noduQOpo uo ouuz N
.ou.~. gunman n no unonsufi an oo>noonom an A.ouo Bowman finance a an
«o ucowuo>ocam .anwanaauoaaou ..o.ov nc0w9o>occw no nounnqnuud cowuo>occw an no sawumooo uo ovum a
nouaou oucoaaooo
cod-auwwo out
munwcuwuonwwowwmwo unuhaocfl mo awn: uoanownn> useucomovcn manowno> unaccomoo oaks
«0 omousoonom
can nonaoz
1/

cannouom no nouonnfioo owuhaoco nondonon sawmnwuwo uo nomaaln.~

IN mamty

37

institution, Columbia University's Teachers College, under
the guidance of one man, Paul Mort. As Carlson contends,
"Probably eighty to eighty-five percent of the work done
was done under his direction from the late thirties

until the early sixties, and virtually all of the research
was carried out by his doctoral students" (9, p. 3).

In the vast majority of educational diffusion
studies, the adopting unit has been the local school sys-
tem. A very few studies have considered adoption by
individual teachers. Even where school systems were
analyzed, however, very limited attention was paid to
concepts related to organizational variables. The most
general concepts have been: (1) financial characteristics,
(2) personnel factors, (3) student characteristics,

(4) community characteristics, and administrative
factors (9, p. 7).

With respect to the latter category, the variables
are usually use of standing committees by school boards
or methods of board selection. In terms of staff char-
acteristics, the variables can be divided into three
groups: (1) those concerned with personal factors, such
as age, sex, and marital status, (2) those concerned
with professional factors, such as amount of education,
and experience in educational organizations, and (3)
those concerned with group characteristics of the staff,

such as social cohesiveness and morale. The use of

38

the last two mentioned variables has been exceedingly
rare. The other variables appear in great abundance
(9, pp. 7-11).

Subsequent to the Mort tradition, such researchers
as Carlson and Brickell have focused more upon teachers,
rather than simply on administrators and on within
school, as well as school to school, diffusion. One
of the more recent efforts in this regard was Carlson's
(10) analysis of modern math among school administrators
in Pennsylvania and West Virginia. In this study, Carlson
examined six social structure variables, three concerning
involvement and three related to status, for their
relationship to the adoption rate of modern math (54,
pp. 337-38).

With the exception of the above mentioned study
and studies by Davis (16), Lin (46), and Sprunger (69),
little attention has been paid to concepts related to
organizational theory in educational institutions. In
fact, such paucity of research led Rogers to conclude
that while education is one of the larger traditions in
terms of the number of studies, it is one of the lesser
traditions in terms of its contributions to understanding
the diffusion of innovations or to a theory of social
change (63, pp. 57-58).

In summarizing the traditions of diffusion

research, it is evident that organizations and structural

39

variables have been ignored as units of analysis. This
is particularly significant in education as educational
innovations move through complex organizations. As
Carlson concluded,

We do not have many other diffusion research tra-

ditions in which an equally appropriate emphasis

could be placed upon social structural variables

as they affect the diffusion of ideas. Such

organizationally-linked variables ought to be a

focus of inquiry, rather than ignored, as they

largely have been to date. (9, p. 9)

In the absence of any substantial traditions of

educational diffusion research, the necessity of borrow-
ing general concepts from diffusion traditions is

apparent. The following section will describe the

basic concepts germane to this study.

Basic Concepts of Diffusion Research

 

Research shows that the fundamental elements in
the diffusion process are (l) the innovation (2) which
is communicated through certain channels (3) over a
period of time (4) among members of a social system.
This model was mentioned in Chapter I and will now be
expanded upon.

One of the basic assumptions of this study is
that the actual characteristics of an innovation are
secondary to its adoption. What does seem to matter is
the individual adopter's perceptions of the innovation.
This assumption is consistent with past research and

relates to the five attributes of innovations as outlined

40

by Rogers and Shoemaker (63). The five characteristics
relevant to adOption are: (1) relative advantage,

(2) compatibility, (3) complexity, (4) divisibility,

and (5) communicability. For the purposes of this study,
only research relevant to the first two concepts of
relative advantage and compatibility will be examined.

Most of the research examining attributes of
innovations has emanated from studies of farm practices
and concentrated on economic factors. Lionberger (47)
cited the amount of capital required for adoption, the
compatibility of the new practice with existing pro-
cedures, the communicability of the new practice, and
the extent to which the new practice can be adopted
gradually (47, p. 364).

The major contributors in this regard, however,
have been Fliegel and Kivlin (25). In 1960, they studied
adoption histories of 229 commercial dairy farmers in
Pennsylvania. In their study, 11 attributes of 59 new
farm practices were correlated with 4 of the relationships
significant at the 0.05 level. These attributes were
relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, and
reduction in time. The variables of initial cost, con-
tinuing cost, cost of operation, and increased earnings
were not only insignificant, but negatively correlated.

While the diffusion research pertinent to

attributes of innovation emphasizes economic

41

considerations, one exception in educational studies was
that of Evans (22). In his study of ITV, he examined
both relative advantage and compatibility. Economic con-
siderations were included, but other advantages such as
reduced teaching load and more time for research were
also included. In terms of compatibility with faculty
values, the effects of ITV on the role of teachers was
closely studied.
In this study, Evans predicted that the attitude
of university professors toward ITV would be negative.
In his analysis he stated:
The professor's general reluctance to desert
tried-and-true teaching methods, along with his
firm belief that only through personal contact can
the student be prOperly motivated, predict his
reluctance to accept ITV as a vehicle for teaching.
As a result, we should not be too surprised that
virtually every educational institution which has
attempted to use ITV in its curricula has encountered
massive hostility on the part of its faculty, and,
not infrequently, from its administration. (22, p. 68)
By analyzing data elicited by the Osgood Semantic
Differential, Evans plotted both the direction and extent
of faculty resistance. Five ITV concepts were examined
with the general reactions being unfavorable to all five.
Only "television supplemented by small discussion
sections for large classes" elicited a noteably
favorable response.

In attempting to understand such resistance,

Evans examined Open-ended questions concerning ITV.

42

While this analysis was broad in sc0pe, the strongest
reason for opposing ITV centered around the lack of per-
sonal contact with students. Some respondents did admit
that ITV was economical, effective, and efficient (from
the university's standpoint), but still felt that an
instructor might be justified in fearing it as an inno-
vation which might lead to widespread unemployment of
classroom teachers (22, p. 71).

Another example of such resistance is provided
by Carlson in his study of programmed instruction.
Carlson concluded:

Programmed instruction does not give the teachers

as much opportunity to perform as they apparently
desire; it does not give them sufficient opportunity
to teach. In their eyes, because teaching means
performing, using programmed instruction is not
teaching. (11, p. 83)

The relevance of the above research to this
study is the support it gives to the subjective nature
of the diffusion process. In this study, the extrinsic
characteristics of relative advantage and compatibility

with the receiver system are examined. Rogers defines

relative advantage as the degree to which an innovation

 

is perceived as better than the idea it supersedes, and

compatibility as the degree to which an innovation is

 

perceived as consistent with existing values and past
experiences of the receivers (63, p. 37). In an academic

community, a new curriculum that cannot meet these two

minimum crit
unfavorable
In a
itself, a se
is that the
consensus CC
has not beer.
Schools of t
the Research
and the Profit
The
diffusion pri
a Potential
concerned Wi
rather with
be most inf]
cess. One
medical Socj
fiVe phases
and acceptar

 

 

43

minimum criteria would have predicted failure and an
unfavorable evaluation.

In addition to attributes of the innovation
itself, a second basic assumption of diffusion research
is that the diffusion process has distinct phases. While
consensus concerning the exact nature of these phases
has not been reached, Havelock (29) identified three
schools of thought: The Social Interaction Perspective,
the Research, Development, and Diffusion Perspective,
and the Problem-Solver Perspective.

The Social Interaction model emphasizes the
diffusion process once the innovation is available to
a potential adopter. Proponents of this model are not
concerned with how the innovation becomes available, but
rather with the sources of information that appear to
be most influential at each stage of the adoption pro-
cess. One example of this model is Coleman's work in
medical sociology (15). Coleman's model included the
five phases of awareness, interest, evaluation, trial,
and acceptance. This model is also supported by Wil-
kining (75), Lionberger (47), and was similar to
Rogers' earlier model (64).

A second model is the Research, Development,
and Diffusion approach where the primary attention
remains on the efforts of the sender as the innovation

is diffusing through the target group. Unlike the first

44

model, the invention and design of the innovation (usually
by specialists outside the client system) is of particular
interest. One example of this model is that of Cuba

and Clark (13) where research, development (invention

and design), diffusion (disseminate and demonstrate),

and adoption (trial, installation, and institutionali-
zation) represent the four general phases. Other edu-
cational research utilizing such a model are Hopkins and
Clark (12), Brickell (8), and Miles (54).

The third model reviewed by Havelock was the
Problem-Solver Perspective. The central focus here is
on the efforts of the receiver to solve his own problems.
The change process is self-initiated and diagnosis of
the problem is accomplished within the target system
itself. The most noted example of this model is Lewin's
unfreezing (developing a need for change), moving (diagno-
sis and examination of alternatives) and freezing (stabil-
ization and termination of change relationship). Several
other examples listed by Havelock were Watson (74),
.Mackenzie (50), and Jung and Lippitt (36).

Perhaps the most popularized model of the three
is the Social Interaction Model with Rogers as its chief
proponent. His five-stage paradigm, however, has two
difficulties: (1) the transition from the awareness to
.adoption may not follow the time sequence suggested, and
(2) the transition from the interest stage to the evalu-

ation stage is difficult to distinguish (63, p. 13).

45

In view of these criticisms, Rogers and Shoemaker
(63) have retermed the individual adoption process an

innovation decision process defined as the mental process

 

through which an individual passes from first knowledge
of an innovation to final decision to adopt or reject
the innovation (63, p. 13). They redefined the five
"stages" as four "functions," implying a cumulative
sequence of events, and conceptualize the functions as
(1) knowledge (awareness), (2) persuasion (attitude
formation and/or change), (3) decision (adoption or
rejection), and (4) confirmation (reinforcement).

Figure 1 depicts the paradigm of the innovation-decision
process.

Specifically pertinent to this study is the per-
suasion function where the individual forms a favorable
or unfavorable attitude. This attitude, however, is not
formed in isolation nor is it completely predictive of
actual adOptive behavior. These two aspects are critical
to this study and deserve additional comment.

A formal organization differs from other kinds
of social systems in that the power structure in it is
clearly delineated, roles and positions are well-defined,
and compliance behavior in accordance with the position
held and fulfillment of hierarchial demands are usually

in effect.

46

.moa .m .Hnma .noxmeoosm use mnemom "monoom

.mmooonm on» no moococoomcoo onu maco non umwomnmm was» on
co«um>occn on» mo moocosoomcoo on» c3onm nos o>on o3 aqumeEnm mo exam on» nomo

mmooonm cowmw0093:0wuo>oan on» no Emnvmnmmln.a onomnm

 

 

A.” MZHB

 

npnnnnusnompo .
npnnnpunanne .
npnxunnaoe .
nunnnpnuumaoo .
omopcd>c< o>wuoaom .

 

tlmmmeoudmm cosanuaoo

   

unopooum .a

coHudnwoucH coHuoowcsEEoo .m
hosuw>oo no oocdnoaoe .m
manoz aopmmm Honoom .H

 

scapoo om

 

 
     

HNM—flm

 

I cowpnolvfi nupoq

 

 

:0n9o>occH
manpmfinouuandno vo>noonom _ moapoano> Empmhm Hmwumwg

 

 

 

 

unouoopm .4
can»
ue>osoH on» non
come co>aoenom .m
- ‘ Awmooouwaom
>H HHH HH n . -oamoo ..m.ov
20Ha<zmHmzoo onmHumo ‘4‘. onm<Dmmmm momquozu monumwnouoondno
Honoom .N
Aowndno
undaop ovspnvuo
Honoaom ..w.ov
moHpmHnOHUondno
mundanomnom .H

 

 

 

 

 

 

AfllllfIAlr

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

unoapqonocomnn .m
psoaoodamom .H
Amaoccanov

 

ooqmmcwpcoomfio

—------o
.------..

   
  

 

in L
moonnom coHudOHcdano

 

mmoanwwnd> no>aooumq

. aonp.oe<

 

 

 

I aogqoc< concwvuou

AmMUZMdemzoov Awmwoommv Amazmomomez<v

 

 

 

47

This is especially pertinent in educational
institutions where the decisions to adopt innovations
are made by the administration with implementation often
expected by a separate segment of the academic community.
This specific aSpect of a bureaucratic structure is
critical in education where the system makes the decision
to adopt or reject, not the individual.

In system decisions, the social system exerts
primary influence over the determination of innovation
adoption or rejection. Rogers and Shoemaker outline
three types of system decisions, each with varying degrees
of control over the eventual user of the innovation.

1. The authority decision, where the individual is
ordered to adopt or reject the innovation
according to a decision of those higher in the
hierarchial power structure.

2. The contingent decision, where the individual
may adopt or reject a new idea, but only after
the system has made an enabling adoption
decision.

3. The collective decision, where the individuals
comprising a social system participate, either
directly or through representation, in the ver-
dict to accept or reject an innovation. Once
the decision is made, all members of the social
system must abide by the system's collective
decision. (63, pp. 54-55)

 

 

 

In view of these conceptualizations of the
decision process, the contingent decision has the most
relevance for this particular research. The College
Curriculum Committee adopted the new curriculum inno-
vation, but participation by individual faculty will

be Optional. This factor is critical to the success

48

of the new program and supports the need to go beyond
the system's adoptive decision in predicting the success
of the innovation.

As mentioned in Chapter I, Kelman (39) in his
discussion of social influence and opinion change pro-
posed and partially validated three distinctive processes
from which adoptive behavior may be induced. In the
"compliance" situation, the adoptive behavior is observed
only when surveillance of the influencing agent is in
effect. In the "identification" situation, the adoptive
behavior will persist as long as the individual's
relationship with the influencing agent continues. In
the "internalization" situation, the adoptive behavior
will be retained as long as the issue at hand is per-
ceived as relevant to the values of the individual.

Internalization is thus defined as "the extent
to which a member perceives the innovation or change as
relevant and valuable to his role performance in the
organization" (46, p. 11). In contrast to internali-
zation, compliance is defined as the use of the inno-
vation, whether the member sees the innovation as rele-
vant or irrelevant to his role performance in the
organization. Using Barnard's (4) concept, the adoption
of innovations belongs to the group of orders for actions
in the "zone of indifference" where compliance is the

level of response.

49

Thus, it is essential to measure the degrees of
innovation internalization among members in an organi-
zation in addition to studying their adoptive behavior
so as to determine the actual effect of the innovation
in the formal organization. This is especially critical
where the contingent decision model places the burden
upon individual adopter attitudes.

A second reason to study adoption beyond the
systems level is the discrepancy between attitudinal
and behavioral changes. The typical diffusion study
investigates the adoption rate, innovativeness, and
other concepts which are operationally defined in terms
of the length of time during which an innovation has
been behaviorally adopted. Social psychologist, Festin-
ger (23, 24), however, has empirically demonstrated that
under certain conditions behavioral change does not imply
attitudinal change. This discrepancy further implies the
need to investigate the two variables independently in
an innovation diffusion study.

With these basic concepts as background, it can
be concluded that while it is difficult to specify in a
priori terms what characteristics of an innovation-~vis
a vis the adopting system--will block or aid innovative-
ness, perceived attributes of the innovation are important.
.As Miles stated:

Other things being equal, innovations which are

perceived as threats to existing practice, rather
than mere additions to it, are less likely of

'~<c-w v.2» ‘ __

u:—

 

acc

dis
adc

that i
change

much n

behavj
is or:

throu

the j

the

SOCie
The t
for t.

tot

I
I);

50

acceptance; more generally, innovations which can
be added to an existing program without seriously
disturbing other parts of it are likely to be
adopted. (54, p. 638)

A sequel to this statement is the assumption
that innovations implying or requiring important value
changes in acceptors will encounter difficulty, since
much more than the nature of the innovation is at stake.

Research also supports the position that adoptive
behavior, while dynamic, is not necessarily random. It
is orderly and can be conceptualized as proceeding
through distinct phases or functions. In this study,
the persuasion function is being arbitrarily isolated
for study. This is a result of the unique nature of
the research setting and of the desire to control for
the discrepancy between attitudes and behavior.

And, finally, it is concluded that system
decisions do not guarantee individual support by potential
adopters. There are levels of support with internali-
zation marking the highest level of congruity between
system and individual adOption decisions.

With these basic concepts as background, the
social system as a unit of analysis will now be examined.
The theory of organizational change provides the basis

for this analysis and will be summarized as pertinent

to this study.

51

Organizational Change

 

In discussing the diffusion of a new curriculum
innovation, the context is that of a planned and delib-
erately managed change process. While there are always
random occurrences and natural circumstances that relate
to this process, planned change begins with a recognition
of a need for change and innovation and devises steps to
achieve this end.

The change process examined in this study is set
within the social system of an academic community--a
social structure which establishes the boundaries within
which innovations diffuse. Such a structure acts to
impede or facilitate the rate of diffusion and adoption
of new ideas through what is called "system effects."

The basic notion underlying system effects is that norms,
social statuses, and hierarchial arrangement of a social
system influence the behavior of individual members of
the system.

One central feature of such organizational change
is the role of leadership in the organization. Leader-
ship behavior serves both as a stimulus and a model for
much behavior in the organization (45, 7), and for that
reason it is a major determinant of internal barriers
to knowledge dissemination and use. Havelock (29, p. 27)
summarized the role of an administrator as one who can

(1) exhort his subordinates to seek out more information

52

from other subunits, (2) direct subordinates to use
understandable terms when communicating with others,

(3) amend role demands so that his subordinates are

more functionally interdependent, (4) manipulate rewards
to favor knowledge flow among subunits, (5) train sub-
ordinates to value and utilize knowledge from other sub-
units, and (6) create structural modifications to stimu-
late information passage by greater number of linkages
and channels.

Whether or not the leader will be able to accom-
plish such knowledge facilitation is dependent on both
situational constraints and his leadership skills. Katz
(38) and Mann (52) suggest that three sets of skills
are essential for effective leadership: technical pro-
ficiency, organizational ability, and an understanding and
ability to relate to people.

This third leadership skill (human relations) has
received considerable attention and relates directly to
the department chairmen leadership style as outlined in
Chapter I. The basic assumptions here are that the
social climate of an organization is a product of
leadership and that such a climate for change is
functionally related to the adoption or rejection of
innovations. Likert has supported this position when

he stated:

53

A supportive leadership climate creates the con-
ditions that lead to a full and efficient flow of
relevant messages in all directions throughout the
organization. This full and open flow of useful
information provides accurate data to guide action,
to call attention to problems as they arise, and to
assume that sound decisions based on all available
facts are made. (45, pp. 238-39)

What Likert and others have advocated is a com-
munication system that facilitates the free flow of
innovations in the organization, and encourages organi-
zational members to discuss the innovations with their
superiors. The predicted outcome is a climate more
receptive of change.

While there have been no studies in higher edu-
cation researching this point directly, industrial
research on leadership and social climate is extensive.
Of primary importance are the studies of the Survey
Research Center, University of Michigan. This program-
matic research on the relationship of supervision to
productivity and morale frequently suggests that imme-
diate interpersonal relations between supervisor and
subordinate and among work group members, rather than
broader organizational variables and company policies,
may be the more important determiners of productivity,
morale, and response to change (72, p. 10). Mann (53),
for instance, concluded that change is best accomplished
by utilizing the "work family" as an agency through

which to administer change, and emphasized "employee-

oriented" as opposed to "production-oriented" supervision

54

as being conducive to acceptance of change. Herzberg,
Mausner, Peterson, and Capwell (32) expanded this con-
cept of "employee-oriented" supervision and identified
specific practices which may be denoted by such an
orientation. Trumbo (72) summarized these to include:
(1) being sympathetic on both work and personal problems
of the employees; (2) sharing information with employees;
(3) being less critical of employees; (4) being willing
and able to help employees in their work while maintain-
ing a leadership position; (5) allowing greater partici-
pation in decision-making among employees; (6) being
consistent in giving orders and maintaining discipline;
(7) letting employees know where they stand in their job
progress; (8) giving general rather than close super-
vision; and (9) interacting socially with employees.
If one looks beyond the industrial terminology,
it is not difficult to transfer the broader concept of
a social climate to the educational institution and to
explore it as a variable in the change process in this
context.
Davis made some efforts in this regard and con-

cluded:

. . . that when attempting to effect innovation

in a college, the participation by the faculty in

decision-making becomes an important variable

since faculty involvement enlists the assistance

and power of the formal and informal groups to

enforce the decisions to adopt an innovation.
(16, p. 118)

55

Davis also concluded that there were indications
based on results to support Brickell's findings that,
Although faculty may lend support and give consen-
sus to change, it is the administrator or head of
the department who promotes or prevents inno-
vation because he is powerful. It is not due to
his monOply on imagination, creativity, or interest
in change, but simply because he has the authority
to precipitate a decision. (8, p. 503)
The only other effort to study organizational
variables in educational change was Lin's (46) study
of three innovative Michigan high schools. He found
that innovation internalization correlated with twenty-
two organizational variables. Three of these variables
(psychological distance between teacher and principal,
vertical communication, and perceived change orientation
of the principal) all support the assumption that the
behavior of individuals in authority positions in an
organization effect the social climate of the organization
and the employees' reaction to educational innovations.
A second and interrelated systems variable
suggested by studies of organizational change is the
impact of the primary group on employee behavior, par-
ticularly with regard to change. At least as early as
the Hawthorne studies, the existence of primary group
formations and their influence on employee attitudes
and performance has been noted. In 1955, Seashore (67)

studied group cohesiveness in factory work groups and

demonstrated that primary groups and their norms are

 

 

IE

1;

'1:

r1-

('1

”C

at

56

related to employee attitudes and level of production.
Further evidence for the power of the group in influenc-
ing individual attitudes and performance comes from
laboratory studies of group dynamics. While it is
impractical to summarize the host of relevant studies,

it should be sufficient to recall the research of Festin-
ger (23) on forces toward uniformity in group communi-
cations, and the work of Festinger, Schachter, and

Back (24) on the conditions determining the power of

the primary group to enforce standards.

As was the case with leadership styles, very
little attention has been paid to this concept of group
cohesiveness in studying educational innovations. Lin
(46), however, found that when a teacher's feeling of
security in the school system in high, his perceived
degree of group cohesiveness will be positively cor-
related with his degree of internalization (46, p. 26).

Basically, the literature shows that individuals,
‘who for any one of a number of reasons, are strongly
attracted to other members of the group (cohesiveness)
will be greatly influenced by the norms of the group.
:Extending this assumption to the academic department
as the primary group, any threat to the group norms
vwould be expected to effect the rate of internalization.

One additional system effect receiving much

attention in organizational change has been "participation";

57

the inclusion and active involvement of individuals who
are effected by decisions in the decision-making process.
This decision-making process was described by Lin when

he stated:

Decision-making takes place when the initiators of
innovations consider alternative new practices and
ideas, when the intermediate disseminators (or
"gatekeepers") make their choices among innovations
legitimized by the initiators and transmit the
selected parts, features, or information about the
innovations to filter down to the receiving or
adopting units, and when the adopting units assess
the assets of the innovations filtered down to
them and decide to what extent they want to ad0pt
or internalize the new ideas and practices. (46,

p. 107)

The basic concept purported here is that adoption
of innovations is facilitated by involving those who
actually use the innovations in the adoption-rejection
decision-making process. Experimental small group
studies and information from large-scale industrial
concerns emphasize that participation in the innovation
decision by those who are involved in using the inno-
‘vation leads to more positive and secure adOption.

Lin and others (46) found that willingness to
accept change is positively correlated with the teacher's
level of participation in decision-making within the
SChool. This finding supports earlier studies of Lewis
Q44) and Pelz (62), both of whom contend that group
decision is important in effecting change in an indi-
Vidual. When the group makes a decision, each member

013 the group feels more deeply involved than if he had

58

made the decision by himself or if he had the decision
imposed on him. The process of group decision seems to
be a factor which helps overcome individual resistance
to change (14, 73). The Maier and Hoffman (51) study
offers evidence that a sense of shared participation in
the solution of problems directly affecting group members
is a more meaningful method of motivating change than
offering external incentives. In educational systems
where it may be difficult to offer financial and other
extra benefits, faculty discussion and participation in
decision-making may be the most efficient and effective
way of ensuring acceptance of change. Once a group has
arrived at a decision to act, the members, even though
they may act as individuals, accept the group decision
and act in accordance with it (42). The "participation
principle," initially proposed for industrial management
(45) is also valid for educational systems. If indi-
viduals feel they have been influential in securing
adoPtion of an innovation, they will make a greater
effort to see that the innovation Operates successfully.
In effect, the decision audience and the adoption
audience are so closely allied that they share, to some
extent, the same identity.
The Lewin (43), Coch and French (14), and other

Studies concerning decision-making in small groups indi—

cate that individuals become more committed to an

59

innovation, and carry out a more careful adoption of

the innovation, if they feel they, rather than the
authority structure, have made the decision. It follows
that faculty involvement in innovative decisions

ensures greater acceptance of decisions, a more posi-
tive attitude toward adoption, and a greater effort in
implementing adoption.

The most recent research consulted for this
present study was Havelock's (28) study of Highway
Safety Researchers and Decision—Makers. As mentioned
briefly in Chapter I, Havelock attempted to go beyond
the general term "participation" and operationalize
various decision-making styles within an organization.
It was his objective to uncover deficiencies in the
highway safety decision-making process. On the whole,
he was unsuccessful. Respondents most favored the
"opinion balance" style and rejected the notion that
decision-making was dominated by single individuals or
that it worked as a routine administrative process. A
large majority also rejected the notion that it was a
power struggle (28, p. 85).

Regardless of these specific findings, the
approach of decision-making styles in relationship to
‘attitudes toward an innovation is a useful and reasonable
approach. Social change is facilitated by an egalitarian
approach. Argyris summarized the potential benefits of

Such an approach when he stated:

60

Participation is desired (from those affected by
the change) in order to (1) decrease resistance
to change, (2) develop the most effective pro-
cesses for a lasting change within the organi-
zation, and (3) represent more adequately the
needs of the participants involved in the change.
(2, pp. 91-93)

In summary, the general point of this discussion
on organizational change is that the properties of the
target system in existence prior to the introduction of
an innovation operate to reject, modify, accept, and
maintain the innovation. The change process will thus
move at varying rates in different social systems,

dependent upon the nature and extent of such system

effects.

Social System

 

Most diffusion research has concentrated on the
individual as the adopting unit almost to the exclusion
of studying the social system as the adoption unit. The
central theme of this study, however, is that adoption
«decision-making in complex organizations must differ in
some important ways from individual adoption decision-
making. As Havelock stated:

If we focus our concern on what goes on inside

the receiver, we are going to find many barriers
to effective utilization, but we should not forget
that the individual consumer of knowledge does

not live in a world of his own. On the contrary,
he is served by a social system, a vast network

of individuals and groups, which inhibits, filters,
and facilitates the flow of knowledge to him.

(29, p. 47)

61

In the previous section specific facilitators
or system effects were discussed. In this final section,
the emphasis will be upon some actual research exploring
the social system as a unit of study. Such research
is limited, but several studies have provided the
theoretical base for this study.

The central research exploring internalization
was Lin's (46) study. The setting for his study was
three Michigan high schools which had adopted a schedule
modification throughout all their schools. It was
Lin's basic assumption that the adoption model was not
applicable in formal organizations where compliance
behavior would indicate adoption, but fail to represent
actual teacher attitudes toward the innovation. To
remedy the inadequacy of this model, a new paradigm of
innovation dissemination and diffusion was presented.

It consisted of five components: (1) the source of
information, (2) the dissemination or diffusion process,
(3) the receiver of information, (4) the impact of
dissemination and adoption, and (5) the control system.
On the receiver system, three elements were specified
and internalization was singled out as the major focus
it: the study.

Before examining the results of this study in
<fletail, however, two differences in this present study

and that of Lin's deserve attention. First of all, the

62

decision to adopt the innovation (schedule modification)
was not an optional decision on the part of the high
school teachers. The innovation was adopted by the
administration with compliance required of all teachers.
In this study, however, the engineering faculty will
adopt on an individual and voluntary basis. This aspect
of the research setting makes the concept of internali-
zation particularly meaningful to those who must imple-
ment the program.

A second difference between the studies is that
Lin studied an innovation already adopted by the organi-
zation. While adoption might only have been an index
of compliance, there is the concern that an individual's
perceptions of an innovation are likely to change after
he adopts it. This positive relationship between per-
ceptions and rate of adoption may partly be an artifact
of the tendency for individuals who have adOpted an
innovation to rationalize their decision in terms of
relatively positive perceptions. In this study, the
concept of internalization will be examined prior to
adoption and free from actual experience with the inno-
‘vation itself. In this regard, internalization is
Gncamined as a predictor rather than as a consequence
Of adoption.

Based on Kelman's (39) concept of internali-

zation, Lin studied psychological distance, relevant new

63

information about the innovation, feedback, group norms,
feeling of security, information level, and participation
as independent variables related to internalization. The
results showed that in terms of the amount of contri-
bution in explaining the degree of internalization, the
order of the independent variables was: (1) partici-
pation, (2) information level, (3) relevant new infor-
mation about the innovation, and (4) group norms (46,

p. 62). While the other three independent variables were
in the predicted direction, the required level of sta-
tistical significance was not reached.

In addition to this major finding, Lin also
established the theoretical independence of internali-
zation as a concept. Since this variable was new and
only indirectly supported by the literature, a major
concern of his study was the viability of internalization
in diffusion research. As Lin concluded:

This study investigated a new dependent variable

in innovation diffusion in formal organizations;
namely, internalization. It appears that it is

a meaningful concept in the research context.

. . . There is no significant relationship found
between internalization and innovation awareness

or innovation adOption, which demonstrates the

need of isolating the concept along with the

other two "classical" variables in future dif-
fusion research in formal organizations. (46, p. 79)

In 1965, Davis used a case study method to examine
innovative and noninnovative liberal arts colleges. The

problems outlined by Davis were as follows: (1) What

personal variables characterize individuals in an

64

innovative college? (2) What features of the organi-
zational normative structure operate to promote inno-
vation? (3) What are the factors within the relationship
between the individuals and the organization which
account for the college's receptivity to educational
innovativeness?

Based upon his sample of one innovative and
one noninnovative liberal arts college, Davis (16, p. 114)
indicated there was reason to believe that the adoption
process for a collegiate institution is similar to other
research findings regarding noncollegiate institutions.

A college seems to go through the same "stages" of
adoption as reported by other diffusion researchers.

His findings also appeared to verify Mort's (55, p. 326)
observations that colleges, like other organizations, if
reluctant to adopt one innovation tend to be reluctant
to adOpt other innovations.

One of the findings most germane to this study
was the extent of faculty involvement in policy determi-
nation. Davis found that the innovative faculty partici—
pated to a greater degree in policy decisions than the
faculty at the noninnovative college. Statistical sig—
nificance was even greater when considering the dif-
ference in faculty involvement in the hiring and tenure

regarding faculty.

65

Finally, Davis (16, p. 118) concluded that when
attempting to effect innovation in a college, the par-
ticipation by the faculty in decision-making becomes an
important variable since faculty involvement enlists the
assistance and power of the formal and informal groups to
enforce the decisions to adopt an innovation. This find-
ing tends to support a similar theory as outlined by
Katz (37).

One other study relating to diffusion of inno-
vations in higher education was done by Sprunger (69).

He studied the effect administrative, organizational,
and/or personal-psychological characteristics had in
relation to innovativeness in student personnel programs.

The results of this study gave tentative support
to the theory that these variables are significant in
separating innovative from noninnovative programs.
Sprunger was unable, however, to determine which
variables were the most potent in identifying signifi-
cant differences between the two programs. As Sprunger
concluded:

Although there have been few innovation research
studies which have studied the social system as
the unit of adoption, the evidence available from
these studies has indicated that innovation is
not composed of a single variable or a small
number of related variables, but is far more com-
plex. The evidence from this study gave further
support to this premise and the concept that the
behavior of organizations and of the individuals

who make up those organizations forms a unified
whole. (69, p. 104)

..4 . 3UP; 'Iua .‘WF. "4fl

7! [LEE .. .
h . 'f It
.i TWP...—

66

While Sprunger was unable to identify individual
and independent variables related to innovativeness, he
supported Lin's (46) contention that the individual
adoption model was inadequate for social system research.
The complexity of a social system demands more precise
definitions, constructs, and identification of variables

(69, p. 105).

Summary
Since a paucity of literature existed investigat-
ing the institution as the adoption unit, a number of
theoretical aspects of organizational change have been
presented. It was emphasized that social change takes
place in the structure and function of a social system
and proceeds at different rates to either adoption or
rejection.
While such a process is not haphazard, social
change does involve alteration. As Rogers stated,
As evidence of change we must be able to observe
some modification, variation, or transformation
in the structure or function of the social system.
There must be some measureable and recognizable
difference in the system. (64, p. 27)
As new ideas and inventions arise within a social
system, their essence is communicated to its members
and an innovation-adoption decision is made. Such

decisions, however, are not made in isolation. There

are certain conditions that facilitate or deter such

67

adoption. Research draws attention not only to the
attributes of the innovation itself, but also to "system
effects" which act as filters in the diffusion process.
A number of these filters were examined and related to
this specific study.

And finally, a new model for studying diffusion
was introduced which emphasized the inadequacy of the
individual adoption model. The basic research was that
of Lin (46) and stressed "internalization" as a concept
independent of adoption. This concept was considered
especially relevant in studies of formal organizations
where compliance to authority was an inadequate index
of actual attitudes. The present study provides such

a research context.

CHAPTER III

DESIGN OF THE STUDY

Introduction

 

Statements concerning the purpose and objectives
of the study and a general overview of the plan to be
followed were presented in Chapter I. More detailed con-
sideration is given in this chapter to describing the
population to be studied, scale development and instru-
mentation, procedures employed in collecting the data,
and statistical techniques used in analyzing the collected

data.

Population

 

The population under study is the full-time
faculty in the College of Engineering at Michigan State
University. Not included in this group are the Dean
and the Assistant Dean of the College, the Dean of
Student Affairs and his staff, the Coordinator of Con-
tinuing Education for the College, and the Director of
the Division of Engineering Research.

Since the total number in the remaining population

is relatively small (N = 90), no sampling is involved.

68

69

Rather, the total population represents the unit of
study. One exception to this format is in regard to
the variable of department chairmen leadership styles.
For obvious reasons, the chairmen will not respond to
this one scale, thus reducing the total respondents
possible to eighty-three for this one area. While
there are some difficulties involved with this relatively
small population (see comments under limitations of the
study), this factor should minimize problems associated
with generalizations and eliminate any problems usually
involved with sampling.

The data were collected by means of a question-
naire (a c0py of which is included in Appendix F) with
the respondents remaining completely anonymous. This
approach was taken to assure the faculty that the
results would not be used by the administration of the
college for evaluation purposes and to increase the

likelihood of their response.

Limitations of the Study

 

This study is limited by the normal deficiencies
accompanying the use of any "self-report" instrument or
questionnaire. Concerns about the instrument itself
such as reliability, validity, and encouragement of
response bias are particularly pronounced, however,

in the absence of a standardized and previously tested

 

 

70

instrument. The comments in the following section on
instrumentation will acquaint the reader with this
author's efforts to minimize such limitations.

This limitation of a newly constructed instru—
ment is further accentuated by the size of the population.
While using the entire population as the unit of study
eliminates sampling difficulties, the size (N = 90) pro-
hibits extensive pretesting of the instrument itself.
Pretesting on a limited scale, however, is involved and
will be discussed later in this chapter.

Securing the cooperation of the respondents in
completing and returning the instrument is another
central concern of the researcher. This is especially
significant in this study, since the use of the entire
population eliminates the possibility of drawing addi-
tional samples, and the efforts to preserve anonymity
greatly reduce specific follow-up procedures. To reduce
this limitation the approval and reaction of the Dean
of the College and the Administrative Council of the
College were requested and granted. These individuals
were informed of the nature and purpose of the study and
were assured that no results would be used for personal
appraisal. Nevertheless, as Martin Tr6w warns, teachers
and administrators tend to be resentful and suspicious
of survey methods because of the "structured questions

about complicated issues, the forced choices among

71

limited alternatives, above all the sense that they are
being studied rather than consulted, through methods that
appear to them mechanical and stereotyped" (71, pp. 350-
51). These possible obstacles place high priority on
questionnaire construction, perceived relevancy and
importance of the issue being examined, and the nature

of the contacts with the respondents, both initially

and with appropriate follow—up procedures.

Instrumentation

 

In attempting to control and minimize the effects
of the limitations mentioned above, heavy emphasis was
placed on the development and construction of the eight
scales. The greatest emphasis was placed on identifying
previously constructed and validated scales used in com-
parable research, extensive discussions with representa-
tives of the population being studied, assistance from
authorities in the field of questionnaire design and
survey research, and a pretest of seven randomly selected
members of the faculty. The following descriptions of

each scale relate the results of these efforts.

Internalization

 

As stated earlier, the concept of internalization
is defined as the extent to which a member perceives the
innovation or change as relevant and valuable to his

role performance in the organization.

72

The concept of internalization was developed by
Kelman (39) and studied in laboratory situations where
the antecedents of social influence were manipulated.
Since the present study is not in the laboratory con-
trolled research format, another example of work with
this concept was sought. The most relevant study in
this regard was Lin's (46) conducted among high school
personnel.

In assessing the internalization of an innovation
(schedule modification) Lin sought responses to four
statements: (1) "Schedule modification could constitute
an improvement in educational practices in apy_school,"
(2) "I think schedule modification represents an improve-
ment in educational practices at my school," (3) "I
think schedule modification is unnecessary in our edu-
cational system," and (4) "To me, schedule modification
is one of the worst things to come into our educational
system" (46, pp. 90-91).

In evaluating the relevance (both empirical
and theoretical) of the concept internalization, Lin
found that internalization was significantly correlated
with twenty-two other variables which did not include
innovation awareness or adoption behavior. He further
concluded that since the particular innovation investi-
gated affected the complete teaching staff of a school,

the adoptive index should have no variability. It was

73

precisely this unique institutional factor which made
the variable, innovation internalization, significant
and meaningful (46, pp. 74-75).

In terms of theoretical support, Lin cited
Homans' concepts of sentiment, interaction, and activity
in the human group (34). In his study, Lin claimed that
innovation internalization was the scale to assess the
sentiment given to a particular innovation. In this
same regard, he drew on Parsons' (61) concepts of ideas,
desires, and values. The cognitive term "idea" was
translated in diffusion terminology as innovation aware-
ness of knowledge, while desires and values were classi—
fied as affective in nature. In diffusion terms, these
were seen to parallel interest and internalization.
While Lin recognized the problem of empirical proof for
mutual exclusiveness of the two concepts, he concluded
that internalization was closely related to the affective
phenomenon theorized by Kelman (46, p. 75).

And, finally, Lin found no significant inter-
action effects among certain psychological, personality,
communication behavioral, and informational variables
upon innovation internalization. This, coupled with the
above findings, led this researcher to conclude that
innovation internalization was a meaningful concept in

the research context.

74

In developing the instrument for use in this
study, Lin‘s design for measuring internalization was
used as the basis for four of the six individual items.
As mentioned previously, however, this study deals with
perceptions prior to ad0ption, and with a situation where
the decision to actually adopt rests with the individual
faculty member.

In this regard, the writer attempted to develop
a scale of six items which would reflect internalization
in relationship to the prOposed curriculum innovation.
Specifically, the areas developed were: (1) engineering
education, (2) the actual decision to implement, and
(3) personal involvement in the implementation phase.

A general and a specific question were designed to
measure these levels of internalization.

In selecting the appropriate scaling technique
to measure the dependent variable of internalization,
two alternatives were considered. One of these was
Guttman's Scalogram which is

. . . based on the assumption that a single, unidimen-
sional trait can be measured by a set of statements
which are ordered along a continuum of "difficulty
of acceptance." That is, the statements range from
those which are easy for most peOple to accept to
those which few persons would endorse. Such

scale items are cumulative, since the acceptance

of one item implies that the person accepts all
those of lesser magnitude (those less difficult to
accept). To the extent that this is true, one can
predict a person's attitude towards other state-

ments on the basis of knowing the most difficult
item he will accept. (77, p. 126)

75

In developing the items for measuring the depen-
dent variable, a similar logic was used. That is, items
reflecting varying degrees of internalization were con-
structed with the most general item being placed first
and the most specific item second in each of the three
areas. The mere logic of such an item format, however,
is not sufficient to claim that a Guttman Scalogram is
in existence. The demand-criteria of unidimensionality
and reproducibility in the Guttman approach require
rigid pretesting and often result in a high mortality
rate for trial items. Furthermore, the limitation of
an initially small population, in this instance, pre-
cludes the extensive pretesting required. And, finally
the purpose of this study is not to examine the uni—
dimensionality of the attitude nor to construct a
standardized instrument for future use; rather it is
simply to establish a relatively reliable index of the
dependent variable.

In view of these limitations a second alterna-
tive was reviewed and selected for use in this study.
The scale involved is Likert's Method of Summated ratings
which consists of a series of opinion statements about
some issue. A person's attitude is measured by asking
him to indicate the extent of his agreement or disagree-
ment with each item. Hence, an item score of "l" indi—

cates a positive response, "2" a positive-neutral

76

response, "3" a neutral response, "4" a negative-neutral
response, and "5" a negative response. A person's atti-
tude score is simply the sum of his individual ratings.
In using this technique, one limitation should
be noted. Likert does not assume equal intervals
between scale values. For example, it is quite possible
that the difference between "agree" and "strongly agree"
is much larger than the difference between "agree" and
"undecided." This means a Likert scale can provide
information on the ordering of people's attitudes on
a continuum, but it is unable to indicate how close or
far apart different attitudes might be (77, p. 126).

Relative Advantage and Com-
patibility

 

 

In developing the scales for measuring per-
ceptions of the relative advantage and compatibility
of the innovation, the writer took advantage of the
experiences of those who initiated the innovation.
Since November of 1969, four faculty members and one
administrator in the College of Engineering worked on
the design of the Bachelor of Arts program. And, during
these deliberations they held meetings with each of the
seven departments in the College to inform faculty and
solicit their reactions to such a program.

The twenty items (ten for each of the two

variables) were developed as a result of conversations

77

held with these five individuals. In their view, these
twenty items clearly represent the issues raised by the
faculty and should thus guarantee a high content validity
for the two scales.

The statements contained in these scales are
designed to facilitate comparing opinions regarding
faculty perceptions of the relative advantage and com-
patibility of the innovation. And, for the purpose of
scoring and analysis, the Likert technique was again
used. The numerical scoring values assigned to rela-
tively favorable statements ranges from 1 for a "Strongly
Agree" response through 5 for a "Strongly Disagree"
response, with the scoring values being reversed for
relatively unfavorable statements. The lower total
scores and group means will thus represent greater
agreement with the relatively favorable expressions and
disagreement with the unfavorable statements. Possible
response-set bias was thought to be reduced by generating
both favorable and unfavorable statements within the
two scales, and by randomly listing all of the items

in the scale set.

Leadership Styles

 

In developing the department chairman leadership
scale, two major sources were used as references. In
1948, Nelson (59) developed the original Leadership

Inventory consisting of twenty-five situational

 

78

descriptions representing salient problems common to
supervisory personnel. For each situation there were
four alternatives indicative of behavior or attitudes
consistent with four ideal styles or patterns of leader-
ship. Nelson presented evidence for the logical validity
of the alternatives and the consistency of the four
leadership patterns which they reflect: Bureaucratic-
regulative (A), Autocratic-directive (B), Idiocratic-
manipulative (C), and Democratic-integrative(D).

The definitions of the four leadership concepts

of the Leadership Inventory are summarized on the follow-

 

ing page. The evidence from prior research by Nelson

supports the assumption that the Leadership Inventory

 

meaningfully differentiates differences in the social
climate of work groups to the extent that this concept
is reflected in the leadership style of the supervisor.
In a 1958 study, Trumbo (72) built upon Nelson's
work with several significant changes. Where Nelson had
presented each of twenty-five situations twice with
"A-D" and "B-C" pairs of alternatives, Trumbo combined
the alternatives into twenty-five four-choice items,
reducing the total number of items and responses by
one—half.
In addition to this technical alteration,
Trumbo also attempted to develop a second index of the

leadership climate, but this time from the employees'

79

DEFINITIONS OF FOUR LEADERSHIP PATTERNSl

The Bureaucratic-Regulative Concept. This department
chairman emphaSizes formaIIorganization and believes
he should depend upon top management for guidance

and support. His job is to be a loyal representa-
tive of management policy and to carry out rules

and regulations as directly and completely as possible.
Toward this end he would avoid personal relationships
with his faculty that may weaken his official status
or make him less objective and impartial in assign-
ing, directing, rating and promoting faculty.

The Autocratic-Directive Concept. This department
chairman emphasizes technical organization and
believes he should depend upon his own professional
knowledge and personal capacity. His job is to get
the work out and it is his responsibility to modify,
improve, and reinterpret tOp management programs so
that they will fit his needs. He is less concerned
with official status than personal status and tries

to make himself felt and respected by the faculty
through his practical knowledge and ability to give
faculty Specific directions on their own assignments.
The Idiocratic-Manipulative Concept. This department
chairman emphasizes personal organization and believes
he should depend upon his knowledge of individual psy-
chology to get the most from every faculty. His job
is to administer regulations in a flexible manner
adapted to the individual needs of the faculty and

at the same time to stimulate, guide, and develop

all faculty to carry out these assignments to the

best of their ability. Toward this end he would
maintain a friendly personal relationship with each
faculty member to study his individual interests,
needs, and abilities through which he may be con-
trolled and developed.

The Democratic-Integrative Concept. This department
chairman emphasizes informal organization and believes
he should depend upon his ability to organize the
faculty into a cooperative team whose codes, standards,
and goals will guide individual faculty. His job is
to keep the group informed of their official rights
and duties and help them to develop their individual
abilities and interests into an effective human
organization through which the work is done. Toward
this end he maintains an informal two-way relationship
with faculty, giving information and soliciting and
respecting their Opinions about the work situation.

 

 

 

H.R.I. HUMAN RELATIONS--INDEX. This is a combined

 

score based on the frequency of all choices that

 

1Adapted from Nelson and Trumbo.

80

indicate more personal contact or interaction with
the employees. Specifically the choice of Idiocratic
(C) and Democratic (D) statements over Bureaucratic
(A) and Autocratic (B) statements provide a measure
of the general tendency toward a human relations
point of view.

perspective. The rationale for this index was relatively
straightforward. His goal was to construct an instrument

which was the logical equivalent of the Leadership

Inventory, but designed to obtain an evaluation of the

 

supervisors from the nonsupervisory employees.

Although in some instances the construction of
this second index by Trumbo involved little more than
a change from first to third person in the wording of
Nelson's items, this was not generally the case. In
some instances, items were deleted which were not felt
to be relevant for the employees. In other cases, the
essence of the item was kept, but it was simplified to
reduce reading difficulty level. Finally, some com-
pletely new items were constructed which seemed to be
indicative of the same leadership styles, but which pre-
sented more salient problems to the nonsupervisory
employees (72, pp. 62-63).

In this present study, this letter index is used
to assess department chairman leadership style as per-
ceived by their reSpective faculty.) With the exception
of one item which appeared irrelevant and was deleted,

the essence of the other nineteen items developed by

81

Trumbo is preserved. The alterations were in wording and
terminology, substituting department chairman for super-
visor and faculty for employee. Other similar changes
consist of inserting salary for pay, instructions for
orders, and college for company. It was felt that these
changes, while necessary, were insignificant and would
not require pretesting for logical validity and con-
sistency.

While no objective behavioral criterion is
available whereby the empirical validity of the per-
ceptions of supervisor items can be determined, evidence
was presented by Trumbo as to the construct validity of
the items.

The approach used in his analysis was identical

with that used by Nelson with the Leadership Inventory.

 

The consensus of judges, who are "experts" in the sense
of being professional social scientists, served to
suggest the degree of consistency and patterning among
the item alternatives.

Two groups of judges were used in Trumbo's
research. The first group of five judges had the benefit
of definitions of the four leadership styles, while the
second group of five judges did not. Each group was
asked to sort the alternatives into four groups to
represent a consistent pattern of leadership behavior.
The results of these judgments are summarized on the

following page (Table 3-1).

82

TABLE 3-l.--Summary of results of sortings by judges with
and without definitions of leadership categoriesa

 

 

Alternatives 5 Judges with 5 Judges without
Scored Definitions Placed: Definitions Placed:
AS ' A B C D A B C D
Bureaucratic
(A) 25 5 0 0 88 9 l 2
Autocratic
(B) 5 82 4 2 6 11 19 l
Idiocratic
(C) 0 4 82. 7 6 15 12_ 10
Democratic
(D) 0 2 7 21_ 0 2 ll 81_
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

% Correct
Placement 95 89 89 91 88 74 70 87

 

aAs reported by Trumbo (72, p. 75).

As Trumbo concluded,

It is evident that the judges with definitions were
highly consistent in their sorting of the alterna-
tives and agree well with the categories as they
were scored in the four subscales. Furthermore, it
should be noted that, except for the two reversals
between B and D, all of the errors were reversals
between adjacent categories. The fact that four
reversals occur between B and C and two between B
and D, while none occurred between A and C or A and
D, suggest the A-B-C-D order on an overall scale.
(72, p. 75)

The data for judges without definitions followed
the same pattern as that for the informed judges, but
the percentages of agreement are uniformly lower. This
fact is important, since it indicates that, while the

naive judge who is given a definite set to find four

83

consistent patterns in the item alternatives is able to
do so with fairly high agreement, the items were not so
transparent that the population for whom they were

designed would readily identify the patterns.

Job Satisfaction

Another scale included in the questionnaire is
designed to assess directly the attitudes of the faculty
toward fourteen specific aspects of their job. It was
not assumed that these factors were necessarily the most
important, either theoretically or empirically, for the
faculty member's overall satisfaction with his work.
The items were selected, however, to sample attitudes
toward a number of different facets of the work environ—
ment, including: The work itself, the college, job
communications, supervision, salary, and social relations.
The rationale for the items is presented in Table 3-2.
‘The items will be checked on a five-choice scale with
'the following alternatives:1 (1) completely satisfied,
(2) very satisfied, (3) quite satisfied, (4) somewhat

satisfied, and (5) not satisfied.

1It will be noted that the alternatives are pre-
ciominately positive. The rationale for selecting these
falternatives, which provide finer discriminations at
1the positive pole, is based on the evidence that the
Inajority of employees indicate satisfaction with their
Ziobs, when asked the question directly.

84

TABLE 3-2.--Rationale for the twelve items included in
the job satisfaction check-list

 

Check-list Item:

 

Attitude Specific "How satisfied are ou
Object Aspects . n Y
With :
The job Qualitative job The level of performance
demands required of me on my
job
Responsibility The amount of responsi-
demands bility I have on my
job
Pacing demands The pace at which I
work on my job
The The college The college I work for
college
Communi- Quantity of infor— The amount of infor-
cations mation mation I get
Quality of infor- The accuracy of infor-
mation mation I get
Super- Interpersonal The kind of relation-
vision relationship ship I have with my
department chairman
or dean (if department
chairman)
Department chair- The way my department
man's performance chairman or dean (if
department chairman)
handles his job
Reward Salary The salary I get on my
job
<2hange Administration of The way changes are
change handled around here
ESocial Co-workers The people I work with
relations ( or near)

‘

85

These items are included for two purposes. Each
item provides a single-item index of attitudes toward a
specific aspect of the job.

Secondly, the items are designed to be combined
into an index of general job satisfaction. For this
purpose it is necessary to determine the internal con—
sistency of the items. Scores of "1" through "5" are
assigned to the five alternatives with the most positive
alternative as "l" and the negative alternative as "5."
Thus, it is assumed that low item or composite scores are
indicative of high satisfaction, and high scores of low
satisfaction, or dissatisfaction.

In developing.the items, Trumbo's study (72) was
again used as the major reference. Two of his items,
dealing with job security and number of employees super—
'vised, were excluded as inappropriate. The essence of
the remaining fourteen, however, was maintained with
(only minor changes in wording being made. These changes
‘were similar to those made in the Leadership Inventory
‘Nith college replaced by company, department chairman
(substituted for supervisor, and salary instead of pay.
JAgain, the assumption is that by adopting a previously
<3onstructed and tested instrument extensive pretesting

\Nould be unnecessary.

86

Decision-Making Styles

 

In developing the scales to measure the variable
of decision-making styles, the research of Havelock and
Markowitz (28) was used as the central reference. Through
personal visits, phone conversations, and reviewing this
research with Havelock, it was determined that the basic
format used with highway safety researchers and decision—
makers was relevant for studying the decision process in
higher education.

In approaching the question of "styles," Havelock
first tried to generate some brief descriptions that
would characterize styles or overall orientations to
decision-making. The research—based "informed" decision
type was the initial description developed, but social
theory and popular thinking about decisions suggested
other types, e.g., decisions controlled essentially by
the power and will of one individual (autocratic),
decisions based primarily on public opinion, decisions
based on a logical balance of trade-offs as in decision
theory (28, p. 78). After considerable pretesting and
rewriting, Havelock arrived at the eight descriptions of
decision types presented in Table 3-3.

In their research, Havelock and Markowitz (28)
asked the respondents to classify both decisions in
general and a specific decision made during the previous

year according to these styles. This study differs only

87

TABLE 3-3.--Descriptive definitions of eight decision

stylesa

 

Decision Style

Item Description

 

Opinion Balance

Rational Steps

Concensus-Compromise

Informal Influence

Research Based

Power Struggle

.Autocratic

Bureaucratic

We weigh the evidence objectively,
but research is only one source;
public opinion and what the public
and industry will accept are
equally important factors.

We start with a clear definition of
the problem, establish priorities
and concrete objectives, plan and
execute a step-by-step procedure
for reaching these objectives.

We move by consensus; everybody
has a chance to be heard, and we
compromise on points of disagree-
ment.

It is a matter of informal
influence. Personal relationships
and the persuasion of certain key
influentials play the biggest role
in decisions.

We weigh the evidence objectively;
research information plays the
biggest role in decisions.

It is a power struggle; the people
who have the most muscle (rank or
influence in the college) usually
win-out.

The top man makes the decision,
and the rest follow him; it is
strictly a chain of command.

It is a purely administrative
process; the rules are laid out
in advance, each man knows what
his role is supposed to be and
follows it routinely.

 

8As described by Havelock (29).

88

slightly from this format in that the respondents will not
have a choice of a specific decision. The decision of
specific interest in this study is the College Curriculum
Committee's decision to implement the Bachelor of Arts in
Engineering program. One other minor change relates to
the description of the "power struggle" style of decision-
making. The original description referred to "money,
legal staff, and lobbying power." These descriptive

terms were considered inappropriate for the context of
this study and were replaced by the words "rank" and

"influence" in the college.

Group Cohesiveness

 

As was mentioned earlier, group cohesiveness is
a social system variable most often studied in the
industrial context. In this study, it is assumed that
the faculty reference group is the academic department
and that identity with this unit represents a potential
Ibarrier to change. Perhaps the most noted advocate of
‘this position is Dressel (19) who views departments as
(rigid and isolated political blocs, which through decen—
tralization have eroded central authority for decision-
Raking and planning. They operate on a basis of vested
interest and scholarly specialization which by nature
resist and inhibit administrative leadership. Even those

who favor the departmental structure cite this unit as

89

the basic level of faculty interaction and identity.
Anderson (1) argues that the department provides an
effective status system and safeguard to outside pressure,
and establishes a locus of power to which faculty can
relate. It appears that, despite the fact that educators
differ in their support of the academic department,

there is agreement concerning the centrality and
importance of this unit as a primary group for faculty.

A second assumption involved with this variable
is that cohesiveness in the department is a source of
need satisfaction for the faculty, and that change may
be perceived as a threat to this source of need satis-
faction. This assumption leads to the hypothesis of an
inverse relationship between internalization and this
variable.

In attempting to measure this variable, the prior
research of Seashore (67), Trumbo (72), and Lin (46)
were all used. The actual scale was developed by Sea-
shore and adapted by the latter two researchers.

The form used in this study is patterned after
Lin's with only minor changes in wording being made.

Once again the Likert method of scaling will be used
‘with a composite score being calculated as an overall

measure of perceived group cohesiveness.

90

Formal Communications

 

Since the proposed program was initiated and
planned over a three-year period, the communications
process was an integral part of this development. This
is especially pertinent in this study which relates to
the diffusion and not the adoption process. The critical
difference here is that adoption usually refers to a
product, while diffusion studies are concerned with
how innovations spread.

While the literature on communications is
voluminous, one particular source served as the basis
for this scale. In 1961, Nangle (58) related the effec-
tiveness of communications in preparation for organi-
zational change in an insurance company. In this study,
it was reasoned that differential response to change and
readiness to accept changes in one's job were partially
influenced or conditioned by the degree to which one was
factually informed about the proposed change (58, p. 74).
The three basic assumptions underlying such a hypothesis
are: (1) being informed about a change can be thought
of as reflecting the act of self-preparation for the
change; (2) the way in which events are interpreted
when they occur is frequently determined by the way in
which the individual was prepared for the event; and (3)

the mechanism of perceptual defense operates in such a

91

fashion as to cause people to select information which
presents facts in harmony with the current views and
beliefs of the individual.

In applying such assumptions to the development
of a scale, it must again be emphasized that the indi-
vidual respondents are being asked their perceptions of
the formal communications process. Such a self-report
technique may or may not reflect the actual communications
process.

In developing the actual scale, Nangle's research
was used as a model. Some minor changes in wording were
made in order to reflect the change in the research con~
text. The intent of the scale in measuring the formal

communication process, however, was the same.

Pilot Study

 

Since most of the scales were either newly
developed or adapted from previous research, it was
considered necessary to conduct a pretest to study and
strengthen the reliability of the scales. The format
for this segment of the study followed three distinct
phases.

The initial phase consisted of a series of
personal interviews with the five-member ad hoc committee
that designed the proposed curriculum. The focus of
these sessions was on the refinement of the relative

advantage and compatibility scales. Through their

92

individual contacts with faculty at the department level,
they were able to compare the items with their perceptions
of the key issues. These comments were especially helpful
in establishing the content validity of these two scales.

The second phase involved the actual responses
of seven faculty in the college who were selected at
random and represented each department. Each individual
completed the instrument and participated in a personal
interview concerning the study. A system of random
probing was used to assist in revising certain items.

Each individual was asked why he responded in a certain
fashion to assure that he was responding to the intended
nature of the question. Each session lasted approximately
one hour and concentrated on the content validity of the
scales.

The third phase of the pretest involved a com-
puter analysis of these seven completed questionnaires.
Since the data collected in the study were qualitative,
consisting of ratings, attitudes, and likes and dislikes,
it was desirable to quantity such data. The Method of
Reciprocal Averages (RAVE) was used for this purpose.

The mathematical basis for this technique is given in
Torgenson (70, pp. 338-45) under the heading of principal
components scaling. The procedure employs the a_priori
set of item response weights assigned and transposes

them to a weighting scheme which maximizes the internal

93

consistency of the instrument. The method assumes that
a single variable underlies all items in each scale of
the instrument and that the investigator knows to some
degree which item responses are related to the under-
lying variable. According to Mosier, the weighting
scheme produced has the following properties:

1. The reliability of each item and the internal
consistency of the weighted inventory are
maximized.

2. The correlation between item and total score
is maximized.

3. The coefficient of variation is maximized.

4. The correlation between item and total score is
proportional to the standard deviation of the
item weights for that item.

5. Questions which bear no relation to the total
score variable are automatically weighted so
that they exert no effect on the scoring.

(57, pp. 35-39)

This pattern of weighting was helpful in two
respects. First of all, an item which had no relation
to the objectives of the questionnaire received equal
weights for all its responses and could thus be identified
for elimination or revision. Secondly, items whose
responses differentiated between high and low scoring
subjects received weights having a large range of values.
This range is proportional to the degree of discrimination
of the item responses, and also facilitated the elimi-
nation or revision of items. Items with responses spread

across only two scale values were identified as con-

‘tributing little to the scale and were eliminated. The

94

corrected reliability of all scales and the uncorrected
(unweighted) reliability of each scale are shown on

Table 3-4.

TABLE 3-4.--Hoyt internal consistency reliability coef-
ficients on pretest

 

Scale Coefficient
Total instrumenta 0.9774
Internalizationb 0.9378
Group Cohesivenessc 0.7259
Relative advantageC 0.6792
Compatibilityc 0.5805
Leadership stylesC 0.8687
Job satisfactionC 0.9240

 

aMaximum reliability after weighting
bDependent variable

CIndependent variables

Collection of the Data

The data used in this study were collected in
four stages. On April 26, 1972, a copy of the instru-
ment, along with a cover letter explaining the purposes
of the study and instructions for returning the completed
questionnaire (see Appendix F), was delivered to each
respondent's mailbox in his departmental office. One
week later, a second letter (see Appendix D), accompanied
by another copy of the instrument, was again delivered

to each respondent's department. And, again after one

95

week, a third letter (see Appendix E) was sent to the non-
respondents. Finally, during the week of May 15, 1972, a
telephone follow-up was conducted to determine those who,
for whatever reasons, would not respond. Table 3-5 pro-
vides information on the collected and uncollected
instruments.

As can be seen from this table, slightly better
than 83 per cent of the possible respondents returned
completed and usable questionnaires. Forty—seven usable
returns were received previous to the follow—up letter
and questionnaire being distributed. Of the remaining
forty-three, eleven (12.2%) returned completed and usable
instruments in response to the initial follow-up. Six
of the other thirty-two possible participants (6.7%)
returned completed and usable forms after the second
follow-up. Two additional returns were dismissed as
unusable: one because only two of the scales were com-
pleted; another because almost every response was in the
undecided or neutral categories. Either the individual
did not feel qualified to respond or he deliberately
responded in this fashion.

Of the remaining twenty-four, 11 (12.2%) responded
to the third follow-up.

This final input brought the total of usable
responses to seventy-five (83.3%) and marked the com-

pletion of the data collection phase of the study. Two

96

TABLE 3-5.--Summary of participating and nonparticipating

 

 

subjects
Total % of Total

Early returns (before lst

follow-up) 47 52.2
Return after lst follow-up 11 12.2
Return after 2nd follow-up 6 6.7
Return after 3rd follow-up 11 12.2
Total usable returns 75 83.3
Unusable returns 2 2.2
No response 13 14.4
Total nonparticipants 15 16.6
Total population 90 100.0
Nonparticipants 15 16.6

Total N in analysis 75 83.3

 

97

more questionnaires were returned subsequent to the
treatment of the data, but were not included in the

study.

Treatment of the Data

 

As was stated in Chapter I, the need and purpose
of this study are bound together in an effort to relate
existing theory to a Specific innovation diffusion
process and to aid those who will implement the new
curriculum. The treatment of the data is an attempt
to facilitate this dual purpose.

In terms of the specific hypotheses outlined in
Chapter I, a multiple regression analysis was employed.
That is, the analysis will determine how much of the
variation in one variable (the dependent variable) above
the variation which may be accounted for by its mean,
may be accounted for by a group of other variables
(called the independent variables). The multiple cor-
relation coefficient (R) or the square of the multiple
correlation coefficient (R2) may be used as such a
measure. R2 may be defined as the prOportion of the
sum of the squared deviations from the mean of the
dependent variable accounted for by the independent
variables. The least squares nature of R2 comes from
leaving as little variation unexplained as possible.

In applying this statistical technique, no

assumptions regarding the dependent variable and the

98

group of independent variables are needed to estimate

R2 if R2 is estimated by least squares; that is, if R

2
is merely regarded as a proportion. However, in order
to infer to an underlying population R or R2, it is
necessary to make assumptions regarding the distribution
of the dependent and independent variables. For the
treatment of these data it is assumed that the indepen-
dent variables are fixed variables and that the dependent
variable is a normally distributed random variable with
(1) mean based on the value of the independent variables
for each observation, (2) constant variance over all
observations, and (3) independence between observations.
In addition to examining simple correlations
between the dependent and each independent variable,
the analysis will also explore multiple correlations.
It is of interest in this study to compare the amount
of overall variation with respect to the dependent
variable that can be explained by the extrinsic variables
of the innovation (relative advantage and compatibility)
with that of the organizational variables (group cohesive-
ness, job satisfaction, and leadership styles). While
no hypotheses were established in this regard, such
exploration is important in studying the value of
organizational variables in diffusion research.
While such treatment of the data is central to

the personal concerns of the writer, additional analysis

99

is warranted for those in the college who will bear the
responsibility for implementing this specific innovation.
In this regard, a more descriptive analysis in terms of
frequency distributions, means, and standard deviations
will be performed. Such information will enable the
administrators of the program to assess the level of
interest in the program and some of the prevailing
attitudes and perceptions about it. Specifically, this
analysis will apply to the following scales: (1) internal-
ization, (2) relative advantage, (3) compatibility,

(4) internal communications, and (5) decision styles

with respect to the new curriculum.

Summary

A brief description of the population partici—
pating in this study was presented in this chapter.
Procedures used in the scale develOpment and final
design of the instrument, the pretest phase, and col-
lecting the data were also described. Finally, the
methods employed in statistically analyzing the data

were identified and discussed.

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS OF DATA

Introduction

 

As outlined in the previous chapter, the analysis
of data has three specific purposes: (1) to test hypothe—
ses in terms of simple correlations, (2) to explain the
variance in the dependent variable in components due to
the effects of various independent variables, and (3) to
present descriptive information pertinent to the expla-
nations of the hypotheses.

The basic statistical technique employed to
accomplish these purposes was the multiple correlation
analysis using the "least squares delete" format. The.
goal of this approach was to predict a maximum of variance
in the dependent variable, internalization. Since only
one study actually explored this variable, the success
of this approach is not confirmed. Rogers (63), however,
summarized multiple correlation studies with innovative-
ness as the dependent variable. Table 4-1 represents
a summary of thirty-six such studies. While the per-

centage of explained variance has increased over the

100

101

TABLE 4-l.--Summary of multiple correlation analyses of innovativenessa

 

Percentage of

Variance in Number Of

 

Investigator Respondents Innovativeness Isgsgzgizgt
EXPlalned Utilized
(8)
1 C09? (1956) Kansas farmers 50.0 5
2 Fleigel (1956) Wisconsin farmers 32.0 6
3 Copp (1958) Wisconsin farmers 52.0 4
4 Rogers (1957a) Iowa farmers 17.0 5
5 Armstrong (1959) Kentucky farmers 42.1 3
6 Ramsey and others
(1959) New York dairy farmers 9.6 4
7 Hobbs (1960) Iowa farmers 29.7 7
8 Sizer and Porter
(1960) West Virginia farmers 25.9 4
9 Straus (1960) Wisconsin farmers 33.6 3
10 Kimball (1960) Michigan farm families 25.0 6
ll McMillion (1960) Large farmers in New
Zealand 39.9 5
12 Rogers and Havens
(1961b) Ohio farmers 56.4 5
13 Flinn (1961) Truck growers in 7 Ohio
communities 56.6 4
14 Cohen (1962) New Jersey families 54.8 3
15 Rogers and Havens
(1962a) Ohio farmers 64.1 5
16 Deutschmann and Fals
Borda (1962b) Colombian farmers 56.3 8
(and 68.9 when
using 27 var-
iables)
17 Junghare (1962) Farmers in India 23.8 7
18 Madigan (1962a) Heads of households
and other males in
the Philippines 17.1 3
19 Neill (1963) Ohio farmers 40.5 6
20 Havens (1963a) Colombian farmers 47.3 3
21 Flinn (1963) Truck growers in Ohio 64.1 5
22 Jain (1965) Farmers in Canada 50.3 7
23 Haring (1965) Wisconsin farmers 50.2 34
24 Andrus (1965) U.S. consumers 41.0 21
25 Rogers (1966a) Colombian farmers in From 24.1 to
five communities 39.0 6
26 Morgan and others
(1966) U.S. household heads 16.0
27 Beal and Sibley
(1966) Guatemalan Indian
farmers 78.0 51
(42.0 when
using 6 var-
iables)
28 Moulik and others
(1966) Farmers in India 81.0 4
29 Whittenbarger and
Maffel (1966) Colombian farmers 44.4 5
30 Ramos (1966a) Colombian farmers 12.9 9
31 Singh (1966b) Indian farmers 63.5 6
32 Wish (1967) Retail food stores in
Puerto Rico 87.5 35
33 Chattopadhyay and
Pareek (1967) Indian peasants 59.0 3
34 Herzog and others
(1968a) Brazilian peasants 43.0 13
35 Roy and others
(1968) Indian farmers 50.0 15
36 Ascroft and others
(1969) Nigerian peasants 42.0 13

 

a
Source:

Rogers and Shoemaker, 1971, p.

193.

102

years, most attempts have achieved only average results.
Also apparent from this summary is the total absence of
any educational research employing this statistical
technique.

Nevertheless, one distinct advantage of this
approach is that it discloses the degree to which each
independent variable is related to internalization, while
controlling the effects of all other independent variables.
This yields an indicant of the novel contribution of each
independent variable in explaining internalization.
Multiple correlation methods also assist in untangling
the complex webs of interrelationships among the indepen-
dent variables as they relate to internalization (63,

p. 192). Sprunger (69) also supported this View in his
analysis where such interrelationships made it impossible
to determine the potency of any one specific independent

variable.

Hypotheses Testing

 

Subsequent to the review of the literature and
the pretest phase of the study, six statistical hypotheses
were stated. The purpose of these hypotheses was to
explore the specific relationships between the concept
of internalization and the variables of relative
advantage, compatibility, job satisfaction, leadership
styles of department chairmen, group cohesiveness, and

internal communications.

103

The following restatements of these hypotheses
and the findings will constitute the initial phase of

this analysis.

Hypothesis 1:

 

The greater the degree of relative advantage of the
innovation, as perceived by the faculty member, the
more likely he is to internally accept the inno-
vation.

Hypothesis 2:

 

The greater the degree of compatibility of the inno-
vation with faculty values, as perceived by the
faculty member, the more likely he is to internally
accept the innovation.

Hypothesis 3:

 

The greater the degree of job satisfaction, as
reported by the faculty member, the more likely he
is to internally accept the innovation.

Hypothesis 4:

 

The greater the degree of group cohesiveness, as per-
ceived by the faculty member, the less likely he is
to internally accept the innovation.

Hyppthesis 5:

 

The greater the level of formal communications con-
cerning the innovation, as perceived by faculty,
the more likely he is to internally accept the
innovation.

Hypothesis 6:

 

Faculty who score their department chairman high on
the Human Relations Scale will internalize the cur-
riculum innovation to a greater degree than faculty
who score their chairman low on this scale.

104

The correlation matrix presented in Table 4-2
indicates the relationship of each of the seven variables
to all variables. A correlation coefficient of 0.2245 is
significantly different from zero at the 5 per cent level
of confidence (17, table of significant values, p. 306).

The first column of this table indicates that the
hypotheses concerned with the relationships between the
independent variables of relative advantage, compatibility
and formal communications, and the dependent variable of
internalization were all confirmed. In terms of relative
advantage, the correlation coefficient of 0.82 was
clearly dominant. The effects of this variable in the
regression equation are also pronounced.

This high correlation between internalization and
relative advantage supports the assumption that the
actual characteristics of an innovation are of little
importance when compared with the individual's per-
ceptions of the same. The engineering faculty had
definite opinions concerning the potential impact of
the new curriculum, which relate directly to their atti-
tudes toward the program. The areas creating the
greatest concern were those related to the negative
effects of the new curriculum on the status of the
standard engineering program in the eyes of other uni-
versities and employers. Sixty per cent of the respon-

dents, for instance, felt that students in the standard

105

.AOHQMHHm> Dampsmmmav coanmuflnu

Q

.mosmpwmcoo mo Hm>ma

ucmo Hod m may um onmu Eoum ucmnmwwflp manageamacmwm ucmHOHmmmoo coflumamuuoo «m

 

 

ooo.s HkH.o mmmm.o Hmo.o Hao.o- asms.o moo.o aoauommmflumm non m . em
ooo.H aea.o- ammm.o mmam.o mmo.on anm~.o mcoflumoecsssoo Hmsuom m . mm
ooo.s mam.o Heo.o moo.o Hmo.o masum aenmumemmq s . em
ooo.a mana.o mNH.o mmmm.o spaaansumagoo m - mm
ooo.a Hmo.o amam.o mmmpcm>em m>flumamm m . mm
ooo.a mmo.os mmocm>ammnoo scone H . Hm
ooo.H QGOHDMNHHMGHODCH
u mm m u mm 4 u «m m n mm m n mm H u Hm o mammnuOQmm\mHnmaum>

 

pmpsaosw sownmuflno zufl3 xfluume coaumHmHnoo pmsflDEOUII.NIw mqmda

106

program would have their employment opportunities jeopard-
ized by the new and less sophisticated program, while

55 per cent felt that other universities would lower

their evaluation of the present engineering program. On
the positive side, 56 per cent saw the new program as a
means for increasing drastically reduced enrollments,

and 56 per cent felt that the new program was a necessary
response to societal needs in technology.

This high correlation between relative advantage
and internalization also supports the need to consider
variables other than economics when examining the concept
of relative advantage of innovations. While the impact
of the new program on college resources was examined,
the more intangible areas of academic prestige, quality
of education, and social responsibility were also perti-
nent concerns. In spite of the fact that the consequences
of effects of educational innovations are often difficult
to isolate or evaluate, faculty perceptions of such con-
sequences are nevertheless distinguishable.

The independent variable having the second
highest correlation with internalization was compati—
bility. In this study, the compatibility of the new
curriculum with faculty values and past experiences was
stressed. While the content validity of this variable
was high, however, it evidenced a high correlation with

the previously discussed variable of relative advantage.

107

This fact suggests that compatibility was not a com-
pletely independent variable. Its early deletion in

the regression equation will explain this factor more
thoroughly. Despite its lack of independence, however,
the response to Specific items of this variable made
several value perceptions quite clear. On the negative
side, 49 per cent of the faculty anticipated a reduction
in the strength of individual academic disciplines,

44 per cent anticipated lowering of teaching and academic
standards, and 45 per cent predicted an erosion of
departmental autonomy as a result of the new program.

On the positive side, 46 per cent anticipated additional
support for the value of teaching in the college, and

63 per cent predicted a new and valuable interaction
with students. Once again, while the actual consequences
of this program may not produce such results, the faculty
have distinct perceptions in this regard.

The third hypothesis supported was the positive
relationship between formal communications and internali-
zation. While this independent variable was the weakest
of the three obtaining statistical significance, it gave
support to the communications model in the diffusion
process. One example of this communications model is
the two-step flow theory (37) where the innovation is
communicated to some individual or representative of the

adoption unit and then to this unit's members for either

108

adoption or rejection. In this case, the department
chairmen were the initial recipients and the departmental
faculty the secondary receivers. As evidenced by the
responses to the specific question on discussion at the
departmental level, this linkage was indeed weak. Forty-
eight per cent of the faculty, for example, responded
that the new curriculum was either "not often" or "never"
discussed at their departmental level. It was also evi-
dent from this study that the communications output with
respect to this program was not increased. Sixty-eight
per cent of the faculty saw no change in the amount of
information received, while over 17 per cent felt they
received even less information than usual. And, finally,
of the information communicated about the program there
were still apparent difficulties. Over 45 per cent of
the faculty felt that they had received only "some of"

or "only a little bit of" the information available.

As was the case with compatibility, formal com-
munications also exhibited significant relationships with
the independent variable of relative advantage. A graphic
representation of these and all the relationships between
all variables is demonstrated by Figure 2.

As evidenced by the dotted lines marked (A-B-C),
the three variables (relative advantage, compatibility,
and formal communications) that correlated significantly

with the dependent variable also correlated significantly

 

 

 

 

.oo -82
Job I Relative
Satis- I Advan-

faction I tage
I
I
I
I
I
I
E 2:38
-. \J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

.24 .66
Formal Compati-
Communi- blllty

cation

 

 

.03 LD Style

---A, B, C, Indicate correlations significant at .05 level

with variables significantly correlated with
internalization.

+++D, E Indicate correlations significant at .05 level
with variables not significantly correlated
with-internalization.

Figure 2.--Graphic representation of relationships
between all variables.

110

and positively with each other. The critical relationship
(0.78) is that between relative advantage and compati-
bility. While the nature of the questions would suggest
such a relationship, this fact does not reduce the need
to design variables with greater independence and con-
struct validity.

One other set of relationships portrayed by
Figure 2 relates to the independent variables of job
satisfaction, group cohesiveness, and department chair-
man leadership styles. While none of the hypotheses
involving these variables was confirmed, their inter-
relationships were quite apparent. The dotted lines
labeled (D-E) show a significant correlation between
both group cohesiveness and job satisfaction and depart-
ment chairmen leadership style and job satisfaction.

Some assistance in understanding this relation-
ship is provided by the descriptive data. The lack of
relationship between internalization and leadership
styles of department chairmen is better understood by
the lack of variance in this independent variable. The
mean for each question was calculated, for instance,
with only one of the sixteen questions having a mean
above 3.0 on a 4.0 point scale. In terms of actual
concepts, these results displayed bureaucratic (l) and

autocratic (2) styles as predominant in the college. The

 

111

idiocratic (3) style was evident in only one situation,
with the democratic (4) style absent on a college-wide
basis.

In relating these results to job satisfaction,
the descriptive data shows similar results. On the
question pertaining to the degree of satisfaction, !
each faculty member felt with faculty—department chair-
man relationships, 23 per cent were only "somewhat satis-

fied," while 16 per cent were "not satisfied.” An even

 

stronger response was evidenced on the question related 1
to how the department chairman handles his job. Twenty-

eight per cent were only "somewhat satisfied," while

20 per cent were "not satisfied." These results are

eSpecially significant since four of the five response

choices were positive and only one negative.

Thus, there existed a definite style of leader-
ship in the College. And, such behavior was a Specific
segment of faculty job satisfaction. These relation-
ships suggest that a research design involving social
system variables must investigate more complex relation-
ships than Simple correlations. Leadership styles, for
example, might require that the faculties' perceptions
of leadership styles be combined with their approval of
such behavior. A study by French and Hill (33) found
that in departments where faculty reported relatively

greater power for the chairman, the faculty satisfaction

112

and productivity were also relatively higher. Bachman
(3) also reported that satisfaction measures correlated
positively and significantly with the use of expert
power and referent power, but negatively with reward
power and coercive power.

What seems to be important is that faculty
satisfaction does not decrease under conditions of
power if such power is based upon actions which are
considered appropriate by those who must provide com-
pliance. As Dressel concluded:

The implications of these two studies are that
satisfaction is not based on pure autonomy and
lack of structure. An assumption frequently

found in the literature is that faculty resent
hierarchic influence over their actions. Research
thus far does not confirm this assumption. (19,
pp. 247-48)

Such controversy over the exact impact of
leadership style suggests that such a variable by itself
is inadequate for predicting internalization, but an
important variable relating to job satisfaction.

Similar inferences can be made in terms of group
cohesiveness as a social system variable. In a decen-
tralized structure like an academic department, the
primary group influence may be related to other secondary
variables. Seashore (67) found, for instance, that
when a member's feeling of security in the organization

was high, group cohesiveness and productivity were

positively correlated. Lin (46) explored this same

 

113

interaction between group cohesiveness and security in
relation to internalization. From this present study it
appears that the interaction between job satisfaction
and group cohesiveness would have to be considered in
relationship to internalization.

In summary, three hypotheses were supported at
the 0.05 level of Significance and three were not sup-
ported by the data. In addition, the lack of indepen-

dence between the variables suggests that more complex

 

relationships were involved. This complex nature of
social system variables will be more precisely described
in the following explanation of the multiple regression

analysis.

Multiple Regression Analysis

 

A second purpose of this analysis is to determine
the relative potency of each independent variable in
explaining the variance in degrees of internalization.

To accomplish this, the "least squares delete" routine
was employed. In the deletion process, an initial least
squares equation is obtained using all of the indepen-
dent variables. One variable is then deleted from the
equation and a new least squares equation estimated. A
second variable is deleted and the least squares equation
is recalculated. This procedure of stepwise deletion

of variables continues until a variable selected as a

candidate for deletion meets the predetermined stopping

114

criterion. Table 4-3 below presents the multiple cor-
relation (R2) which would be obtained if Xi were deleted
from the Least Squares Equation and the equation were

recalculated.

TABLE 4-3.-—Multiple correlation obtained from Least
Squares Delete Equation

 

 

Variable R2
Group Cohesiveness 0.6734
Relative Advantage 0.4601
Compatibility 0.6776
Leadership Style 0.6790
Formal Communications 0.6790
Job Satisfaction 0.6767

 

 

The beginning estimate of explained variance was
0.6790. This result meant that the amount of variance
explained by all the independent variables collectively
was approximately 68 per cent of the total variance in
the dependent variable. While there is no absolute cri-
terion available to evaluate this percentage, the results
of other similar research represented previously by
Table 4-1 suggests a high degree of success. In view
of this estimate only the deletion of relative advantage
has any significant effect upon the total explained
variance. In fact, this one variable plus any one other
variable explain the total variance in the dependent

variable. The potency of this variable is thus congruent

115

with its 0.82 correlation with internalization as
explained in the previous section.

The above summary, however, does not mean that
all the other variables are equally potent in the
regression equation. Table 4-4, for instance, shows
the Significance and order of deletion of each of the

variables and their simple correlation coefficients.

TABLE 4-4.--Variable Significance, order of deletion, and
simple correlations

 

 

 

Variable Significance Correlation
Leadership Style .9820 .03
Formal Communications .9810 .24a
Compatibility .5880 .65a
Job Satisfaction .4880 .01
Group Cohesiveness .2820 -.03
Relative Advantage <.0005 .82a

 

aSignificant at .05 level

The significance column on the above table refers to the
least likeliest variable to discriminate between levels
of the dependent variable. While all but relative advan-
tage were candidates for deletion, leadership styles was
clearly the prime candidate.

Also evident from this table is the effect that
lack of independence among variables has in the regression
equation. While one might have expected leadership style

to be deleted early due to its insignificant correlation

116

with internalization, the next two variables were not
quite so obvious. Both formal communications and com-
patibility were significantly correlated with internali-
zation. AS mentioned earlier, however, these variables
along with relative advantage were also highly correlated
with each other. The effects of this interrelationship

are exposed by this analysis. Thus, while compatibility l
and formal communications explained part of the variance, :
they were repetitious of much of the variance explained

by relative advantage.

 

‘1.

One other set of hypotheses tested by the multiple
regression analysis was the null hypotheses, Ho' that
variable Xi can account for none of the variation in the
dependent variable (above that accounted for by the
remainder of the independent variables and the overall
mean of the dependent variable) against the alternative,
H1, that Xi can account for variation in the dependent
variable (above that accounted for by the remainder of
the independent variables and the overall mean of the
dependent variable).

Table 4-5 shows that the null hypothesis was not
supported in all cases. Stated statistically, the sum
of the squared deviations from the mean of the dependent
variable was accounted for by the independent variables.
This finding again supports the complex nature of the

variables studied. While certain variables were not

117

TABLE 4-5.--Analysis of variance summary

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AOV SS df MS F P
Beginning Estimate
Regression 1533.70 6 255.62 23.98 < .0005 I
Error 724.96 68 10.66 -
Total 2258.67 74
x(5) Leadership Style Deleted
Regression 1533.70 5 306.74 29.19 < .0005 R
Error 724.97 69 10.50 “
Total 2258.67 74
x(5)/x(6) Formal Communications Deleted
Regression 1533.70 4 383.42 37.02 < .0005
Error 724.98 70 10.36
Total 2258.67 74
x(5), x(6)/x(4) Compatibility Deleted
Regression 1530.10 3 510.03 49.70 < .0005
Error 728.56 71 10.26
Total 2258.67 74
x(5), x(6), x(4)/x(7) Job Satisfaction Deleted
Regression 1524.73 2 762.36 74.79 < .005
Error 733.94 72 10.19
Total 2258.67 74

x(5), x(6), x(4), x(7)[x(2) Group Cohesiveness Deleted

Regression 1518.37
Error 740.29
Total 2258.67

1 1518.37 149.73
73 10.14
74

<

.0005

 

118

highly correlated with the dependent variable directly,
they were important when combined with other variables
in the regression analysis.

In summary, the multiple regression analysis
determined that 0.68 of the total variance in the depen-
dent or criterion variable was explained by the Six _
independent or predictor variables. Once more, the I
analysis revealed that relative advantage was the most

potent predictor accounting for approximately 0.22 of

 

the total explained variance. A third and related find-
ing was that relative advantage plus any one other
variable could explain the 0.68 variance in the depen-
dent variable. This equality among the remaining
variables did not infer an insignificant role for these
variables. When the F-test analysis was completed, each
null hypothesis was unconfirmed. The other independent
variables were Significant in explaining the variance
in the dependent variable, but only in combination with
the other variables in the regression equation.

The third segment of this analysis applies to
the decision-making styles in the college and the presen-
tation of other descriptive statistics not reported in
the test of hypotheses and multiple regression analysis.
Since this segment has direct relevance for the imple-
mentation phase of the new curriculum, specific inferences

rather than generalizations will be made.

119

Decision-Making Styles

 

One final research concern not incorporated into
the research hypotheses focused on decision-making styles
in general and with specific reference to the new cur-
riculum. The efforts in this regard were basically
exploratory in attempting to operationalize the broad
nature of decision-making as a concept.

The most obvious result of this investigation was
that the decision to implement the new curriculum paral-
leled decisions in general with regard to style or
approach. There was some slight evidence of variance
with regard to a "rational steps" approach. Both mean
responses, however, were on the negative side of the
continuum. Figure 3 represents the total findings in
this regard.

While these results were unable to isolate any
significant difference in approaches, specific styles
were apparent within the College. The most noticeable
trends were the relatively high rankings given "informal
influence" and "power struggle" styles and the lack of
predominance of the "research based," "autocratic," and
"bureaucratic" styles. Since no effort was made to
obtain faculty approval of the various styles, no
definite qualitative judgments are possible. It was
apparent, however, from the job satisfaction scale

(57 per cent of the faculty were either only "somewhat

 

120

momcommmu cmmEIIEsHsowuuso
30s on mocmummmu cufiz paw Hmnmcwm ca mmamum coemflomoll.m musmflm

Hmumcmm SH mcowmwoma IIIIIIIII

 

EDHSUHHHSU 302 on mchHMDumm coamwomo

o

 

0 H yawn—“05$ whdm

 

owpdhoOpss

 

mammSSpm sosom
ommwm coswmmmm

mosmsamsH adasomcH

 

mamcmmsoo
mmopm choprm

moccadm cowsHQo

 

mm
n1
So...
I
.A

8011 ITV
1V 10M
anal
KJGA

121

satisfied" or "not satisfied" with the way changes were
handled) that the predominance of the "power struggle"
and "informal influence" approaches were not totally
acceptable. Tables 4—6 and 4-7 present the percentage
distributions of each of the eight styles. It is evident
from these results that participative decision-making

is not the model presently operating in the College of
Engineering.

The results of this research suggest that a
deficiency in the decision-making process has been
uncovered. Without relating these findings to the
dependent variable of internalization, however, it is
difficult to interpret the exact impact of such decision
styles. Gross (27), for instance, concluded:

In summary, our review of the literature reveals
the use of change agents and participation are
generally believed to be strategic with respect
to the successful initiation of change proposals,
and that it is assumed that a strategy of initi-
ation involving a change agent and subordinate
participation typically leads to the successful
implementation of innovations. However, there

is a paucity of research evidence to support
either of these propositions. There iS even

less evidence to support the propositions that
participation is positively related to variables
such as the clarity of an innovation, the morale
of the staff, and its commitment to an innovation
and these variables are positively associated
with implementation. (27, p. 29)

Such a viewpoint suggests that the logical extension of

the present research effort would be to relate the

 

122

 

 

mm.m OOH Hm mm mm b m ”owumuosmmusm
OO.O OOH NH HO ON NH O “oHumuoousO
OO.N OOH NH NH NN mm HN "mHOOsuum umzom
OO.m OOH OH ON HO OH O ”ommmm soummmmm
NO.N OOH O O NO Om NH umocmsHOcH HOSHoOcH
Hm.m OOH O NO OO OH H ummHsoumsooumsmammcoo
mH.m OOH OH ON NO ON O "mmmpm HmcoHumm
OO.N OOH O OH Om NN H "mocmHmm coHaHao
O O O O O O
mmmmmmom Hmuoe OOMMOHHO LOO wwwe ANS mhww
um Ooz mHuumm >um>

 

AcoHusnanume mmmucmoummv ESHSOHHHSO 3mg on

mcflcwmwnmm mmHaum conHomQ "coma mum mcoflmwomp mcHHmmsHmcm mo mmmHHoo 30m||.mIO mqmda

123

 

 

OO.O OOH NO OO HN O O uoHumnosmmusm
OO.O OOH OH HO OO OH O ”oHOmHoopsO
OO.N OOH O OH ON OO OH “OHOOOHOO umzom
om.m ooa OH mm mm HH 0 upmmmm nonmmmmm
O0.0 OOH O OH OO HO OH "mocmsHOcH HmSnomcH
O0.0 OOH O ON OO OH O nmmHsoudsooumsmcmmcoo
OO.O OOH OH ON OO NH O "mdmum HmaoHOmm
NH.O OOH O ON OO NN O "mocmHmm coHaHmo
O O O O O O

mmmmmmwm E E 3

Hmuoa mass HHO AOO mane ANS muse

um uoz mHuHmm mum>

 

Hmnmcmm SO mmHmum SOOmOomo

Asoflusnwuumwp momucmonmmv

"some mum msowwflomp chHmmsOmcm mo mmmHHoo 3031:.OIO mqm49

124

various styles to the dependent variable. The operation-
alized decision-making styles Should be of great assistance

in this regard.

Summary

The test of hypotheses was confirmed with ref-
erence to three Specific relationships. The relation- .
ships between relative advantage, compatibility, formal I
communications, and the dependent variable of internali—

zation were all positive and Significant at the .05 level

 

of Significance. The variables involved in these
relationships, however, displayed a high degree of
interrelationships and signified a lack of total inde-
pendence among the variables.

While the variables of group cohesiveness, job
satisfaction, and department chairmen leadership styles
exhibited no Significant relationship with internali-
zation, their potency as social system variables was
quite pronounced. The positive and significant relation-
ships between group cohesiveness, leadership styles and
job satisfaction revealed the complex nature of social
system variables and the need to go beyond simple cor-
relation designs.

In terms of the multiple regression analysis, a
substantial portion of the total variance in the depen-
dent variable was identified. And, out of the 68 per

cent of variance explained, the variable of relative

125

advantage proved to be the most potent. It was further
developed that relative advantage plus any one other
variable could explain the 68 per cent of the variance
identified.

The potency of relative advantage, however, did
not detract from the Significance of the other indepen-
dent variables in the regression analysis. When the null l
hypothesis, Ho, that each variable accounted for none

of the variation in the dependent variable (above that

 

accounted for by the remainder of the independent
variables and the overall mean of the dependent variable)
was tested, it was unsupported with regard to each
variable. Such results again exposed the complex

nature of the social system variables involved and
supported the multiple regression analysis approach for
examining relationships between variables.

And, finally, decision styles were explored in
an effort to more specifically detail the decision-
making process. The results proved the general styles
of the College and the decision styles involving the
new curriculum to be quite congruent. Further analysis,
however, revealed two dominant styles. On both the
decision scales, "power struggle" and "informal influence"
styles dominated. While no evaluative judgments were
possible with regard to internalization, a lack of par-

ticipative decision-making was evident.

126

The analysis, thus, gave substantial support to
a research effort designed for analyzing the social sys-
tem in the diffusion process. The impact of this approach
for future research and a total overview of the study are

presented in the final chapter.

 

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

Introduction

 

In this chapter, a general summary will be pre-
sented to include the problem under study, a description
of the population, methodology, and major findings.
Based upon the major findings, some conclusions will
be presented. And, finally, implications for future

research and educational practice will be stated.

Summary

While curriculum changes are either being accom-
plished or strongly advocated in most academic disciplines,
the need for revisions in engineering education has been
especially acute. Declining enrollments, irreversible
attrition patterns, and negative attitudes toward engi-
neering technology have all served to focus attention on
nontraditional approaches to engineering education.

One response to this educational void was the
design of a new engineering curriculum at Michigan State

University. This program, the Bachelor of Arts in

127

 

128

Engineering, was developed to bridge the gap, so popu-
larized by C. P. Snow, between technology and society.
The product would be a new technologist aware of science
and its applications in nontechnical areas, and qualified
to function in vocations such as managers, political
advisors, and technical writers for business and
industry.

Although this program was new, it was designed
to co-exist with the traditional engineering programs at
Michigan State already in existence. Such an approach
would require the use of existing resources and incor-
porate the present teaching faculty as joint instructors
in the two programs.

Thus, the question at the time of the research
study centered on the attitudes of the faculty toward
this program prior to its actual implementation. Spe-
cifically, the primary purpose was to measure the degree
to which engineering faculty internalized the proposed
curriculum innovation--the Bachelor of Arts in Engineer-
ing.

This initial purpose resulted in the exploration
of relationships between internalization and six other
independent variables. The attempt was to explain any
variability in the degree of internalization by analyzing
the variables of relative advantage and compatibility

of the innovation, formal communications, group

129

cohesiveness, leadership styles of department chairmen,
and job satisfaction as predictors of internalization.

Consistent with the communications and diffusion
models used to study innovations, the focus of this
research was clearly on faculty perceptions of the
issues in an effort to emphasize the receiver and social
system variables in the adoption process.

One of the basic assumptions underlying this
approach was that the diffusion and adoption of inno-
vations within a social system required a different
approach than that used in individual adoption studies.

The basic diffusion model utilized by Rogers (63),
for instance, terminated with the adoption phase. An
individual‘s use of a product or new practice was a
result of a multi-phased process, culminating in volun—
tary decision. Within an organization, however, adoption
is often not an individual or voluntary decision with
actual adoption representing only formal compliance
rather than actual acceptance.

With respect to this latter point, the concept of
internalization was utilized to determine the faculties'
attitudes toward the new curriculum. The concept of
internalization used in this study was originally
developed by Kelman (39) and studied by Lin (46) as
the extent to which a member perceives an innovation or
change as relevant and valuable to his role performance

in the organization.

 

130

It was assumed, in this regard, that even though
an organization adopted an innovation, it was erroneous
to conclude that each individual within the organization
would demonstrate the same level of acceptance. The
central or determining factors of such acceptance were
referred to as system effects which acted to impede or
facilitate the rate of diffusion and adoption.

In order to provide a theoretical base for examin-
ing such system effects, it was found that an interdisci-
plinary combination of findings from diffusion and social
system research represented the most fertile base upon
which to draw supportive evidence. Ample research was
found which strongly supported the theory that the social
structure of an organization establishes the parameters
within which innovations diffuse. Thus, the norms, social
statuses, and hierarchial arrangements of the social sys-
tem were examined for their influence on the innovative—
decision process of the individual system members.

To study the exact impact of such system effects
upon the level of internalization, seven scales were
constructed to measure the criterion of internalization,
and the predictor or independent variables of relative
advantage, compatibility, job satisfaction, formal com-
munications, group cohesiveness, and leadership styles

of department chairman.

 

131

Since most of these scales were not adapted from
diffusion studies focusing on higher education, careful
development of specific items was required. To facili-
tate this scale development, a pilot study was conducted
among randomly selected faculty in the College. The
central purpose of this pretest phase was the development
of high content validity scales. The method of Reciprocal
Averages (RAVE) was used for this purpose and guided the
development of the final instrument.

The population studied was the full-time faculty
in the College of Engineering at Michigan State University.
The total number of faculty qualifying was ninety.
Deliberately excluded were all administrators, the
committee members who designed the new curriculum, and
the seven respondents on the pretest.

The major reason for selecting this population
was the research advantage it presented. Since the new
curriculum was not implemented at the time of the study,
faculty perceptions of the innovation were necessarily
isolated from any experience with the new program. This
feature permitted study of a Specific phase of the inno-
vation-decision process in a field-study context.

A second reason for selecting this population was
the critical nature of such a curriculum innovation.
Declining enrollments and negative attitudes toward

technology are features of engineering education effecting

 

132

all such colleges. A successful implementation of the
new curriculum could thus represent a prototype for
other engineering schools.

Research methodology in this study was broadly
defined. It included the decisions made with regard to
design, operationalization of variables, data collection
and processing, and analysis. In a broad sense, the
research method was the complete operationalization
process of the conceptual or theoretical scheme.

The basic treatment of the data was accomplished
by a multiple regression analysis. This particular
technique facilitated the testing of Six directional
hypotheses in addition to determining the relative
potency of each independent variable in the regression
equation. This approach also facilitated the identifi-
cation of complex relationships between variables and
their combined impact upon the dependent variable. This
latter attribute proved to be especially helpful in
approaching the social system as the unit of analysis.

The results of this study confirmed the three
directional hypotheses involving relationships between
the criterion of internalization and the three indepen-
dent variables of relative advantage, compatibility,
and formal communications. The Specific hypotheses

confirmed were:

 

133

Hypothesis 1:

 

The greater the degree of relative advantage of the
innovation, as perceived by the faculty member, the
more likely he is to internally accept the inno-
vation.

Hypothesis 2:

 

innovation with faculty values, as perceived by the
faculty member, the more likely he is to internally
accept the innovation. L

The greater the degree of compatibility of the F

Hypothesis 5:

 

 

The greater the level of formal communications con- O
cerning the innovations, as perceived by faculty,
the more likely he is to internally accept the
innovation.
While the other three directional hypotheses
were not significant at the .05 level, an analysis of
the correlation matrix revealed significant relationships
between job satisfaction and the variables of group
cohesiveness and leadership styles. It was this set
of relationships that emphasized the need for a design
incorporating more complex relationships than the Simple
correlations involved in this study.
With reference to the multiple regression
analysis .68 of the variance in the dependent variable
of internalization was explained by the Six independent
variables utilized. It was further discovered that

the variable of relative advantage was the most potent

variable in the regression equation. In fact, this

134

one variable combined with any other Single variable
could account for the .68 of the variance identified.
One final area of discovery involved decision-
making styles in the College of Engineering. When
Havelock's (28) decision-making styles in general were
compared with decision-making styles with reference to
the new curriculum, very little discrepancy was revealed.
What was evident, however, was the predominance of
"power struggle" and "informal influence" styles of
decision-making. Since no hypotheses were purported
with respect to these styles, no specific relationships
between decision-making and internalization were
describable. It was clear, however, that participa-
tive decision-making models were not operative in this

specific organizational context.

Conclusions

 

Based upon an analysis of the data collected to
test the hypotheses and problems of this study, several
major conclusions can be presented.

The central concept and criterion variable of
this study was that of internalization. This concept
was developed by Kelman (39) and placed major emphasis
on the individual and his reaction to some kind of
persuasive or change attempt. The research supporting
this concept was conducted under controlled conditions

and focused on the individual's predispositions to

 

135

change. This research, however, presents only a partial
picture of the change process. Individuals change their
attitudes or resist change not only on the basis of their
own psychological characteristics but, also, on how
these characteristics relate to the change agent's
relationship to them and how the change agent attempts I
to influence them. 9
This latter focus relates directly to the organi-

zational change process where adoption decisions are

 

not isolated choices, but the result of a myriad set of

I“

complex relationships. The change agent's relationship
with the potential adopter is not a direct and reciprocal
one. There are a series of filters (system effects)
which translate the change message and determine the

form of the innovation the adopter receives and ulti-
mately acts upon.

The attempt of this research was to extend the
concept of internalization from the individual and psy-
chological context to the corporate and structural con-
text of an educational institution. The strategy involved
was that since neither the "control-compliance" or
"attraction-identification" processes where adequate to
identify an individual‘s private attitudes toward an
innovation, the process of internalization provided

the most direct knowledge utilization strategy.

136

The results of this study provided support for
the use of this attitude concept in the organizational
context. An investigation of how change is introduced
into a system, how the members of the system react to
the change, and the perceived consequences of the change
are necessary, if not sufficient, ingredients in under-
standing the process of institutional change. Such an
investigation is particularly important where the indi-
vidual adopter makes the final decision in support of
the innovation. While the organization must make the
initial decision to adopt the innovation or at least to
tolerate its use within the organization, the individual
in a contingent innovation model, makes the ultimate
choice concerning the innovation. The organizational
decision enables the individual to adopt, but the private
attitudes of the individual are the prevailing forces.

The concept of internalization provides an
encouraging approach to predicting individual adoption
where compliant behavior is not required. As internali-
zation requires neither the manipulation of organizational
rewards or punishments nor the presence of strong source-
adopter identification, it reflects the greatest con-
gruence between organizational goals and member beliefs
and attitudes. The degree to which this level of
internalization is present and identifiable it repre-
sents a positive requisite for planned organizational

change.

137

The specific findings of this study identified

substantial variance in the level of internalization

among engineering faculty. And, by relating Specific

independent variables to such variance, the nature of

internalization relevant to the proposed innovation was

revealed. Based on this general finding and the specific

conclusions drawn in the analysis of results phase, it

is considered possible to justify the following impli-

cations:

1.

The concept of internalization is relevant in
the organizational context in measuring the con—
gruence between individual and institutional

goals.

The concept of internalization relates to more
than just the private attitudes of the individual.
It also represents the impact of the change
process as filtered through the organizational

system.

When the individual is the functional unit of
adoption, the level of internalization provides
predictive input in planning for the implemen-

tation phase of the organizational change.

The hypotheses confirmed lend support to the
theory that individual perceptions rather than

objective validity of innovations are the most

138

critical. Since much more than the innovation
is at stake, threats to the individual, to vested
interests, and to the established social structure

are natural components of resistance.

With reference to this latter statement, however,
a caution established in the introduction bears repeating.
While it is easy to adopt a stance which implies that
"change is good--resistance is bad," such resistance may
be a carefully thought-out position. AS Mann and Neff
concluded,

A potential receiver's reactions to a proposed
innovation are a function of matters such as the
amount of control he has over his own destiny,
how ambiguous he sees the Situation ahead to be,
and how much trust he places in local authority
figures. The user then engages in "search
behavior" to assess the likely net consequences
of adopting the innovation. A good deal of
ambivalence can be expected; this serves as
personal and organizational defense. (52, p. 157)

And, as Klein suggests,
Just as individuals have their defenses to ward
off threat, maintain integrity, and protect them-
selves against the unwarranted intrusions of
others' demands, so do social systems seek ways
in which to defend themselves against ill-
considered and overly precipitous innovations.
(41, p. 30)
The identification of resistance must thus be
separated from any inherent qualitative judgments con-
cerning such resistance. The faculty perceptions of

the negative consequences of the innovation may be

accurate assessments.

139

Another general conclusion drawn from this study
is that research focusing on the social system as the
unit of analysis deserves greater attention. Although
the hypothesis relating formal communications to internal-
ization was the only one confirmed, the descriptive data
and multiple regression analysis supported the potency
of such an approach. What is needed is the refinement
through factor analysis of each of the variables to
produce more reliable and valid scales. Such scales
would also assist with the development of more complex
hypotheses required for analyzing social system variables.

A further conclusion supported by the research
was the need to separate internalization from adoption
within an organization. Even though the organization
had made the adoption decision with reference to the new
curriculum, individual faculty attitudes were obviously
not congruent. This is especially true where individual
adopters make contingent decisions concerning the inno-
vation.

A final conclusion evident from the data is the
possibility of operationalizing decision-making styles.
Participative decision-making, while supported as a
concept, often lacks research-based support. The major
deficiency has been the somewhat ambiguous definition
of decision-making applied. Participative decision-

making at times implies extensive influence while at

140

other times casual involvement is enough. It is also
often assumed that the participative style is the most
preferable. By operationalizing various styles, faculty
preferences could be quantified and ultimately related

to the dependent variable of internalization.

Recommendations for Further Research

 

The most apparent need in this regard is to
design longitudinal studies of this nature. While sta-
tistical significance of hypotheses is an encouraging
result of such research, the actual behavior of these
respondents is not known. Separating attitudes from
actual behavior serves one research goal, but emphasizes
the need to gather Similar data following actual imple-
mentation of the program.

A second research need is to construct scales
with greater independence. One of the major limitations
of this study was the relatively small size of the popu-
lation. This factor prohibited extensive pretesting
and the examination of interrelationships between
variables. The impact on this study was repetitious
explanations of the same variance in the dependent
variable.

It was also apparent from this study that not
enough is known about the process of internalization.
This was only the second study to examine this variable,

requiring the scale to be developed with little empirical

WI. :15...
k I

_ I .

141

evidence as a base. Greater attention to the construct
validity of this concept would greatly facilitate future
research. More knowledge about internalization as a
concept would also assist in the development of additional
and more specific hypotheses.

A final research need is a more thorough under-
standing of system effects, especially within educational
institutions. Since very few innovation research studies
have studied the social system as the unit of adoption,
precise organizational variables have yet to be defined.
What this study supported was the position that inno-
vation is not composed of a single variable or a small
number of related variables, but is far more complex.
Such complexity requires more involved hypotheses and
more discriminating analysis.

Implications for Educational
Practice

 

Since the research context for this study was
an actual field Situation, the results have direct
implications for those whose responsibility it is to
implement the program. While a separate report was
submitted for this purpose, several implications deserve
attention.

The decision to implement this new curriculum
was an optional-contingent decision. Specifically,

even though the college approved the new program,

142

individual faculty will participate on a voluntary basis.
Thus, in terms of developing a strategy for implementation,
the degree of internalization prevailing within the Col-
lege is critical. The most concern expressed pertaining
to this variable was the faculty's uncertainty over
whether sufficient alternatives to the new program had
been considered, and a relatively low desire to partici-
pate directly in the teaching functions of the new program.
While 100 per cent participation is not required for
successful implementation, this latter factor suggests.
that numerous faculty are yet to be convinced about the
relative merits of their participation.

In attempting to understand such reservations,
the relative advantage and compatibility scales were
quite instructive. AS analyzed in the previous chapter,
faculty anticipate a Specific impact from the new program.
If the administration of the College seeks maximum par-
ticipation, the reservations expressed by these scales
must be addressed. Any implementation strategy that
ignores the reality of such a situation encourages
continued reservations about the program.

In a more general sense, the implications of
these findings accent the need to incorporate existing
diffusion research into studies of organizational change.
If barriers or facilitators to implementation are to be

understood, more rigorous and systematic analyses of

143

organizations undergoing change must be accomplished.
The subjective reports of a change experience by prac-
titioners must yield to the generation and testing of
hypotheses from supportive research and theory.

Gross (27, p. 38) supports such a position by
stressing the process rather than product nature of
implementation. Even if initial resistance could be
assumed, such a position ignores three possible and
subsequent conditions. The first condition is that
organizational members who are not resistant to change
may encounter a number of obstacles in their efforts to
implement an innovation. A second is that members of an
organization depend upon the formal leadership to assist
in overcoming such obstacles, and such assistance may or
may not materialize. And, a third condition is that
members initially favorable to organizational change
may later develop a negative attitude to an innovation
as a consequence of the frustrations they experience in
attempting to implement the change.

While all or none of these conditions may be
operative in a specific situation, they serve to challenge
the position that members of an organization are initially
resistant to change and that it is the ability of manage-
ment to overcome such resistance that accounts for the

success or failure of the innovation. Such a position

144

ignores the dynamic and continuing nature of the change
process and the effects of organization variables on
individual decisions.

Thus, designing the actual change is only one
facet of the change process. As was the situation in
this present research, often only relatively few members
actively participate in the planning of the innovation.
Such change agents must, therefore, give deliberate
attention to how they plan to integrate the innovation
into the on-going system with minimal disruption. This
is not an automatic process and involves the identifi-
cation of those elements in the system which are directly
involved and those only peripherally involved in the
change. The challenge is to make the innovation an
integral part of and contribute to the effectiveness

of the operating system.

In Retrospect

 

The original thrust of this research was to com-
bine an exploratory approach with one testing predicted
relationships. The effort was not only to describe a
particular change situation, but to analyze it.

As the study developed, however, it became
apparent that there existed a paucity of comparable
research. This factor placed some obvious restrictions

on the development of hypotheses from an established

145

research base, and required a research methodology
adapted from several research sources outside the con-
text of higher education.

AS a result of such methodological constraints,
the study emphasized more of an exploratory than an
hypotheses-testing approach. While directional hypothe-
ses were developed and tested, only Simple correlations
were examined. The multiple regression analysis was
used to supplement the design in an attempt to explore
the relative potency and pertinence of the variables
selected for study.

Such an approach proved legitimate and supported
the strength of the variables selected as predictors.
The results compared well with other social science
research findings and suggested some general directions
for future research.

The burden now rests with such future research.
It is hoped that this study will act as a stimulus for
continued analysis and more critical examination of the
educational institution as a distinct context for the

diffusion and adoption of innovations.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

l .. ...I.._..I_IIJ,.1...«-JI... .
r . O. i ._

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anderson, Lester G. Education for the Professions.
Sixty-first NSSE Yearbook, Part II. ChiCago,
Illinois, 1962.

 

Argyris, Chris. Interpersonal Competence and Organi—
zational Effectiveness. Homewood, Ill.:
I—Dorsey, 1962.

 

 

Bachman, Gerald; Bowers, David; and Marcus, Philip M.
"Basis of Supervisory Power." Control in Organi-
zations. Edited by A. Tannenbaum. New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1968.

Barnard, Chester I. The Functions of the Executive.

 

Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard UniVerSity Press, 1938.
Barnett, Homer G. "The Acceptance and Rejection
of Change." Explorations in Social Change.

 

Edited by George K. Zollschan and waiter Hersch.
Boston: Houghton and Mifflin Company, 1964.

Bennis, Warren G.; Benne, Kenneth I.; and Chin,
Robert. The Planningpof Change. New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1969.

 

Bowers, David, and Seashore, Stanley. "Predicting
Organizational Effectiveness With a Four-Factor
Theory of Leadership." Administrative Science
Quarterly, 1966, pp. 238-63.

 

Brickell, Henry M. "The Local School System and
Change." Perspectives on Educational Change.
Edited by Miller. New York: Appleton-Century-
Crofts, 1966.

 

Carlson, Richard 0. "Summary and Critique of Edu-
cational Diffusion Research." Paper presented at
The National Conference on the Diffusion of Edu-
cational Ideas, East Lansing, Michigan, 1968.

146

147

10.//Carlson, Richard 0. Adoption of Educational Inno-
vations. Eugene, Oregon: University of Oregon,
1965.

 

11. . "School Superintendents and Adoption of
Modern Math: A Social Structure Profile."
Innovation in Education. Edited by Matthew
Miles. New York: Bureau of Publications,
Teachers College, Columbia University, 1964.

 

 

12f/ Clark, David L., and Hopkins, John E. "Roles for
Research, Development, and Diffusion: Personnel
in Education: Project Memo #l--A Logical
Structure for Viewing Research, Development
and Diffusion Roles in Education." CRP Project
No. X-022, April, 1966.

13. Clark, David L., and Guba, Egon C. "An Examination
of Potential Change Roles in Education." Paper
presented at the Symposium on Innovation in
Planning School Curricula, Curlie House, Virginia,
October, 1965.

14. Coch, Lester, and French, John R. P., Jr. "Over-
coming Resistance to Change." Human Relations,
I (1948), 512-32.

 

15. Coleman, James S.; Katz, Elihu; and Menzel, Herbert.
Medical Innovation: A Diffusion Study. New
York: Bobbs-Merrill, 1966.

 

/
/

16.“ Davis, Richard H. "Personal and Organizational
Variables Related to the Adoption of Educational
Innovations in a Liberal Arts College." Unpub-
lished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago,
1965.

17. Downee, N. M., and Heath, R. W. Basic Statistical
Methods. New York: Harper & Row, PubliSherS,
1959.

 

18. Dressel, Paul L.; Johnson, Craig F.; and Marcus,
Philip M. The Confidence Crisis. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Inc., 1970.

 

l9. Dressel, Paul L. College and University Curriculum.
Berkeley, Calif.: McCutChan Publishing Corpor-
ation, 1968.

 

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

148

Eibler, Herbert John. "A Comparison of the Relation-
ships Between Certain Aspects or Characteristics
of the Structure of the High School Faculty and
the Amount of Curriculum Innovation." Unpub-
lished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan,
1965.

Eicholtz, G., and Rogers, E. "Resistance to the
Adoption of Audio—Visual Aids by Elementary
School Teachers: Contrasts and Similarities
to Agricultural Innovation." Innovation in Edu-
cation. Edited by Matthew B. Miles. New York:
Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia
University, New York, 1964.

 

Evans, Richard D. Resistance to Innovation in
Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,
Inc., 1968.

 

 

Festinger, Leon. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance.
Evanston, Ill.: Row, Peterson, and Co., 1957.

 

; Schachter, Stanley; and Back, Kevin.
Social Pressures in Informal Groups. New York:
Harper, 1950.

 

Fliegel, Frederick C., and Kivlin, Joseph E.
"Farm Practice Attributes and Adoption Rates."
Social Forces, XL, No. 4 (1962), 364—68.

 

26.V/Griffiths, Daniel E. "Administrative Theory and

27.

28.

29.

Change in Organizations." Innovation in Edu-
cation. Edited by Matthew B. Miles. New York:
Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia
University, 1964.

 

Gross, Neal; Gracquinta, Joseph B.; and Bernstein,
Marilyn. Implementing Organizational Innovations:
A Sociological Analysis of Planned Educational
Change. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 197i.

 

 

Havelock, Ronald G., and Markowitz, Elizabeth A.
A National Problem-Solving System: Highway
Safety Researchers and DeciSionmakerS. Center
for Research on UtiliZation of Scientific
Knowledge, Institute for Social Research, Uni-
versity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, May, 1971.

 

 

Havelock, Ronald G. Planning for Innovation Through
Dissemination and Utilization of Knowledge.
Institute for Social Research, The University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1971.

 

 

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

149

Hearn, Norman E. "The Where, When, and How of Trying
Innovations." Phi Delta Kappan, LII, No. 6
358-61.

 

Hefferlin, J. B. Lon. Reform and Resistance.
Research Report Number 7, American Association
for Higher Education, 1971.

 

Herzberg, F.; Mausner, B.; Peterson, R.; and
Capwell, D. Job Attitudes: Review of Research
and Opinion. Pittsburg, Pa.: Psychological
Services of Pittsburg, 1957.

 

 

Hill, Winston W., and French, Wendell L. "Perceptions
of Power of Department Chairmen by Professors."
Admipistrative Science Quarterly, II (1967),
548-74.

 

Homans, George. The Human Gropp. New York: Har-
court, Brace and World, Inc., 1950.

 

Jacobson, E. H., and Seashore, S. E. "Communication
Practice in Complex Organizations." "Journal of
Social Issues, VII (1951), 28-40.

 

 

Jung, Charles, and Lippitt, Ronald. Utilization of
Scientific Knowledge for Change in Education.
CRUSK, UniverSity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1967.

 

 

Katz, Elihu. "The Two-Step Flow of Communication:
An Up-to-Date Report on an Hypothesis." Public
Opinion Quarterly, XXI (1957), 61-78.

 

Katz, 0. "Field Studies." Research Methods in the
Behavioral Sciences. Edited by L. Festinger and
O. Katz. New York: The Dryden Press, 1953.

 

 

Kelman, Herbert C. "Compliance, Identification,
and Internalization." Journal of Conflict
Resolution, II (1958), 51-60.

 

 

Klein, Donald. "Some Notes on the Dynamics of
Resistance to Change: The Defender Role."
The Planning of Change. Edited by Warren G.
Bennis, Kenneth D. Benne, and Robert Chin.
New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc.,
1969.
. "Some Notes on the Dynamics of Resistance."

 

 

Concepts of Social Chapge. Edited by G. Watson.
Washington, D.C.: NTL Institute for Applied
Behavioral Science, 1967.

 

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

g 52.

150

Levine, J., and Butler, S. "Lecture vs. Group
Decision in Changing Behavior." Journal of
Applied Psychology, XXLVI (1952), 29-33.

 

 

Lewin, Kurt. "Group Decision and Social Change."
Readings in Social Psychology. Edited by
Theodore M. Newcomb and Eugene L. Hartley.

New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1958.

 

Lewis, Oscar. "Medicine and Politics in a Mexican
Village." Health, Culture, and Community.
Edited by Benjamin D. Paul. New York: Russell
Sage Foundation, 1955.

 

Likert, Rensis. New Patterns of Management. New
York: McGraw-Hill, 1961.

 

Lin, Nan. "Innovation Internalization in a Formal
Organization." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Michigan State University, 1966.

Lionberger, Herbert F. Adoption of New Ideas and
Practices. Ames: Iowa State University Press,
1960.

 

 

Lowin, Aaron. "Participative Decision Making: A
Model, Literature Critique, and Prescriptions
for Research." Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, III, No. 1 (February, 1968),
68-98.

 

 

Luschinsky, Mildred Stroop. "Problems of Cultural
Change in the Indian Village." Human Organi-
zations, XXII, No. 1 (Spring, 1963), 66-74.

 

Mackenzie, Gordon N. "Curricular Change: Partici-
pant, Power and Processes." Innovation in Edu-
cation. Edited by Matthew B. Miles. New York:
Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia
University, 1964.

 

Maier, N. R. F., and Hoffman, L. R. "Financial
Incentives and Group Decision in Motivating
Change." Journal of Social Psychology, LXIV
(1964), 369-78.

 

Mann, Floyd C., and Neff, Franklin W. Managipg
Major Change in Organizations. Ann Arbor, Mich.:
Foundation for Research on Human Behavior, 1961.

 

 

151

Mann, Floyd, and Dent, J. "The Supervisor: Member
of Two Organizational Families." Harvard Business
Review, XXLII, No. 6 (1954), 103-12.

 

Miles, Matthew 8., ed. Innovation in Education.
New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers
College, Columbia University, 1964.

 

Mort, Paul R. "Studies in Educational Innovation
From the Institute of Administrative Research."
Innovation in Education. Edited by Matthew B.
Miles. New York: Bureau of Publications,
Teachers College, Columbia University, 1964.

 

Mortimore, Frederic J. "Diffusion of Educational
Innovations in the Government Secondary Schools
of Thailand." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Michigan State University, 1968.

Mosier, Charles 1. "Machine Methods in Scaling by
Reciprocal Averages." Proceedings, Research
Forum. New York: International Business
Machines Corporation, 1946.

 

Nangle, John E. "The Effectiveness of Communications
in Preparation for Change in an Insurance Company."
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State
University, 1961.

Nelson, C. W. "The Development and Evaluation of a
Leadership Attitude Scale for Foreman." Unpub-
lished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago,
1949.

Niehoff, Arthur H. "Theravada Buddhism: A Vehicle
for Technical Change." Human Organization, XXIII
(1964), 108-12.

 

Parsons, Talcott. The Social System. New York:
Free Press, 1951.

 

Pelz, Edith B. "Discussion, Decision, Commitment,
and Consensus in 'Group Decision.'" Human
Relations, VIII (1955), 251-74.

 

 

Rogers, Everett M., and Shoemaker, Floyd F. Com-
munication of Innovations: A Cross-Cultural
Approach. London: Collier-Macmillan, 1971.

 

 

Rogers, Everett M., and Svenning, Lynne. Managing
Change. Burlingame, Calif.: OPERATION PEP,
1969.

 

65.

66.

67.

68.

70.

71.

72.

73.

74.

75.

69/

152

Rogers, Everett M., and Stanfield, David. "Adoption
and Diffusion of New Products: Emerging General-
izations and Hypotheses." Paper presented at
the Conference on the Application of Sciences
to Marketing Management, Purdue University,

July 12-15, 1966.

Rogers, Everett M. Diffusion of Innovations. New
York: The Free Press of Glencoe, Inc., 1962.

 

Seashore, Stanley E. Group Cohesiveness in the
Industrial Work Group. Ann Arbor: Institute
for Social Research, 1954.

 

 

Snow, C. P. "Miasma, Darkness, and Torpidity."
New Statesman, XLII, No. 1587 (1961), 186.

 

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

Torgerson, Walter S. Theory and Methods of Scaling.
New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1962.

 

Trow, Martin. "Survey Research and Education."
Survey Research in the Social Sciences. Edited by
Charles Y. Glock. New York: Russell Sage Foun-
dation, 1967.

 

Trumbo, Donald A. "An Analysis of Attitudes Toward
Change Among the Employees of an Insurance
Company." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Michigan State University, 1958.

Vroom, Victor H. Some Personality Determinants of
the Effects of Participation. Englewood Cliffs,
N.J.: 1961.

Watson, Goodwin. "Resistance to Change." Concepts
for Social Change. Edited by G. Watson. Washing-
ton, D.C.: NTL Institute for Applied Behavioral
Science, 1967.

 

 

Wilkining, Eugene A. "The Communication of Ideas
on Innovation in Agriculture." Studies of
Innovation and of Communication to the Public.
Edited by E. Katz, et a1. Stanford University,
School for Communications Research, 1962.

 

153

76. Wriston, Henry M. Academic Procession. New York:
Columbia University Press, 1959.

 

77. Zimbardo, Philip, and Ebbesen, Ebbe. Influencing
Attitudes and Changipg Behavior. Reading, Mass.:
Addison-Wesley, 1969.

 

 

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

A PROPOSAL FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A BACHELOR

OF ARTS DEGREE IN ENGINEERING AT

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

February 17, 1971

APPENDIX A

A PROPOSAL FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A

BACHELOR OF ARTS DEGREE IN ENGINEERING AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

1. Purpose
It is the intent of this program to provide educational opportu-

nities for undergraduate students to develop a basic understanding of
technology and apply it to a broad range of non-technical areas. The
graduate would not be an engineer in the accepted sense of the word,
as competence in an engineering discipline would be exchanged for a
general awareness of technology and a reasonable competence in a
designated application area. It is anticipated that these graduates
would aid in bridging the communication gap between the technical and
non-technical portions of society in vocations such as managers,
political advisors, technical writers, etc. The B.A.E. degree is not
designated to replace either the traditional engineer or the non-

technical graduate.

2. Objectives

The B.A.E. program is designed to develop a new kind of technolo-
gist who is:

l. knowledgable of the impact of technology in society;

2. technically capable of recognizing how analytical tools
are utilized in the solutions of problems;

3. aware of theoretical constraints under which new develop-
ments must work;

154

.155

4. able to aid in the application of these techniques to
societal problems; and

S. competent in a specific area of application.

3. Implications

The proposed B.A.E. program is indeed timely for there is evi-
dence which suggests that some engineering colleges are expressing
an interest in, but not developing a thrust toward, the establish-
ment of undergraduate programs of this nature. The program is
considered to have far reaching implications and ramifications in
its operations and applications.

The program implies a new concept in engineering education,
not simply a patch in the old fabric. It could serve as a model or
pilot program for adoption at other engineering schools with suppor-
tive application areas. Based on preliminary discussions with some
junior colleges in the State of Michigan, it would appear that the
B.A.E. program would provide a viable option for a significant number
of their students. Junior colleges, without the capabilities to
offer regular engineering programs, could also make a significant
contribution to society by development of similar programs.

The B.A.E. program requires a limited number of new courses in
engineering expertise for application to several non-technical areas.
These courses would provide the potential for the development of a
minor in Engineering for students in many other areas of the Univer-

sity who do not wish to deviate from their traditional programs to

.156

the extent required by the B.A.E.

Another implication of the B.A.E. is in the curriculum structure,
for it implies the need for close c00peration among academic disci-
plines. The opportunity for interaction between faculty representing
technical and non-technical areas is viewed as a logical outgrowth of

this program.

4. Rationale

Much has been written lately about the separation of technology
and society since C.P. Snow first popularized the subject. If, indeed,
the current drift continues, this division may become one of our na-
tion's most critical problems and a deterrent to the solution of
technologically based social problems. Warnings are arising from every
area with a certain consistent theme.

"American universities - primarily in the
engineering, science and business schools - merely
train people to run the country's technologies;
they do not educate peeple to design, build, and
serve sociotechnological systems - in other words,
to fulfill the needs and ambitions of society."1

"But, if succeeding generations are to be
better prepared than we, they must have broader
experiences with the application of knowledge
derived from humanities and social sciences in the
context of society's technical problems."2

 

1 "To help students more, help society more", Erich Jantsch, Innovation,
No. 4 (Sept. 1969)

2 Myron Tribus, the Assist. Sec. of Commerce, address to the American
Astronautical Society (1970).

157

"a) There is increasing concern about the
need to choose among technological alternatives
and evolve new technologies in support of broad
social goals.

b) The traditional concern with manemachine
systems has broadened to include relationships
between physical systems and human systems.

c) New public works endeavors must new con-
sider social cost and returns, in addition to
economic cost and returns."3

Two solutions may be envisioned: one, to "socialize" the engin-
eer and scientist; and two, to expand the technological understanding
of the non-technical individual. Colleges and universities have long
recognized the need to provide a core of requirements for all students
to insure some exposure to several academic disciplines. A report
from the State University of New York at Buffalo suggests some of the
difficulties encountered in insuring this academic awareness.

"In most universities the attempt is made to
bridge this gap by requiring undergraduates to take
a distribution of courses which forces students to
spend a part of his time in the 'other' world.

This procedure has been ineffective. The humanists
and social scientists seek the courses which have a
minimum of quantitative work and, if at all pos-
sible, avoid laboratory courses. They typically
take a minimum number of courses and seek those
which are closest to their fields of interest. The
student interested in natural science or engineer-
ing usually takes a series of introductory courses
in social sciences and humanities and in the
process develops a distaste for these areas. The
net result is that the university effectively
deepens the division between the two groups."4

 

3 "Knowledge into Action: Improving the nation's use of the social
sciences", Report of special committee on the social sciences of
the National Science Board, N.S.F. (1969)

4 Socio-technical Collegiate Workshop Committee Report, State Univ.
of New York at Buffalo, Feb. 1970.

158

A great deal of effort has been expended in engineering education
over the last fifty years on the problem of providing the engineering
graduate with a suitable humanistic social education along with his
technical development. It is sad to note that one recent survey
concludes,

"In summary, there is little sign as yet that
either new programs, or the new-found status of
humanists and social scientists, is even beginning
to meet the challenges of change in our technolo-
gical culture and in the role of the engineer
within it. Most revisions of program appear to be
matters of minor adjustment rather than.major over-
haul. Very few involve liberal arts people together
with engineers in the kind of mutual planning which
the challenge makes imperative. And there are few
attempts to give the student a sense of the overall
picture - the interactions and interrelations
within the context in which he will live as a
person and work as a professional man. Nor does
one find much awareness of the importance to the
whole enterprise of involving the engineering
student in the life of the campus, both its cul-
ture and its controversy."5

Perhaps some of the difficulties With these solutions is that
they attempt to change the whole segment of either the technical or
non-technical community. There will always be some in the scientific
and technical fields who are so engrossed in their investigations
that they do not ask about the secondary consequences of the technology
being introduced. There will also be those in the non-technical
fields who will be equally involved in their work and will have little

interest in technology. Society needs both of these extremes and the

 

5 J. Eng. Educ., 59, (Dec. 1968) p. 314.

.159

communication between them must come from others.

The new program proposed here will attempt to provide a suitable
mixture of technical and social training to provide technically aware
and liberally educated individuals who will then be able to communi—
cate between the two extremes. A Bachelor of Arts in Engineering

(B.A.E.) is proposed as a possible solution to some of these problems.

5. Background

During the past year and a half, the College of Engineering has
studied its capability to offer such a program, the support available
from other parts of the University, the attitude of students toward
such a program, the degree designation and has conducted a market
survey of industry and government for employment opportunities.

The reasons for developing and administering the program under
the auspices of the College of Engineering are as follows:

1. The engineering college is uniquely capable of offering an
awareness of technological capabilities and limitations. It is con-
sidered easier for the engineer to make the transition from the
technical to the non—technical than the other way around. It might be
argued by analogy that this type of hybrid program shound be central-
ized in Engineering.

2. There is a strong desire among some of the College staff to
start such a program and this motivation seems to be lacking elsewhere
in the University at this time.

3. The College of Engineering has most but not all of the

.160

resources and staff to carry on such a program without jeopardizing
its main function in engineering education.

The degree designation of such a program must in some manner
indicate the difference between this graduate and the professional
engineering graduate. It was, therefore, prOposed that the degree
designation be a Bachelor of Arts in Engineering. Those graduates
desiring further training would normally enter a graduate or pro-
fessional school in their application area. The B.A.E. student
desiring graduate work in engineering would need to complete the
traditional professional courses in the engineering field of his
choice.

A means was sought to determine to what extent this prOposed
program would be in keeping with the current mood of young people.
Discussions with High School and University students suggested that a
reasonable number of students would be attracted to this program.

Questionnaires were sent to executives in major industries
throughout the United States and administrators in local, state and
the federal government. One hundred eighty-four replies were received
with many letters of explanation and indications of employment oppor-
tunities for such students. These replies were evaluated as favorable,
unfavorable or neutral and the results are summarized below.

Favorable Unfavorable Neutral
Industry (90) 782 (13) 11% (12) 11%

Government (52) 73% (5) 7% (14) 20%

161

6. Curriculum

The proposed curriculum is organized in three major blocks, each
of which makes an essential contribution to the emerging whole. The
three blocks include basic science and humanities studies to lay the
groundwork for the studies to follow. Two parallel blocks - the
engineering core for attaining "technological awareness" and the area
of application for placing this awareness in a useful relation to
society - become the major structural elements in the student's con-
ceptual framework.

The basic sciences and humanities include one year sequences in
each of the following: American thought and language, humanities,
social science, mathematics, physics and an additional year in either
statistics, mathematics or a physical or life science.

The application core will be a major area of interest developed
in conjunction with business, social science, communication arts,
political science, et cetera. It is envisioned that the courses com-
prising the application area will be selected from those typically
taken by a major in that area. This will enable the B.A.E. student to
obtain a definite degree of competence in the application area.

In addition about fifteen percent of the course work will be free
electives which may be used to augment either of the major blocks or

to gain additional diversification.

162

BACHELOR OF ARTS IN ENGINEERING

University Requirements

ATL 111, 112, 113 9 credits
HUM 241, 242, 243 12
ss 231, 232, 233 12

Nat. Sci. satisfied from elected credits

HPR ( 3)

-- 33 + 3 credits
MTH 111, 112, 113 15

-- 15 credits
One year of Physics
PHY 237, 238, 239, and 257, 258, 259 12

-- 12
One year of course work in statistical,
mathematical, physical or life science 9—12

-- 9-12
Engineering

40 credits in the College of Engineering

giving a broad range of understanding of
Engineering. The courses will cover the

areas of computer science, communications,
electronics, mechanics, materials, systems,
design, thermo fluids, environmental

sciences, and the interrelationships be-

tween technology and society. 40

-- 40

163

6. Application Area

40 credits in an area of interest outside
engineering, mathematics or the sciences;
for example, business, social science,

communication arts, political science, et

cetera.
--40
7. 28—31 credits of free electives, some of
'which may be used to augment either the
application area or engineering.
--28-31

7. Technological Core and Course Deve10pment

The engineering core will consist of a coordinated set of courses
which will be integrated with the basic sciences, humanities and the
application block to meet the objectives of the B.A.E. program. This
core may be considered in three phases.

The initial phase will be composed of two types of courses which
will be weakly interlocked. Early in his development, the student will
take introductory courses to stimulate interest in the interrelation-
ships between technology and society. These will introduce the con-
cept of sociotechnical research intended to disclose the benefits and
risks to society emanating from alternatives in the development of
science and technology. The second type of course is intended to
acquaint the student with analytical approaches to problems and the
concepts of mathematical modelling. Simple models will be introduced
with application to physical systems and socio-economic systems.

The intermediate phase of the engineering core will be devoted

to gaining a technological awareness. The B.A.E. student will gain

164

enough insight into each technical area to become aware of the analyt-
ical tools used, the theoretical constraints under which new develop-
ments must work and the potential for utilization of this area to solve
technologically derived problems in society. Although the primary
thrust in this phase will be to gain technical awareness, courses in
the history of technology, engineering communications and present
sociotechnical interactions will also be taken to maintain the basic
focus of the B.A.E. program.

The third phase will be project type courses which will attempt
to examine practical interactions between the student's application
areas and technology in today's society. These courses will not follow
a set format but will vary depending upon the student's application
areas. The purpose will be to bring together the various parts of the
B.A.E. program into a cohesive whole.

Each portion of the engineering block would be developed and eval-
uated in view of the general objectives of the B.A.E. program. Par-
ticular concern would be given to establishing a common terminology
between the technical areas, utilizing the previous coursework of the
students and stressing the application of each technical area to

current problems.

8. Organization and Administration
An appropriate organizational and administrative structure would

be constructed to facilitate the design, deve10pment, trial, and eval-

uation of the program and would include two basic functions:

.165

1. curriculum development

2. operational administrative

The administrative operational function would be the responsi-
bility of the College of Engineering. A coordinating committee,
including engineering and non-engineering faculty and cutting across
departmental lines, would supply appropriate direction on matters con-
cerning programs, instruction, and development.

Academic advising for students in the program would be the re-
sponsibility of the College of Engineering. Hopefully, it would be
possible to establish a liaison person in each of the colleges offer—
ing application areas to provide a connecting link between the College
of Engineering and these areas. Each academic adviser would have
available to him the full complement of resource faculty in all areas
in order to properly guide the student in develOping an effective

program.

APPENDIX B

INTRODUCTORY LETTER

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY sasr LANSING . MICHIGAN 48825

 

COLLEGE OF MWG ° OMCI OF STUDENT AHA!” - ENGINEERING BUILDING

April 10, 1972

Dear Faculty Member:

The purpose of this letter is to focus your attention on a research
project to be conducted on a college-wide basis during the last week of
April. The basic purpose of this research will be to survey faculty Opin-
ions regarding the proposed Bachelor of Arts in Engineering progranl
and attempt to identify factors that might explain any variation in such
opinions. The results of this research will serve as the foundation for
my Ph. D. dissertation in the department of Administration and Higher
Education.

 

Since all of you were not equally involved in the planning of this
new program, a few background comments might be helpful as prepa-
ration for the study.

The history of this proposed program extends back to November,
1969, when the Ad Hoc Committee on Attrition and Retention began their
initial consideration of alternative education programs for the College.
Since that initial phase, the prOposed Bachelor of Arts program has pro-
gressed in its development, receiving Ientative approval on February 17,
1972 from the University Curriculum Committee. A

The next steps in the development of this program are course de—
veIOpment and finally implementation. These are crucial phases in this
program and the reason for this study. If implementation is to be suc-
cessful, your involvement and support are obviously necessary. The
information you provide will make your concerns visible and greatly
facilitate this objective.

Attached you will find a brief statement concerning the objectives
of this new program. They are included to refresh your memory concern-
ing the prOposed curriculum and should assist in making your responses
more meaningful.

I look forward to your participation.

Sincerely,

8.9

R. Dale Lefever
RDchag 166 Assistanl In the Dean

167

PROPOSED CURRICULUM
BACHELOR OF ARTS DEGREE IN ENGINEERING
AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

The prOposed B.A. E. program will be designed to deve10p a new
kind of technologist who is;

l. knowledgeable of the impact of technology in society;

2. technically capable of recognizing how analytical tools
are utilized in the solution of problems;

3. aware of the technical ( onstraints under which new
developments must work;

4. able to assist in the application of these techniques
to societal problems; and

S. competent in a specific area of application.

In order to meet these objectives, a curriculum consisting of four
major blocks of coursework will be organized. The four blocks include:
(1) basic work in the sciences and humanities to lay the groundwork for
the studies to follow; (2) a core of engineering courses to provide ”tech-
nological awareness"; (3) a non-engineering area of application; and (4)

a block of electives to provide additional diversity to the student's pro-
gram. More complete descriptions of these areas are provided below.

1. Basic Block (69-72 credits)

 

 

The basic sciences and humanities include one year sequences
in each of the following American thought and language, human~
ities, social sciences, mathematics (through MTH 113), physics
(physics without calculus) and an additional year in either statis-
tics, mathematics or a physical or life science.

2. Applications Block (40 credits)
The application core will be a major area of interest deveIOped
in conjunction with business, social science, communication
arts, political science. et cetera. It is envisioned that the
courses comprising the application area will be selected from
those typically taken by a major in that area. This will enable
the B. A. E. student to obtain a definite degree of competence in
the application area.

3. Technical Block (40 credits)
The engineering core will consist of a coordinated set of courses
which will be integrated with the basic sciences, humanities and
the application block. This core may be considered in three
phases.

 

 

168

The initial phase will be composed of two types of courses which
will be weakly interlocked. Early in his development, the stu-
dent will take introductory courses to stimulate interest in and
awareness of the interrelationships between technology and socxety.
The second type of course is intended to acquaint the student with
analytical approaches to problems and the concepts of mathemati-
cal modeling. Simple models will be introduced with application

to physical systems and socio-economic systems.

The intermediate phase of the engineering core will be devoted
to gaining a technological awareness. The B.A. E. student will
gain enough insight into each technical area to become aware
of the analytical tools used, the theoretical constraints under
which new developments must work and the potential for utili~
zation of this area to solve technologically derived problems

in society. E

 

The third phase will be project type courses which will attempt
to examine practical interactions between the student's applica-
tion areas and technology in today's society. The purpose will
be to bring together the various parts of the B.A.E. program
into a cohesive whole

Electives (31- 34 credits)

In addition to the three academic blocks fifteen percent of the
course work will be free electives which may be used to augment
either of the major blocks or to gain additional diversification.

APPENDIX C

ORIGINAL LETTER

 

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY am mmoomcmcxn 48823

 

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING - OFFICE OF STUDENT AFFAIRS - ENGINEERING BUILDING

April 25, 1972

Dear Faculty Member:

During the week of April 10, 1972, you received a letter introducing you to
a research project to be conducted in the College of Engineering. Through the co-
operation of a group of engineering faculty in a pretest, the preparations for
this study have been completed and the final instrument is now enclosed for your
completion. This study has been endorsed by my doctroal committee and approved
through the Dean and Department Chairman's Group of this College. The results
will serve as the foundation for my Ph.D. dissertation in the department of Ad-
ministration and Higher Education.

The basic purpose of this research is to study the proposed Bachelor of Arts
in Engineering program from the perspective of the total faculty in the College.
The attached instrument is designed to record the degree to which faculty differ
in their opinions toward this proposed program and to identify various individual
and organizational factors which might help explain any such variation. It is in
this regard that your cooperation is requested.

Specifically, you are requested to read carefully the directions in each
section of the instrument and respond to each item. Since the value of such a
study depends upon the frankness and care with which you respond, complete anonym-
.2EX (no coding of any kind) will be observed throughout the study. Your identity
‘will be unknown, even to myself and neither individual faculty nor their depart-
inents will be identified in the published results. These extreme efforts are made
to encourage your response and thereby increase the value of the study.

 

Your completing and returning the instrument in the enclosed campus mail
envelope by Tuesday, May 2, 1972, will be greatly appreciated. Also, attached you
will find a signature card to be forwarded separately to indicate your participa-
tion in the study and guide subsequent follow-up procedures where required.

 

Thank you for your consideration and cooperation in this important matter.

Yours truly,

Dale Lefever
Engineering Adviser

Dchag

Attachment

169

 

 

APPENDIX D

FIRST REMINDER LETTER

‘. -.

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY ammo-manom 48823

 

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 0 OFFICE OF STUDENT ”PAIRS - ENGINEERING BUILDING

May 3, 1972

Dear Faculty Member:

Last week you received a request for your participation in a research
project focusing on faculty perceptions of the prOposed Bachelor of Arts in
Engineering program. My review of the signature cards indicates that you
have not yet forwarded a c0py of the questionnaire. If you have completed
and returned a copy of the questionnaire, please disregard this letter and
simply return the attached signature card. This signature card is my only
record of your participation.

Since the study involves the total faculty of this College, the reSponse
of each faculty member is crucial. If the further development and final im-
plementation of this new program is to be successful, your concerns must
be made visible. Your reSponses (which will remain completely anonymous)
will greatly facilitate this objective.

 

In view of the importance of your participation, your cooperation is
again requested. Please complete the questionnaire and forward it and the
signature card as soon as possible. An additional copy of the questionnaire
is enclosed for your use if necessary.

 

I appreciate the time required of you in this effort and look forward to
sharing the results of this study with you once the remaining questionnaires have
been received.

Thank you,

Dale Lefeve
Engineering Adviser

Dchag

Enclosures

170

APPENDIX E

SECOND REMINDER LETTER

 

tw

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY am LANSING - mason: 48823

 

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING - OFFICE OF STUDENT AFFAIRS - ENGINEERING BUILDING

May 9, 1972

Dear

Since the last week of April, you should have received two requests
for your participation in a college-wide research project. This study
concentrates on the Bachelor of Arts in Engineering program and attempts
to elicit your personal opinions in this regard. And, since this study
involves the total faculty in the College, I'm sure you can appreciate
how important it is for each individual faculty member to complete and
return the questionnaire as soon as possible.

As I mentioned in my initial letter, this study has been endorsed by
my doctoral committee and approved by the Dean and Department Chairmen's
Group of this College. The opinions of individual respondents and their
departmental affiliation will remain completely anonymous throughout the
study. The results will be reported on a college-wide basis only.

I would be very grateful if you would take fifteen or twenty minutes
to fill out one of the questionnaires previously forwarded to you and re-
turn it to me in the enclosed campus mail envelope by Friday, May 12, 1972.
This deadline is necessary if the responses are to be analyzed and a report
submitted to the faculty before the end of this Spring term.

 

Thank you for your consideration and cooperation in this matter.

Yours truly,

Dale Lefever
Engineering Adviser

171

APPENDIX F

FACULTY QUESTIONNAIRE

.‘

W

THERE ARE NO RIGHT 0R WRONG ANSWERS TO THE FOLLOWING
QUESTIONS. ALL OF THE QUESTIONS PERTAIN TO YOUR AT-
TITUDES AND OPINIONS.

CIRCLE THE NUMBER OF THE ONE RESPONSE FOR EACH QUES-
TION THAT MOST ADEQUATELY REPRESENTS YOUR PRESENT
FEELINGS.

1. Generally speaking, programs like the proposed Bachelor of
Arts in Engineering represent a necessary addition‘;g the
field of engineering education.

2. As presently designed, the Bachelor of Arts in Engineering
program represents a necessary addition in engineering edu-

cation in this Collsgg.

3. Our College should have more thoroughly explored other a1-
ternatives before deciding to implement the proposed Bach-
elor of Arts in Engineering program.

4. The College Curriculum Committee made the right decision
in approving the proposed Bachelor of Arts in Engineering

pro gram s

5. The faculty of this College should actively support and
participate in the further development of the Bachelor of
Arts in Engineering program.

6. I desire to be personally involved (teach-develop courses)
in the implementation of the Bachelor of Arts in Engineer-
ing program.

Section II

THE FOLLOHING 4 ITEMS DEAL WITH YOUR PERCEPTIONS OF YOUR FACULTY
WORK GROUP. CIRCLE THE NUMBER OF THE‘QNE RESPONSE FOR EACH STATE-
MENT THAT MOST ADEQUATELY REPRESENTS YOUR PRESENT OPINIONS CON—
CERNING THIS ISSUE.

7. I feel I am really a part of my departmental faculty group.

8. If I had the chance to obtain the same position for the
same salary in another engineering college, I would consid-
er moving.

9. In my opinion, the faculty in my department get along with
one another better than those in other departments in this
College.

10. In my opinion, the faculty in my department really help

each other with their work as compared with faculty in
other departments in this College

lf72

I strongly agree.
I disagree.
I strongly disagree.

I agree.
Undecided.

W
b

 

173

Section III

THE FOLLOWING 16 ITEMS DESCRIBE AREAS OF POTENTIAL IMPACT OF
THE BACHELOR OF ARTS IN ENGINEERING PROGRAM. CIRCLE THE
NUMBER OF THE QEEDRESPONSE FOR EACH STATEMENT THAT MOST ADE-
QUATELY REPRESENTS YOUR PRESENT OPINIONS CONCERNING THESE IS—
SUES.

 

I strongly agree.
I strongly disagree.

I agree.

V” Undecided.

A
\J')

I disagree.

11. The B.A.E. program will help alleviate the undergraduate
enrollment problems in the College.

H
N

12. The B.A.E. program will lower the prestige of our pres-
ent engineering program in the eyes of other universities. 1 2 3 4 5

13. The B.A.E. program will compete with the present engineer-
ing programs for limited college resources. 1 2 3 4 5

14. The B.A.E. program will decrease the attractiveness of our
present undergraduate program with future employers. 1 2 3 4 5

 

15. The B.A.E. program represents a necessary response to
society's need for technically trained and socially aware
individuals. 1 2 3 4 5

16. The B.A.E. program will compete with the regular program
for our undergraduate enrollments. l 2 3 4 5

17. The B.A.E. program will improve the general image of en-
gineering within the university community. 1 2 3 4 5

18. The B.A.E. program will provide students with a sound and
marketable education. 1 2 3 4 5

19. Faculty participating in the B.A.E. program will be re-
warded on an equal basis with faculty in existing programs. 1 2 3 4 5

20. The implementing of the B.A.E. program will lead to a pro-
fessional division between non-B.A.E. and B.A.E. faculty. 1 2 3 4 5

21. The B.A.E. program will decrease the strength of individ-
ual academic disciplines in the College. 1 2 3 4 5

22. The B.A.E. program will require faculty to lower their
teaching and academic standards for a new group of stu- .
dents. 1 2 3 4

\J’l

23. The presence of the B.A.E. program will strengthen and
give support to the value of teaching in this College. 1 2 3 4

.v,‘

24. The B.A.E. program will lead to an erosion of department-
a1 automony in this College. 1 2 3 4 5

25. The B.A.E. program will provide faculty with valuable in-
teraction with a new group of students. 1 2 3 4 5

26. The B.A.E. program will conflict with faculty time for re-
search and professional development. 1 2 3 4 5

Section IV

 

1374

Some department chairmen are more likely to handle certain situations in one way

than in another way.

Each has his own style.

Check the one answer which best describes the way your department chairman would
usually handle each of the following situations.

NOTE:

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

(1) This information will not identify any individuals or departments or
serve as an evaluation in any respect; (2) Respond in terms of the individual who
was chairman during the 1970-71 school year.

When a question arises about how something should be done, my department chair—
man is most apt to:

A.

 

B.

C.

 

D.

 

Insist that the individual must adjust to the situation in his own
"We

Insist that, rules or no rules, everything be done in the department
chairman's way.

Insist that the department faculty must come to a common agreement
about the situation.

Insist everything be done according to college rules and regulations.

When my department chairman finds someone disagreeing with him, he is most

apt to:

A.
B.
C.
D.

 

 

 

 

Refer to his own experience and know-how to back up his Opinions.
Get agreement on his ideas by influencing certain individuals.
Refer to the college policy and procedures to back his opinions.
Go along with the decision of the department faculty in deciding
the issue.

My department chairman would prefer to hire:

A.
B.
C.
D.

 

 

 

 

A person who is ambitious and bright.

A hard worker, who doesn't need much supervision.

A person who is open-minded and willing to share responsibility.
A person who is agreeable and willing to follow rules.

Ratings and promotions in this department seem to be based on:

A.

 

B.
C.
D.

 

 

 

A person's records which show his professional skills and accomplish-
ments.

A person's length of service and experience in the department.

A person's ambition and ability to learn.

Recommendations by both department chairmen and faculty.

My department chairman is most apt to give out new assignments and information

by:
A.

 

B.
C.
D.

 

 

 

Discussing them with the faculty, getting the faculty comments and
questions.

Sending or posting a written notice for every faculty member.
Explaining the assignments to each one concerned individually.
Telling each faculty member about them if he feels it is necessary.

My department chairman seems most interested in developing his ability to:

A.
B.
C.
D.

 

 

 

 

Properly make reports, handle paperwork, etc.

Handle any problems of work flow, teaching schedules, etc.
Understand faculty ideas, interests and standards.

Deal with the individual faculty "diplomatically."

175

33. My department chairman seems to feel that the "ideal" department chairman
should:

A. Not use his authority - respect the faculty Opinions.

B. Not make a snap judgment - be systematic and impartial.

C. Have faculty respect his authority - make prompt, firm decisions.
D. Avoid unnecessary conflicts - give praise and personal attention.

 

 

 

 

34. My department chairman tries to get the work accomplished by:

A. Carefully directing and disciplining faculty.

B. Appealing to the individual's desire for selfbimprovement.
C. Following plans for scheduling assignments in detail.

D. Trying to get faculty to work together as a team.

 

 

 

 

35. My department chairman seems to be most interested in:

A. A neat, well-regulated department.

B. A friendly, well-integrated faculty.

C. An efficient well-controlled department.

D. An ambitious, competitive spirit among faculty.

 

 

 

 

36. If we decided on a new way to handle part of our responsibilities, our depart-
ment chairman would probably:

 

A. Tell us to go ahead if he was sure it would be more efficient.
B. Talk to us individually to see how each of us felt about it.
C. Urge us to go ahead if no one had any questions about it.

D. Insist that we wait until he had consulted the dean about it.

 

 

 

 

37. If a disagreement were to arise - say, about teaching load - my department
chairman would probably:

A. Emphasize the loyalty we owe to the college.

B. Emphasize the need for cooperation by the faculty.

C. Emphasize that the ambitious person gets ahead in the long run.

D. Emphasize the need to follow his work schedule to get the work ac-
complished.

 

 

 

 

38. My department chairman seems to depend most on:

A. His knowledge of college policies and procedures.

B. His ability to work with the faculty as a group.

C. His ability to influence people to do what has to be done.
D. His professional knowledge in his discipline.

 

 

 

 

39. If one of us continued to confront our department chairman with a minor com-
plaint, he would probably:

A. Talk the problem over and try to understand the person's feelings.
B. Direct him to the next appropriate level of authority.

C. Help him to become interested in something more constructive.

D. Tell him politely but firmly that the complaint was unreasonable.

 

 

 

 

40. If I suggested an improvement in the department, my department chairman would
be most apt to:

A. Urge me to put it directly into a written suggestion.

B. Urge me to talk it over with the others for their comments.

C. Ask to have time to go over it before he makes any comments.

D. Go over it with me: point out that this is the way to get ahead.

 

 

 

 

41.

42.

 

176

In general, my department chairman seems to have the following effect on the
faculty:

A. He seems to create an "I don't care" attitude.
B. He seems to make people antagonistic toward him.
C. He seems to create cooperation among the faculty.
D. He seems to create competition between faculty.

 

 

 

 

The last time there was a change in our assignments, my department chairman:

A. Talked to each individual about the changes in his responsibilities.
B. Asked the faculty how the problem should be handled.
C. Read (or posted) the instructions which he had received.
D. Told us how he thought the change should be handled.

 

 

 

Section V

The following questions have to do with the communication processes of the College as they
relate to the Bachelor of Arts in Engineering program.

177

Please check the one item that

most adequately represents the situation as you perceive it.

(‘3.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

Of the information communicated about the proposed B.A.E. program, I think I have

received:

 

 

 

 

 

All of it.

Most of it.

Some of it.

Only a little of it.
None of it.

The information I have received from the College aboutthe proposed B.A.E. program
can best be described as:

A.

 

U

 

O

 

U

 

 

Factual and definite.

Fairly definite.

Uncertain or vague.

Too general and uncertain.

I haven't received any information.

I have participated in informal discussions with fellow faculty about the proposed
B.A.E. program:

A.

 

 

O

 

U

 

Fl

 

Very often.
Often.
Sometimes.
Not often.
Never.

The B.A.E. program has been discussed formally at my department level:

an»

 

O

 

U

 

 

Very often.
Often.
Sometimes.
Not often.
Never.

When the recent decision was made to implement the B.A.E. program, the faculty of
this College received:

A.

 

cu

 

O

 

U

 

F!

 

Much more information from the College than usual.

Somewhat more information from the College than usual.

About the same amount of information from the College as usual.
Somewhat less information from the College than usual.

Much less information from the College than usual.

I can recall first hearing that the College had decided to implement the B.A.E.

program:

A.

 

w

 

O

 

U

 

Ill

 

More than a year before it was decided.
Several months before it was decided.
Just before it was decided.

Only after it was decided.

I didn't know it was decided.

178

 

.ncfi ma so suck H cows: um comm m£H .oo

 

.Aumo: hov sue: xuoa H sens eHmooa one .on

 

.now MI so o>sn H >uHHHnHucccauL we assess 0:9 .mm

 

.suo: museum pochms mum newness we: ugh .nm

 

.30“ ha so uom H hhmHmm one .om

 

 

.noh ma; moHvflm: ”CNELHRJL ufiuEUMmm
use «Hv soon ogu no cmsuHmso ucosuuoaov >5 has 0:9 .mm

 

.ACQELHN£O uflufiuuwmwv wwv Ewan Ho cwELvmxt
ucmauumaov ma swan o>ms H aHSssowumHsu we vcwx use .em

 

.AOH he so as we penance» xuos mo uaaoam ssh .mn

 

.ncn AF so «5 mo pepHsvmp mosmahowusm mo Ho>oH m:H .Nm

 

 

.umw H :cHtmELcwcH ecu we Aumu=oum any .Hm

 

 

.uum H FawamELCmcH MO undead uSH .om

 

.uom xhoa H eonHoo ony .oq

 

vonmHumm onwwHumw vowumwumm uoHumHumm uoHHmHumm
uc: umssmEOm wuHsv ahu> %HouoHQEco

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.DOH usoz cu meHmam uH mm neuomw mzu :uHB ccHuommeusm

mmmmmmmm MMNN mswmsunxe amen 20Hca unassumum 0:» nova: xumE xomno m oumHa .uouumu some cu axe: nfiflHou mums-aon ecu cH
.AOn s=o% so m>m£ sch mmmmmmmmmmmm MMMMMMM o:u uoswwm zmfi £UHs3 muouomw mo umHH m mH scHen :ESHoo ucmsuuanu ecu CH
.mmfl MMMN wflmmmmmmmw moxHHmHu mmm woxHH MNMN we 050m mumuaxo cu huHsauuoaao ecu so» ww>Hw umHH xomxo wsHaoHHow one

 

 

 

 

H> cOHuuem

 

179

 

 

 

n q n N H n q n N H e s s e e s e e e s s e s s e e “Hog.“USOnH UH
msoHHow new on cu vomoaa:m aw mHou nH: awn:
msocx use some .oucm>pm cw use vaH and msHsh
onu ”mmoooua o>HumuumHsHaps >Housa m mH uH .mw

 

 

m q n N fl m Q m N a I I I O I O I O I I I I I I O I I I O I vca
naoo mo sHsso s hHuUHuue «H uH ”EH; aoHHow
use» onu use .conHoep ecu moxma sea sou och .No

 

 

m c m N H m e n N H . . . . . uuouomw usmuwoaaH AHHssvo one once
-os HHHD huuaSch mam oHHnsa any ass: use
soHsHao oHHnsa ”mosses use hHso wH cosmos
use man ”>H0>Huoonno oosepH>u uzu anoa o3 .oo

 

 

n q n N H m q m N H I I I I I I I I O O I I O O I I I I ImGOfimflo
not 6H eHou umewan osu mhmHa aoHumahomsH
soumomou ”hHo>Huoonno mosmvH>m ens LwHos 03 .mo

 

 

m e n N H n a m N H . . . . . . . . . . . . . .msonHuov :H mHop
umewan ecu amHa mHmHuscuscH hex sHmunoo
mo cowamseuea 0:» use mAHnmsoHusHou Hence
:uom .oososHmsH HmahomsH we assume a mH uH .eo

 

 

m e m N H m e m N H . . . . . . . . . . uncusHa mHHmsms HoonHoo
one sH oocoussH so xcmuv oHomsa umoa onu
o>mz 0;: sHacoa ecu uonwshum nosed m aH uH .mo

 

 

m .V n N H m .N n N H e s e e e e e e e s e e s s e e “cwaoumwmfiv
mo mucHoa so omHsouasco as use .pumo; on cu
mucosa a no; asephuo>o masmsomsoo an e>oa o: .No

 

 

m a m N H n q n N H . . . . . mo>Huoonno oeosu wngomou you «use

. uououa acumnhnuaoum s manooxm mam smHa .mo>Hu
uoonpo wuouocoo use moHuHuoHua seHHpmuuo .ssH
-noua may we soHuHchov umoHo s zuHa unsum 03 .Ho

 

 

 

ssh—u HHe ssh» oau can HHs was was

as uoz hHuusm mus> um uoz xHuumm >um>
Hsuosoo cHnwsHuomuscm Mahmoum .m.<.m

mo omoHHoo sH ecoHaHoen pom usosoHasH cu conHoon one new

 

 

.55 53. «on $128 Eon e688 awaauuoaamcm mo umaZoo 2; 3 3 383 8a 2.
wcmeB conHoop :uHa oumasoU mommoooua means we some meow so: .ovma souwo one aconHoom soHss 6H mama mo umHH m nH aoHom

 

HH> cOHuumm

 

9 -_ . 3..

 

HICHIGRN STATE U

"l“l"l"l’ll"l“fl!“‘

NIV. LIBRARIES
"I!WWWIHIIUIIHHI
045781

13