UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The facilitation and hindrance of scholarly activity as reported by The University of British Columbia.. 1985

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
UBC_1985_A2 C62.pdf [ 6.82MB ]
UBC_1985_A2 C62.pdf
UBC_1985_A2 C62.pdf
Metadata
JSON: 1.0055774.json
JSON-LD: 1.0055774+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0055774.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0055774+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0055774+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0055774+rdf-ntriples.txt
Citation
1.0055774.ris

Full Text

THE FACILITATION AND HINDRANCE OF SCHOLARLY ACTIVITY AS REPORTED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA EDUCATION FACULTY MEMBERS MICHELE SHARON KELLS COCHRAN B.A. , Univers i ty of Washington, 1967 M.S. , Univers i ty of Oregon, 1968 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of Administrat ive Adult and Higher Education) by We accept th i s thes is as conforming to the required standard % THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA June 1985 © ,Michele Sharon K e l l s Cochran, 1985 In presenting t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t f r e e l y available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of t h i s thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by h i s or her representatives. I t i s understood that copying or publication of t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. Department O f A d m i n i s t r a t i v e , A d u l t and H i g h e r E d u c a t i o n The University of B r i t i s h Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 Date July 23. 1985 D E - 6 r^/R'-n ABSTRACT This study was concerned with developing and exploring a reasonably, comprehensive scheme of categories which descr ibes, from the perspective of The Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia education facul ty members, what f a c i l i t a t e s and hinders the i r scholar ly a c t i v i t y . The C r i t i c a l Incident Technique was used to e l i c i t 547 incidents from forty -one facul ty members. These incidents were categorized in three separate ways: according to who f a c i l i t a t e d and hindered (the reported responsible agent or agency), to what f a c i l i t a t e d and hindered (the reported act ion of the agent or agency), and to the phase of scholar ly a c t i v i t y that was reported f a c i l i t a t e d or hindered. Six agent or agency, twenty-three a c t i o n , and six phase categories were i d e n t i f i e d . An examination of the act ion categories themselves revealed that they could be grouped under the superordinate categor ies : d i r e c t , enable, and motivate. An examination of the frequency of reported incidents in categories permitted the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of re lat ionsh ips among agent or agency, phase, and act ion categor ies . Several types of evidence provided support for the r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y of the category schemes. From an examination of the f indings as a whole, s ix conclusions were drawn. F i r s t , not a l l act ion categories are relevant for every person, project or phase. Second, not a l l agent or agency categories are involved to a noticeable extent with every action category. Th i rd , the action categories are i n t e r r e l a t e d . Fourth, the act ion categories are bipolar in the sense that each ac tua l l y does contain or may p laus ib ly be said to contain both f a c i l i t a t i n g and hindering events. F i f t h , the act ion categories happen or could happen as part of everyday univers i ty l i f e . S i x th , there is evidence to suggest that the act ion categor ies .are u s e f u l . Future studies might: 1) undertake further studies which w i l l more f u l l y explore and va l idate the act ion categor ies ; 2 ) determine to what extent the act ion category scheme appl ies to other f a c u l t i e s of education and other f a c u l t i e s ; 3 ) use a l t e r n a t i v e methods to confirm re la t ionsh ips among a c t i o n , agent or agency and phase categor ies ; 4 ) examine how the action category scheme i s affected by diverse types of change; and 5 ) determine how an administrator can best accomplish the task of motivat ing, enabl ing, and d i rec t ing scholar ly a c t i v i t y . TABLE OF CONTENTS i v Page LIST OF TABLES v i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ix Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION 1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY 1 PURPOSE AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY 6 Purpose 6 S ign i f icance of the Study 7 DELIMITATIONS AND LIMITATIONS 8 OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY 9 2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 11 CATEGORIES OF FACTORS WHICH APPEAR TO FACILITATE AND HINDER FACULTY MEMBERS' SCHOLARLY ACTIVITY 11 Time 11 Rewards , 13 Resources 17 Colleagueship 19 Freedom 23 CRITIQUE 24 3. RESEARCH DESIGN 31 POPULATION AND SAMPLE 31 V Population 31 Sample 37 DATA COLLECTION 38 C r i t i c a l Incident Technique 38 P i l o t Study 45 Interview Procedures 45 Method of Recording and Extract ing Incidents 47 ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES 48 F i r s t Analysis 49 Second Analys is 51 R e l i a b i l i t y and V a l i d i t y 51 SUMMARY 51 4. RESULTS I: THE CATEGORY SCHEMES 54 INCIDENT FREQUENCY 54 CATEGORIZATION 56 CATEGORY SCHEMES 58 Agents or Agency Categories 60 Phase Categories 62 Action Categories 64 SUMMARY 82 5. RESULTS I I : A PRELIMINARY EXPLORATION OF RELATIONSHIPS AMONG CATEGORIES 83 EXAMINATION OF THE ACTION CATEGORIES 83 AN EXAMINATION OF FREQUENCIES OF INCIDENTS . 87 Phase and Act ion Categories 87 Agent or Agency and Action Categories . . . . 89 v i Relat ionships Among Apparently Prominent Categories 92 SUMMARY 100 6: RESULTS I I I : RELIABILITY, VALIDITY, AND OTHER QUALIFYING ISSUES 102 RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY 102 R e l i a b i l i t y of the Act ion Category Scheme 103 V a l i d i t y of Action Categories 108 V a l i d i t y of the Action Category Scheme . . . 122 OTHER QUALIFYING ISSUES 124 Di rect ing Action Categories 124- Scholar ly Project Category 126 Frequency Data 126 SUMMARY 127 7. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH 128 SUMMARY 128 CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 134 Conclusions and Their Impl icat ions for Administrat ion 135 The Implications for Conceptualization . . . 146 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH 148 REFERENCES 152 APPENDICES A. FACULTY MEMBERS' RECRUITMENT LETTERS AND CONSENT FORM 159 B. DEANS' RECRUITMENT LETTERS 164 C. RATING FORMS 167 v i i LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA FACULTY OF EDUCATION BY RANK — 1982 3 4 2. THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA FACULTY OF EDUCATION BY RANK, TENURE STATUS, AND YEARS TO RETIREMENT — 1982 35 3. . THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA FACULTY OF EDUCATION BY RANK, TENURE STATUS, YEARS TO RETIREMENT, AND CAREER STAGE — 1982 37 4. AVERAGE AND RANGE OF THE NUMBER OF INCIDENTS REPORTED BY FACULTY MEMBERS 56 5. CATEGORY SCHEMES 58 6. CATEGORIES IN THE CATEGORY SCHEMES 59 7. GROUPINGS OF ACTION CATEGORIES . . . . . 84 8. FREQUENCY OF INCIDENTS FOR ACTION CATEGORIES AND PHASE CATEGORIES 88 9. FREQUENCY OF INCIDENTS FOR ACTION CATEGORIES AND AGENT OR AGENCY CATEGORIES 90 10. FACILITATING RELATIONSHIPS AMONG THE DIRECTING ACTION, AGENT OR AGENCY, AND PHASE CATEGORIES 93 11. FACILITATING AND HINDERING RELATIONSHIPS AMONG THE ENABLING ACTION, AGENT OR AGENCY, AND PHASE CATEGORIES . 96 12. FACILITATING AND HINDERING RELATIONSHIPS AMONG THE MOTIVATING ACTION, AGENT OR AGENCY, AND PHASE CATEGORIES 99 13. RELIABILITY OF CATEGORY SCHEMES 106 14. PARTICIPATION RATE IN EACH ACTION CATEGORY 110 15. NUMBER AND PERCENT OF RATING FORM RETURNS AND USABLE RATING FORMS 116 v i i i 16. THE NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF DEANS THAT AGREED, DISAGREED, OR WERE UNDECIDED THAT THE PRESENCE OF EACH ACTION CATEGORY FACILITATED THE CONDUCT OF SOME FORM OF SCHOLARLY ACTIVITY 117 17. THE NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF DEANS THAT AGREED, DISAGREED, OR WERE UNDECIDED THAT THE ABSENCE OF EACH ACTION CATEGORY HINDERED THE CONDUCT OF SOME FORM OF SCHOLARLY ACTIVITY 119 ix ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to express my appreciat ion to the members of my committee, Professors Walter Boldt , John Dennison, Graham Kelsey, and Barry Munro for the i r advice and construct ive c r i t i c i s m . Sincere thanks are extended to The Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia education faculty members and the Canadian Deans of Education for the i r w i l l i n g p a r t i c i p a t i o n . F i n a l l y , I owe a debt of grat i tude to my husband, Larry , for h is constant support and guidance and to my c h i l d r e n , Andrew and Emily , for pa t ien t l y wait ing for the i r mother to f i n i s h her degree. I a lso wish to thank my parents and mother- in- law for the i r f i n a n c i a l assistance and the s ta f f in Budget, Planning and Systems Management for the i r encouragement. 1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY Canadian and American un ivers i ty administrators cur rent ly face l i m i t a t i o n s on the a v a i l a b i l i t y of new facu l ty pos i t ions and on facul ty mobi l i ty (Bean, 1982; Bowen, 1982; Konrad, 1983). Voluntary a t t r i t i o n among faculty with the Ph.D has dropped from about 8 percent in the m i d - s i x t i e s to about 1 percent current ly . . . . The modal age of tenured facu l t y , now two-thirds of the f u l l time work force, i s 36-45, with r e l a t i v e l y few facu l ty over age 55. The bulge of facu l ty between 33 and 47 w i l l be with us u n t i l the f i r s t decade of the next century and perhaps beyond should there be another upward rev is ion of the mandatory retirement age (Chait and Gueths, 1981:30). As a consequence, u n i v e r s i t i e s in the next decade w i l l have to depend on the i r current faculty members to provide new views and to shape future educational cl imates (Brookes and German, 1983; Gaff , 1975; M o r r i l l and Spees, 1982). The challenge facing un ivers i t y administ rators , then, i s to help the current professor iate maintain i t s v i t a l i t y and cont r ibut ions . 2 Administrators are attempting to meet th i s challenge with facul ty development programs (Bean, 1982; Brookes and German, 1983; Gaf f , 1975; Gaff et a l . , 1978; Group for Human Development, 1974; Mayhew, 1979; M o r r i l l and Spees, 1982; Simerly, 1977). According to Nelson (1979:142), facul ty development: . . . concerns i t s e l f with a broad range of a c t i v i t i e s designed to improve facul ty performance in a l l aspects of the i r profess ional l i v e s - as teachers, scholars , and contr ibutors to i n s t i t u t i o n a l dec is ions . The present study focused on one aspect of facul ty development, namely scholar ly a c t i v i t y , for two reasons. F i r s t , scho lar l y a c t i v i t y i s a very important p ro fessor ia l r o l e , t r a d i t i o n a l l y accepted as one of the core functions of higher education ( M o r r i l l and Spees, 1982). The inf luence of such a c t i v i t y i s summarized by Fulton and Trow (1974:30): Despite the fact that i t i s not car r ied on by a l l academics, nor even encouraged in a l l i n s t i t u t i o n s , i t s inf luence i s f e l t in every academic i n s t i t u t i o n , both through i t s e f fect on growth of knowledge (and thus on the content of higher education everywhere), and through i t s ro le in providing the basis of i n s t i t u t i o n a l p res t ige . In recent years, scholar ly a c t i v i t y has become an increasingly important r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for professors in many i n s t i t u t i o n s . Blackburn et a l . (1980:46) noted in the i r study that " a l l i n s t i t u t i o n s expect more time to be given to scholarship than facul ty now g ive . Furthermore, facu l ty want to give more e f f o r t to t h i s a c t i v i t y , even more than •3 the i n s t i t u t i o n expects ." The value of scholar ly a c t i v i t y i s a lso cont inua l l y reinforced by departmental and un ivers i t y committees, who use evidence of such a c t i v i t y as the key c r i t e r i o n for awarding tenure and promotion ( M o r r i l l and Spees, 1982) . Second, l i m i t e d information is current ly ava i lab le to administrators attempting to help facul ty members perform scholar ly a c t i v i t y . To date, a great deal of the research on scho lar l y a c t i v i t y has focused on organizat ional or i n s t i t u t i o n a l and personal or profess ional c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . As F i n k e l s t e i n (1982:1) noted: . . . Invest igators have sought to locate determinants . . . on the one hand, at the macro l e v e l in the organizat ional c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a professor 's current i n s t i t u t i o n a l a f f l i a t i o n or doctoral i n s t i t u t i o n and in his/her d i s c i p l i n a r y a f f i l i a t i o n , and, on the other , at the ind iv idua l l e v e l , in terms of profess ional and personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Research has shown, in a number of ways, that the locat ion of academics' work i s associated with scholar ly p roduct i v i t y (Blackburn and Havighurst, 1979; Blackburn et a l . , 1978; Crane, 1965; Fulton and Trow, 1974; Long,1978). Faculty at some col leges and u n i v e r s i t i e s produce more than facul ty at others (Blackburn, 1979). An i n s t i t u t i o n ' s research emphasis w i l l influence the scholar ly p roduct iv i t y of i t s facu l ty (Blau, 1973; Fulton and Trow, 1974), as w i l l i t s reputation or prest ige (Blau, 1973; Blackburn et a l . , 1978; Long, 1978) and i t s s ize (Blau, 1973; P r i c e , 1968; Rushton and Meltzer , 1979). 4 As for personal and professional c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , personal interest in research has been c i t e d as an important factor in scholar ly p roduct iv i t y (Babchuk and Bates, 1962; Behymer and Blackburn, 1975; Blackburn et a l . , 1978). Other factors include academic rank (Behymer and Blackburn, 1975; Blackburn et a l . , 1978) and ear ly career publ icat ions (Blackburn and Havighurst, 1979; L i g h t f i e l d , 1971; Clemente, 1973). In add i t i on , a re la t ionsh ip between age and scholar ly product iv i ty has establ ished a saddle-shaped curve ( i . e . , a r i s e , a f a l l , then a r ise ) of product iv i ty for several d i s c i p l i n e s (Blackburn et a l . , 1978; Pelz and Andrews, 1966). While these invest igat ions account for some va r ia t ion in pub l icat ion rate (the most commonly used ind icator of scholar ly a c t i v i t y ) , the information does not .serve as a useful guide for administrators because many of the factors are not amenable to change. For example, administrators cannot change the persona l i t i es of ex i s t ing facu l ty members or whether they published ear ly in the i r career . Administrators can, however, try to develop a cl imate within which scholar ly a c t i v i t y i s f a c i l i t a t e d (Fielden and Lockwood, 1973). To do th i s they need information on what f a c i l i t a t e s and hinders faculty members' scho lar ly a c t i v i t y . 5 Previous studies provide some evidence as to what can be used by administrators to f a c i l i t a t e scholar ly a c t i v i t y — time, rewards, resources, col leagueship, and freedom have a l l been studied in th i s context. However, these categories must be seen as only p a r t i a l l y he lp fu l solut ions to the problem of the f a c i l i t a t i o n of facul ty members' scholar ly a c t i v i t y , since a comprehensive scheme of categories has not yet emerged from the studies . F i r s t , the research d id not attempt a comprehensive descr ipt ion of what f a c i l i t a t e s and hinders scholar ly a c t i v i t y . Second, most researchers pre -se lected factors for study rather than seeking to discover the f u l l range of factors that are relevant to scholar ly a c t i v i t y . Th i rd , previous research offered a piecemeal approach in which units of invest igat ion proved d i f f i c u l t to integrate and bu i ld further invest igat ions on. Fourth, most research was concerned with products rather than process. What i s needed i s a reasonably comprehensive scheme of categor ies , which describe what f a c i l i t a t e s and hinders facul ty members' scholar ly a c t i v i t y . For several reasons, i t would seem desirable that the categories should describe what f a c i l i t a t e s and hinders scholar ly a c t i v i t y from the perspective of faculty members themselves. F i r s t , there appears not to be a systematic descr ipt ion from the perspective of facu l ty members themselves. Second, facu l ty members are largely free to 6 di rect the i r own scholar ly a c t i v i t i e s , which can be very i n d i v i d u a l i s t i c and p r i v a t e . For instance, most facul ty members carry out some aspect of scholar ly a c t i v i t y in the i r homes. Th i rd , i t i s only facul ty members who are in a pos i t ion to know the f u l l context and the ro le events play within that context to f a c i l i t a t e and hinder scholar ly a c t i v i t y . For example, a l i b r a r i a n might provide reference mater ia ls , but never see how or i f they were used to make a research proposal . With a reasonably comprehensive scheme of categor ies , which describe from the perspective of faculty members, what f a c i l i t a t e s and hinders the i r scholar ly a c t i v i t y , administrators would p o t e n t i a l l y have a better basis to develop a c l imate within which scholar ly a c t i v i t y is f a c i l i t a t e d . Future research and the conceptual izat ion of facul ty development concerned with scholar ly a c t i v i t y might have a more informed b a s i s . PURPOSE AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY Purpose This study was concerned with developing and explor ing a reasonably comprehensive scheme of categories which descr ibes , from the perspective of facu l ty members, what f a c i l i t a t e s and hinders the i r scholar ly a c t i v i t y . This study used The Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia (UBC) Faculty 7 of Education for the invest igat ion because the population was accessib le and because scholar ly a c t i v i t y has become a more stressed p r i o r i t y among p ro fessor ia l ro les in th i s facu l ty (B i rch , 1982). The research question for th i s study was: What do The Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia education facu l ty members report as f a c i l i t a t i n g and hindering the i r scholar ly a c t i v i t y ? S ign i f icance of the Study This study was concerned with the f i r s t and most basic step in the study of facu l ty development regarding scholar ly a c t i v i t y . A category scheme was induct ive ly developed which describes what f a c i l i t a t e s and hinders scholar ly a c t i v i t y from the perspective of professors themselves. The value of the category scheme i s that i t o f fe rs a reasonably comprehensive basis for the conceptual izat ion of facu l ty development and for the administrat ion of facu l ty development programs concerned with scholar ly a c t i v i t y . Previous research has been valuable in showing that a p a r t i c u l a r factor or set of factors can inf luence scholar ly a c t i v i t y . This research o f fe rs a broad frame of reference capable of integrat ing past research and suggesting a more h o l i s t i c approach to what f a c i l i t a t e s and hinders facu l ty members' scholar ly a c t i v i t y . 8 The research also o f fe rs some guidance on how the category scheme could be used in the conceptual izat ion of faculty development and in the administrat ion of facul ty development programs concerned with scholar ly a c t i v i t y . The resu l ts of fer a basis for future research which might more f u l l y explore and va l idate the categories and re la t ionsh ips among the categor ies. DELIMITATIONS AND LIMITATIONS The resul ts of th i s study apply s p e c i f i c a l l y to The Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia Faculty of Education. However, as w i l l be discussed in Chapter 3, what appl ies to the Faculty of Education at The Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia i s apt to apply to a greater or lesser extent to other u n i v e r s i t i e s ' f a c u l t i e s of education. Future studies w i l l be necessary to determine the general a p p l i c a b i l i t y and the " l imi tat ions of the f indings of th i s study. There are c lear l i m i t s on th i s study. While the present work was intended to ident i f y factors in general , which administrators can use to help professors perform scholar ly a c t i v i t y , the study focused more on external factors that f a c i l i t a t e or hinder, rather than as reported e a r l i e r , on in ternal factors (professional c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s or i n t r i n s i c motivation) for several reasons. F i r s t , administrators are responsible for the cl imate within which 9 scholar ly a c t i v i t y takes place and external factors are more readi ly accessible to administ rat ive p o l i c i e s and dec is ions . Second, there is evidence that research c l imates have important repercussions on research a c t i v i t y (Fielden and Lockwood, 1973). Because th i s study focused pr imar i l y on external fac tors , i t must be understood that the factors that help faculty members perform scholar ly a c t i v i t y w i l l be q u a l i f i e d by the nature ( e . g . , personal and profess ional charac te r i s t i cs ) of those being helped and cannot be expected to account f u l l y for scholar ly a c t i v i t y . Another l i m i t a t i o n to t h i s study i s that the categories derive from s e l f - r e p o r t , and are therefore subject to the l i m i t a t i o n s of s e l f - r e p o r t . While there i s support for the categories ( e . g . , judgmental a n a l y s i s ) , further studies are required, which w i l l more f u l l y explore and va l idate the categories and the re la t ionsh ips among the categor i e s . OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY An int roduct ion , inc luding the background of the study, a descr ipt ion of the purpose, the research question, the main areas of s i g n i f i c a n c e , and d e l i m i t a t i o n s and l i m i t a t i o n s have been provided in Chapter 1. In Chapter 2, the l i t e r a t u r e relevant to what f a c i l i t a t e s and hinders facul ty members' scholar ly a c t i v i t y is reviewed and c r i t i q u e d . 10 In Chapter 3, the research design i s discussed: s p e c i f i c a l l y , the population and sample, the C r i t i c a l Incident Technique, the p i l o t study, the interview procedures, the method of recording and ext ract ing inc idents , and the way in which the data were analyzed. The f indings are presented in Chapters 4, 5, and 6. The category schemes are described in Chapter 4. The prel iminary explorat ion of re la t ionsh ips among categories i s undertaken in Chapter 5. Issues such as r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y are discussed in Chapter 6. A summary, conclusions and imp l i ca t ions , and recommendations for further research are out l ined in Chapter 7, the concluding chapter. 11 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The l i t e r a t u r e relevant to what f a c i l i t a t e s and hinders facu l ty members' scholar ly a c t i v i t y i s reviewed in t h i s chapter. The major studies of the f i e l d have been la rge -sca le projects involv ing numerous var iab les and sometimes numerous smaller s tud ies . Rather than review each study separately , an attempt has been made to provide a prov is iona l categor izat ion of the f ind ings . Hence, t h i s review i s organized on the basis of major categories of factors which appear to f a c i l i t a t e or hinder facul ty members' scho lar ly a c t i v i t y . A c r i t i q u e of the l i t e r a t u r e concludes the chapter. CATEGORIES OF FACTORS WHICH APPEAR TO FACILITATE AND HINDER FACULTY MEMBERS' SCHOLARLY ACTIVITY A review of the relevant l i t e r a t u r e suggests that the major categories are t ime, rewards, resources, col leagueship, and freedom. Time Simerly (1973) conducted an open-ended interview with f i ve percent of the facu l ty at The Univers i ty of Tennessee, Knoxv i l le to determine facul ty perceptions of 1 2 t h e i r growth and development i n p r o f e s s o r i a l r o l e s . F a c u l t y r e p o r t e d t h a t inadequate time h i n d e r e d t h e i r o v e r a l l growth and development. Edward S h e f f i e l d ' s (1982) review of the s t a t e of r e s e a r c h on p o s t s e c o n d a r y e d u c a t i o n i n Canada a l s o r e p o r t e d l a c k of time as a h i n d e r i n g f a c t o r to r e s e a r c h . In t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n , q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were sent t o s e n i o r Canadian o f f i c i a l s of o r g a n i z a t i o n s ( e . g . , u n i v e r s i t i e s , r e s e a r c h c o u n c i l s , government departments of e d u c a t i o n ) and i n d i v i d u a l s ( e . g . , p r o f e s s o r s ) who engaged i n r e s e a r c h on a s p e c t s of p o s t s e c o n d a r y e d u c a t i o n . "For t h o s e on u n i v e r s i t y f a c u l t i e s f o r whom r e s e a r c h i s a p a r t - t i m e a c t i v i t y , the c h i e f impediment was l a c k of t i m e " ( S h e f f i e l d , 1982:51). Konrad's (1983:24) survey on the " n a t u r e and e f f e c t i v e n e s s of f a c u l t y development p r a c t i c e s i n Canadian u n i v e r s i t i e s " a l s o r e f e r r e d t o t i m e . Konrad used a m o d i f i e d C e n t r a (1976) i n s t r u m e n t t o survey t h i r t y Canadian u n i v e r s i t i e s r e p o r t i n g t h a t they had a c t i v i t i e s or a program f o r f a c u l t y development. Where t h e r e was a p r a c t i c e of t e m p o r a r i l y r e d u c i n g t e a c h i n g l o a d , s i x t y - s e v e n p e r c e n t of the r e s p o n d e n t s r e g a r d e d l o a d r e d u c t i o n t o work on a r e s e a r c h a r e a (or a new c o u r s e or a major c o u r s e r e v i s i o n ) as b e i n g e f f e c t i v e or v e r y e f f e c t i v e . S i x t y - o n e p e r c e n t r e p o r t e d s a b b a t i c a l l e a v e s as b e i n g e f f e c t i v e or v e r y e f f e c t i v e . 1 3 Rewards E x t r i n s i c rewards. These are rewards e x t r i n s i c to the work i t s e l f . Salary increment or merit r a i s e , promotion to a higher rank, and career options ( e . g . , administ rat ive p o s i t i o n s , outside consult ing) are three forms of e x t r i n s i c rewards ava i lab le to facul ty members (Tuckman, 1979). Blau (1973) undertook a comparative study of 115 American u n i v e r s i t i e s and co l leges . Information was obtained from three sources ( interviews with the cent ra l admin is t rat ion of the u n i v e r s i t i e s , American Council of Educat ion's American U n i v e r s i t i e s and Colleges - 10th Edi t i o n , and survey resu l ts from 2577 facul ty members) to analyze f i f t y - seven i n s t i t u t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , inc luding s a l a r i e s . Using a regression a n a l y s i s , Blau reported a r e l a t i o n s h i p between higher sa la r ies and the emphasis placed on research, which was measured by research involvement, research ob l iga t ions , and weight of research for tenure d e c i s i o n s . Tuckman (1979) selected facul ty members who were engaged in teaching, research, publ ic serv ice , and adminis t rat ion in twenty-two f i e l d s from a 1972-73 American Counci l on Education's nat ional survey to examine rewards. A regression c o e f f i c i e n t was used to determine the e f fec ts on s a l a r i e s of engaging in a r t i c l e and book p u b l i c a t i o n . Tuckman (1979:169) found that "rewards to those with a large 1 4 number of a r t i c l e s swamp those to facul ty engaged in v i r t u a l l y any other a c t i v i t y . " Using a mul t i va r ia te technique to estimate p robab i l i t y of promotion to the ranks of associate and f u l l professor , a r t i c l e pub l i ca t ion was also found to have an af fect on the p robab i l i t y of promotion. Recognition i s another form of e x t r i n s i c reward. Crane (1965) noted that motivation for s c i e n t i f i c work at major u n i v e r s i t i e s seemed to be based on a "desire for more general s c i e n t i f i c recogn i t ion , " as compared to i n s t i t u t i o n a l rewards for researchers at state u n i v e r s i t i e s . Cole and Cole (1967:377) in a study of 120 p h y s i c i s t s found that recognit ion (awards, appointment to top academic departments, and having one's research known in the community of phys ic i s t s ) "operates to encourage creat ive s c i e n t i s t s to be highly product ive ." A l l i s o n and Stewart (1974:596) reported that "the highly skewed d i s t r i b u t i o n s of product iv i ty among s c i e n t i s t s can be par t l y explained by a process of accumulative advantage." This idea of accumulative advantage "can be viewed as cons is t ing of two feedback loops in which recognit ion and resources are intervening va r iab les" ( A l l i s o n and Stewart, 1974:597). Using th i s as the framework for the study, the authors "found that the f i t between s c i e n t i s t s ' resources, p roduct i v i t y , and esteem improves over the career course" (1974:605). 1 5 Fenker (1977:453) developed a method for comparing an i n s t i t u t i o n ' s incentive structure with a var iety of weighted work-related behaviors faculty are expected to perform. The method was used in a case study of one un ivers i t y to ascer ta in the importance of incentives and the perceived re la t ionsh ip between teaching and research and the l i k e l i h o o d of receiv ing incent ives . The resu l t s indicated that a number of incentives are important to facu l t y . Sabbat ical or merit leave of absence were rated as very important, as were promotions, tenure, and salary increases. However, cer ta in non-monetary awards ( e . g . , recognit ion for research excellence) also received high r a t i n g s . Based on these r e s u l t s , Fenker concluded that the u n i v e r s i t i e s should recognize non-economic incent ives , such as recognit ion awards, espec ia l l y in periods of r e s t r a i n t . Freeman (1979) analyzed the features of the academic job market and suggested another form of e x t r i n s i c rewards. He indicated that the a l l o c a t i o n of laboratory space, supp l ies , and ass is tants could be used to compensate facu l ty for lack of equity in s a l a r i e s . I n t r i n s i c rewards. Pelz and Andrews (1966) examined i n t r i n s i c and e x t r i n s i c rewards as one of several condit ions wi th in a researcher 's environment or o r ientat ion to the environment that accompanied a high or low l e v e l performance. They obtained information from 1311 s c i e n t i s t s 16 and engineers, including 144 un ivers i ty professors, through two forms of a quest ionnaire. Performance measures were obtained in two ways: 1) work evaluations by a researcher 's supervisors and peers, and 2) a researcher 's s e l f - r e p o r t for f i ve years of the number of papers, patents, and reports produced. Within Pelz and Andrews' study, i n t r i n s i c rewards included opportunit ies to use s k i l l s , gain new knowledge, deal with challenging problems, and be free to fol low up one's own ideas. E x t r i n s i c rewards referred to a good sa lary , organizat ional s tatus , and s c i e n t i f i c p res t ige . The authors found that the provis ion of status rewards was associated with achievement, as were i n t r i n s i c rewards. However, based on other resu l ts showing a strong re la t ionsh ip between researchers who r e l i e d on inner sources of motivation and performance, the authors suggested that : . . . the research d i rector must give close at tent ion to the whole system of rewards — both i n t r i n s i c and e x t r i n s i c . He must l i v e with the paradox that e x t r i n s i c rewards cannot be r e l i e d on to motivate achievement, but that when achievement occurs, the e x t r i n s i c rewards should be cons is tent . And possib ly the very provis ion of them w i l l st imulate further achievement (Pelz and Andrews, 1966:139). Marsh and Staf ford (1967:752) a lso supported the importance of i n t r i n s i c rewards by report ing that "academicians choose work a c t i v i t i e s such as teaching and basic research (rather than sales or supervision) that have, in economic terms a large 'consumption component' for them." 1 7 That i s , the academicians regard the enjoyment of the i r profess ional a c t i v i t i e s as a subst i tute for money. Resources Meltzer ( 1 9 5 6 ) found that the prov is ion of funds was p o s i t i v e l y re lated to s c i e n t i f i c output. In te res t ing ly , in the summary and conc lus ion , the author broadened the meaning of funds to include a l l the mater ial aids to product iv i ty — equipment, a s s i s t a n t s , space, and the l i k e . Doctoral work by Thorpe ( 1 9 7 0 ) a lso indicated the importance of resources. His d i s s e r t a t i o n focused on the nature, role and s i g n i f i c a n c e of those involved in the administrat ion of research. He conducted structured interviews with 1 9 8 professors from the Univers i ty of Missouri -Columbia, who were engaged in the conduct or the administrat ion of research. The sample consisted of researchers with grant support of $ 5 0 0 0 or more, chairmen of departments which emphasize research, and d i rec tors of un ivers i ty research cent res . Contingency analys is and Kenda l l ' s rank c o r r e l a t i o n were used to test twenty-one var iab les in the researcher -administrator re la t ionsh ip against " s a t i s f a c t i o n with admin is t ra tor . " These tests revealed several strong associat ions inc luding the "extent to'which the administrator attempted to reward the facul ty member for h is work." Other associat ions involved "the extent to which the administrator would 'go to bat' for 18 researcher" and "the extent to which the administrator i s he lp fu l in providing resources." Blau (1973) obtained a product-moment co r re la t ion of .43 between the c l e r i c a l - f a c u l t y ra t io and research product iv i ty (number of a r t i c l e s , plus f i ve times the number of books authored or coauthored). A l l i s o n and Stewart (1974) also reported a pos i t i ve re la t ionsh ip between resources and p roduct i v i t y . In th i s study, the authors measured resources by the Gin i Index of the number of research ass is tants and the proportion of facu l ty members who indicated they "always" receive the grants they seek. Two Canadian reports concerned with increasing research capacity argued for more resources. Andrews and Rogers (1981) coordinated a review for the Canadian Society for the Study of Education. This review, based on reports from ten sub -d i v i s ions of education, provided the Soc ia l Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRCC) with a descr ip t ion of the nature of the f i e l d of study of education, and the nature of research in education. The review made recommendations for increasing Canadian research in education through changes in SSHRCCs funding p o l i c i e s and procedures (Andrews and Rogers, 1981:1-2) . S p e c i f i c a l l y , nine recommendations were made for increasing research capac i ty . Included were specia l funds for re t ra in ing and reor ientat ion fe l lowships , seed money, research time st ipends, formation of research teams and 19 i n s t i t u t e s , t r a v e l , conference sponsorship, and assistance to research journals . Several s imi la r recommendations were also made to SSHRCC by the Canadian Associat ion of Deans of Education. Based on resu l ts from a questionnaire sent to t h i r t y - e i g h t deans of education and a ser ies of interviews with twenty-four deans, the associat ion recommended that seed money be provided "to inexperienced researchers to enable them to es tab l i sh a research track record" (Canadian Associat ion of Deans of Education, 1982:31); add i t iona l funding was also recommended for fel lowships- , re t ra in ing grants and r e s i d e n t i a l t ra in ing sessions. These recommendations were "aimed at increasing the capacity of our e x i s t i n g facul ty members" (Canadian Associat ion of Deans of Education, 1982:31). Colleagueship The l i t e r a t u r e indicated that profess ional in teract ion i s important to scholar ly p roduct i v i t y . Blau (1973:112-113) found that "the colleague climate exerts a pronounced inf luence on the research involvement of i n d i v i d u a l s . " He noted how the extensive . . . research conducted by the f a c u l t i e s at major u n i v e r s i t i e s creates an academic cl imate that stimulates and f a c i l i t a t e s the research involvement of new faculty members, at the same time putt ing normative pressures on them to engage in research (Blau, 1973:241). 20 DeVries (1975:111) studied sources of influence over 290 facu l ty members at the Univers i ty of I l l i n o i s (Champaign-Urbana campus). The author reported that "the departmental col leagues' expectations [the average importance assigned to a role by the faculty members' department] predict s i g n i f i c a n t l y ro le behaviors for the research role on ly . " Braxton (1983) examined whether departmental pub l icat ion product iv i ty has a p o s i t i v e re la t ionsh ip with ind i v idua l publ icat ion p roduct i v i t y . His research demonstrated that there i s a re la t ionsh ip but that i t i s dependent upon the leve l of p r io r p u b l i c a t i o n : . . . departmental colleagues tend to stimulate or repress to a modest degree the leve l of current research a c t i v i t y of ind i v idua l facu l ty members whose pr ior leve l of research role performance i s low, but have l i t t l e or no ef fect upon the leve l of current research a c t i v i t y of those ind iv idua l academics who have engaged in the research role at a high l e v e l of pr ior performance (Braxton, 1983:125) The l i t e r a t u r e ( e . g . , Pelz and Andrews, 1966; Cameron, 1978) a lso indicated that profess ional interact ion enta i led communication and sponsorship and mentorship. Communication. Behymer and Blackburn (1975), using data c o l l e c t e d by the Carnegie Commission and the American Counci l on Education, examined twenty-two var iab les related to p roduct i v i t y . Their data indicated that the var iable 21 "frequent communication with colleagues at other i n s t i t u t i o n s " i s a better predictor of p roduct iv i t y than "perceived publ icat ion pressure." Pelz and Andrews (1966:39) found that s c i e n t i s t s who tended to show high s c i e n t i f i c performance "spent considerably more time communicating with the i r colleagues than was t y p i c a l for the i r group." A lso , the number of people with whom a researcher exchanged information was associated with number of s c i e n t i f i c products. Blackburn et a l . ' s (1978) "communication with scholars at other i n s t i t u t i o n s " var iable cor re lated with research product i v i ty . F ink les te in (1982) examined col leagueship with two macro va r iab les , i n s t i t u t i o n a l type and d i s c i p l i n a r y a f f l i a t i o n , and two ind iv idua l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , facul ty o r ientat ion to teaching versus research and career age. Based on ind iv idua l interv iews, a questionnaire was developed that l i s t e d t h i r t y functions that colleagues performed. The facul ty members were asked to indicate whether the d i f fe ren t functions were being f u l f i l l e d by departmental col leagues, campus col leagues, and off-campus col leagues. Using a factor a n a l y s i s , several needs factors were i d e n t i f i e d ; help in research was one of the f a c t o r s . This factor included such functions as c r i t i c a l feedback on profess ional w r i t i n g , co-authorship, help in generating and t e s t i n g ideas for research, c o l l a b o r a t i o n , and consultat ion on spec ia l problems. 22 Sponsorship and mentorship. Cameron (1978) examined the re la t ionsh ip between sponsorship and scholar ly success. Sponsorship included such dimensions as f i n a n c i a l support, publ icat ion support, personal encouragement, placement in f i r s t job, work on facu l ty research p ro jec ts , d i s s e r t a t i o n funding, and co l laborat ion with senior facul ty on f i r s t or second p u b l i c a t i o n . Scholar ly success was measured by the rate of p roduct i v i t y , grants received, rate of co l laborat ion by years since Ph.D. , and involvement in publ isher/professional assoc ia t ions ' networks. The study surveyed facul ty members from the d i s c i p l i n e s of e n g l i s h , sociology, and psychology and found tha t : 1) the type of i n s t i t u t i o n (research un ive rs i t y rather than a comprehensive univers i ty ) was re lated to the scholar ly success measures, and that 2) academic f i e l d and early co l laborat ion with senior facu l ty are the strongest pred ic tors of rate of c o l l a b o r a t i o n . Reskin (1979:129) examined the f i r s t ten years of the careers of a group of chemists and reported that "sponsorship appears to play a v i t a l ro le in the chemists' careers . " S p e c i f i c a l l y , "being t ra ined by a productive sponsor and co l laborat ing with one's sponsor during graduate school were both associated with greater predoctoral p roduct iv i t y " (Reskin, 1979:142). 23 Blackburn et a l . (1981:325) studied the experiences of mentors. The authors reported a s i g n i f i c a n t cor re la t ion between mentor's scholar ly product iv i ty and the degree of co l laborat ion in research and wr i t ing with others. The study concluded with the suggestion that : . . . the mentor-protege re la t ionsh ip i s a symbiotic partnership . The stature and accomplishments of the mentor are important to both the academic product iv i ty and advancement of the protege. At the same time, to be seen as a successful protege by a d ist inguished mentor implies fol lowing a career path very much l i k e that of the mentor (Blackburn et a l . , 1981:325-326). Freedom Meltzer(1956) found that freedom to choose one's own research problem without demands from above was corre lated with p roduct i v i t y . However, the factor of freedom was not s u f f i c i e n t by i t s e l f . F inanc ia l support i s a lso required. Andrews did add i t iona l work (1976), studying soc ia l and psychological factors to determine i f they affected the creat ive process. Data were obtained from 115 d i rectors of research pro jects . The d i rec to rs completed questionnaires which were concerned with condit ions in the i r laborator ies ( e . g . , information on hurdles and the process by which they were overcome), submitted a f i n a l research report (which was rated for innovativeness and p r o d u c t i v i t y ) , and completed the Mednicks' Remote Associates Test (1962), as a measure of creat ive a b i l i t y . One f inding regarding the ro le of the 24 administrat ive superior lends further support to the. importance of freedom. "Project d i rectors whose administ rat ive supervisors 'stayed out of the way' — at least with respect to the actual conduct of the research — were the s c i e n t i s t s who tended to obtain higher payoff from the i r c reat ive a b i l i t i e s " (Andrews, 1976:351). S p e c i f i c a l l y , creat ive a b i l i t y and innovation were found to be p o s i t i v e l y correlated with a diminished involvement of the supervisor in research design, a l l o c a t i o n of funds, and h i r i n g of personnel. In h is conclus ion, Andrews was carefu l to note that the resu l ts should not be interpreted to mean that supervisors have no role to p lay : R e c a l l , f i r s t , that a l l the respondents were d i rec tors of the i r own p ro jec ts . Presumably they were reasonably competent s c i e n t i s t s with at least some administrat ive experience. The appropriate ro le for the administrat ive superior of a person at t h i s l e v e l may involve encouragement, f a c i l i t a t i o n , f r i e n d l y c r i t i c i s m , and administrat ion of the laboratory , rather than close involvement with d e t a i l s of others' research (Andrews, 1976:351-352). CRITIQUE Most of the research up to the present time can be regarded as attempts to ident i f y the s i g n i f i c a n t factors that might af fect scholar ly a c t i v i t y . E s s e n t i a l l y , researchers have attempted to map the te r ra in broadly ( e . g . , Thorpe, 1970) or to confirm the importance of s ing le factors 25 ( e . g . , Braxton, 1983; Tuckman,' 1979). Of a number of possible research approaches, several seem not to have been used. For example, there i s a lack of experimental research designs among the studies reviewed. As yet , no one has, for instance, given one group of professors more time for scholar ly a c t i v i t y while holding time constant for another group. No one has extended rewards for scholar ly a c t i v i t y for one group while holding rewards constant for another group. There are p r o h i b i t i v e p r a c t i c a l and e t h i c a l d i f f i c u l t i e s in conducting th i s type of research, but a l s o , the general tenor of invest igat ions suggests i t i s premature. The guiding premise seems to be that i f enough factors are studied, a comprehensive answer to the question of what f a c i l i t a t e s or hinders scholar ly a c t i v i t y w i l l emerge. With a more adequate map ( i . e . , a comprehensive scheme of categor ies ) , future studies and the conceptual izat ion of facu l ty development concerned with scholar ly a c t i v i t y might have a more informed bas is . Administrators would have a more adequate basis for developing a cl imate with in which scho lar l y a c t i v i t y i s f a c i l i t a t e d . Programs for faculty development concerned with scho lar l y a c t i v i t y could be designed in a more e f f e c t i v e manner. Accordingly , the aim of t h i s c r i t i q u e i s to examine why a more comprehensive map has not yet emerged. An answer to th i s question can supply a basis for designing a study that does e s t a b l i s h a more comprehensive basis for 26 future research, and for the conceptual izat ion of faculty development and for the administrat ion of facu l ty development programs concerned with scholar ly a c t i v i t y . F i r s t , most research does not attempt a comprehensive descr ip t ion of what f a c i l i t a t e s and hinders scho lar l y a c t i v i t y . Rather, researchers have sought to contr ibute to a comprehensive descr ip t ion by invest igat ing a s ingle factor or a small set of f a c t o r s . For example, Simerly (1973) studied time. Tuckman (1979) studied rewards. Cameron (1978) studied sponsorship. F i n k e l s t e i n (1982) studied col leagueship and Blackburn e t . a l . (1981) studied mentorship. The adequacy of confirmation involved in these studies var ies considerably . S imer ly 's study employed an open-ended interview to gain opinions. S i m i l a r l y , many of the questionnaire surveys (Fenker, 1977; Thorpe, 1970; Canadian Associat ion of Deans of Education, 1982; S h e f f i e l d , 1982) ask for d i r e c t opinions on what f a c i l i t a t e d or hindered scholar ly output. Other studies use object ive ind ices . For example, Blau (1973) used indices of c l e r i c a l support and research p roduc t i v i t y . DeVries (1975) used Administrat ive Data F i l e s as a measure of organizat ional expectations for research. Thorpe (1970) developed an "Index of S c i e n t i f i c Contr ibut ion" to use in h is invest igat ion of the appropriate role of the academic research administ rator . However, the qual i ty of these invest igat ions i s not at issue here. The point i s , rather, 27 when researchers focus upon s ing le factors or a small set of fac to rs , a comprehensive descr ip t ion is less l i k e l y to emerge, than when a systematic design i s used to achieve comprehensiveness. Second, most researchers pre -se lect factors for study rather than seek to discover the f u l l range of factors that are relevant to scholar ly a c t i v i t y . In broad studies employing many fac tors , there i s an attempt to be thorough in including important aspects. Pelz and Andrew's (1966) are notable in th i s regard. In preparation for the i r study, they interviewed scholars to determine relevant v a r i a b l e s . Upon the basis of these interviews and the i r own views, they developed two quest ionnaires, items of which were to be corre lated with two indices of research p roduct i v i t y . However, even in th is study, there is no warrant for be l iev ing these interviews were systematic and thorough enough to capture the f u l l range of relevant fac to rs . Other omnibus studies ( e . g . , Behymer and Blackburn, 1975; B lau , 1973) s i m i l a r l y lacked any bas is for c laiming that the i r samples of var iab les re f lec ted the whole population of fac to rs . The r e l i a b i l i t y of measures in these studies i s general ly wi th in an acceptable range and these studies are valuable in showing the r e l a t i o n s h i p of many factors to scholar ly p roduct i v i t y . However, they are inadequately grounded for c laiming a comprehensive descr ip t ion of what f a c i l i t a t e s and hinders facu l t y members' scholar ly a c t i v i t y . 28 Th i rd , for the purposes of a coherent and comprehensive desc r ip t ion , i so la ted studies of one or a small number of factors seem inadequate. The factors used in these studies referred to d i f fe ren t (and h i ther to uncompared) facets of scho lar l y a c t i v i t y . For example, some researchers stress agents, who f a c i l i t a t e or hinder research ( e . g . , Braxton, 1983), while other researchers stress what what i t i s that f a c i l i t a t e s research ( e . g . , Cole and Cole, 1967). As a c o l l e c t i o n , previous research of fers a piecemeal approach to the generation of a comprehensive descr ip t ion in which units of invest igat ion prove d i f f i c u l t to integrate and bu i ld further invest igat ions on. Fourth , most research has been concerned with products rather than process. In most cases ( e . g . , A l l i s o n and Stewart, 1974; Blau, 1973; Blackburn e t . a l . , 1981; Braxton, 1983; Cameron, 1978; DeVries, 1975; Meltzer , 1956; Pelz and Andrews, 1966; Thorpe, 1970; Tuckman, 1979), the dependent va r iab le i s research p roduct i v i t y , how much was done rather than how i t was done. There are two problems with th i s focus. ' From an administ rat ive perspect ive, the f i r s t problem i s that i t leaves one ignorant of the steps, phases, or process of doing scholar ly a c t i v i t y . Scholar ly a c t i v i t y i s not a s ingle e n t i t y , but rather might be seen to involve a complex set of steps such as gett ing an idea, gett ing acess to data, conducting research, and report ing i t , among other th ings. To f a c i l i t a t e scholar ly a c t i v i t y 29 and to minimize hindrances, i t would be desi rable admin is t ra t i ve ly to know what factors are important for what steps. A second problem is that to consider scholar ly p roduct i v i t y is d i f fe ren t from considering the question of what f a c i l i t a t e s or hinders scholar ly a c t i v i t y . For example, consider two members of a department, one who i s productive and one who i s not. The admin is t ra tor ' s task in t h i s case, i s to f a c i l i t a t e the scholar ly a c t i v i t y of both, and to do t h i s , he or she requires more basic information about how scholar ly a c t i v i t y i s f a c i l i t a t e d . By learning how to f a c i l i t a t e scholar ly a c t i v i t y , p roduct iv i t y might be improved, but an immediate focus upon product iv i t y can lead to a neglect of basic condi t ions . In the studies c i t e d in t h i s chapter, cer ta in scholars were low or medium in p r o d u c t i v i t y , but they s t i l l d id scholar ly a c t i v i t y . A basic question i s therefore what f a c i l i t a t e d or hindered the i r conduct of scholar ly a c t i v i t y . The shortcomings of previous research can be important in considering the design of a l te rna t i ve approaches. The key issues seem to be the fo l lowing . Instead of concentrating upon a s ingle factor or a small set of fac tors , i t would be desirable to t ry to develop a comprehensive l i s t of fac to rs . 30 Rather than pre -se lec t fac tors , i t would be desirable to use a method whose very purpose i s to discover what range of factors are involved. It would be desi rable to regard scholar ly a c t i v i t y as a complex set of steps, each of which might be f a c i l i t a t e d or hindered, rather than a s ingle en t i t y . It would be desi rable to focus more on ind iv idua l facul ty members rather than groups, since what f a c i l i t a t e s or hinders scholar ly a c t i v i t y i s apt to vary from person to person. Even what i s prominent for a person at a time might vary over t ime. A uniform ef fect cannot be assumed and a research method which takes ind iv idua l perspectives into account seems advantageous. The present study was designed to incorporate these features. The design i s described in the fol lowing chapter. 31 CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH DESIGN In t h i s chapter, the research design i s presented for th is study, whose purpose was: 1) to develop a reasonably comprehensive scheme of categories which descr ibes, from the perspective of facul ty members, what f a c i l i t a t e s and hinders the i r scholar ly a c t i v i t y ; and 2) to undertake a prel iminary exploration of re lat ionships among categories in order to gain a more complete picture of the scheme of categor ies . The population and sample are del ineated. The way in which the data were c o l l e c t e d , including the C r i t i c a l Incident Technique, the p i l o t study, the interview procedures, and the method of recording and extract ing incidents are also discussed. A review of the way in which the data were analyzed and an introduction to questions of r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y conclude the chapter. POPULATION AND SAMPLE Populat ion The study was r e s t r i c t e d to f u l l - t i m e facul ty members at the a s s i s t a n t , assoc iate , and f u l l professor ranks in the Faculty of Education at The Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia. The advantages of using one facul ty 32 rather than a broad se lect ion of f a c u l t i e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s are severa l . F i r s t , the population i s access ib le . Second, the use of one facul ty i s intended to describe at least one s i tua t ion w e l l . With one wel l -descr ibed s i t u a t i o n , researchers can then determine a p p l i c a b i l i t y to other s i t u a t i o n s . In cont rast , in a broad general descr ipt ion involv ing a number of f a c u l t i e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s , i t would be d i f f i c u l t to determine the extent to which any pa r t i cu la r s i tua t ion was descr ibed. Thi rd , there i s t h e - p o s s i b i l i t y of immediate p r a c t i c a l benef i t . Scholar ly a c t i v i t y i s a heavi ly stressed p r i o r i t y among p r o f e s s o r i a l a c t i v i t i e s within the Faculty of Education at The Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia. The dean has stated that one goal for departments is "to provide scholar ly leadership in the f i e l d s represented in i t s membership" (B i r ch , 1982). This stated d i rec t ion provides considerable impetus to plans for promoting scholar ly a c t i v i t y , which the resu l ts of t h i s study might a s s i s t . This invest igat ion used the Faculty of Education at The Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia and has the strongest assurance of a p p l i c a b i l i t y in t h i s one facu l t y . However, the more general population ( i . e . , target population) i s f a c u l t i e s of education across u n i v e r s i t i e s . I t seems reasonable to assume that the Faculty of Education at The Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia i s not unique and that what appl ies to th i s un ivers i t y appl ies to some other education 33 f a c u l t i e s . For example, the Faculty of Education at The Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia stands in the same posi t ion to granting agencies as do other education f a c u l t i e s . I ts organizat ional structure with a dean, departments, sec re ta r ies , computer f a c i l i t i e s , and bureaucratic agencies, is s imi la r to that of other f a c u l t i e s . There i s an emphasis on scholar ly a c t i v i t y at The Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia, and such an emphasis has been found to cor re la te with scholar ly p roduct iv i t y (Blau, 1973; Fulton and Trow, 1974). A lso , doctoral granting i n s t i t u t i o n s , inc luding The Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia, cons is tent ly have higher leve ls of scholar ly output than other types of i n s t i t u t i o n s (Blackburn et a l . , 1978). Size (the number of f u l l and part time facul ty employed at the i n s t i t u t i o n ) has been found to cor re late s i g n i f i c a n t l y with scho lar l y product iv i ty ( e . g . , Blau, 1973). In essence, The Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia does exh ib i t many c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of other u n i v e r s i t i e s with high research p roduc t i v i t y . What appl ies to The Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia Faculty of Education (the accessible population) i s apt to apply to other u n i v e r s i t i e s ' f a c u l t i e s of education (the target population) to a greater or lesser extent. This c la im i s not based upon normative genera l i za t ion , but upon the log i c of case studies general ly , that what appl ies to one facul ty i s apt to apply to others . There are 225 f u l l - t i m e faculty members at the a s s i s t a n t , assoc iate , and f u l l professor ranks in the Faculty of Education at The Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia. Because studies ( e . g . , Baldwin, 1979; Blackburn and L indquis t , 1971) indicate that professors d i f f e r ( e . g . , in research in te res ts , product iv i ty ) in d i f fe ren t ranks or career stages, the population was s t r a t i f i e d by rank to ensure that a representative group was received from the populat ion. Table 1 depicts the numbers in the three ranks of the accessible populat ion. TABLE 1: THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA FACULTY OF EDUCATION BY RANK — 1982 Rank n Professor 51 Associate Professor 90 Assistant Professor 84 Total 225 I n i t i a l l y , a twenty percent random sample was to be drawn from each rank. However, an examination of the three ranks by two career stage ind ica to rs , tenure status and years to retirement, revealed that there were a number of facul ty members of long service at the ass is tant professor and associate professor l e v e l s and untenured facul ty members at the associate professor l eve l (see Table 2) . These age 35 TABLE 2: THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA FACULTY OF EDUCATION BY RANK, TENURE STATUS, AND YEARS TO RETIREMENT — 1982 Tenure Status Years to Retirement Not Rank Tenured Tenured Total <1 5 >1 5 Total Professor 51 0 51 41 1 0 51 Associate Professor 80 1 0 90 41 49 90 Assistant Professor 58 26 84 22 62 84 Total 225 225 and tenure status d i f ferences in the ranks suggested that the sample should be modified by career stage to ensure that a representative group would be obtained. While there are varied conceptions of career stages, there i s also considerable overlap in these conceptions. After a lengthy review of theor ies , H a l l (1976) concluded that a s ingle d i v i s i o n into e a r l y , middle, and late stages i s best. Moreover, at least two studies provide empir ica l support for th is conclusion (Rush et a l . , 1980; Stumpf and Rabinowitz, 1981). Perhaps there are more stages, but the evidence does not appear to be strong enough at the present time to j u s t i f y more than three general d i v i s i o n s in order to ensure a representative sample of incidents from The Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia Faculty of Education. 36 To take account of the age and tenure status d i f ferences of the education facu l t y , modif icat ions were made to the rank-based s t r a t i f i c a t i o n of facu l t y . These modif icat ions were based on a three career stage model ( H a l l , 1976). The f i r s t stratum became facul ty members from the ass is tant and associate professor ranks who were at the early stage. This stage begins upon entry into the un ivers i ty and ends with the granting of tenure. At UBC, tenure i s awarded af ter the f i f t h year, providing that a facul ty member demonstrates profess ional competence in teaching and scholar ly a c t i v i t y and has made a serv ice cont r ibu t ion . As depicted in Table 3, a t o t a l of t h i r t y - s i x facul ty members (10 associate professors and 26 ass i s tan t professors) were untenured and at t h i s ear ly stage. The second stratum consisted of facul ty members from a l l ranks who were at the middle stage. This stage begins with the awarding of tenure, with or without promotion to associate professor , and ends when the faculty member i s f i f t e e n years from retirement. E i g h t y - f i v e facul ty members (ten professors , t h i r t y - n i n e associate professors , and t h i r t y - s i x ass is tant professors) were at th i s middle stage (see Table 3) . The t h i r d stratum consisted of facul ty members from a l l ranks who were at the late stage. This stage captures facul ty members in the f i n a l stages of the i r careers , the las t f i f t e e n years of work, from age f i f t y to s i x t y - f o u r . 37 TABLE 3: THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA FACULTY OF EDUCATION BY RANK, TENURE STATUS, YEARS TO RETIREMENT AND CAREER STAGE — 1982 Years to Retirement >15 Years <15 Years Rank Career Ear ly 1 Middle 2 Stage Stage Stage Late 2 Total Stage Professor Associate Professor Ass istant Professor Total 1 Untenured facu l ty 2 Tenured facu l ty One hundred and four facul ty members ( forty -one professors , forty -one associate professors , and twenty-two ass is tant professors) were at th i s la te stage (see Table 3) . One further modif icat ion was made. Faculty members on study leave (who were not on campus), those on sick leave, and members of the researcher 's d i s s e r t a t i o n committee were excluded from the representatives of each career stage p r io r to the se lec t ion of the sample. Sample A twenty percent random sample was drawn from each career stage for a t o t a l sample of for ty -one. Eight members of the early stage par t i c ipated in th i s study. Fourteen members of the middle stage p a r t i c i p a t e d . Four members of 0 10 10 39 26 36 36 85 41 51 41 90 22 84 104 225 38 the late stage decl ined p a r t i c i p a t i o n and were replaced by random draw. Nineteen members of the la te stage p a r t i c i p a t e d . DATA COLLECTION C r i t i c a l Incident Technique The C r i t i c a l Incident Technique (Flanagan, 1954) was the selected method of data c o l l e c t i o n for t h i s study. This technique i s a form of interview research designed to c o l l e c t an extensive range of incidents from people who are in a pos i t ion to report what f a c i l i t a t e d or hindered the aim of an a c t i v i t y . These inc idents are then categorized to provide an answer to the general question of what f a c i l i t a t e s and what hinders t h i s a c t i v i t y . Flanagan refers to t h i s set of categories as a funct ional descr ipt ion of an a c t i v i t y . The technique grew out of studies car r ied out in the Av iat ion Psychology Program of the Army Air Forces in World War I I . The success of the method in analyzing such a c t i v i t i e s as combat leadership and d i so r ien ta t ion in p i l o t s resulted in i t s extension and further development a f ter the war. This developmental work has been ca r r ied out p r imar i l y at the American Ins t i tu te for Research and The Univers i ty of Pi t tsburgh (Flanagan, 1954:354) 39 Since the i n i t i a l s tudies , the C r i t i c a l Incident Technique has had a var iety of a p p l i c a t i o n s . For example, i t has been used to improve the design of equipment, to develop prof ic iency measures (Flanagan, 1954), and to develop e f fec t i ve learning environments (Dachelet et a l . , 1981). The technique has been used in a var iety of f i e l d s , inc luding psychology, nursing, and commerce ( e . g . , Dachelet et a l . , 1981). A lso , the technique i s not unknown to the l i t e r a t u r e in administrat ive theory. It was used by Herzberg (1959) in the work which led. to . the development of h is two-factor theory of worker s a t i s f a c t i o n . The C r i t i c a l Incident Technique has had a long h is tory of use. Evidence regarding the r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y of the C r i t i c a l Incident Technique has been provided by Andersson and Ni lsson (1964). The authors used the technique to analyze the job of store managers in a Swedish grocery company. They reported that "the information co l lec ted by t h i s method i s both r e l i a b l e and v a l i d " (Andersson and N i l s s o n , 1964:402). This statement was based on an analys is of the fol lowing areas of concern: 1 . Saturation and comprehensiveness The authors reported that : The mater ia l co l lec ted seems to represent very wel l the . . . uni ts that the method may be expected to provide. After a r e l a t i v e l y small number of incidents had been c l a s s i f i e d , very few new . . . . categories needed to be added (Andersson and N i l sson , 1964:402). 40 2. R e l i a b i l i t y o f . c o l l e c t i n g procedure The number and structure of the incidents were af fected only s l i g h t l y by d i f fe rent interviewers and methods of c o l l e c t i n g the mater ia l ( i . e . , interviews and quest ionnai res) . 3. Control of categor izat ion The s t a b i l i t y of the category and subcategory systems was high when d i f fe rent groups of students t r i e d to c l a s s i f y the i n c i d e n t s . 4. Importance of the categories A content ana lys is of t r a i n i n g l i t e r a t u r e used in the in terna l t r a i n i n g of store managers and an analys is of questionnaire ra t ings indicated that the C r i t i c a l Incident Technique covered the essent ia l points in the job of a store manager. The C r i t i c a l Incident Technique also suggests the procedures for inducing categories from the basic data. Flanagan (1954:344-345) h ighl ighted the fo l lowing steps: 1. The se lec t ion of the general frame of reference for descr ib ing the inc idents . 2. The se lec t ion of the l e v e l s of s p e c i f i c i t y - g e n e r a l i t y to use in repor t ing . Flanagan (1954:345) made the fo l lowing points concerning t h i s step: 41 a . The headings should have a l o g i c a l and eas i l y remembered s t ructure . b. The t i t l e s should convey meanings, without deta i led representat ion. c . The headings should be p a r a l l e l in content and s t ructure . d. The headings should be comprehensive. 3. The submission of tenative categories to others for review. The C r i t i c a l Incident Technique has a further inherent s t rength . I t : . . . i s e s s e n t i a l l y a procedure . . . . It should be emphasized that the C r i t i c a l Incident Technique does not cons is t of a s ingle r i g i d set of ru les governing such data c o l l e c t i o n . Rather, i t should be thought of as a f l e x i b l e set of p r i n c i p l e s which must be modified and adapted to meet the s p e c i f i c s i t u a t i o n at hand (Flanagan, 1954:335). In conclus ion, the C r i t i c a l Incident Technique was selected as the best approach for the purpose of th i s study, because the technique has the fol lowing advantages: 1) has been shown to be a r e l i a b l e and v a l i d way to c o l l e c t incidents relevant to a funct ional descr ipt ion of an a c t i v i t y ; 2) suggests the procedures for inducing the categor ies ; 3) consists of a f l e x i b l e set of p r i n c i p l e s ; and 4) has been used extensively in a var iety of f i e l d s , inc luding education. 42 D e f i n i t i o n of an inc ident . In th is study, an incident was defined as any event or happening that is s u f f i c i e n t l y complete in i t s e l f to permit inferences and pred ic t ions to be made. An incident could occur at a point in time ( e . g . , received an i n v i t a t i o n to present a paper), recurrent ly over time ( e . g . , p e r i o d i c a l l y observed reading problems at a Learning Centre), or more continuously over a period of time ( e . g . , col laborated with a colleague on a p r o j e c t ) . In each case, what was important in th i s context was whether the incident was seen to af fect scholar ly a c t i v i t y in a f a c i l i t a t i n g or hindering way. S p e c i f i c a t i o n s . After a br ief introduct ion to the purpose of the study, a c r i t i c a l incidents interview s tar ts with a request for events. Each incident i s subjected to a c r i t e r i o n check which provides assurance that the incident has s i g n i f i c a n t impact upon the a c t i v i t y . Then the interviewer e l i c i t s d e t a i l s of what led up to the inc ident , what ac tua l l y happened that was h e l p f u l , and why i t was so h e l p f u l . After several f a c i l i t a t i v e incidents are reported, or the facul ty member runs out of inc idents , the interviewer requests events that hinder the aim of the a c t i v i t y , fo l lowing the same procedure. The resul t i s a number of f a c i l i t a t i n g and hindering incidents from each faculty member. ^ 43 From th i s br ief d e s c r i p t i o n , i t can be seen that three spec i f i ca t ions must be deta i led for a successful c r i t i c a l incident study. F i r s t , the general aim of the a c t i v i t y must be s p e c i f i e d . Second, the c r i t e r i o n for accepting an incident or al lowing the subject to elaborate must be stated. Th i rd , the interview questions must be estab l i shed . The s p e c i f i c a t i o n of a general aim i s essent ia l for communicating the types of inc idents required. In some s tud ies , a p i l o t study i s undertaken simply to obtain the aim, framed in the idiom of the workers seeking to f u l f i l l i t . A p i l o t study to es tab l i sh the aim was unnecessary in t h i s case. The term scholar ly a c t i v i t y was immediately recognizable to facul ty members and communicated quite c l e a r l y what the interview was about, as the term has an o f f i c i a l d e f i n i t i o n in The Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia Faculty Handbook (1979: Section 1.01). In t h i s study, then, the aim of scholar ly a c t i v i t y i s doing and disseminating research of an o r i g i n a l character , or in appropriate d i s c i p l i n e s , c reat ive or profess ional work of d i s t i n c t i o n . According to Flanagan (1954:338), an incident is c r i t i c a l " i f i t makes a ' s i g n i f i c a n t ' cont r ibut ion , e i ther p o s i t i v e l y or negatively to the general aim of the a c t i v i t y . " In th i s study, the c r i t e r i o n for s ign i f i cance was whether or not an event led t o , delayed, or impeded a c t i o n . 44 The actual questions used to e l i c i t d e t a i l s of the f a c i l i t a t i n g event were as fo l lows : 1. "Think back to a time, since coming to The Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia, when something happened that s i g n i f i c a n t l y helped f a c i l i t a t e your scholar ly a c t i v i t y . " 2. "Did th i s event lead you to take d e f i n i t e steps such as write a grant proposal , complete a l i t e r a t u r e review?" If the answer was no, the interviewer s a i d , "I wonder i f you can think of something that helped f a c i l i t a t e your scholar ly a c t i v i t y that led you to take d e f i n i t e a c t i o n . " 3. When the facu l ty member indicated that he had such an event in mind, the interviewer s a i d , "What was the event?" 4. "What were the general circumstances around th is event?" 5. "What exact ly f a c i l i t a t e d your scholar ly a c t i v i t y ? " 6. "Why was t h i s event so he lp fu l in f a c i l i t a t i n g your scholar ly a c t i v i t y ? " 7. "Can you think of another event that helped f a c i l i t a t e your scholar ly a c t i v i t y ? " Once the subject indicated he or she reca l led another event, questions two through seven were repeated. The questions used to e l i c i t d e t a i l s of the hindering event were as fo l lows : 1. "Now, think back to a time when something happened that hindered your scholar ly a c t i v i t y . " 2. "Did th i s event impede a c t i o n , such as cause you not to complete a grant app l i ca t ion?" If the answer was no, the interviewer s a i d , "I wonder i f you can think of something that did impede a c t i o n . " 3. When the facu l ty member indicated that he had such an event in mind, the interviewer s a i d , "What was the event?" 45 4. "What were the general circumstances, around th is event?" 5. "What exact ly hindered your scholar ly a c t i v i t y ? " 6. "Why was t h i s event so hindering to your scholar ly a c t i v i t y ? " 7. "Can you think of another event that hindered your scholar ly a c t i v i t y ? " Once the subject indicated he or she reca l led another event, questions two through seven were repeated. In t h i s way, the interview was d i rected toward a c t u a l , concrete events rather than opinions and speculat ions. P i l o t Study In the summer of 1982, a p i l o t study was conducted to evaluate the interview format and methods of recording these inc idents . Three facul ty members from each career stage p a r t i c i p a t e d . Af ter each interv iew, an informal discussion was held to obtain feedback on the c l a r i t y , format, and s ty le of the interv iew. As a resul t of the feedback, i t was decided to tape a l l interv iews, as recording the incidents took time and d is t rac ted the at tent ion of both the researcher and the subject. Interview Procedures In the f a l l of 1982, the selected facul ty members were interviewed over a three month per iod . After receipt 46 of the recruitment l e t t e r (see Appendix A) , subjects were phoned to set a t ime. Two facu l ty members were interviewed at home and the rest were interviewed in the i r o f f i c e s . The interviews took approximately one hour to complete. Faculty members were informed of the purpose of the study, of se lec t ion c r i t e r i a , and of how c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y and anonymity would be maintained (see recruitment l e t t e r , Appendix A). Then the main part of the interview was introduced with the fo l lowing remarks: The purpose of th i s interview is to e l i c i t from you- inc idents in which your scholar ly a c t i v i t i e s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y f a c i l i t a t e d or hindered while you have been at The Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia. An incident i s defined as any event or happening that i s s u f f i c i e n t l y complete in i t s e l f to permit inferences and predict ions to be made. By scholar ly a c t i v i t y , I mean the doing and disseminating of research of an o r i g i n a l character or , in appropriate d i s c i p l i n e s , creat ive or profess ional work of d i s t i n c t i o n . S p e c i f i c a l l y , I am re fe r r ing to an a c t i v i t y that led to published work ( e . g . , a r t i c l e s in refereed journa ls , chapters, books, monographs) or profess ional or creat ive contr ibut ions that were not of a routine or r e p e t i t i v e character ; were ava i lab le for peer assessment; and contr ibuted to the achievement of a regional or nat ional reputat ion . To be s i g n i f i c a n t , an incident must have ei ther led to or impeded an act ion relevant to scholar ly a c t i v i t y . Note, I am not asking for wel l formed opinions but for s p e c i f i c events that happened to you. Do you have any quest ions? Care was taken to avoid asking any leading questions af ter the main questions had been stated. However, i f a subject had trouble i n i t i a l l y i dent i f y ing an inc ident , the fo l lowing prompting statement was used to e l i c i t a f a c i l i t a t i n g inc ident : "Think back to when you were engaged in a scholar ly a c t i v i t y . Trace back to anything that got the scholar ly a c t i v i t y going or i f i t s t a l l e d got i t 47 moving." For a hindering inc ident , the fo l lowing statement was made: "Think back to when you were engaged in scholar ly a c t i v i t y . Trace back to anything that impeded progress." Once the subject indicated that he or she had an event in mind, the interview was continued with questions two through seven, as previously out l ined . Method of Recording and Ext ract ing Incidents Th i r ty -e ight of the interviews were tape recorded. Two were not recorded at the facu l ty member's request. One interview was also not recorded due to mechanical f a i l u r e of the recording machine; instead, extensive notes were taken. From these tapes and notes, incidents were i d e n t i f i e d , assigned the facul ty member's i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number, and transcr ibed onto index cards, one incident per card. T y p i c a l l y , the incidents were recorded in the facul ty members' own words. Occasional ly , the i r responses were paraphrased. During the interview or the t r a n s c r i p t i o n of the inc idents , two questions and c r i t e r i a were app l ied . These questions and c r i t e r i a are presented and discussed in the fo l lowing paragraphs. Question 1. Does the report ing of the incident seem complete? As Flanagan (1954:340) noted, "vague reports suggest that the incident i s not wel l remembered." In a few 48 instances, where the facul ty member seemed to present only part of the story or talked in abstract g e n e r a l i t i e s , the facu l ty member was asked in the interview to " [ restate] the essence of the remarks" (Flanagan, 1954:342). In most cases, t h i s resulted in the facul ty member br inging out d e t a i l s that completed the p i c t u r e . Question 2. Has the facu l ty member made i t c lear why the incident was c r i t i c a l ? Interview question s ix (Why was the event so hindering [ f a c i l i t a t i n g ] to your scholar ly a c t i v i t y ? ) provided the information. Incidents were included (transcribed) only i f they f u l f i l l e d the c r i t e r i o n , e i ther leading to or impeding a d e f i n i t e act ion relevant to scholar ly a c t i v i t y . Incidents were excluded i f they were not re lated to a d e f i n i t e a c t i o n . A l l statements of opinion and speculation were also excluded. ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES As described in the previous sect ions , incidents were co l lec ted from UBC education facu l ty members that f a c i l i t a t e d or hindered the aim of scholar ly a c t i v i t y . "The purpose of the data analys is stage i s to summarize and describe the data in an e f f i c i e n t manner so that i t can be e f f e c t i v e l y used" (Flanagan, 1954:343-344). In t h i s study two analyses were car r ied out. ' The f i r s t consisted of the 49 c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of inc idents . The second was a prel iminary explorat ion of re lat ionsh ips among the categories developed in the f i r s t ana lys i s . F i r s t Analys is Two frames of reference were adopted in the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n ana l ys i s . The f i r s t frame of reference concerned the intended use of the category scheme. As the scheme of categories i s to be used by administrators to develop a cl imate within which, scholar ly a c t i v i t y i s f a c i l i t a t e d , what was sought were categories that would be informative for e f f e c t i v e admin is t rat ion , s i m i l a r to a c h e c k l i s t of things to do to f a c i l i t a t e scholar ly a c t i v i t y . The second frame of reference concerned the nature of a category scheme. Following the work of Rosch (1977) and others ( e . g . , McCloskey and Glucksberg, 1978) on "natura l " categor ies , i t was assumed that categories are not c l e a r l y and r i g i d l y bounded l o g i c a l containers such as a set of red, round objects . In a r igorously l o g i c a l category^ objects e i ther are or are not inc luded. Once included, a l l members of a category have equal membership. The judgment i s a l l or nothing, with no shading. In contrast , Rosch (1977) has shown that natural categories are much looser e n t i t i e s whose members are held together by family resemblance. That i s , members of a category share features. Some members share more features than others. From th is 50 perspect ive, a category has no wel l -def ined border. A member might share many features with members of a category and also share some features with members of other categor ies . A l so , membership in a category i s not a l l or nothing, but more or l e s s . According to Rosch, categories gain unity by a prototype or c lear example. A prototype has the greatest s i m i l a r i t y in features to members of one group and the least s i m i l a r i t y to members of other groups. Other members f i t within a category to the extent that they share features with prototyp ica l members. Accordingly , a prominent aspect of categor izat ion was the search for prototypes. The f i r s t step in the procedure was immersion. A l l incidents were examined, noting grounds for integrat ion and d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n . Ambiguities and questions were noted and considered. This step was general , an attempt to get an i n t u i t i v e sense of the data and the i r complex i t ies . The second step was to undertake a t r i a l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . Incidents that seemed s imi la r were placed in groups, and prototypes were i d e n t i f i e d which seemed to group inc idents . Prov is iona l categories were used to order the prototypes. D i f f i c u l t i e s were exposed through examination and consultat ion with other people in a doctoral seminar. A rev is ion to manage d i f f i c u l t i e s was attempted and then checked (see section on r e l i a b i l i t y in Chapter 6). Several cycles were required to develop s a t i s f a c t o r y categories for the inc idents . 51 Second Analys is Once the categories had been establ ished in- the- f i r s t a n a l y s i s , two kinds of exploratory analyses were car r ied out. The f i r s t consisted of examining the categories themselves to see whether they could be grouped to y i e l d a higher order c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . The second consisted of examining the frequency of reported inc idents in categor ies . R e l i a b i l i t y and V a l i d i t y Because questions of r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y are best discussed in the l i g h t of the resu l t s of the analyses, the quest ions , the d e t a i l s on how they were examined, and the outcomes of the examination are presented in Chapter 6. SUMMARY The research design was presented for t h i s study, whose purpose was to develop and explore a reasonably comprehensive scheme of categories which descr ibes, from the perspective of faculty members, what f a c i l i t a t e s and hinders the i r scho la r l y a c t i v i t y . The study used the Faculty of Education at The Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia for the 52 i n v e s t i g a t i o n . Because studies indicate that d i f ferences ex is t among professors in d i f fe ren t ranks or career stages, the 225 f u l l - t i m e facul ty members at the a s s i s t a n t , assoc ia te , and f u l l professor ranks were s t r a t i f i e d by rank and career stage to ensure a representative group from the access ib le populat ion. A twenty percent random sample was drawn from each stage for a sample of fo r ty -one . Eight members from the ear ly stage, fourteen from the middle stage, and nineteen from the la te stage p a r t i c i p a t e d . The C r i t i c a l Incident Technique was the selected method of data c o l l e c t i o n for t h i s study. Three essent ia l s p e c i f i c a t i o n s for a successful c r i t i c a l incident study were d e t a i l e d . F i r s t , the general aim of the a c t i v i t y was s p e c i f i e d as doing and disseminating research of an o r i g i n a l character , or in appropriate d i s c i p l i n e s , c reat i ve or profess ional work of d i s t i n c t i o n . Second, the c r i t e r i o n for accepting an incident was stated as whether or not an event led t o , delayed, or impeded a c t i o n . Thi rd , the actual questions used to e l i c i t d e t a i l s of the events were presented. A p i l o t study was conducted in the summer of 1982 to evaluate the interview format and method of recording the inc idents . In the f a l l of 1982, facu l ty members were interviewed for approximately one hour in the i r homes or o f f i c e s . From the tape recorded interviews and notes, 53 incidents were i d e n t i f i e d and transcr ibed on to index cards. During the interview or the t ransc r ip t ion of the inc idents , two questions and c r i t e r i a were appl ied . F i r s t , "Does the report ing of the incident seem complete?" Where facul ty members seemed to present only part of the story or ta lked in abstract g e n e r a l i t i e s , the facul ty member was asked in the interview to restate the essence of the remarks, which usual ly brought out more d e t a i l s to complete the p i c t u r e . Second, "Has the facul ty member made i t c lear why the incident was c r i t i c a l ? " This, information was provided by the interview question "Why was the event so hindering ( f a c i l i t a t i n g ) to your scholar ly a c t i v i t y ? " Incidents had e i ther to lead to or impede an act ion relevant to scholar ly a c t i v i t y . Incidents were transcr ibed only i f they f u l f i l l e d the above c r i t e r i a . Two analyses were car r ied out. The f i r s t consisted of the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of inc idents . The second was a prel iminary explorat ion of re la t ionsh ips among the categories developed in the f i r s t ana l ys i s . 54 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS I: THE CATEGORY SCHEMES This chapter i s organized into three major sect ions . F i r s t , a general descr ipt ion of incident frequency is presented. Second, categor izat ion i s discussed. The reported incidents were categorized in three d i f f e r e n t ways, according to who f a c i l i t a t e d or hindered scholar ly a c t i v i t y , to what f a c i l i t a t e d or hindered scholar ly a c t i v i t y , and to the phase of scholar ly a c t i v i t y that was f a c i l i t a t e d or hindered. Th i rd , the three category schemes are descr ibed. INCIDENT FREQUENCY In response to the research quest ion, what do The Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia education facul ty members report as f a c i l i t a t i n g and hindering the i r scholar ly a c t i v i t y , facu l ty members produced a t o t a l of 547 usable inc idents . An incident was usable i f i t was a fac tua l report of an occurrence that led to or delayed or impeded an act ion concerned with scholar ly a c t i v i t y . Events were excluded which did not lead to or impede an act ion relevant to scholar ly a c t i v i t y . 55 Of the t o t a l number of inc idents , 400 were f a c i l i t a t i n g and 147 were h inder ing . One reason for the d i f ference in the number of f a c i l i t a t i n g and hindering inc idents i s perhaps a general tendency of facul ty to count delays and obstruct ions as i r r i t a n t s rather than as hindrances. Another more important reason i s that the way the interview questions were framed required that the respondent think of on-going scholar ly a c t i v i t y . That i s , f a c i l i t a t i n g incidents could be reported that led to the s tar t of a pro ject . However, hindering incidents could be reported only i f a project was under way. For t h i s research, i t was assumed that unless a project was in progress, i t could not be hindered. This i s perhaps too str ingent a requirement for i t d isal lows a whole area of hindrances. However, since t h i s area would involve an opinion that one would have done something rather than an actual report of what one did or was prevented from doing, i t seemed more prudent to.use the more str ingent requirement. The average and the range of the number of incidents reported by facul ty members are displayed in Table 4. On the average, each of the forty -one facul ty members interviewed produced 9.8 f a c i l i t a t i n g incidents and 3.6 hindering inc idents . As can be seen in the range, faculty members var ied considerably in the number of incidents reported. General ly , as w i l l be discussed l a t e r , those who 56 TABLE 4: AVERAGE AND RANGE OF THE NUMBER OF INCIDENTS REPORTED BY FACULTY MEMBERS Type of Incident F a c i l i t a t i n g Hindering Total Average 9.76 3.59 13.35 Range 1-21 0-10 1-24 were not a c t i v e l y involved i n - s c h o l a r l y a c t i v i t y reported few inc idents . CATEGORIZATION During ca tegor i za t ion , i t became apparent that what f a c i l i t a t e s or hinders could be a source, an agent, or the act ion of an agent. C l a r i t y was achieved in categor izat ion when these three reported facets (source, agent, and act ion of agent) were recognized and separated. There was considerable overlap in two of the facets , sources and agents. That i s , t y p i c a l l y the source was an agent or agency. For example, i f a colleague provides a c r i t i c a l evaluat ion of a rough draft of a paper, the colleague i s both a source and an agent. However, some incidents required a d i s t i n c t i o n as in the fo l lowing example. "Faculty member l i m i t e d the time ava i lab le for scholar ly a c t i v i t y by a l t e r i n g h is research schedule'to 57 accommodate h is e lder ly parents . " In t h i s example, parents were a source of d i f f i c u l t y , but the facul ty member was the agent, for i t was the facul ty member, not the parents, who a l tered the research schedule. Sources of f a c i l i t a t i o n and hindrance were el iminated from further cons iderat ion . The general notion of an agent or agency was retained as a means of ca tegor i za t ion . The t h i r d facet , the act ions of the agent or agency, can be c l e a r l y d is t inguished from the agent or agency. These actions became the major focus- of categor izat ion because they are the bases for answering the research question, "What do UBC education facul ty members report as f a c i l i t a t i n g and hindering the i r scholar ly a c t i v i t y ? " . It a lso became apparent that each action resulted in or led to a f a c i l i t a t i o n or hindrance of some phase of scholar ly a c t i v i t y . As with the f i r s t category scheme of agents and agencies, these phases of scholar ly a c t i v i t y were also categorized to y i e l d a more complete d e s c r i p t i o n . In summary, the incidents were categorized in three separate ways, resu l t ing in three d i f fe ren t category schemes (Table 5) . The incidents were categorized according to the reported responsible agent or agency. The inc idents were categorized according to what the agent or agency d id (the reported act ion) that was f a c i l i t a t i n g or h inder ing . The incidents were categorized according to the phase of scholar ly a c t i v i t y that was reported f a c i l i t a t e d or 58 TABLE 5: CATEGORY SCHEMES Agent or Agency Action Category Phase Category Category Scheme Scheme Scheme Who f a c i l i t a t e s or hinders scholar ly a c t i v i t y What f a c i l i t a t e s or hinders scho la r l y a c t i v i t y The outcome of scholar ly a c t i v i t y that was f a c i l i t a t e d or hindered hindered. Of the three category schemes, the act ion category scheme i s the most important, as i t const i tutes the answer to the research quest ion. That i s , the act ion categories answer what facul ty members reported as f a c i l i t a t i n g and hindering the i r scholar ly a c t i v i t y . The agent or agency categories ind icate who was reported to f a c i l i t a t e and hinder and the phase categories indicate the outcome that was reported f a c i l i t a t e d or hindered. The l a t t e r two category schemes are p r i m a r i l y presented to gain a more complete descr ipt ion of the major product of t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n , the act ion category scheme. CATEGORY SCHEMES A majority of the categor ies in the three category schemes contain both f a c i l i t a t i n g and hindering inc idents . The categories in each scheme are shown for convenience in Table 6. The fo l lowing pages descr ibe the contents of that TABLE 6: CATEGORIES IN THE CATEGORY SCHEMES Agent or Agency' Categor i es A c t i o n C a t e g o r i e s ' Phase C a t e g o r i e s 3 Sel f Spouse Col 1eague Student A dm i n i s t r a t i ve p e r s o n , committee, or agency of UBC Other o u t s i d e agents and agenc i es Reading or S t u d y i n g S c h o l a r l y A c t i v i t i e s P r a c t i c a l A c t i v i t i e s D i s cuss i on Adv i ce Funds T i me Access to data Informat i on Reference m a t e r i a l s Space and non-computer equipment Computer s e r v i c e s Typing, x e r o x i n g , and m a i l i n g s e r v i c e s Research a s s i s t a n c e C r i t i c a l e v a l u a t i o n and commentary Other forms of p r a c t i c a l a s s i s t a n c e Ski 11s B u r e a u c r a t i c procedures Opportun i t i es Appr o v a l : r e c o g n i t i o n and apprec i at i on Expectat i ons T a n g i b l e b e n e f i t s Col 1aborat ion S c h o l a r l y idea S c h o l a r l y d e s i g n • and r e s e a r c h proposa1 S c h o l a r 1 y r e s e a r c h and data c o l 1ect i on S c h o l a r 1 y ana 1ys i s S c h o l a r l y p r o d u c t and d i s s e m i n a t i o n S c h o l a r l y p r o j e c t 1 Who f a c i l i t a t e s or h i n d e r s s c h o l a r l y a c t i v i t y 2 What f a c i l i t a t e s or h i n d e r s s c h o l a r l y a c t i v i t y 3 Outcome of f a c i l i t a t i o n and h i n d r a n c e of s c h o l a r l y a c t i v i t y 60 t a b l e . Most of the categories are c lear as stated and not in need of further e x p l i c a t i o n . For example, the "time" category in the act ion category scheme means exact ly what i t says. A facul ty member i s provided time to do scholar ly a c t i v i t y . Accordingly, each category in the three category schemes w i l l be c l a r i f i e d , not so much by exp l i ca t ion but by providing examples and by portraying the range of reported inc idents , where app l i cab le , and by report ing the frequency of f a c i l i t a t i n g and hindering inc idents . The categories w i l l be presented in the fo l lowing order: agent or agency categor ies , phase categor ies , and act ion categor ies . Agent or Agency Categories The agent or agency i s the person, o f f i c e , centre, or i n s t i t u t i o n reported as responsible for f a c i l i t a t i n g or hindering scholar ly a c t i v i t y . I t i s an answer to the question of who did something that f a c i l i t a t e d or hindered. Six agent or agency categories were i d e n t i f i e d . 1. S e l f . (64 f a c i l i t a t i n g , 35 hindering) The ind i v idua l facu l ty member, himself or herse l f , was reported as a major agent in f a c i l i t a t i n g or hindering scholar ly a c t i v i t y . This category refers to i n d i v i d u a l s , when they are act ing out the i r own s e l f - i n c l i n a t i o n s but not as an o f f i c i a l ( e . g . , department head). 61 2. Spouse. (6 f a c i l i t a t i n g , 0 hindering) This category refers to a facul ty member's husband or w i fe . 3. Colleague. (104 f a c i l i t a t i n g , 4 hindering) This category encompasses associates not only in one's department, but in other departments and other u n i v e r s i t i e s . I t a lso includes associates from profess ional organizat ions, networks, and alma maters. 4. Student. (35 f a c i l i t a t i n g , 7 hindering) This category includes former and current graduate and undergraduate students, as wel l as workshop p a r t i c i p a n t s , practicum teachers, and research a s s i s t a n t s . 5. Administrat ive person, committee, or agency of The Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia. (105 f a c i l i t a t i n g , 88 hindering) This category has extensive range. It includes the president , the dean of education, the associate dean of education, department heads, sec re ta r ies , l i b r a r i a n s , and such agencies as the Of f ice of F i e l d Development, Of f ice of Education Graduate Programs and Research, Of f ice of Research 62 Serv ices , Computing Centre, Educational Resource Service Centre, L ib ra ry , and various committees ( e . g . , tenure and promotion committees). 6. Other outside agents and agencies. (86 f a c i l i t a t i n g , 13 hindering) This category includes federal and p r o v i n c i a l governments, profess ional organizat ions , volunteer organizat ions, school d i s t r i c t personnel and boards, publ ishers and e d i t o r s , and various granting organizat ions. Phase Categories The phases of scholar ly a c t i v i t y are the outcomes of f a c i l i t a t i o n s and hindrances reported by facu l ty members. The phases form an orderly sequence, beginning with an idea and ending with the dissemination of a product. Six categories were i d e n t i f i e d . 1. Scholar ly idea. (86 f a c i l i t a t i n g , 2 hindering) This category refers general ly to the recognit ion of a problem, the f i r s t step in the s c i e n t i f i c process. It was commonly termed a conception, not ion, or just a thought. In each case, an idea was e i ther encountered or developed. 63 2. Scholar ly design and research proposal . (37 f a c i l i t a t i n g , 19 hindering) Once a professor has an idea, he or she develops a systematic plan of act ion for explor ing and tes t ing the idea. While a proposal for a granting agency i s d i f fe rent from a p lan , the two are d i f f i c u l t to separate in p r a c t i c e . For example, having to complete a plan i s necessary for making a proposal . 3. Scholar ly research and data c o l l e c t i o n . (32 f a c i l i t a t i n g , 13 hindering) This category encompasses data c o l l e c t i o n in i t s many forms, ranging from f i e l d tes t ing in classrooms to extensive t r a v e l in foreign count r ies . Both t h i s and the preceding category show s t r i k i n g l y the quite diverse needs of people engaging in scholar ly a c t i v i t y . 4. Scholar ly a n a l y s i s . (18 f a c i l i t a t i n g , 6 hindering) This category includes any form of data analys is and examinat i on . 64 5. Scholarly product and disseminat ion. (84 f a c i l i t a t i n g , 20 hindering) The product can be a paper, a r t i c l e , book, monograph, curriculum guide, or a r t i s t i c production, among other th ings . The d i s t r i b u t i o n of products ranged from journals and books to ta lks and e x h i b i t i o n s . These two, product and dissemination, were combined, in as much as they tended to occur together and be seen as parts of the same phase. 6. Scholarly pro ject . (143 f a c i l i t a t i n g , 87 hindering) This i s a general category which includes the categories above. Since cer ta in act ions were reported as f a c i l i t a t i n g or hindering some or most phases of scholar ly a c t i v i t y , a more encompassing category was required. In some respect, therefore , th is category i s d i f fe rent from others in th i s scheme. This issue i s discussed in Chapter Action Categories As reported by faculty members, the act ions are what an agent or agency d id that was so f a c i l i t a t i n g or h inder ing. The categories described here as "act ion" 65 categor ies , however, are not necessar i ly expressed in the form of act ions . Rather, each one is a category in r e l a t i o n to which action i s taken. Thus, one of the categories i s " t ime , " which i s to say that the incidents so c l a s s i f i e d a l l referred to some act ion by an agent or agency having to do with the providing of time or the denying of time or some other act ion concerning " t ime." Twenty-three act ion"categories were i d e n t i f i e d . These categories w i l l be described by providing examples that are judged as p r o t o t y p i c a l , by portraying the range .of reported inc idents , and by report ing the frequency of f a c i l i t a t i n g and hindering inc idents . Most categories contain both f a c i l i t a t i n g and hindering inc idents . In many cases, the presence of the act ion i s the f a c i l i t a t i o n and i t s absence is the hindrance. In some cases, however, the re la t ionsh ip of f a c i l i t a t i n g to hindering act ion is not so st ra ightforward. In the case of "recognit ion and apprec ia t ion , " for example, i t may wel l be that the absence i s i d e n t i f i e d as a hindrance, but i t may a lso be that the hindrance consists not in the absence of appreciat ion but in the presence of deprec iat ion . Accordingly , the nature of both f a c i l i t a t i n g and hindering incidents w i l l be c l a r i f i e d for each category. Following are the twenty-three act ion categories that were i d e n t i f i e d . 66 1. Reading or studying. (14 f a c i l i t a t i n g , 0 hindering) Ideas a r i s i n g out of a review of new l i t e r a t u r e in my area of research led to a scholar ly p ro ject . This year, I taught a new graduate course in my area of research. While reading for the c l a s s , I became aware of a research problem. Reading or studying, whether for courses or personal i n t e r e s t , are encompassed by this.- category. No hindering inc idents were reported in t h i s category and the next three categories - scholar ly a c t i v i t i e s , p r a c t i c a l a c t i v i t i e s , and d i scuss ion . These categories are a specia l case, which w i l l be discussed in Chapter 6. 2. Scholar ly a c t i v i t i e s . (8 f a c i l i t a t i n g , 0 hindering) An idea a r i s i n g from the resu l ts of a pr io r scholar ly project led to a new scholar ly p ro jec t . Results of one project led to another research quest ion, which became a large funded project invo lv ing a number of people. P r io r scholar ly a c t i v i t y included d i s s e r t a t i o n s and theses. 67 3. P r a c t i c a l a c t i v i t i e s . (13 f a c i l i t a t i n g , 0 hindering) A question a r i s i n g from a ser ies of observations made while teaching in the publ ic school system, t r iggered a research idea. Involvement in c l i n i c a l work made me aware of some research problems, which were developed into research pro jec ts . The d i v e r s i t y of p r a c t i c a l a c t i v i t i e s was considerable, ranging from volunteer organizations to t rave l with a nat ional team. 4. P i scuss ion . (37 f a c i l i t a t i n g , 0 hindering) Discussions with graduate students generated a research idea. Interest ing discussions with colleagues led to several papers. S p e c i f i c a l l y , I was exposed to d i f fe ren t outlooks and types of research that stimulated and ref ined ideas. Discussions were mentioned as taking place in c lasses , workshops, d i s s e r t a t i o n and thesis committee meetings, and at conferences. 5. Advice. (19 f a c i l i t a t i n g , 3 hindering) I was guest lec tu r ing in another department for a number of years. A colleague suggested that I organize some of the things I had been saying to these c lasses . As a r e s u l t , a paper was w r i t t e n . 68 Several colleagues suggested that Canadian data be c o l l e c t e d on a test and compared to American data. I was advised by SSHRCC and Graduate D iv i s ion to broaden the focus of my proposal , because there would be a negative reaction by SSHRCC adjudicators to the present focus. I made the changes, but f e l t prejudiced because I was not able to pursue the topic of in te res t . Faculty members reported being advised to apply for a grant, to use time from classes to write a research proposal , to do scholar ly a c t i v i t y , to stay home and write a monograph, to do a p a r a l l e l study, to focus on one l ine of research and ignore c o n f l i c t i n g . advice, and so on. The three hindering incidents did not emphasize lack of advice, but bad advice. There were few hindering inc idents , poss ib ly because a facul ty member might not be aware he or she i s not gett ing advice that could help. 6. Funds. (53 f a c i l i t a t i n g , 12 hindering) A small grant was received from the un i ve rs i t y , enabling me to h i re a research ass is tant to c o l l e c t data . Due to the recession, the Min is t ry of Education has no funds to support research pro jects . This has prevented me from completing the data ana lys is section of a pro ject . Funds were c i t e d as enabling faculty members to h i re research a s s i s t a n t s , pay for computer time, pay for mai l ing se rv i ces , and a host of other requirements for scholar ly a c t i v i t y , while an absence of funds disenabled. Funds i s a spec ia l category, in one sense, as funds allow one to f u l f i l l many of the other categories.. 69 7. Time. (41 f a c i l i t a t i n g , 60 hindering) I was granted a four month spec ia l leave, a l lowing me to work f u l l time on a manuscript. In previous years, departmental meetings have been scheduled on Tuesdays. However, th i s year the meetings have been interspersed throughout the week. These meetings and teaching r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s have prevented me from completing a p ro jec t , which requires two free days a week for s ix weeks. The May practicum was so time consuming that I set aside several papers requi r ing r e v i s i o n . A deadline was not met because the Human Subjects Committee took s ix weeks to make a decis ion on the pro ject . Most of the f a c i l i t a t i n g incidents were l i k e the f i r s t example above. Study leaves in p a r t i c u l a r were frequently reported as an important f a c i l i t a t o r of scholar ly a c t i v i t y . Other ways to provide time included readjustments in teaching schedules, reduced teaching load, reduced committee o b l i g a t i o n s , and non-teaching blocks of time in summer. In cont rast , the hindering incidents were more d iverse , as suggested by the three hindering incidents above. Scholar ly a c t i v i t y was reported to be hindered by shortened study leave, a f ive -day teaching schedule, new course preparat ion, ad hoc requests ( e . g . , preparation of a b r i e f ) , administ rat ive tasks , and committee r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . A l s o , hindering incidents stressed the 70 time taken in delays . For example, to receive approval on a grant proposal might take a year. If the facul ty member does not have other p ro jects , th i s const i tutes quite a lengthy time of i n a c t i v i t y . At least one facul ty member mentioned s h i f t i n g h is scholar ly a c t i v i t y focus during the wait for approval of a grant proposal . Delays by the Human Subjects Committee reportedly ranged from weeks to several months, r e s u l t i n g in missed opportuni t ies , f a i l u r e s to f u l f i l l contract ob l i ga t ions , and missed deadl ines. 8. Access to data. (18 f a c i l i t a t i n g , 4 hindering) Former students helped ident i f y schools that were w i l l i n g to f i e l d test a product. I establ ished contacts in foreign countr ies who ass is ted in gaining access to data. I did not have easy access to necessary government records for a monograph. As a r e s u l t , I was forced to scale down a p ro jec t . To conduct scholar ly a c t i v i t y , facul ty members require access to many d i f fe rent types or sources of data, from government records to classrooms. To gain access, facul ty members require various types of approval or just cooperation, neither of which can be taken for granted. Faculty members described being unable to gain access to data due to lack of cooperation or approval . 71 9. Information. (6 f a c i l i t a t i n g , 5 hindering) Research Administrat ion Of f ice provided information on sources of grants and when to apply. Two weeks were spent completing the Human Subjects form. However, I did not know that I needed to include the phrase 'and your treatment w i l l not be jeopardized' on the consent form. As a r e s u l t , my proposal was rejected and I had to re-submit the form. In making proposals to the Human Subjects Committee and to granting agencies, facu l ty members reported receiving, information that f a c i l i t a t e d the process, or they lacked information as wel l as received misinformation. For example, one facul ty member recounted receiv ing incorrect information on the cost of buying out teaching r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . This category could be hypothet ica l ly expanded since facul ty members require a great var iety of informat ion . 10. Reference mater ia ls . (14 f a c i l i t a t i n g , 4 hindering) A colleague gave me a r t i c l e s and a prototype for a proposal . I was looking for a s p e c i f i c book. I went to the main l i b r a r y only to f ind that the book was located in another b u i l d i n g . When I went to the second bu i ld ing , I found that the book was not in the stacks and not checked out. A trace was put on the book and I am s t i l l wait ing four weeks la te r for th i s v i t a l reference. 72 To do scholar ly a c t i v i t y , facul ty members require books and journals , among other th ings . Hindering incidents h ighl ighted the d i f f i c u l t y of f ind ing reference mater ial in the l i b r a r y . 11. Space and non-computer equipment. (5 f a c i l i t a t i n g , 1 hindering) Of f ice of F i e l d Development provided space for a funded research pro ject . For scholar ly a c t i v i t y p ro jec ts , facul ty members mentioned being provided with space. While there were few inc idents in t h i s category, i t seems clear that a number of items are provided, the lack of which might hinder the scho lar l y pro ject . Def ic ienc ies in th i s area would probably have generated many more inc idents , while e f fec t i ve prov is ion ing would be easy to overlook. 12. Computer serv ices . (9 f a c i l i t a t i n g , 3 hindering) I used a s t a t i s t i c a l package ava i lab le at the Computing Centre to help analyze my data. Computer programmes [s ic ] have ass is ted my scholar ly a c t i v i t y because they provide data without supplying names, which avoids the issue of c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y . I had a large c o l l e c t i o n of data tapes which were not compatible with UBC machines. As a r e s u l t , a project was delayed for a year while the tapes were sent to another un ivers i ty for a n a l y s i s . 73 The use of computer equipment, inc luding word processors, f a c i l i t a t e s , while i t s i n a c c e s s i b i l i t y hampers. 13. Typing, xeroxing, and mai l ing se rv i ces . (4 f a c i l i t a t i n g , 13 hindering) Department secretar ies have typed a l l of my manuscripts. Lack of s e c r e t a r i a l assistance has delayed my submissions to journal e d i t o r s . A typed paper from the secretary was so r idd led with errors of omission-, commission, r e p e t i t i o n , and punctuation that i t required considerable e f f o r t to try to correct them a l l . Even now, a f te r the paper has been submitted, I s t i l l f ind occasional e r ro rs , some involv ing subtle subst i tu t ions which sh i f ted the meaning and some involv ing the de let ion of a 'not ' that r a d i c a l l y a l tered the meaning. The majority of incidents in t h i s category were hindering ones in which typing, xeroxing, and mai l ing services were described as lacking or typing was done poor ly . In contrast , pos i t i ve inc idents p r imar i l y c i t e d typing done with reasonable speed and s k i l l . 14. Research ass is tance . (2 f a c i l i t a t i n g , 4 hindering) A graduate student was assigned, as part of a t u t o r i a l , to help with interv iews. During a study leave, a l i s t of things was i d e n t i f i e d that require researching. However, I d id not have an ass is tant who could undertake a ser ies of small p ro jec ts . 74 Research assistance i s provided d i r e c t l y by research ass is tants and i n d i r e c t l y by agents who provide a way to hi re or give scho last ic c red i t to research a s s i s t a n t s . The task of the research ass is tant i s to help with the diverse p r a c t i c a l phases of c o l l e c t i n g and analyzing data . The presence of such assistance f a c i l i t a t e s while i t s absence can hinder . A lso , since research ass is tants may be unmotivated or incompetent, hindrance was reported to take place through poor ass is tance . 15. C r i t i c a l evaluation and commentary. (17 f a c i l i t a t i n g , 2'hindering) A colleague c r i t i q u e d my SSHRCC proposal , leading to several changes pr io r to submission of a f i n a l proposal . Because a colleague was unfamil iar with the instrument employed in my p ro jec t , he provided misleading feedback on a draf t paper. The d i f ference between t h i s category and the category of d iscussion i s that c r i t i c a l feedback occurs a f ter one has an idea, t y p i c a l l y when one i s making a proposal or wr i t ing a paper. Discussion occurs before one has an idea. The two hindering incidents c i t e d poor or misleading feedback. 75 16. Other forms of p r a c t i c a l ass is tance. (24 f a c i l i t a t i n g , 2 hindering) I found several profess ional colleagues outside UBC to be extremely h e l p f u l . These colleagues have helped me resolve several methodological problems. Department chairman supported my SSHRCC proposal by making sure that secretar ies completed the necessary typing on time. This category includes a wide range of inc idents , which could conceivably be div ided into several categor ies , had the frequency of incidents been higher. For example, typing i s a form of p r a c t i c a l ass is tance . Were the incidents involv ing typing fewer, i t would have been included in t h i s category. Faculty members recounted receiv ing support in a var iety of ways. Several inc idents concerned help in research design and methodology and in preparing a proposal . Letters were wr i t ten to funding agencies. A senior administrator spoke up for a facul ty member's research proposal to a granting agency, while a colleague presented a facul ty member's proposal to a school board and urged endorsement. Faculty members also reported receiv ing support for personal dec is ions , help in preparing budgets for proposals, and support for appl icat ions for study leave. Sometimes p r a c t i c a l assistance involved introduct ions to the r ight people. At other times, i t even involved wr i t ing parts of a paper. And one colleague 76 provided an umbrella organization so that a facu l t y member could apply to a number of agencies for funding. The few hindering incidents c i ted lack of p r a c t i c a l support. 17. S k i l l s . (7 f a c i l i t a t i n g , 1 hindering) I learned to use the word processor so that I could get scholar ly reports done on t ime. There are quite a var ie ty of s k i l l s that f a c i l i t a t e scholar ly a c t i v i t y . The incidents within th i s category note s k i l l in evaluating papers, wr i t ing s k i l l , s k i l l in computer technology and use, publ ic re la t ions a b i l i t y , as wel l as word processing s k i l l noted in the above example. The s ingle hindering incident mentioned a lack of s k i l l in typ ing . This , once again, i s the type of category that would be easy to overlook, since s k i l l s might be expected or taken for granted. 18. Bureaucratic procedures. (1 f a c i l i t a t i n g , 8 hindering) An administrator signed an incomplete proposal so that a deadline could be met. Because the Human Subjects Committee's procedures and forms were too time-consuming, I d e l i b e r a t e l y stopped doing research involv ing people and now engage in desk studies . Previously I d id several research projects in schools. 7 7 Most of these incidents c i t e d the Human Subjects Committee and the majority of the incidents were hindering ones, perhaps because e f f i c i e n t administ rat ion i s taken for granted while impediments are not. Faculty members mentioned the complexity of proposals and grant regulations as hindrances. The general tenor of these incidents seems to be that the bureaucratic procedures involved can be more time-consuming than ac tua l l y engaging in scho lar l y a c t i v i t y i t s e l f . This becomes p a r t i c u l a r l y s t r i k i n g given the uncertainty of gett ing a grant when one has worked hard just to make the proposal . As one example, a facu l ty member stated that there i s no approval in p r i n c i p l e . One must have wr i t ten approval from s p e c i f i c agencies or i n s t i t u t i o n s , which can require a considerable consumption of t ime. Sometimes, there are lengthy delays regarding, for instance, the requ is i te order of s ignatures. An agency w i l l not approve a project u n t i l i t i s approved by the u n i v e r s i t y , but the un ivers i ty w i l l not approve u n t i l i t i s approved by an agency. 1 9 . Opportunites. ( 4 7 f a c i l i t a t i n g , 2 hindering) I was inv i ted by a nat ional organizat ion to present a paper at a research conference. A l e t t e r was received from an editor of a journal asking me to submit an a r t i c l e , which I d i d . I was unable to accept an i n v i t a t i o n to speak at an in te rnat iona l conference because the department chairman would not sanction the conference. 78 Within th i s category, facul ty members mentioned receiv ing i n v i t a t i o n s and requests to par t i c ipa te in research and task forces , to present papers at conferences, to write a r t i c l e s for journals , to edi t and write books or chapters in books, and to par t i c ipa te in research consor t ia . Less d i r e c t l y and less frequently , opportunit ies became ava i lab le as a resul t of a change in government po l icy and in pub l i cat ion o u t l e t s , for instance. One faculty member reported receiv ing assurance that a book he i s wr i t ing would be publ ished. The few hindering incidents described a missed opportunity and lack of opportunity. 20. Approval: recognit ion and apprec iat ion . (10 f a c i l i t a t i n g , 8 hindering) I won an award, which encouraged me to publ ish the paper. I have defended the legit imacy of my research area on numerous occasions. To counter t h i s negativism, I refocused my scholar ly e f fo r t outside my subject area. Largely through some form of recognit ion or apprec ia t ion , a facul ty member's work i s approved as a valuable endeavor. Approval was shown in personal contacts , general a t t i tude of col leagues, c i t a t i o n s and discussion in the l i t e r a t u r e of a f i e l d , formal, d iscussions at conferences, personal notes of congratulat ions , and pos i t i ve journal reviews. Faculty members reported that people showed i n t e r e s t , respect, and apprec iat ion , among other 79 forms of approval . In each case, the faculty member f e l t encouraged to do more. In contrast , hindering incidents indicated both lack of approval and d isapproval . Sometimes, lack of recognit ion was formal as when one does not receive scholar ly c red i t for a book. Other times, a facul ty member learned informal ly that h is f i e l d or area lacked respect or that the research i t s e l f was not important. More a c t i v e l y , a facul ty member described being subject to negative comment more than ind i f fe rence . Negative comments, tended not to concern the work i t s e l f but rather concerned, for instance, a use of q u a l i t a t i v e rather than quant i ta t i ve design, a focus on developmental rather than "hard" research (or v ice versa) , or a focus on one area rather than another. In one case, the facul ty member mentioned that h is scholar ly e f f o r t s were r e - l a b e l l e d as a p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t y of a s e l f i s h nature, negating h is work by the a t t r i b u t i o n of a dubious u l t e r i o r mot ive . 21. Expectations. (15 f a c i l i t a t i n g , 1 hindering) A set of expectations ar i se from col leagues. The expectations have provided an impetus for research. That i s several papers have been wr i t ten because I was expected to produce. There was an expectat ion, when I f i r s t came to UBC, that teaching and profess ional a c t i v i t i e s were important. As a r e s u l t , I focused my energies on profess ional development workshops, rather than on research. 80 Owing to pos i t ions held and the groups or organizat ions to which one belongs, expectations ar i se which inf luence a facul ty member to do scholar ly a c t i v i t y . Expectations a lso a r i se from engaging in scholar ly a c t i v i t y which supply an impetus. For example, facul ty members reported that research ass is tants expected to have something to do. Granting agencies expected deadlines to be met. Faculty members a lso establ ished the i r own expectat ions. Desire was t rans lated through dec is ion into a d e f i n i t e s e l f - e x p e c t a t i o n or commitment. Faculty members reported resolv ing to enter debates, deciding to present or write papers, and se t t ing deadlines for themselves. The only hindering incident i s quoted above. It r e f l e c t s a contrary expectation that minimizes scholar ly involvement. However, i t could be reasonably ant ic ipated that lack of expectation would a lso be a hindrance. That i s , i f expectations were not f i rmly establ ished, one could an t i c ipa te a lower rate and degree of scholar ly a c t i v i t y . 2 2 . Tangible benef i ts . ( 10 f a c i l i t a t i n g , 7 hindering) I was to ld that I was not promoted because' I had not met the scholar ly c r i t e r i a . As a r e s u l t , a l l my e f f o r t s were focused on scholar ly endeavors. Due to personal f i n a n c i a l circumstances, I spent a l o t of time doing service a c t i v i t i e s for which I received honorar ia . As a r e s u l t , I set aside my own scho la r l y p ro jec ts . 81 This category i s s imi la r to the category of expectat ions, but with the d i f ference that tangible benef i ts such as tenure, promotion, and money are offered as the rewards for f u l f i l l i n g i n s t i t u t i o n a l expectat ions. Nearly a l l f a c i l i t a t i v e incidents concern the gaining of promotion or tenure, with one incident concerned with gaining an honorarium. Usual ly requirements for tenure and promotion were stated d e f i n i t e l y and dispassionately ( i f you want i t , do t h i s ) , but in a few incidents communication was quite f o r c e f u l , as in "your job i s on the l i n e . " Most f requently , in hindering inc idents , scho lar l y a c t i v i t y did not lead to tangible benef i t s . Instead, merit pay, tenure or promotion went to those who were doing other th ings . As a r e s u l t , a facul ty member was not l i k e l y to see just that there was l i t t l e benefit from scholar ly a c t i v i t y , but that there was rea l benefit from other a c t i v i t i e s . One untenured facul ty member mentioned se t t ing aside more long-range theore t i ca l e f f o r t s in order to do short - term work that was immediately publ ishable . In these inc idents , i t i s more d i f f i c u l t to separate lack of tangible benef i ts for scholar ly e f fo r t from contrary requirements for these benef i t s . Faculty members tended to see both aspects in each inc ident . Throughout, what i s at stake i s a tangible benefit rather than in tang ib les , such as recogn i t ion . 82 23. Co l laborat ion . (26 f a c i l i t a t i n g , 7 hindering) Col laborat ion with a colleague has led to three projects that are d i r e c t l y l inked to one l ine of research. Department colleagues were not interested in co l laborat i ve research. As a r e s u l t , I engaged in several short-term projects rather than the major project I preferred. Col laborat ion refers to faculty members working together. Scholar ly work was reported to be hindered by the lack of c o l l a b o r a t i o n , due to death of a partner, department p o l i t i c e s , and general d i f f i c u l t y f ind ing a co l laborator , among other th ings . SUMMARY In response to the research quest ion, what do The Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia education facul ty members report as f a c i l i t a t i n g and hindering the i r scholar ly a c t i v i t y , facul ty members produced a t o t a l of 547 inc idents . These reported incidents were categorized in three separate ways: by the reported responsible agent or agency, by the reported act ion of the agent or agency, and by the phase of scholar ly a c t i v i t y reported f a c i l i t a t e d or hindered. Six agent or agency categor ies , twenty-three act ion categor ies , and s ix phase categories were i d e n t i f i e d . A prel iminary explorat ion of re la t ionsh ips among the categories i s undertaken in the next chapter. 83 CHAPTER 5 RESULTS I I : A PRELIMINARY EXPLORATION OF RELATIONSHIPS AMONG CATEGORIES In th i s chapter, a prel iminary exploration of re la t ionsh ips among categories i s undertaken in order to gain a more complete picture of the action category scheme. F i r s t , there i s an examination of the action categories themselves to see whether they can be grouped to y i e l d a higher order c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . Second, frequencies of reported incidents are examined for act ion and phase categor ies , and for act ion and agent or agency categor ies . EXAMINATION OF THE ACTION CATEGORIES As can be seen in Table 7, the action categories are grouped under one of three superordinate categor ies : d i r e c t , enable, and motivate. The categories of reading or studying, scholar ly a c t i v i t i e s , p r a c t i c a l a c t i v i t i e s , d i scuss ion , and advice are grouped under " d i r e c t . " The categories of funds, time, access to data, information, reference mater ia ls , space and non-computer equipment, computer serv ices , typ ing, xeroxing and mail ing serv ices , research ass is tance , c r i t i c a l evaluation and commentary, other forms of p r a c t i c a l ass is tance , s k i l l s , and bureaucratic procedures are grouped under "enable." The 84 TABLE 7: GROUPINGS OF ACTION CATEGORIES Superordinate Action Categories Categories D i rec t : Reading or studying Scholarly a c t i v i t i e s P r a c t i c a l a c t i v i t i e s Discussion Advice Enable: Funds Time Access to data Information Reference mater ials Space and non-computer equipment Computer serv ices Typing, xeroxing, and mai l ing services Research assistance C r i t i c a l evaluation and commentary Other forms of p r a c t i c a l assistance S k i l l s Bureaucratic procedures Motivate: Opportunit ies Approval: recognit ion and appreciat ion Expectations Tangible benef i ts Col laborat ion 85 categories of oppor tun i t ies , approval , expectations, tangible benef i t s , and co l laborat ion are grouped under "motivate." These groupings were formed by asking: What do these act ion categories have in common when f a c i l i t a t i n g and hindering scholar ly a c t i v i t y ? For example, how does time f a c i l i t a t e ? Time seems to enable the researcher to do scholar ly a c t i v i t y . L ikewise, funds seem to enable. However, incent ives do not seem to enable but rather to motivate. The category of reading and studying may conceivably motivate, but what i t r e a l l y seems to do and the way i t was used by the facu l ty members, was to provide d i r e c t i o n . Thus, there are three groupings which become apparent in asking the question posed above. Action categories e i ther provide d i r e c t i o n , enable a facu l ty member to do scholar ly a c t i v i t y , or provide incentive or mot ivat ion. These groups are consistent with Heider 's (1958) ana lys is of the requirements for accomplishing any goal . That i s , i s the person d i rected toward a goal? Is the person able to accomplish i t ? Is the person motivated to try hard enough to reach i t ? These three questions seem p a r t i c u l a r l y appropriate for administrators who are attempting to f a c i l i t a t e scholar ly a c t i v i t y , for they pose three d i f fe rent bases for assessment and administ rat ive a c t i o n . For example, 8 6 p r o v i d i n g , i n c e n t i v e s would be a m i s t a k e n and f r u s t r a t i n g a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a c t i o n i f f a c u l t y members l a c k e d b a s i c e n a b l e r s . E n a b l e r s a r e i r r e l e v a n t t o those who l a c k a s c h o l a r l y d i r e c t i o n and d i r e c t i o n i s i r r e l e v a n t t o those who l a c k i n c e n t i v e . However, i t would be m i s l e a d i n g t o d i s t i n g u i s h between the c a t e g o r i e s too r i g i d l y , f o r they a l s o share f e a t u r e s . Under the c a t e g o r y of a d v i c e , f o r example, f a c u l t y members r e p o r t e d b e i n g encouraged. In f a c t , the s u b j e c t s o f t e n seem t o use the two terms i n t e r c h a n g e a b l y as i n : "I was a d v i s e d / e n c o u r a g e d t o a p p l y f o r a r e s e a r c h g r a n t . " However, t h i s c a t e g o r y i s s t i l l p r o p e r l y viewed as one of d i r e c t i o n , f o r what stands out i s t h a t one i s not encouraged or a d v i s e d i n g e n e r a l , but i n a s p e c i f i c d i r e c t i o n . T y p i c a l l y , f a c u l t y members h i g h l i g h t e d i n t h e i r i n c i d e n t s whether d i r e c t i o n or m o t i v a t i o n was dominant. However, i f a d v i c e i s somewhat ambiguous, o t h e r c a t e g o r i e s a r e more c l e a r l y s e p a r a t e . For example, when a f a c u l t y member's work i s r e c o g n i z e d , the i n d i v i d u a l g e n e r a l l y r e c e i v e s no s p e c i f i c d i r e c t i o n f o r s c h o l a r l y a c t i v i t y , but r a t h e r a g e n e r a l i n c e n t i v e t o do s c h o l a r l y work. 87 AN EXAMINATION OF FREQUENCIES OF"I NCIDENTS Phase and Action Categories For each act ion category, the number of reported incidents that led to the f a c i l i t a t i o n or hindrance of the d i f fe rent phases of scholar ly a c t i v i t y are deta i led in Table 8. From an examination of the frequency of reported inc idents , the major trends of the data are reasonably c l e a r . „The f i r s t group of act ion categor ies c luster around the phase category "scholar ly i d e a . " S p e c i f i c a l l y , the act ion categories of reading or studying, scholar ly a c t i v i t i e s , p r a c t i c a l a c t i v i t i e s , d i s c u s s i o n , and advice lead pr imar i ly to a scholar ly idea. The exception i s advice, which leads to a scholar ly project as w e l l . The second group of act ion categor ies lead to the phases of scholar ly design and research proposal , scholar ly research and data c o l l e c t i o n , scholar ly a n a l y s i s , scho lar ly product, and scholar ly p ro jec t . S p e c i f i c a l l y , the act ion categories of funds, t ime, access to data , information, reference mater ia ls , space and non-computer equipment, computer serv ices , typ ing, xeroxing, and mai l ing serv ices , research ass is tance, c r i t i c a l eva lua lat ion and commentary, other forms of p r a c t i c a l ass is tance , s k i l l s , and bureaucratic procedures are l inked to a l l the scholar ly a c t i v i t y phases, except the scholar ly idea . TABLE 8 : FREQUENCY OF REPORTED INCIDENTS FOR ACTION CATEGORIES AND PHASE CATEGORIES Phase C a t e g o r i e s I d e a 1 Des i gn 1 Research - Ana 1ys i s * P r o d u c t 5 Proj e c t 6 T o t a l A c t i o n C a t e g o r i e s F H F H F H F H F H F H F H D i r e c t : Reading or s t u d y i n g 14 14 0 S c h o l a r l y a c t i v i t i e s 8 8 0 P r a c t i c a l a c t i v i t i e s 13 13 0 D i s c u s s i o n 37 37 0 Adv i ce 14 2 5 1 19 3 E n a b l e : Funds 1 1 4 2 3 1 9 2 36 6 53 12 T i me 2 3 3 5 6 2 8 3 22 4 7 4 1 6 0 A c c e s s to d a t a 18 4 18 4 Informat i on 6 4 1 6 5 R e f e r e n c e m a t e r i a l s 4 2 8 4 14 4 Space and non-computer equipment 1 1 3 1 5 1 Computer s e r v i c e s 1 6 . 2 1 1 1 9 3 T y p i n g , x e r o x i n g , and m a i l i n g s e r v i c e s 1 5 3 8 4 13 Research a s s i s t a n c e 2 1 3 2 4 C r i t i c a l e v a l u a t i o n and commentary 6 1 1 2 17 2 Other forms of p r a c t i c a l ass i s t a nce 13 2 1 2 2 5 1 24 2 Ski 1 Is 1 1 4 2 7 1 B u r e a u c r a t i c p r o c e d u r e s 1 6 2 1 8 Mot 1vate: Opportuni t i es 27 1 2 0 1 47 2 A p p r o v a l : r e c o g n i t i o n and a p p r e c i a t i o n 1 1 4 8 4 10 8 E x p e c t a t ions 1 6 8 1 15 1 T a n g i b l e b e n e f i t s 3 7 7 10 7 Col 1aborat i o n 1 7 18 7 26 7 8G 2 37 19 32 13 18 e 84 2 0 143 8 7 4 0 0 147 Abbrev i at i ons: F a c i l i t a t i n g ; H = H i n d e r i n g S c h o l a r l y i d e a S c h o l a r l y d e s i g n and r e s e a r c h p r o p o s a l S c h o l a r l y r e s e a r c h and data c o l l e c t i o n S c h o l a r l y a n a l y s i s S c h o l a r l y p r o d u c t and d i s s e m i n a t i o n S c h o l a r l y p r o j e c t 89 The t h i r d group of act ion categories tend to lead to a product or scholar ly pro ject , with a few incidents concerned with making a proposal . S p e c i f i c a l l y , the act ion categories of opportuni t ies , approval , expectat ions, tangib le benef i ts , and co l laborat ion are l inked with the f i n a l phase of scholar ly a c t i v i t y , the dissemination of a scho lar l y product, and the scholar ly pro ject . P r i m a r i l y , what the frequency of incidents supports i s the d i v i s i o n of the act ion categories into three groups. These groups are the same groupings ( i . e . , act ion categories which provide d i r e c t i o n , act ion categories which enable one to do scholar ly a c t i v i t y , and act ion categories which provide incentive or mot ivat ion) , which were i d e n t i f i e d in the previous a n a l y s i s . Agent or Agency and Action Categories Since the examination of the act ion categories themselves and the frequency of reported incidents categorized by act ions and phases indicate three groups of act ion categor ies , the frequency of reported incidents categorized by agents or agencies and act ions (see Table 9) i s examined to see whether the d i f fe rent agent or agency categor ies are involved with the three groupings.' TABLE 9: FREQUENCY OF REPORTED INCIDENTS FOR ACTION CATEGORIES AND AGENT OR AGENCY CATEGORIES Agent or Agency C a t e g o r i e s S e l f Spouse C o l l e a g u e Student UBC O u t s i d e ' T o t a l A c t i o n C a t e g o r i e s F H F H F H F H F H F H F H D i r e c t : Reading or s t u d y i n g 14 14 0 S c h o l a r l y a c t i v i t i e s 8 8 0 P r a c t i c a l a c t i v i t i e s 13 .13 0 D i s c u s s i on 23 14 37 0 A d v i c e 2 1 1 10 1 4 1 2 19 3 Enab l e : Funds 1 2 1 4 32 7 53 12 T i me 10 28 2 1 3 29 26 2 4 1 60 A c c e s s to d a t a 1 3 1 5 2 8 2 18 4 Informat i on 1 2 2 5 1 6 5 R e f e r e n c e m a t e r i a l s 1 G 7 4 14 4 Space and non-computer equipment 1 4 1 5 1 Computer s e r v i c e s 9 3 9 3 T y p i n g , x e r o x i n g , and m a i l i n g s e r v i c e s 3 13 1 4 13 R esearch a s s i s t a n c e 1 1 2 2 2 4 C r i t i c a l e v a l u a t i o n and commentary 2 14 1 1 1 17 2 Other forms of p r a c t i c a l a s s i s t a n c e 2 10 2 7 2 3 24 2 Ski 1 Is 7 1 7 1 B u r e a u c r a t i c p r o c e d u r e s 1 6 2 1 8 Mot i v a t e : O p p o r t u n i t i e s 13 2 34 47 2 A p p r o v a l : r e c o g n i t i o n and a p p r e c i a t i o n 5 1 1 2 7 2 10 8 E x p e c t a t i ons 7 5 1 1 2 15 1 T a n g i b l e b e n e f i t s 1 1 8 6 1 10 7 Co 11aborat i on 2 1 10 15 3 2 26 7 64 35 6 0 104 4 35 7 105 88 86 13 400 147 A b b r e v i a t i o n s : F = F a c i l i t a t i n g ; H = H i n d e r i n g 1 A d m i n i s t r a t i v e person, committee, or agency of UBC 2 Other o u t s i d e agents and ag e n c i e s o 91 The category of se l f appears to connect dominantly with the d i r e c t i n g categor ies . With the exceptions of time and s k i l l s , se l f i s scarcely involved in enabling categories and enters motivating categories almost exc lus ive ly through s e l f - s e t expectations. The spouse category appears to have l i t t l e involvement with any act ion categor ies . Colleagues seem important in research and re lated a c t i v i t i e s , p a r t i c u l a r l y in the ear ly stages involv ing d iscussion and advice (di rect ing, categories) and the la te r stages when gett ing c r i t i c a l evaluation and commentary and other forms of p r a c t i c a l assistance (enabling categor ies ) . They are in the less formal motivating categories such as providing recogni t ion , es tab l i sh ing expectations, and providing opportuni t ies . Colleagues are also involved in the category of c o l l a b o r a t i o n . Students reveal a somewhat s i m i l a r pattern as col leagues, but much weaker ( i . e . , involved with fewer act ion categor ies ) . Agents or agencies of UBC have l i t t l e involvement with the d i rec t ing categor ies . However, they are most prominent -in the enabler categories and are connected to a l l the motivating categor ies . Outside agents or agencies are not noticeable in the d i r e c t i n g categor ies , but are evident in the enabling categor ies , p r imar i l y funds and access to data, and the motivat ing category of oppor tun i t ies . 92 Relat ionships Among Apparently Prominent Categories In order to ident i f y re la t ionsh ips among what seemed to be prominent categor ies , i t was decided to se lect those which showed a frequency of s ix or more when the number of reported incidents in each act ion category was s p l i t out across the agent or agency and phase categor ies , respect i ve ly . It was necessary to select a c u t - o f f point which would avoid the perhaps misleading f ine d e t a i l ( involv ing possibly only one incident) and at the same time preserve approximately the balance of f a c i l i t a t i n g and hindering inc idents . This section w i l l h i g h l i g h t : f i r s t , the f a c i l i t a t i n g and hindering re la t ionsh ips involv ing the d i r e c t i n g action categor ies ; second, the re la t ionsh ips invo lv ing the enabling act ion categor ies ; and t h i r d , the re la t ionsh ips involv ing the motivating action categor ies . F a c i l i t a t i n g re la t ionsh ips among the d i r e c t i n g ac t ion , agent or agency, and phase categor ies . The d i r e c t i n g act ion categories (reading or studying, scholar ly a c t i v i t i e s , p r a c t i c a l a c t i v i t i e s , d i scuss ion , and advice) are the focus of Table 1 0 . The table exempl i f ies f a c i l i t a t i n g re la t ionsh ips among the d i r e c t i n g act ion and phase categor ies , and the d i r e c t i n g act ion and agent or TABLE 10: FACILITATING RELATIONSHIPS AMONG THE DIRECTING ACTION, AGENT OR AGENCY, AND PHASE CATEGORIES D i r e c t i n g A c t i o n C a t e g o r i e s Agent or Agency C a t e g o r i e s S e l f Spouse C o l l e a g u e Student UBC 1 O u t s i d e ' Phase C a t e g o r i e s I d e a 3 Design" R e s e a r c h 5 A n a l y s i s . 6 P r o d u c t 7 P r o j e c t 1 Reading or S t u d y i n g F S c h o l a r l y A c t i v i t i e s F P r a c t i c a l A c t i v i t i e s F D i s c u s s i on Adv i ce F: F a c i l i t a t i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p = a f a c i l i t a t i n g i n c i d e n t frequency of 6 or g r e a t e r 1 A d m i n i s t r a t i v e person, committee, or agency of UBC ! Other o u t s i d e agents and a g e n c i e s 3 S c h o l a r l y i d e a * S c h o l a r l y d e s i g n and r e s e a r c h p r o p o s a l 5 S c h o l a r l y r e s e a r c h and d a t a c o l l e c t i o n s S c h o l a r l y a n a l y s i s 7 S c h o l a r l y p r o d u c t and d i s s e m i n a t i o n 8 S c h o l a r l y p r o j e c t 94 agency categor ies , where the frequency of categorized incidents was six or greater . The symbol "F" denotes a f a c i l i t a t i n g re la t ionsh ip and the symbol "H" a hindering re la t ionship . The table indicates that the facul ty member ( i . e . , category of se l f ) was reported as the responsible agent for reading or studying, scholar ly a c t i v i t i e s , and p r a c t i c a l a c t i v i t i e s , and the scholar ly idea, the phase f a c i l i t a t e d . The hypothet ical p o r t r a i t emerges of a facul ty member who i s a le r t for ideas, a c t i v e l y involves himself or hersel f in studying, scholar ly a c t i v i t y , and p r a c t i c e , and i s able to benefit from these a c t i v i t i e s . Colleagues and students were c i ted as the agents who engaged in discussions with facul ty members that led to an idea being developed or re f ined . Colleagues were also reported as giv ing advice or recommending an act ion to a l l e v i a t e the many pressures and problems (ranging from personal to career to p r a c t i c a l ) in the da i l y l i f e of a facul ty member; and what a facul ty member gained from advice was an idea. No hindering re la t ionsh ips for d i r e c t i n g categories appear in Table 10. This i s due largely to the interview questions which required on-going scholar ly a c t i v i t y for scholar ly a c t i v i t y to be hindered. Since d i r e c t i n g categories lead pr imar i l y to the s tar t of a scholar ly project ( i . e . , scholar ly idea) , few hindering incidents are going to emerge. 95 F a c i l i t a t i n g and hindering relationships among the enabling action, agent or agency, and phase categories. The enabling action categories (funds, time, access to data, information, reference materials, space and non-computer equipment, computer services, typing, xeroxing, and mailing services, research assistance, c r i t i c a l evaluation and commentary, other forms of p r a c t i c a l assistance, s k i l l s , and bureaucratic procedures) are the focus of Table 1 1 . This table exemplifies f a c i l i t a t i n g and hindering: relationships among the enabling action and phase categories, and the enabling action and agent or agency categories, where the frequency of categorized incidents was six or greater. The symbol "F" denotes a f a c i l i t a t i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p and the symbol "H" a hindering r e l a t i o n s h i p . The table indicates that UBC and a variety of federal and p r o v i n c i a l government departments and agencies ( i . e . , category of outside agents or agencies) were reported as the sources of funds, and the product and project were the outcomes f a c i l i t a t e d . The federal and pr o v i n c i a l governments were responsible also for the absence of funds, and i t was the scholarly project that the absence of funds hindered. TABLE 11: FACILITATING AND HINDERING RELATIONSHIPS AMONG THE ENABLING ACTION, AGENT OR AGENCY, AND PHASE CATEGORIES Enab1i ng Act i on Categor i es Agent or Agency C a t e g o r i e s S e l f Spouse C o l l e a g u e Student UBC O u t s i d e ' Phase C a t e g o r i e s I d e a 3 Design" R e s e a r c h 5 A n a l y s i s 6 P r o d u c t 7 P r o j e c t 1 Funds Time F H A c c e s s to Data Informat i on R e f e r e n c e M a t e r i a l s Space and Non- Computer Equipment Computer S e r v i c e s T y p i n g , X e r o x i n g , and M a i l i n g S e r v i c e s R e s e a r c h A s s i s t a n c e C r i t i c a l E v a l u a t i o n and Commentary Other Forms of P r a c t i c a l A s s i s t a n c e S k i l l s F B u r e a u c r a t i c P r o c e d u r e s F F H F H F F H F H F : F a c i l i t a t i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p = a f a c i l i t a t i n g i n c i d e n t frequency of 6 or g r e a t e r H : H i n d e r i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p = a h i n d e r i n g i n c i d e n t frequency of 6 or g r e a t e r 1 A d m i n i s t r a t i v e person, committee, or agency of UBC 1 Other o u t s i d e agents and a g e n c i e s 3 S c h o l a r l y i d e a 4 S c h o l a r l y d e s i g n and r e s e a r c h p r o p o s a l 5 S c h o l a r l y r e s e a r c h and data c o l l e c t i o n 6 S c h o l a r l y a n a l y s i s 7 S c h o l a r l y p r o d u c t and d i s s e m i n a t i o n 8 S c h o l a r l y p r o j e c t 97 UBC administrat ion ( e . g . , department chairmen) and faculty members ( i . e . , category of s e l f ) were reported as the agents respnsible for t ime. The provis ion of time enabled facu l t y members to undertake scholar ly p ro jec ts , to do data a n a l y s i s , or to complete and disseminate the scholar ly product. Lack of time was reported to hinder the scholar ly p ro jec t . Contacts ( i . e . , category of outside agents and agencies in Table 11) were regarded as agents of f a c i l i t a t i o n , as they gave access to data . These reported contacts in governments, in foreign count r ies , in communities, on school boards, and in profess ional organizations enabled facu l ty members to engage in scholar ly research and data c o l l e c t i o n . No prominent agents or agencies emerged as providing information or misinformation; however, the scholar ly design was the phase reported f a c i l i t a t e d by the provis ion of information. Colleagues and l i b r a r i a n s (category of administ rat ive person, committee, or agency of UBC) were mentioned as the agents, who ei ther suggested or provided reference mater ia ls , which enabled facu l ty members to undertake scholar ly p ro jec ts . Agencies of UBC were c i t e d as being responsible for the provis ion of computer se rv i ces , which f a c i l i t a t e d the scholar ly analys is phase. UBC was also c i t e d as being responsible for hindering r e l a t i o n s h i p s . 9 8 Department chairmen and secretar ies were responsible for the lack or the poor qua l i t y of typ ing , xeroxing, and mai l ing serv ices ; and the scholar ly product was the phase hindered. UBC committees were reported as the agents who establ ished complicated bureaucratic procedures. The scholar ly design and research proposal was the phase c i ted as being hindered by complicated bureaucratic procedures. Colleagues were recounted as the agents who provided c r i t i c a l evaluation and commentary on facul ty members' research designs, proposals , and products ( e . g . , a r t i c l e s , books, guides, monographs, and a r t i s t i c works). Colleagues, as wel l as UBC, were mentioned as providing the various forms of p r a c t i c a l ass i s tance , which f a c i l i t a t e d facul ty members' designs and proposals . The faculty member ( i . e . category of s e l f ) was reported responsible for developing s k i l l s . F a c i l i t a t i n g and hinder ing re la t ionsh ips among the motivating a c t i o n , agent or agency and phase categor ies . The motivating act ion categor ies (opportuni t ies , approval, expectat ions, tangible b e n e f i t s , and co l laborat ion) are the focus of Table 12. This table exemplif ies f a c i l i t a t i n g and hindering re la t ionsh ips among the motivating act ion and phase categor ies , and the motivat ing action and agent or agency categor ies , where the frequency of categorized incidents was s ix or greater . The symbol "F" denotes a TABLE 12: FACILITATING AND HINDERING RELATIONSHIPS AMONG THE MOTIVATING ACTION, AGENT OR AGENCY, AND PHASE CATEGORIES M o t i v a t i n g A c t i o n Categor i es Agent or Agency C a t e g o r i e s S e l f Spouse C o l l e a g u e Student UBC 1 O u t s i d e 1 Phase C a t e g o r i e s I d e a 3 D e s i g n ' R e s e a r c h 5 A n a l y s i s 8 P r o d u c t 7 P r o j e c t ' Opportuni t i es A p p r o v a l : R e c o g n i t i o n and A p p r e c i a t i o n E x p e c t a t i ons T a n g i b l e B e n e f i t s Col 1aborat i o n F H F F F F H F H F : F a c i l i t a t i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p = a f a c i l i t a t i n g i n c i d e n t frequency of 6 or g r e a t e r H : H i n d e r i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p = a h i n d e r i n g i n c i d e n t frequency of 6 or g r e a t e r 1 A d m i n i s t r a t i v e person, committee, or agency of UBC ! Other o u t s i d e agents and a g e n c i e s 3 S c h o l a r l y idea 4 S c h o l a r l y d e s i g n and r e s e a r c h p r o p o s a l 5 S c h o l a r l y r e s e a r c h and data c o l l e c t i o n 5 S c h o l a r l y a n a l y s i s 7 S c h o l a r l y p r o d u c t and d i s s e m i n a t i o n 8 S c h o l a r l y p r o j e c t 1 00 f a c i l i t a t i n g re la t ionsh ip and the symbol "H" a hindering re lat ionship. Colleagues and profess ional organizations ( i . e . , category of other outside agents and agencies) were c i t e d as providing opportunit ies and i t was the product and scholar ly project which these opportunit ies f a c i l i t a t e d . Self ( i . e . , facul ty member) was reported to es tab l i sh expectations which f a c i l i t a t e d the product and pro ject . UBC department chairmen and committees were reported to be responsible for lack of approval and d isapproval . UBC also reportedly offered or f a i l e d to offer such tangible benef i ts as tenure, promotion, and money and the scholar ly project was f a c i l i t a t e d or hindered. Colleagues and students were c i t e d as co l laborat ing with facul ty members and the scholar ly project and product were f a c i l i t a t e d . Lack of co l laborat ion was reported to hinder the scholar ly pro ject . SUMMARY A prel iminary explorat ion of re la t ionsh ips among categories was undertaken. F i r s t , there was an examination of the act ion categories themselves. Second, frequencies of reported incidents were examined. Both types of examinations were undertaken to gain a more complete p icture of the act ion category scheme. 101 The examination of the act ion categories themselves revealed that they could be grouped under one of three superordinate categor ies : d i r e c t , enable, or motivate. The examination of frequency of inc idents , where the reported incidents were categorized by act ions and phases, supported the d i v i s i o n of act ion categories into the previously i d e n t i f i e d groupings. A subsequent examination of frequency of inc idents , where reported inc idents were categorized by act ions and agents or agencies, indicated that the categories of s e l f , col league, and student have impact on the d i r e c t i n g act ion categor ies ; s e l f , col league, UBC, and outside agents and agencies have impact on the enabling act ion categor ies ; and s e l f , col league, student, UBC, and outside agents and agencies have impact on the motivating act ion categor ies . The f i n a l a n a l y s i s , which i d e n t i f i e d re lat ionsh ips among apparently prominent categories ( i . e . , categories which showed a frequency of s ix or more when_the number of reported incidents in each act ion category was s p l i t out across agent or agency and phase categor ies ) , substantiated the re la t ionsh ips discerned in e a r l i e r analyses, and provided s p e c i f i c d e t a i l on how these re la t ionsh ips are worked out. Qual i fy ing issues are taken up in the fol lowing chapter, together with a d iscussion of r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y . 1 02 CHAPTER 6 RESULTS I I I : RELIABILITY, VALIDITY, AND OTHER QUALIFYING ISSUES This chapter i s p r imar i l y concerned with questions of r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y . Secondari ly , other q u a l i f y i n g issues concerning the data w i l l be discussed. RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY Developing a scheme of categories i s one task, determining that the category scheme i s v a l i d and r e l i a b l e i s another task. Questions of r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y do not come to an end. Rather, a category scheme can be defended against doubts that a r i s e , but t h i s would not mean a l l doubts had been resolved. New doubts can always a r i se against which a defense must be t r i e d and assessed. Judgments of r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y are not l i k e l y to be absolute, but rather t e n t a t i v e . Accordingly , a range of prominent kinds of questions are examined in t h i s sec t ion . If these questions are successfu l l y resolved, then a reasonable warrant would ex is t for the r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y of the category scheme. This sect ion predominently focuses on the act ion category scheme, as the study was mainly concerned with t h i s scheme. 1 03 R e l i a b i l i t y of the Action Category Scheme Is the act ion category scheme r e l i a b l e in the sense that independent judges can use the categories cons is tent ly to place incidents? This question d i f f e r s from other questions of r e l i a b i l i t y with which i t might be confused. For instance, i s the c r i t i c a l incident interview r e l i a b l e ? Flanagan (1954) and Andersson and Ni lsson (1964) provide evidence that s imi la r inc idents are e l i c i t e d from people responding to d i f fe rent interv iewers , responding to a quest ionnaire, and upon re - in te rv iewing people af ter an in te rva l of t ime. Along with i t s long h is tory of successful use in a var ie ty of f i e l d s ( e . g . , Dachelet et a l . , 1981), these f indings provide reasonable grounds for interview r e l i a b i l i t y . As another instance, i s the method of forming categories r e l i a b l e ? To answer the quest ion, i t might be pointed out that the method of searching for s i m i l a r i t i e s and d i f ferences i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of ca tegor i za t ion . That i s just what one must do to form categor ies . But in the end, the argument cannot be made that t h i s act ion category scheme i s the only one that could be j u s t i f i a b l y formed, but that i t f i t s the data and t h i s can be determined la rge ly by whether or not independent judges can use the categories cons is tent ly to place inc idents (Andersson and N i l s s o n , 1964). 1 04 S ix ty -n ine incidents were drawn for the judges. Two-thirds were f a c i l i t a t i n g and one - th i rd were hinder ing, matching the proportion of f a c i l i t a t i n g incidents (400) to hindering incidents (147). The incidents were randomly drawn from the t o t a l number in quas i -p ropor t ion . For example, the category of funds had many incidents and consequently was represented by f i ve incidents in the sample. The category of bureaucratic procedures had few incidents and was represented by two inc idents , the minimal number for each category. Numbers were not drawn propor t iona l l y , because th is would have resulted in an unmanageable number of incidents for the judges to categor ize . Since the incidents were to be categorized in three separate ways, the incidents were typed on th ree -by - f i ve inch index cards with the agent or agency near the top of the card, what the agent did (the action) in the middle, and the outcome (phase) at the bottom. A p i l o t study was conducted to get a c learer sense of the appropriate format. For instance, in the p i l o t study, judges received a prototyp ica l incident for each category and a descr ipt ion of the range. However, the presentation of prototype and range for each category appeared to be unnecessary and an attempt was made to determine i f judges could use the category scheme with minimal knowledge of the categor ies . 1 05 The judges were two facul ty members and one graduate student. Two were male and one was female. Judges were given the rat ing task in the i r own homes and the interview lasted approximately an hour. After a br ief descr ip t ion of the study, judges were given the fo l lowing i n s t r u c t i o n s : The incidents have been categorized in three ways, according to the agent or agency responsible , what the agent or agency did that was so he lpfu l or h inder ing , and according to the phase of scholar ly a c t i v i t y that was f a c i l i t a t e d or hindered. Your task w i l l be to categorize s i x t y -n ine inc idents , f o r t y - s i x f a c i l i t a t i n g and twenty-three hinder ing. - Here is a l i s t of agent and agency categor ies , act ion categor ies , and phase categor ies . And on these cards are the s i x t y -n ine inc idents . F i r s t , read the names of the categories and ask any questions you wish. (As the judge read, categories were character ized and examples added, i f necessary). Now read each incident i n d i v i d u a l l y and categorize each in three ways: 1) responsible agent or agency, 2) the act ions of the agent or agency, and 3) the phase of scholar ly a c t i v i t y that was f a c i l i t a t e d or hindered. You are to record the number of the incident beside the correct agent or agency category, phase category, and act ion category. Each judge was provided with three separate sheets of paper on which the three category schemes were recorded in column. Beside each category was a l i n e on which to record numbers. The categor izat ion of agents or agencies and phases was extremely rap id , la rge ly because there are many i d e n t i c a l matches such as colleague with the category of col leagues. What the agent or agency d id (actions) were categorized more s lowly, yet s t i l l q u i c k l y . One judge averaged about four categor izat ions per minute while another averaged about three per minute and the t h i r d averaged about 1 06 two. Table 13 records the percentage of agreement between the researcher 's and the judges' placement of incidents in the categories in each category scheme. As can be seen, the TABLE 13: RELIABILITY OF CATEGORY SCHEMES Percentage of Agreement Judges Agent or Action Phase Agency Categories Categories Categories Faculty Member 99% 93% 93% Faculty Member 1 00% 81% 99% Graduate Student 1 00% 97% 99% Average In te r - ra te r R e l i a b i l i t y 99% 90% 97% r e l i a b i l i t y of categor izat ion exceeded 80% for each judge. Agreement with respect to agent or agency categories and phase categories was nearly per fec t , while the more complex act ion categories appear highly r e l i a b l e , with an average agreement at 90%. Of p a r t i c u l a r importance, the high r e l i a b i l i t y (Sulzer -Azaroff & Mayer, 1977) demonstrated by these judges provides warrant for the c laim that the act ion category scheme can be used in a consistent manner by judges. That i s , independent judges can d i f f e r e n t i a t e and integrate 1 07 inc idents in about the same way as the invest igator using these sets of act ion categor ies . An interview inquiry with the judges into the nature of the d i f ferences between the i r placement of incidents and the researcher 's placement provides ind i rect support, for the d i f ferences were large ly ones of haste. There were some ambiguous or border l ine inc idents , which i s to be expected, but most incidents were not of t h i s nature. Some numbers were l i s t e d twice. Some were not l i s t e d . In one inc ident , a judge assumed the researcher must have funds to hire a research ass is tant and placed the incident under funds rather than research ass is tance . In another, the judge overlooked funds, instead focusing on what funds provide, such as computer t ime. Most of the d i f ferences stem from the judges focusing on t r igger words to the neglect of the whole inc ident . For example, in one inc ident , a paper (not the facu l ty member's paper) was discussed in a c lass of graduate students, and the facul ty member got ideas from c r i t i q u i n g the paper. Upon spott ing the word " c r i t i q u i n g " , the judge placed i t under c r i t i c a l evaluation and commentary rather than d iscuss ion . One las t d i f ference was due to hasty reading of categories by the judges. For instance, typing i s a form of p r a c t i c a l ass is tance. One judge indicated that he forgot there was a category of typing, and placed the incident under other forms of p r a c t i c a l ass is tance . 1 0 8 In summary, judges demonstrated a reasonably high degree of r e l i a b i l i t y in categor iz ing inc idents , and the d i f ferences between the judges' placement of incidents and the researcher 's placement were large ly ones of haste. V a l i d i t y of Action Categories The question of v a l i d i t y of the act ion categories concerns the extent to which the categories are sound or wel l - founded. Although the v a l i d i t y of the act ion categories i s d i f fe rent from the v a l i d i t y of the category scheme as a whole, there i s considerable over lap. A v a l i d category scheme would desi rably contain v a l i d categor ies . However, there i s a d i f fe rence . If one discovered that two or three categories were not well -founded or sound, the category scheme would not necessar i ly be inva l ida ted . Rather, i t would be adjusted to accomodate th i s information. Questions of v a l i d i t y regarding the category scheme w i l l be - reserved for the next sect ion . In t h i s sect ion , evidence i s supplied to support the soundness of the act ion categor ies . Categories are formed because of the s i m i l a r i t y of a group of incidents reported by d i f f e r e n t people. That i s , a category i s formed by the researcher as a resu l t of people independently report ing the same kind of event. Were one person to report an inc ident , i t might be dismissed. But when several people report the same kind of inc ident , i t great ly increases the l i k e l i h o o d that a category i s 109 wel l - founded. This form of v a l i d i t y i s inherent in the C r i t i c a l Incident Technique. A s ing le person may be accused of d i s t o r t i o n or fab r i ca t ion regarding a s ingle inc ident , but charges of d i s t o r t i o n or fab r i ca t ion begin to lose force when a number of people independently report the same th ing . Agreement among independent people i s one c r i t e r i o n for ob jec t i v i t y (Kaplan, 1964). In t h i s study, the basis of agreement was const i tu ted by people independently report ing the same kind of event. For each category, the number of, facul ty members report ing an incident or incidents was div ided by the t o t a l number of facu l t y members in the study and m u l t i p l i e d by 100 (see Table 14). These percentages indicate a p a r t i c i p a t i o n rate in each category. Those act ion categories with highest p a r t i c i p a t i o n rates receive the strongest conf i rmat ion, while those with lowest p a r t i c i p a t i o n rates receive the weakest conf i rmat ion . The p a r t i c i p a t i o n rates ranged from a low of 12% for research assistance to a high of 85% for t ime. Categories with a 70% to 80% p a r t i c i p a t i o n rate were time, funds, and oppor tun i t ies . The categories of d iscuss ion , access to information, other forms of p r a c t i c a l ass is tance, and co l laborat ion have a 40% to 50% p a r t i c i p a t i o n r a t e . There i s a lso another type of agreement that suggests soundness, and that is the agreement of opposites. In th i s study, the categories were formed from the 1 10 TABLE 14: PARTICIPATION RATE IN EACH ACTION CATEGORY Action Categories f 1 PR2 D i r e c t : Reading or studying 13 32% Scholar ly a c t i v i t i e s 8 20% P r a c t i c a l a c t i v i t i e s 11 27% Discussion 24 59% Advice 16 39% Enable: Funds 34 83% Time 35 85% Access to data 18 44% Information 7 17% Reference materials 13 32% Space and non-computer equipment 6 15% Computer services 9 22% Typing, xeroxing, and mai l ing services 12 29% Research assistance 5 12% C r i t i c a l evaluation and commentary 15 37% Other forms of p r a c t i c a l assistance 18 44% S k i l l s 6 15% Bureaucratic procedures 7 17% Mot i v a t e : Opportunit ies 29 71% Approval : recognit ion and appreciat ion 13 32% Expectations 13 32% Tangible benefi ts 16 39% Col laborat ion 21 51% n=41 1 f = Frequency = number of faculty members report ing an incident or incidents in a category 2 PR = P a r t i c i p a t i o n rate = ( f / t o t a l number of facul ty members in the study)X100 111 f a c i l i t a t i n g inc idents , with the hindering incidents being encompassed by the same categor ies . However, in developing a set of categor ies , i t i s not required that f a c i l i t a t i n g and hindering incidents be encompassed by the same categor ies . Yet when th is does occur, the f a c i l i t a t i o n tends to confirm the hindrance and vice versa. For example, consider the category of approval . When facul ty members received recognit ion or apprec iat ion , they experienced an incent ive to do more scholar ly work. As w e l l , when they did not receive recognit ion or received deprecation, they ei ther tended to lose incent ive general ly or for the par t i cu la r l i n e of scholar ly a c t i v i t y being conducted. The opposing inc idents strengthen one another and support the soundness of the whole category. The categories encompass opposites to some extent, and mutually re inforce the i r soundness, with the exception of d i r e c t i n g categor ies . These categories are a spec ia l case that w i l l be discussed la te r in t h i s chapter. With th i s set of act ion categories serving as cues for memory, a random 10% of the sample were re- interviewed to see i f they could r e c a l l inc idents for each category. While each person did not r e c a l l incidents for every category, since some act ion categories were not important to the i r work ( e . g . , space i s not relevant for one who does not need add i t iona l space for scholar ly a c t i v i t y ) , most were able general ly to r e c a l l inc idents amply and eas i l y for the categor ies . For example, they could r e c a l l when they had 1 1 2 received an idea from studying, from the i r pr ior scholar ly a c t i v i t i e s , f r o m p r a c t i c a l a c t i v i t i e s , from d iscuss ion , and from d i rect advice. It i s not enough that people report the same kinds of inc idents , but that they also be in a pos i t ion to make f i r s t - h a n d reports . Three sources (a three year l i s t i n g of research grant awards, a three year l i s t i n g of project submissions to the Human Subjects Committee, and the dean's submission for the Pres ident ' s 1981-82 Report on Research) were checked to see i f facu l ty members who par t i c ipated in t h i s study ac tua l l y engaged in scholar ly a c t i v i t y . According to these sources, t h i r t y - s i x of the forty-one facul ty members e i ther received a research grant award, submitted an app l icat ion to the Human Subjects Committee (any l i s t i n g having a student co - invest igator was e l iminated, to avoid c r e d i t i n g a facul ty member with a student d i sse r ta t ion or t h e s i s ) , or was reported by the dean ( i . e . , department head) as undertaking scholar ly a c t i v i t y . Twenty-eight of the facu l ty members were l i s t e d in two sources. Of those few who were not ac t i ve l y engaged in scholar ly a c t i v i t y , two made t h i s c lear to the interviewer at the very beginning of the interv iew. These two interviews produced only two inc idents , one for each person, considerably fewer than the average of 13.4 incidents per facul ty member. It may be concluded that the facul ty 1 1 3 members were in a pos i t ion to report f i r s t - h a n d incidents and those who were doing scholar ly a c t i v i t y reported the most inc idents . Agreement in types of inc idents , then, becomes a more convincing c r i t e r i o n for the v a l i d i t y of the categor ies . Perhaps the major q u a l i f i c a t i o n of t h i s conclusion i s that the categories derive from s e l f - r e p o r t . S p e c i f i c a l l y , i s s e l f - r e p o r t a dependable means for d iscover ing what ac tua l l y f a c i l i t a t e s and hinders? There i s growing evidence that s e l f - r e p o r t s are accurate and can be used to estimate what might have been achieved by object ive measures ( e . g . , Borgen and Se l ing , 1978). Mischel (1977) captures the current rev is ion of a t t i tude toward s e l f - r e p o r t very w e l l . He notes that people are the best experts on themselves. These claims not withstanding, other kinds of evidence to substantiate the s e l f - r e p o r t categories are u s e f u l . One source of evidence i s face v a l i d i t y . The act ion categories seem p l a u s i b l e ; they agree with common sense or expectat ion. More importantly , one can see how each act ion category could f a c i l i t a t e . For example, receiv ing funds f a c i l i t a t e s scholar ly a c t i v i t y . Funds could allow one to pay for subject p a r t i c i p a t i o n , to t rave l for data c o l l e c t i o n , and to h i re a research a s s i s t a n t . Computer services could permit complicated analyses in a very br ie f t ime. An opportunity to publ ish a book provides 1 1 4 an incentive for wr i t ing one. A l l of the act ion categories i d e n t i f i e d in th i s study are quite c lear in ind icat ing generally how they might f a c i l i t a t e or hinder scholar ly a c t i v i t y . A second source of evidence was provided by a department head who used the act ion category scheme. The department was given a l i s t of the act ion categories and a br ie f d e f i n i t i o n of each category. This information was used by the department head to guide a d iscussion assessing the department's scholar ly needs. As a resu l t of the d iscuss ion , the department head strongly endorsed the act ion category scheme as a useful c h e c k l i s t for admin is t rators , who are attempting to f a c i l i t a t e scholar ly a c t i v i t y in the i r departments or schools. Judgment and l o g i c a l ana lys is i s the t h i r d source of evidence. This analys is i s based in part on such guidel ines in measurement l i t e r a t u r e as those provided by Ker l inger (1964) and Cronbach (1971). Ker l inger (1964:446) states that "content v a l i d a t i o n . . . or representativeness . . . cons is ts e s s e n t i a l l y in judgment". Ind iv iduals are asked to bring relevant experience to bear (Cronbach, 1971:475). For example, Henslowe in her 1977 doctoral study establ ished a formal v a l i d a t i o n of an information base by asking school l i b r a r i a n s to make judgments about the information base. 1 1 5 In th i s study, Canadian Deans of Education were asked to make judgments about the twenty-three act ion categor ies . The t h i r t y - t h r e e deans were sent a descr ipt ion of the act ion categories and asked to undertake two tasks. F i r s t , they were asked whether they agreed, disagreed, or were undecided that the presence of each factor ( i . e . , act ion category) f a c i l i t a t e d the conduct of some form of scholar ly a c t i v i t y (see Rating Form I in Appendix C). Second, they were asked whether they agreed, disagreed, or were undecided that the absence of each factor ( i . e . , action- category) hindered the conduct of some form of scholar ly a c t i v i t y (see Rating Form II in Appendix C) . One mail ing and one fol low-up mai l ing were used. Responses were received from t h i r t y of the t h i r t y - t h r e e deans. One of these responses decl ined p a r t i c i p a t i o n , one was only a p a r t i a l response. Thus, twenty-eight usable returns were received, a usable return rate of 85%. Table 15 shows d e t a i l s . For each action category, the number of deans that agreed, disagreed, or were undecided that the presence of the category f a c i l i t a t e d the conduct of some form of scholar ly a c t i v i t y was d iv ided by the t o t a l number of deans making judgments and m u l t i p l i e d by 100 (see Table 16). Those act ion categories with the highest percentages of agreement receive the strongest conf i rmation, while those with the lowest percentages of agreement or high percentages of disagreement or undecidedness receive the weakest 1 1 6 TABLE 15: NUMBER AND PERCENT OF RATING FORM RETURNS AND USABLE RATING FORMS No. Received From Or ig ina l Mai l ing (to 33 Deans) 18 55 Received From Follow-up Ma i l ing 12 36 Total Returns 30 91 Responded but did not complete rat ing forms 1 3 Responded but rat ing forms nonusable 1 3 Usable Rating Forms 28. 85 conf i rmation. The percentages of agreement ranged from a low of 71% for the categories of space and non-computer equipment, computer serv ices , uncomplicated bureaucratic procedures and tangible benef i ts to a high of 100% for reading or studying and oppor tun i t ies . The average percentage of agreement was 85.4 . Categories with a 80-90% agreement were pr ior scholar ly a c t i v i t i e s , p a r t i c i p a t i o n in p r a c t i c a l a c t i v i t i e s , d i scuss ion , funds, t ime, access to data, information, reference mater ia ls , research ass istance, c r i t i c a l evaluation and commentary, other forms of p r a c t i c a l ass is tance , s k i l l s , recognit ion and apprec ia t ion , expectations, and c o l l a b o r a t i o n . The percentages of disagreement ranged from 18% for tangible benef i ts to 0% for the categories of reading or studying, p a r t i c i p a t i o n in p r a c t i c a l a c t i v i t i e s , d i scuss ion , advice, research 1 1 7 TABLE 16: THE NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF DEANS THAT AGREED, DISAGREED, OR WERE UNDECIDED THAT THE PRESENCE OF EACH ACTION CATEGORY FACILITATED THE CONDUCT OF SOME FORM OF SCHOLARLY ACTIVITY Act ion Category Agree Disagree Undecided No. No. No. (n=28) (%) (%) (%) Reading or Studying 28 - - . (100.0) P r io r Scholar ly A c t i v i t i e s 23 3 2 (82. 1 ) (10.7) (7.1 P a r t i e . in P r a c t i c a l A c t i v i t i e s 25 - 3 (89.3) (10.7 Di scuss ion 25 - 3 (89.3) (10.7 Advice 22 - 6 (78,6) (2 1 .4 Funds 23 3 2 (82.1) (10.7) (7.1 Time 26 1 1 (92.9) (3.6) (3.6 Access to Data 23 3 2 (82.1 ) (10.7) (7.1 Informat ion 24 2 2 (85.7) (7.1 ) (7.1 Reference Mater ia ls 25 2 1 (89.3) (7.1) (3.6 Space & Non-computer Equipment 20 3 5 (71.4) (10.7) (17.9 Computer Services 20 2 6 (71.4) (7.1 ) (21.4 Typing, Xeroxing, & Mai l ing 22 2 4 (78.6) (7.1 ) (14.3 Research Assistance 26 - 2 (92.9) (7.1 C r i t i c a l Evaluation & Commentary 24 - 4 (85.7) (14.3 Other Forms of P rac t . Assistance 23 1 4 (82. 1 ) (3.6) (14.3 S k i l l s 25 - 3 (89.3) (10.7 Uncomplicated Bureaucratic Proc . 20 4 4 (71.4) (14.3) (14.3 Opportunit ies 28 - - (100.0) Recognition & Appreciat ion 26 1 1 (92.9) (3.6) (3.6 Expectat ions 26 - 2 (92.9) (7.1 Tangible Benefits 20 5 3 (71.4) (17.9) (10.7 Col laborat ion 26 1 1 (92.9) (3.6) (3.6 1 18 ass is tance , c r i t i c a l evaluat ion, and commentary, s k i l l s , opportunit ies and expectations. The percentages of undecidedness ranged from 21% for the categories of advice and computer services to 0% for reading or studying and oppor tun i t ies . Table 17 indicates the deans' judgment about the absence of each act ion category. The percentages of agreement ranged from a low of 71% for the categories of p a r t i c i p a t i o n in p r a c t i c a l a c t i v i t i e s , advice, funds, space and non-computer equipment, computer serv ices , typ ing , xeroxing and mai l ing serv ices , uncomplicated bureaucratic procedures, and tangible benef i ts to a high of 100% for reading or studying. The average percentage of agreement was 79.0 . Categories with a 80-90% agreement were pr io r scholar ly a c t i v i t i e s , time, access to data, reference mater ia l s , s k i l l s , opportuni t ies , recognit ion and apprec ia t ion , and expectations. The percentages of disagreements ranged from 18% for p a r t i c i p a t i o n in p r a c t i c a l a c t i v i t i e s , uncomplicated bureaucratic procedures and tangib le benef i ts to 0% for reading or studying. The percentages of undecidedness ranged from 18% for the categories of advice, computer serv ices , typ ing, xeroxing and mai l ing se rv i ces , and other forms of p r a c t i c a l assistance to 0% for reading or studying, time and s k i l l s . 119 TABLE 17: THE NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF DEANS THAT AGREED, DISAGREED, OR WERE UNDECIDED THAT THE ABSENCE OF EACH ACTION CATEGORY HINDERED THE CONDUCT OF SOME FORM OF SCHOLARLY ACTIVITY Action Category Agree Disagree Undec ided No. No. No. (n=28) (%) (%) (%) Reading or Studying 2 8 (100.0) - - Pr ior Scholar ly A c t i v i t i e s 23 3 2 (82. 1) (10.7) (7.1 ) P a r t i e . in P r a c t i c a l A c t i v i t i e s 20 5 3 (71.4) (17.9) (10.7) Discussion 22 3 3 (78.6) (10.7) (10.7) Advice 20 3 5 (71.4) (10.7) (17.9) Funds 20 4 4 (71.4) (14.3) (14.3) Time 27 (96.4) 1 (3.6) " Access to Data 23 2 3 ,(82. 1 ) (7.1 ) (10.7) Information 22 2 4 ' (78.6) (7.1 ) (14.3) Reference Mater ia ls 23 3 2 (82. 1) (10.7) (7.1 ) Space & Non-computer Equipment 20 4 4 (71.4) (14.5) (14.5) Computer Services 20 3 5 (71.4) (10.7) (17.9) Typing, Xeroxing, & Mai l ing 20 3 5 (71.4) (10.7) (17.9) Research Assistance 21 3 4 (75.0) (10.7) (14.3) C r i t i c a l Evaluation & Commentary 22 2 4 (78.6) (7.1 ) (14.3) Other Forms of Pract . Assistance 21 2 5 (75.0) (7.1) (17.9) S k i l l s 26 (92.9) 2 (7.1 ) Uncomplicated Bureaucratic Proc . 20 5 3 (71.4) (17.9) (10.7) Opportunit ies 24 3 1 (85.7) (10.7) (3.6) Recognition & Appreciation 23 3 2 (82. 1) (10.7) (7.1) Expectations 23 2 3 (82. 1) (7.1) (10.7) Tangible Benefits 20 5 3 (71.4) (17.9) (10.7) Col laborat ion 21 4 3 (75.0) (14.3) (10.7) 1 20 An examination of the percentages indicates for most categor ies that there i s a high degree of consensus that they f a c i l i t a t e and hinder the conduct of some form of scho lar l y a c t i v i t y . The average percentages of agreement were 85.4 and 79.0%, respect i ve l y . For a few categor ies , there is a somewhat less than a high degree of consensus. For example, the categories of space and non-computer equipment and computer serv ices received a 71% agreement. Written comments by the deans suggest why there i s a lower percentage of. agreement, for these categor ies . For example, several deans stated that cer ta in types of scholar ly projects do not require computer serv ices nor space. Hence, the undecided or disagreed judgments, as computer services and space are not necessary for a l l forms of scho lar l y a c t i v i t y . Add i t iona l comments by several deans suggest that they were focusing on a pa r t i cu la r group of facu l t y members when judging the category, tangible benef i ts (another category with 71% agreement). They stated that in the i r experience, productive facu l ty members' scholar ly a c t i v i t y i s not necessar i ly f a c i l i t a t e d by the presence or hindered by the lack of tangible benef i t s , because these facu l t y members engage in scholar ly a c t i v i t y regardless of any tang ib le benef i t . For several categor ies , the judges were more supportive of categories for f a c i l i t a t i n g reasons than for h inder ing reasons. For example, p a r t i c i p a t i o n in p r a c t i c a l 121 a c t i v i t i e s received an 89% agreement for f a c i l i t a t i n g scholar ly a c t i v i t y , while the absence of p a r t i c i p a t i o n in p r a c t i c a l a c t i v i t i e s received a 71% agreement for hindering scholar ly a c t i v i t y . Research assistance and co l laborat ion are two other categories with s imi la r percentage d i f fe rences . Written comments suggest why there i s t h i s d i f ference in agreement. The comments again indicate that the deans were thinking about one type of scholar ly a c t i v i t y or a p a r t i c u l a r group of facu l ty members or both. For example, for facul ty members interested in problems of p r a c t i c e , engaging in p r a c t i c a l a c t i v i t i e s can lead to the development of an idea. However, for facu l ty members not interested in problems of p r a c t i c e , non -par t i c ipat ion in p r a c t i c a l a c t i v i t i e s probably does not hinder the i r scholar ly a c t i v i t y , as they are l i k e l y to encounter the i r ideas from other sources. A fourth source of co l laborat i ve evidence i s other s t u d i e s . - This study not only supports previous research but previous studies (which were reviewed in Chapter 2) provide support . for ten of the twenty-three act ion categor ies , s p e c i f i c a l l y : scholar ly a c t i v i t i e s (Pelz and Andrews, 1966), funds (A l l i son and Stewart, 1974; Meltzer , 1956; Thorpe, 1970), time (Konrad, 1983; S h e f f i e l d , 1982; Simerly , 1973; Thorpe, 1970), space and non-computer equipment (Thorpe, 1970), typ ing , xeroxing, and mai l ing services (Thorpe, 1970), c r i t i c a l evaluation and commentary ( F i n k l e s t e i n , 122 1982; Thorpe, 1970), approval : recognit ion and appreciat ion (A l l i son and Stewart, 1974; Cole and Cole, 1967; Crane, 1965; Fenker, 1977; Pelz and Andrews, 1966), expectations (DeVries, 1975), tangible benef i ts (Blau, 1973; Fenker, 1977; Freeman, 1979; Pelz and Andrews, 1966; Thorpe, 1970; Tuckman, 1979), and co l laborat ion (Blackburn et a l . , 1981; Cameron, 1978; F i n k l e s t e i n , 1982; Reskin, 1979). V a l i d i t y of the Action Category Scheme Is the action category scheme comprehensive? As noted by Andersson and Ni lsson (1964), comprehensiveness i s an important quest ion. This question was answered in three ways. In the f i r s t check, the researcher withheld the last 5% of the incidents u n t i l the rest had been categor ized. When categories had been formed, the withhel'd inc idents were brought back and c l a s s i f i e d by graduate students in a doctoral seminar. It was found that a l l withheld incidents f i t t e d wi th in the scheme of categor ies . That i s , no new categories had to be formed. The second check involved randomly d i v id ing the incidents into blocks of f i f t y - f o u r inc idents . Each block was examined to see how many of the twenty-three act ion categories the inc idents accounted f o r . It was found that the number of categories used rose over the f i r s t few blocks and then leveled o f f , with no categories being employed for the f i r s t time in the la te r b locks . It can be assumed, then, that the 1 23 c o l l e c t i o n of incidents was not stopped too abrupt ly , since only a f rac t ion of the t o t a l number was required to generate the set of categor ies . Th i rd , a random ten percent of the sample was re- interv iewed with ins t ruct ions to produce add i t iona l inc idents . Of those produced, a l l f i t t e d under an ex i s t ing category. The same procedures were used to check the agent and agency category scheme and the phase category scheme with the same r e s u l t s . In summary, the three checks provide reasonable evidence for the comprehensiveness of the act ion category scheme. However, i t must be noted that the claim i s p rov is iona l and must remain so. There is always the p o s s i b i l i t y of discover ing new categor ies . For example, pr ior to the study, i t was ant ic ipated that sickness would const i tute a category, yet i t d id not. Two incidents involved s ickness, and in both, sickness was the context for the inc idents . For example, while recovering from an i l l n e s s , one facul ty member read extensively and generated ideas for a scholar ly pro ject . Another category that was ant ic ipated from the l i t e r a t u r e review was mentorship. But in searching the inc idents , there was only one incident that could be construed in th i s way and i t was not without ambiguity. Rather, people focused upon s p e c i f i c incidents rather than global r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Mentorship i s i m p l i c i t l y 1 24 involved in the category scheme of act ions , in the sense that a cer ta in group of act ion categories would describe the mentor r e l a t i o n s h i p . A f i n a l issue in comprehensiveness concerns the l e v e l of abstract ion of the act ion category scheme (Flanagan, 1954). In forming categor ies , one s t r i ves for a l e v e l of abstract ion that establ ishes order and c l e a r l y subsumes inc idents . Too low a leve l of abstract ion courts chaos, the p o s s i b i l i t y of having as many categories as inc idents . Too high a l eve l of abstract ion courts vagueness and clouds important d i s t i n c t i o n s . In forming categories at the r ight l e v e l , one seeks to be guided by prototypes. Staying attuned to prototypes of whole inc idents rather than d isproport ionate ly emphasizing i so lated features was a guiding rule in category formation. However, the p o s s i b i l i t y of categories of a lower leve l of abstract ion always e x i s t s , and with i t , the p o s s i b i l i t y of an increase in the number of categor ies . OTHER QUALIFYING ISSUES D i rec t ing Action Categories The act ion categories encompass opposites, with the exception of the d i r e c t i n g categor ies . These categories are a spec ia l case. Since one can only hinder what i s already in progress, hindering incidents involv ing d i r e c t i o n were 1 25 excluded as speculat ive , aside from incidents concerning advice. For example, the research questions of the interview spec i f ied the hindrance of an a c t i v i t y in progress. But having d i rec t ion hindered in the form of not having an idea i s then excluded. One cannot hinder what i s not in progress. Even so, some quite r e a s o n a b l e ( i . e . , marginal) inc idents emerged, although they were few in number. And t h i s low number i s an a r t i f a c t of the de l imi ta t ions of the study. I am teaching in an area that i s not a substantive research area, so that any preparation for the c lasses does not lead to any research ideas. This hindering incident i s one of several incidents that emerged supporting the importance placed on relevant reading and studying as a source of ideas. I miss not having access to graduate students because I found them he lp fu l in r e f i n i n g research ideas. Three s imi la r hindering inc idents emerged that strongly indicated that the lack of d iscussion was a hindrance to facu l ty members' development of ideas. Considering the r e l a t i v e l y large number of incidents reported that f a c i l i t a t e ideas (see Table 8, p. 88), t h i s seems quite p l a u s i b l e . L ikewise, i t seems p laus ib le that lack of p r io r scholar ly a c t i v i t y to b u i l d on does not ass i s t the .st imulation of ideas and that a lack of p r a c t i c a l contact removes one source of s t imulat ion of ideas. 126 Scholarly Project Category The use of the term "scholar ly project" r e f l e c t s the leve l of what a facul ty member s a i d . Sometimes the person referred to a s p e c i f i c un i t , other times the person referred to a general unit — the scholar ly pro ject . For example, co l laborat ion was an act ion that was reported general ly by facul ty members as f a c i l i t a t i n g and hindering the scholar ly pro ject . For t h i s reason, the scholar ly project category i s d i f f e r e n t . The incidents c l a s s i f i e d under scholar ly project do not refer to a s p e c i f i c phase, instead, they may be thought to encompass some or most phases of scholar ly a c t i v i t y . Frequency Data In order to gain a more complete p icture of the act ion category scheme, a prel iminary explorat ion of re lat ionsh ips among categories was undertaken. Frequencies of reported inc idents were examined. However, no s t a t i s t i c a l tes ts were performed because the frequency data were not independent. That i s , the incidents d id not have an equal p robab i l i t y of occurr ing . As Ker l inger (1964:134) noted, s t a t i s t i c a l tes ts assume independence, and i f the independence i s v i o l a t e d , s t a t i s t i c a l tests lack v a l i d i t y . While s t a t i s t i c a l tes ts could .not be conducted and the examinations be regarded with confidence, the frequencies in 1 27 t h i s study warranted a prel iminary explorat ion to at least suggest p o s s i b i l i t i e s . SUMMARY R e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y of the act ion category scheme have been examined from d i f f e r e n t perspect ives. Independent judges can use the categories cons is tent ly to place inc idents . The categories were formed by the researcher as a resul t of people independently report ing the same kind of event. A number of the categories are supported by other types of evidence (face v a l i d i t y , judgmental and l o g i c a l a n a l y s i s , and other s tud ies ) . The act ion category scheme seems to be reasonably comprehensive. It was also pointed out: 1) even though the interview questions disal lowed the d i r e c t i n g act ion categor ies ' hindering incidents (excluding the category of adv ice) , several reasonable inc idents emerged; 2) the term "scholar ly pro ject" refers to a general unit and not a s p e c i f i c phase of scholar ly a c t i v i t y , therefore, the incidents c l a s s i f i e d under t h i s category may be thought to encompass some or most phases of scholar ly a c t i v i t y ; and 3) s t a t i s t i c a l tests were not performed with the frequency data, as the data were not independent. 1 28 CHAPTER 7 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH This chapter i s concerned with the potent ia l of the act ion category scheme for the conceptual izat ion of faculty development and for the administ rat ion of faculty development programs concerned with scholar ly a c t i v i t y . A summary, the conclusions and the i r impl i cat ions , and recommendations for future research are presented. SUMMARY This study was concerned with developing and explor ing a reasonably comprehensive scheme of categories which descr ibes, from the perspective of faculty members, what f a c i l i t a t e s and hinders the i r scholar ly a c t i v i t y . Forty-one Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia education facul ty members in three career stages were asked d i r e c t l y (by way of a c r i t i c a l incidents interview) for reports of events that f a c i l i t a t e d or hindered the i r own scholar ly a c t i v i t y . Each interview was taped or extensive notes were taken. C r i t i c a l inc idents were la te r extracted from the taped interview or notes, resu l t ing in a t o t a l of 547 usable inc idents , of which 400 were f a c i l i t a t i n g and 147 were h inder ing. These reported incidents were categorized in 1 2 9 three separate ways: by the agent or agency responsible, by what the agent or agency did (the a c t i o n ) , and by the phase of scholar ly a c t i v i t y that was f a c i l i t a t e d or hindered. The s ix agent or agency categories were: s e l f ; spouse; col league; student; administrat ive person, committee, or agency of The Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia; and other outside agents and agencies. The twenty-three act ion categories were: reading or studying; scholar ly a c t i v i t i e s ; p r a c t i c a l a c t i v i t i e s ; d iscuss ion ; advice; funds; t ime; access to data ; information; reference mater ia ls ; space and non-computer equipment; computer serv ices ; typ ing, xeroxing, and mai l ing serv ices ; research ass is tance ; c r i t i c a l evaluation and commentary; other forms of p r a c t i c a l ass is tance ; s k i l l s ; bureaucratic procedures; oppor tun i t ies ; approval : recognit ion and apprec iat ion ; expectations; tangible benef i ts ; and c o l l a b o r a t i o n . The s ix phase categories were: scholar ly idea; scholar ly design and research proposal ; scholar ly research and data c o l l e c t i o n ; scholar ly ana l ys i s ; scholar ly product and disseminat ion; and scholar ly pro ject . Of the three category schemes, the act ion category scheme i s the most important, because the act ion categories provide the bases for answering the research quest ion, "What do UBC education facul ty members report as f a c i l i t a t i n g and hindering the i r scholar ly a c t i v i t y ? " . 1 30 To gain a more complete picture of the act ion category scheme, a prel iminary explorat ion of re la t ionsh ips among categories was undertaken. F i r s t , there was an examination of the act ion categories themselves, which revealed that they could be grouped under one of three superordinate categor ies : d i r e c t , enable, and motivate. Second, frequencies of reported incidents were examined. The categor izat ion of reported incidents by act ions and phases supported the d i v i s i o n of the act ion categories into the three groupings.. The categor izat ion of reported incidents by act ions and agents or agencies indicated t-hat the categories of s e l f , col league, and student have impact on the d i r e c t i n g act ion categor ies ; s e l f , col league, UBC, and outside agents or agencies have impact on the enabling act ion categor ies ; and s e l f , col league, student, UBC, and outside agents or agencies have impact on the motivating act ion categor ies . The f i n a l a n a l y s i s , which i d e n t i f i e d re la t ionsh ips among apparently prominent categories ( i . e . , - categories which showed a frequency of s i x or more when the number of reported incidents in each act ion category was s p l i t across agent or agency and phase categories) substantiated the re la t ionsh ips discerned in e a r l i e r analyses, and provided s p e c i f i c d e t a i l on how these re la t ionsh ips are worked out. 131 To determine whether reasonable warrant ex isted for the r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y of the act ion category scheme, several questions were examined. To test for r e l i a b i l i t y , whether independent judges could use the categories cons is tent ly to place inc idents , three judges were instructed to categorize a sample of s i x t y -n ine inc idents . For each category scheme, the percentage of correct placements was very h igh, t y p i c a l l y over 90%. An examination into the nature of the d i f ferences between the judges' placement of incidents and the researcher 's placement provided further ind i rec t support for the act ion category scheme, for the d i f ferences tended to be ones of haste. The question of v a l i d i t y of the act ion categories concerned the extent to which the categories were sound or wel l - founded. One source of evidence was p a r t i c i p a t i o n ra tes . For each act ion category, the number of facu l ty members report ing an incident or incidents was div ided by the number of the facul ty members in the study. Categories with a 70% to 80% p a r t i c i p a t i o n rate were time, funds, and oppor tun i t ies . Another type of agreement suggested soundness and that was the agreement of opposites. In th i s study, the categories were formed from the f a c i l i t a t i n g inc idents , with the hindering inc idents being encompassed by the same categor ies . 1 32 A th i rd source of evidence was provided by a random 10% of the sample, who were re - interv iewed to see i f they could r e c a l l new inc idents . They were general ly able to r e c a l l incidents for the categor ies . A check was also made to see i f the facu l ty members in the sample were in a pos i t i on to make f i r s t - h a n d reports . Three sources, a three year l i s t i n g of research grant awards, a three year l i s t i n g of project submissions to the Human Subjects Committee, and the Faculty of Education dean's submission to the Pres ident ' s 1981-82 Report on, Research, were checked to see i f facu l ty members who par t i c ipa ted in th i s study were engaged in scholar ly a c t i v i t y . T h i r t y - s i x of the forty-one facu l ty members were reported in one or more sources. Judgmental and l o g i c a l analys is provided another source of evidence. Canadian Deans of Education were asked to make judgments about the twenty-three act ion categor ies . F i r s t , they were asked whether they agreed, disagreed, or were undecided that the presence of each factor ( i . e . , act ion category) f a c i l i t a t e d the conduct of some form of scholar ly a c t i v i t y . Second, they were asked whether they agreed, disagreed, or were undecided that the absence of each factor ( i . e . , act ion category) hindered the conduct of some form of scholar ly a c t i v i t y . The average percentage of agreement was 85.4% that the presence of the categories f a c i l i t a t e d scholar ly a c t i v i t y and 79% that the absence of the categories hindered scholar ly a c t i v i t y . For most act ion 1 33 categories there was a high degree of consensus among the deans that they f a c i l i t a t e d and hindered the conduct of some form of scholar ly a c t i v i t y . For a few categories there was somewhat less than a high degree of consensus, and for several categor ies , the deans were more supportive for f a c i l i t a t i n g reasons, than for hindering reasons. Two other sources of evidence, face v a l i d i t y and other research s tudies , provide add i t iona l support for a number of the act ion categor ies . The question of the v a l i d i t y of the act ion category scheme was concerned with comprehensiveness, which was tested in three ways. F i r s t , the f i n a l f i ve percent of the inc idents were withheld u n t i l the categories were es tab l i shed . It was found that these inc idents readi ly f i t t e d within ex i s t ing categor ies . Second, the incidents were randomly d i s t r ibu ted into blocks of f i f t y - f o u r . Each block was categorized in succession. It was found that the number of categories used rose over the f i r s t few blocks, with no categories being employed for the f i r s t time in the l a t e r b locks. Th i rd , a random 10% of the sample were re - interv iewed a second time with ins t ruc t ions to produce new inc idents . A l l new incidents f i t t e d wi th in ex i s t ing categor ies . In conclus ion, the action category scheme appears to be reasonably comprehensive and i s a r e l i a b l e r e f l e c t i o n of the incidents reported, in the sense that three independent judges show high leve ls of agreement with 1 34 the researcher in categor iz ing inc idents . There i s warrant for the v a l i d i t y of the act ion category scheme. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS Previous research has been valuable in showing that a p a r t i c u l a r factor or a small set of factors can inf luence scholar ly a c t i v i t y . The present study has shown that there are twenty-three factors ( i . e . , twenty-three act ion categories) which conceptual izat ion of facul ty development or administrat ion of facu l ty development programs concerned with scholar ly a c t i v i t y should take into account. Thus, the value of the act ion category scheme i s that i t o f fe rs a broad frame of reference capable of br inging the work of s others to a more integrated point and suggesting a more h o l i s t i c approach to what f a c i l i t a t e s and hinders facul ty members' scholar ly a c t i v i t y . The research also of fers some guidance on how the act ion category scheme could be used in the conceptual izat ion of facu l ty development and in the administrat ion of facu l ty development programs concerned with scholar ly a c t i v i t y . From an examination of the f indings as a whole, s ix general conclusions can be drawn concerning the nature of the action category scheme. The fo l lowing sect ion w i l l present the s ix conclusions and the i r impl icat ions for admin is t rat ion . The subsequent sect ion w i l l h igh l ight the impl icat ions for conceptual i zat ion . 1 35 Conclusions arid _The i r Impl icat ions for Administrat ion 1 . Not a l l act ion categories are relevant for every person, p ro jec t , or phase of a p ro jec t . Each person in the re - interv iew sample d id not generate incidents for every act ion category, because, as the facu l ty members s ta ted , some categories are not relevant to the i r work. For example, one facul ty member noted that space i s not relevant because he does not need add i t iona l space for h is p ro ject . Another facu l ty member's scholar ly p ro jec t , however, required laboratory space. Faculty members' reports a lso suggest that the form of assistance i s apt to vary from project to pro ject . For example, a facul ty member indicated that computer serv ices are not relevant to h is q u a l i t a t i v e study. Where incidents were categorized by act ions and phases of scholar ly a c t i v i t y , the frequency of the incidents indicates that d i f f e r e n t action categories are relevant for d i f f e r e n t phases. For example, the d i r e c t i n g categories lead p r imar i l y to a research idea, while enabling categories encompass a l l phases of scholar ly a c t i v i t y except the scholar ly idea, and the motivating categories lead pr imar i l y to a product or the p ro jec t . 1 3 6 The q u e s t i o n of r e l e v a n c e of a c t i o n c a t e g o r i e s cannot be a d e q u a t e l y answered i n the a b s t r a c t , but answered o n l y w i t h a c o n c r e t e p o i n t of r e f e r e n c e i n mind. S i n c e p o i n t s of r e f e r e n c e ( p e r s o n , p r o j e c t , and phase) change, answers are apt t o v a r y c o n s i d e r a b l y and t o v a r y over t i m e . For t h e s e r e a s o n s , i t would be imprudent f o r a d m i n i s t r a t o r s t o use these a c t i o n c a t e g o r i e s w i t h o u t a c o n c r e t e p o i n t of r e f e r e n c e . C e r t a i n l y , the a c t i o n c a t e g o r i e s s h o u l d be u s e f u l f o r g e n e r a l a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p l a n n i n g r e g a r d i n g the f a c i l i t a t i o n of s c h o l a r l y a c t i v i t y , b u t . t h e r e must be an assessment of the immediate s i t u a t i o n , or i n a p p r o p r i a t e a c t i o n c a t e g o r i e s might be s t r e s s e d and the a p p r o p r i a t e a c t i o n c a t e g o r i e s n e g l e c t e d . 2. Not a l l agent or agency c a t e g o r i e s are i n v o l v e d t o a n o t i c e a b l e e x t e n t w i t h every a c t i o n c a t e g o r y . T y p i c a l l y , d i f f e r e n t a g e n t s or a g e n c i e s can p e r f o r m the same f u n c t i o n . However, the c a t e g o r i z a t i o n of r e p o r t e d i n c i d e n t s by a gents or a g e n c i e s and a c t i o n s i n d i c a t e s t h a t not a l l agent or agency c a t e g o r i e s are i n v o l v e d t o a n o t i c e a b l e e x t e n t w i t h every a c t i o n c a t e g o r y . For example, c o l l e a g u e s and s t u d e n t s seem i m p o r t a n t i n the d i r e c t i n g c a t e g o r i e s (see T a b l e 9 ) . In c o n t r a s t , UBC and o u t s i d e a g e n t s and a g e n c i e s have l i t t l e impact on t h e s e c a t e g o r i e s ; however, they a r e n o t i c e a b l e i n the e n a b l i n g and m o t i v a t i n g c a t e g o r i e s . 1 37 Admin is t ra t i ve ly , the impl icat ion is of a f l e x i b l e set of options which must be taken into account. If administrators are involved with the act ion category ( i . e . , the responsible agent), the i r impact can be p o t e n t i a l l y d i r e c t , as wel l as i n d i r e c t . For example, administrators were one of the agents who were reported to provide "time" (see Table 11, p. 96). Administrators can d i r e c t l y inf luence scholar ly a c t i v i t y by providing time, or they can i n d i r e c t l y influence scholar ly a c t i v i t y by inf luencing the other agent who was reported, to. provide time ( i . e . , s e l f ) . In contrast , administrators can only have an ind i rect impact i f they are not involved with the act ion category. For example, administrators were not c i t e d as the agents providing c r i t i c a l evaluation and commentary (see Table 11, p. 96). In t h i s example, administrators can i n d i r e c t l y influence scholar ly a c t i v i t y by inf luencing the agent or agency who was reported to provide c r i t i c a l evaluation and commentary ( . i .e . , co l leagues) . 3. The action categories are i n t e r r e l a t e d . The incidents indicate that many of the act ion categories are i n t e r r e l a t e d . For example, a number of the act ion categories require funds (a category) . Funding enables facu l ty members to "buy t ime , " pay for research ass is tance , purchase computer se rv i ces , pay for typ ing , e tc . S i m i l a r l y , the category of studying involves the category of 1 38 o b t a i n i n g r e f e r e n c e m a t e r i a l s . A f u r t h e r example i s the c a t e g o r y of computer s e r v i c e s , which i s l i n k e d ( v i a computer s e a r c h e s ) t o the c a t e g o r y of r e f e r e n c e m a t e r i a l s . The e x a m i n a t i o n of the a c t i o n c a t e g o r i e s themselves a l s o d i r e c t s a t t e n t i o n t o i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s . T h i s e x a m i n a t i o n r e v e a l s t h r e e d i s t i n c t groups: a c t i o n c a t e g o r i e s which p r o v i d e d i r e c t i o n , a c t i o n c a t e g o r i e s w h i c h enable one t o do s c h o l a r l y a c t i v i t y , and a c t i o n c a t e g o r i e s which p r o v i d e i n c e n t i v e or m o t i v a t i o n . The i m p l i c a t i o n of i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s i s d i r e c t . In a scheme where p a r t s a r e i n t e r r e l a t e d , a change i n one p a r t may have an impact on o t h e r p a r t s . For example, an a d m i n i s t r a t o r i n an a t t e m p t t o i n c r e a s e m o t i v a t i o n might encourage people t o r e a d more, t o d i s c u s s i d e a s , and t o seek a d v i c e i n o r d e r t o get or r e f i n e an i d e a . I n f o r m a t i o n might p a r t i a l l y or o c c a s i o n a l l y p r o v i d e o p p o r t u n i t i e s which enhance m o t i v a t i o n . 4 . The a c t i o n c a t e g o r i e s a r e b i p o l a r i n the sense t h a t each a c t u a l l y does c o n t a i n or may p l a u s i b l y be s a i d t o c o n t a i n b o t h f a c i l i t a t i n g and h i n d e r i n g e v e n t s . The deans' judgments and the i n c i d e n t s i n d i c a t e t h a t the same a c t i o n c a t e g o r i e s t h a t f a c i l i t a t e s c h o l a r l y a c t i v i t y a l s o h i n d e r or may p l a u s i b l y be s a i d t o h i n d e r i t . I t i s not the case t h a t one scheme of c a t e g o r i e s f a c i l i t a t e s and a d i f f e r e n t scheme h i n d e r s . For i n s t a n c e , the presence 1 39 of time f a c i l i t a t e s , while the absence of time hinders scholar ly a c t i v i t y . Each act ion category then can be viewed as an administ rat ive task (but only in part for an administrator cannot do i t alone) that is important for f a c i l i t a t i n g scholar ly a c t i v i t y . If the task i s successfu l l y f u l f i l l e d , scholar ly a c t i v i t y i s apt to be f a c i l i t a t e d . If i t unsuccessful ly f u l f i l l e d , scholar ly a c t i v i t y i s apt to be hindered. An administrator e i ther f a c i l i t a t e s or hinders scholar ly a c t i v i t y . One can f u l f i l l each task wel l or i l l , but does not have the option of ignoring i t . To c l a r i f y th i s po int , i t might be thought that an administrator has an option of f a c i l i t a t i n g scho lar l y a c t i v i t y or not f a c i l i t a t i n g scholar ly a c t i v i t y ( i . e . , i f the administrator does nothing, no percept ib le harm i s done; i f the administrator does do something, there i s apt to be a p o s i t i v e ga in) . According to the act ion category scheme, t h i s i s not the case. What an administrator does or f a i l s to do has the potent ia l to f a c i l i t a t e and to hinder. 5. The act ion categories happen or could happen as part of everyday un ivers i ty l i f e . The inc idents and log ic suggest that the act ion categories happen or could happen as part of everyday un ive rs i t y l i f e . For example, the da i l y l i f e of facul ty in a un ivers i t y includes a d v i c e - g i v i n g , d iscuss ions , c r i t i c a l 1 40 commentary, and c o l l a b o r a t i o n . S i m i l a r l y , typing serv ices , computer serv ices , and research assistance are on-going a c t i v i t i e s in a un i ve rs i t y . Reading or studying, engaging in scholar ly a c t i v i t i e s and p r a c t i c a l a c t i v i t i e s are also routine occurrances in a un i ve rs i t y . If the categories of act ions that f a c i l i t a t e and hinder scholar ly a c t i v i t y are aspects of everyday un ivers i ty l i f e , as they predominantly appear to be, than an e f f e c t i v e administrat ive e f fo r t to f a c i l i t a t e scholar ly a c t i v i t y should be directed toward an improvement of the qua l i t y of the- on-going da i l y experience, of facu l ty members doing scholar ly a c t i v i t y . This impl icat ion does not necessar i ly exclude the value of spec ia l facu l ty development programs, but i t does rather strongly suggest the l i m i t s of such e f f o r t s . For example, facul ty development programs ( e . g . , M o r r i l l and Spees, 1982) have tended to stress spec ia l workshops and projects which are not part of da i l y l i f e , but a one-time addit ion to i t . Probably, there i s po tent ia l value in such programs, but they leave untouched the types of events that f a c i l i t a t e scholar ly a c t i v i t y on an on-going bas i s . In te res t ing l y , Konrad's (1983) survey of facu l ty development pract ices in Canadian u n i v e r s i t i e s supports the notion that spec ia l workshops, seminars, and programs have a l i m i t e d e f fec t as developmental p r a c t i c e s . Only 25% of the 141 i n s t i t u t i o n s having such practices as workshops, seminars, and programs to help faculty improve their research and scholarship s k i l l s reported the practices as being effective or very e f f e c t i v e . S i m i l a r l y , a v i s i t i n g scholars program was reported as one of the least e f f e c t i v e institution-wide pract ices. That the action categories which f a c i l i t a t e and hinder or may plausibly be said to hinder scholarly a c t i v i t y happen or could happen as part of the daily l i f e in a university constitutes something of a challenge for the administration of faculty development programs. It involves improving the on-going, d a i l y experience of faculty members doing scholarly a c t i v i t y . 6. There i s evidence to suggest that the action categories are useful. The action categories have been used by one department head to guide a discussion assessing the department's scholarly needs. The categories are p o t e n t i a l l y useful in several other ways. One way the action categories are useful i s that they provide rather s p e c i f i c answers to the questions of what to do to motivate, enable, and direct scholarly a c t i v i t y . F i r s t , what can administrators do to motivate scholarly a c t i v i t y ? Administrators can recognize scholarly a c t i v i t y and show appreciation for i t . Administrators can 1 42 inf luence expectations both by showing leadership and by d i r e c t l y communicating what i s expected. Administrators can try to persuade department committees to award merit pay, promotion, and tenure for scholar ly a c t i v i t y . One category (opportunit ies) i s rather removed from an administ rat ive sphere of in f luence . However, administrators can suggest names of facul ty members to whom colleagues and profess ional organizat ions may extend i n v i t a t i o n s and requests. Administrators can also encourage facul ty members to recognize other facul ty members' scholar ly a c t i v i t i e s and to communicate facul ty or departmental expectat ions. For the category of c o l l a b o r a t i o n , the administ rat ive inf luence i s also i n d i r e c t . Administrators can, however, minimize departmental p o l i t i c s which in te r fe re with co l laborat i ve research studies with students. Teaching schedules can be establ ished which enable several facul ty members to work c o l l a b o r a t i v e l y . New facul ty can be helped to locate other facul ty with s i m i l a r scholar ly i n t e r e s t s . Administrators can a lso encourage cross-departmental co l laborat ion by formally announcing to departments and schools the scholar ly in terests and products of facu l ty members. Second, what can administrators do to enable scholar ly a c t i v i t y ? This study ind icates that administrators can provide time by minimizing meetings, 143 minimizing paperwork and signature requirements, by de f lec t ing ad hoc requests, streamlining procedures, and the l i k e . Administrators can arrange teaching assignments to allow free days or overload one term to free the next term for concentrated scholar ly a c t i v i t y . They can decrease the load of those who do scholar ly a c t i v i t y and increase the load of those who do not. Regarding funding, administrators can lobby governments and agencies for a shorter time frame in granting funds and for less burdensome forms and procedures. They can provide un ivers i ty summer grants to encourage facul ty members to focus on scholar ly a c t i v i t i e s rather than teaching, which was reported by facul ty members as being done pr imar i l y to supplement income. Gaining access to data involved such diverse incidents that there appears to be no one problem to so lve , but rather a s e n s i t i v i t y to be c u l t i v a t e d for problems of access, and a desire to cooperate. However, since so many studies involve schools, there i s no apparent reason why administ rat ive e f fo r t s with school boards or o f f i c i a l s cannot be used to regulate and streamline procedures for doing scholar ly a c t i v i t y in schools. The provis ion of accurate information i s c r u c i a l for grant proposals. Some u n i v e r s i t i e s , such as the Ontario Ins t i tu te for Studies in Education, have gone further by es tab l i sh ing an o f f i c e in which a facu l ty member can receive help in preparing a budget, in se lec t ing a granting agency, 1 44 and in wr i t ing the proposal . To have a centra l place where one can receive assistance on a l l aspects of a proposal c l e a r l y seems advantageous. While the provis ion or suggestion of reference materials stems from several agents, administrators are responsible for l i b r a r y se rv i ces . Department heads might seek to e s t a b l i s h small reading rooms which contain the journals of a f i e l d . Administrators can also encourage faculty members to be on the lookout for references which are appl icable to col leagues' scholar ly a c t i v i t i e s . Space and non-computer equipment, computer serv ices , and typing (along with xeroxing, p r i n t i n g , and mail ing) services are a l l influenced by administ rators . Given the negative inc idents , i t seems des i rab le that administrators monitor services to see that they are done w e l l . For example, rather than ignore lengthy typing delays and e r r o r - f i l l e d manuscripts, i t must be recognized that these are hindrances to the scholar ly a c t i v i t y of facu l ty members, an impediment to one major purpose for which u n i v e r s i t i e s e x i s t . C r i t i c a l commentary by colleagues can be encouraged or even formalized, i f necessary. The category of p r a c t i c a l assistance included quite diverse inc idents , many involv ing some form of administrat ive cooperation. Administrators can inf luence the category of spec ia l s k i l l s by pa i r ing a facul ty member with a spec ia l s k i l l with one requi r ing the p a r t i c u l a r s k i l l . F i n a l l y , administrators can streamline 1 45 bureaucratic procedures so that a faculty member can ant i c ipa te r e l a t i v e ease rather than complicated "red tape." Th i rd , what can administrators do to d i r e c t scholar ly a c t i v i t y ? The act ion categories which provide d i r e c t i o n tend to be pr imar i l y influenced by s e l f , col leagues, and students. Administrat ive inf luence i s i n d i r e c t , except for the category of advice. An administrator can cer ta in l y give advice and d i r e c t i o n . To st imulate and ref ine ideas, an administrator can a lso schedule seminars and discussions, involv ing facu l t y members and students, i n i t i a t e contact with p r a c t i c a l a c t i v i t i e s , and suggest that some faculty members help others by p a r t i c i p a t i n g in discussions and by providing adv ice . Of the three groups, th i s one i s the most ind i rec t and also the most open to creat ive innovations. Another way the act ion categories are usefu l i s that they have diagnostic value in the sense that they can be used to assess the needs of an i n d i v i d u a l , a department, and perhaps a facu l t y . For example, does a p a r t i c u l a r professor lack incent ive , lack d i r e c t i o n , or means? If so, which act ion categories are important? Perhaps the person does not know which act ion categories are important. That i s , one may not f u l l y appreciate how c r i t i c a l commentary can help one to minimize re ject ions from journals . One may not even r e a l i z e that one's f a l t e r i n g motivation can be connected to a lack of recogni t ion . The act ion categories 146 of fer (from an administrat ive viewpoint) a frame of reference for communication and problem solv ing regarding scholar ly a c t i v i t y . Another way the act ion category scheme i s useful i s that i t indicates c r i t i c a l factors for an administrator to monitor. In t h i s regard, the category scheme can be used to check the healthfulness of the environment for scholar ly a c t i v i t y . For example, an administrator might monitor the basis for merit pay decis ions (a tangible b e n e f i t ) , the time taken to get Human Subjects Committee approval , the qua l i t y of typed papers, and so on. The Impl icat ions for Conceptualization In previous research, units of invest igat ion were usecl which referred to d i f f e r e n t facets of scholar ly a c t i v i t y . For example, some research stressed agents [ i . e . , they focused on who f a c i l i t a t e d or hindered ( e . g . , Braxton, 1983)], while other research stressed the act ions of the agents [ i . e . , what they d id that f a c i l i t a t e d or hindered (Cole and Cole, 1967)]. In the present research i t was c lear that the incidents which were analyzed included reference to three d i f fe rent facets of scho lar l y a c t i v i t y . I t was c lear a lso that these three facets (agent or agency, ac t ions , and outcomes or phases) are i n t e r r e l a t e d . One c lear impl icat ion for conceptual iz ing facu l t y development concerned with scholar ly a c t i v i t y i s that the action' 1 47 categories (what f a c i l i t a t e s and hinders scholar ly a c t i v i t y ) should not be considered in i s o l a t i o n from the agent or agency categories (who f a c i l i t a t e s and hinders scholar ly a c t i v i t y ) and the phase categories (the outcome of scholar ly a c t i v i t y that was f a c i l i t a t e d or hindered). Conclusion 1 states that not a l l act ion categories are relevant for every person, pro ject , or phase of a pro ject . Conclusion 2 states that not a l l agent or agency categories are involved to a noticeable extent with every act ion category. These imply that in using the act ion categories considerat ion must be given to the pa r t i cu la r features of ind iv idua l cases. For example, i t w i l l be important to recognize that a p a r t i c u l a r act ion category might be espec ia l l y relevant for a p a r t i c u l a r person on a given type of scholar ly project in a cer ta in phase and might not be relevant to another person on a d i f fe rent kind of project in a d i f fe ren t phase. Conclusion 3 states~that the act ion categories are i n t e r r e l a t e d . The impl icat ion of the in te r re la t ionsh ips i s d i r e c t . The act ion categories are better conceived as parts of a scheme, in which a change in one part of the scheme might a f fec t other par ts . 148 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH To recognize the above-noted impl icat ions for conceptual izat ion i s in i t s e l f an important step in the development of any future research on faculty development concerned with scholar ly a c t i v i t y . There are a l s o , however, a number of spec i f i c research targets suggested by the present study. Seven may be considered. 1. A f i r s t step was undertaken in the v a l i d a t i o n of the act ion categor ies . Canadian Deans of Education were asked to make judgments about the twenty-three act ion categor ies . While they provided support for the act ion category scheme, the act ion categories must s t i l l be viewed as prov is iona l categories of what ac tua l l y f a c i l i t a t e s and hinders scholar ly a c t i v i t y . For t h i s reason, future studies should be conducted which w i l l more f u l l y explore and va l idate the act ion categor ies . Comparative, survey, and experimental designs may a l l be useful for t h i s purpose. 2. Since an area of possib le hindrances ( i . e . , d i rec t ing act ion categories of reading or studying, scholar ly a c t i v i t i e s , p r a c t i c a l a c t i v i t i e s , and discussion) was disal lowed by the interview questions, a l te rna t i ve methods should be used to invest igate the presence of hindrances which may have been masked in th i s study. 149 3. Now that a broad range of act ion categories has been shown to apply to The Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia Faculty of Education, one l o g i c a l next step i s to determine general a p p l i c a b i l i t y and l i m i t a t i o n s . To what extent does the act ion category scheme apply to other f a c u l t i e s of education and to other f a c u l t i e s ( e . g . , medicine, law, ar ts ) generally? What i s the l i m i t ? For example, i s i t the case, as seems l i k e l y , that space and non-computer equipment would be much more c r i t i c a l for phys ica l sciences than for education? 4. Since the frequency data were of a dependent nature, a l t e r n a t i v e methods should also be used to confirm and f u l l y explore the re la t ionsh ips among the act ion categories and agent or agency and phase categor ies . There i s growing evidence ( e . g . , Baldwin, 1979; Blackburn and L indquis t , 1971) that professors d i f f e r , for example, in research in terests and product iv i ty in d i f fe rent ranks or career stages. Since, the incidents lacked independence, no s t a t i s t i c a l comparisons could be made in th i s study between the inc idents reported by facu l t y members in the d i f f e r e n t career stages. Therefore, future studies should be designed to determine i f the d i f fe ren t act ion categories might have d i f f e r e n t i a l resu l ts for d i f f e r e n t career stages. 1 50 5. Not a l l agent and agency categories are involved to a not iceable extent with the d i f fe rent act ion categories (Conclusion 2) . Where an administrator is not d i r e c t l y involved with an act ion category, he or she can p o t e n t i a l l y have an ind i rec t impact by inf luencing the responsible agents or agencies. However, the data of the present study give l i t t l e ind icat ion of how an administrator can best inf luence the responsible agents or agencies. Research on th i s topic i s des i rab le . 6. Conclusion. 3 notes that the action categories are i n t e r r e l a t e d ; and by i m p l i c a t i o n , are best viewed as parts of a scheme, in which changes in one part may e f fec t changes in other par ts . How the scheme i s af fected by diverse types of changes then becomes a topic for research. For example, what happens i f an administ rat ive po l i cy succeeds in increasing motivation through incent ives such as approval and tangib le benefits? Would, for instance, a c t i v i t i e s that supply d i r e c t i o n increase? How exact ly are changes apt to rami fy? 7. Conclusion 6 indicates that the act ion categories provide rather spec i f i c answers for administrators to the questions of what to do motivate, enable, and d i rec t scholar ly a c t i v i t y . However, the category scheme does not indicate how best to accomplish the task. For example, the o f f i c e establ ished at the Ontario Ins t i tu te for Studies in Education i s one creat ive response. Any education professor 151 can go to th i s o f f i c e and receive help in ident i f y ing a granting agency most l i k e l y to fund h is or her type of proposal , in preparing a budget, in how to write a proposal for t h i s agency, and so on. The o f f i c e is conceived as a very act ive and comprehensive form of assistance in making proposals, quite a leap beyond merely l i s t i n g agencies or having grant forms on hand. While the category scheme i d e n t i f i e s what can be done to f a c i l i t a t e scholar ly a c t i v i t y , how best to accomplish t h i s task warrants i n v e s t i g a t i o n . 1 52 REFERENCES A l i i son, 1 974 Andersson 1 964 and J . Stewart Product i v i ty evidence for Soc i o l o g i c a l d i f ferences among s c i e n t i s t s : accumulative advantage. American Review, 39:596-606. B. and S. Ni lsson Studies in the r e l i a b i l i t y and and v a l i d i t y of the c r i t i c a l incident technique. Journal of Applied Psychology, 48:398-403. Andrews, 1 976 Creative process. In D. Pelz and F. Andrews (eds . ) , S c i e n t i s t s in Organizations. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Ins t i tu te for Soc ia l Research, The Univers i ty of Michigan. Andrews, J . and W. Rogers 1981 Canadian Research in Education: A State of the Art Review. Vancouver, B .C . : Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia. Babchuk, 1 962 Baldwin, 1 979 N. and A. Bates Professor or producer: the two faces of academic man. Soc ia l Forces, 40:341-348. The Faculty Career Process - Continuity and Change: A Study of College Professors at Five Stages of Academic Career. Unpublished Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , the Univers i ty of Michigan. Bean, J . 1 982 A Causal Model P roduc t i v i t y , meeting of the Assoc i a t i o n . of Faculty Research Paper read at the annual American Educational Research Behymer, C. and R. Blackburn 1975 Environmental and Personal At t i tudes Related to Faculty P roduc t i v i t y . ERIC Document Reproduction Serv ice , ED 104 317. B i r c h , D. 1982 Memo issued in the context of i n i t i a t i n g searches for department chairmen. 1 53 Blackburn, 1 979 R, Blackburn, 1 979 Blackburn, 1971 R, Academic careers : patterns and p o s s i b i l i t i e s . Faculty Career Development. Current Issues in Higher Education. Washington, D . C : American Associat ion for Higher Education. and R. Havighurst Career patterns of U.S. male s c i e n t i s t s . Higher Education academic s o c i a l 8:553-572. and J . L indquist Faculty behavior in the l e g i s l a t i v e process: profess ional a t t i tudes vs . behavior concerning inc lus ion of students in academic decis ion-making. Sociology of Education, 44:398-421. Blackburn, 1 978 R., C. Behymer, and D. Ha l l Research notes: cor re la tes of facu l ty pub l i ca t ions . Sociology of Education, 51:132-141 . Blackburn, 1 980 Blackburn, 1981 R., A. Boberg, C. O 'Connel l , and G. P e l l i n o Project for Faculty Development Program Evaluat ion : F i n a l Report. ERIC Document Reproduction Serv ice , ED 208 767. R., D. Chapman, and S. Cameron Cloning in academe: mentorship and academic careers . Research in Higher Education, 15:315-327. B lau, P. 1 973 Borgen, F. 1 978 The Organization of Academic Work. John Wiley & Sons. New York: and M. Sel ing Expressed and inventor ied in terests r e v i s i t e d : persp icac i ty in the person. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 25:536-543. Bowen, H, 1982 The State of the Nation and the Agenda for Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publ ishers . Braxton, 1983 J . Department colleagues and ind i v idua l facul ty pub l icat ion p r o d u c t i v i t y . The Journal of the Associat ion for the Study of Higher Education, 6:115-128. 1 54 Brookes, M. and K. German 1983 Meeting the Challenges: Developing Faculty Careers. Washington, D . C : Associat ion for the Study of Higher Education. Cameron, S. 1978 Women Faculty in Academia: Sponsorship, Informal Networks, and Scholar ly Success. Unpublished Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , The Univers i ty of Michigan. Canadian Associat ion of Deans of Education. 1982 Education Research in Canada: Aims, Problems and P o s s i b i l i t i e s . Ottawa: The Soc ia l Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Centra, J . 1976 Faculty Development Pract ice in U.S. Colleges- and U n i v e r s i t i e s . Pr inceton, New Jersey: Educational Testing Serv ice . Chai t , R. and J . Gueths 1981 Proposing a framework for facu l ty development. Change, May/June, 30-33. Clemente, F. 1973 Early career determinants of research p roduc t i v i t y . American Journal of Sociology, 79:409-419. Cole, J . and S. Cole 1967 S c i e n t i f i c output and recogni t ion : a study in the operation of the reward system in science. American Soc io log ica l Review, 32:377-390. Crane, D. 1965 S c i e n t i s t s at major and minor u n i v e r s i t i e s : a study of product iv i ty and recogni t ion . American Soc io log ica l Review, 30:699-714. Cronback, L. 1971 Test v a l i d a t i o n . In R.L. Thorndike (ed. ) , Educational Measurement. Washington, D . C : American Council on Education. Dachelet, C , M. Wemett, E. G a r l i n g , K. Craig-Kuhn, N. Kent, and H. Kitzman 1981 The c r i t i c a l incident technique appl ied to the evaluation of the c l i n i c a l practicum s e t t i n g . Journal of Nursing Education, 11:15-30. 155 DeVries, D, 1 975 Fenker, R. 1 977 F ie lden , J , 1 973 F inke ls te in 1982 The re la t ionsh ip of role expectations to faculty behavior. Research in Higher Education, 3:111-129. The incentive structure of a u n i v e r s i t y . Journal of Higher Education, 48:453-471. and G. Lockwood Planning and Management in U n i v e r s i t i e s : A Study of B r i t i s h U n i v e r s i t i e s . Toronto: C lark , Irwin & Co. L td . M. Faculty Colleagueship Patterns and Research P roduc t i v i t y . Paper read at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Assoc ia t ion . Flanagan, J , 1954 Freeman, R, 1 979 Fu l ton , 0. 1 974 Gaff , J . 1975 Gaff , S . , 1 978 The c r i t i c a l incident technique. Psychological B u l l e t i n , 51:327-358. The job market for col lege facu l t y . In D. Lewis and W. Becker, J r . (eds. ) , Academic Rewards in Higher Education. Cambridge, Mass. : Ba l l inger Publ ishing Company. and M. Trow Research a c t i v i t y in American higher education. Sociology of Education, 47:29-73, Toward Faculty Renewal. Jossey-Bass Publ ishers . San Francisco: Festa, and J . Gaff Profess ional Development — A Guide to Resources. New York: Change Magazine Press . Group for Human Development in Higher Education 1974 Faculty Development in a Time of Retrenchment New Rochel le , New York: Change Magazine. H a l l , D. 1976 Careers in Organizations. Santa Monica, C a l i f o r n i a : Goodyear Publ ish ing Company, Inc. 1 56 Heider, F 1 958 The naive analys is of a c t i o n . In The Psychology of Interpersonal Re lat ions . New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Henslowe, S 1 977 Kaplan, A, 1 964 Ker l inger , F, 1964 Konrad, A. 1 983 Development and Va l ida t ion of a Basic L ibrary Locat ional S k i l l s Model for Elementary School L ib rary , Reading, and S o c i a l Studies Education. Unpublished Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , The Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia. The Conduct of Inquiry Methodology for Behavioral Science. San Francisco: Chandler Publ ishing Company. Foundations of Behavioral Research. New York: Ho l t , Rinehart and Winston, Inc. Faculty development p rac t i ces in Canadian u n i v e r s i t i e s . The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 13:13-25. L i g h t f i e l d , E. 1971 Output and recognit ion of s o c i o l o g i s t s . The American S o c i o l o g i s t , 6:128-133. Long, J . 1978 Product iv i ty and academic pos i t ion in the s c i e n t i f i c career . American Soc io log ica l Review, 43:889-908. Marsh, J . and F. Staf ford 1967 The e f fec ts of values on pecuniary behavior the case of academicians. American Soc io log ica l Review, 32:740-754. Mayhew, L. 1 979 Surviving the E i g h t i e s . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publ ishers . McCloskey, M. and S. Glucksberg 1978 Natural categor ies : we l l - de f ined or fuzzy sets? Memory and Cogni t ion , 6:462-472. 1 57 Mednick, S. 1962 The assoc iat i ve basis of the creat ive process. Psychological Review, 69:220-232. Mel tzer , L. 1956 S c i e n t i f i c p roduct iv i t y in organizat ional se t t ings . Journal of Soc ia l Issues, 12:32-40. M ische l , W. 1977 On the future of personal i ty measurement. American Psychologist , 32:246-254. M o r r i l l , P. and E. Spees 1982 The Academic Profess ion . New York: Human Sciences Press, Inc. Nelson, W. 1979 Faculty development-: prospects, and potent ia l for the 1980's. L i b e r a l Education, 65:141-149. P e l z , D. and F. Andrews 1966 S c i e n t i s t s in Organizat ions. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Ins t i tu te for Soc ia l Research, The Univers i ty of Michigan. P r i c e , J . 1968 Organizat ional E f fec t i veness : An Inventory of Propos i t ions . Homewood, I l l i n o i s : Richard D. I rwin, Inc. Reskin, B. 1979 Academic sponsorship and s c i e n t i s t s ' careers . Sociology of Education, 52:129-146. Rosch, E. 1977 Human ca tegor i za t ion . In N. Warren (ed. ) , Advances in C ross -Cu l tu ra l Psychology. New York: Academic Press . Rush, J . , A. Peacock, and G. Mi lkov ich 1980 Career stages: a p a r t i a l test of Levinson's model of l i f e/career stages. Journal of Vocat ional Behavior, 16:347-359. Rushton, J . and S. Meltzer 1979 Research p roduc t i v i t y , un ivers i ty revenue, and scholar ly impact of 31 Canadian u n i v e r s i t i e s . Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 9 :74-81. 1 58 S h e f f i e l d , E. 1982 Research on Postsecondary Education in Canada. Ottawa: The S o c i a l Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Simerly , R. 1973 A Study of Faculty Perceptions of Professional Growth and Development at the Univers i ty of Tennessee, K n o x v i l l e . Unpublished Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , Univers i ty of Tennessee, Knoxv i l l e . Simerly , R. 1977 Improving I n s t i t u t i o n a l Accountabi l i ty Through Faculty Development: Reacting to C o n f l i c t i n g Pressures in Postsecondary Education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of The Associat ion for I n s t i t u t i o n a l Research. Stump, S. and S. Rabinowitz 1981 Career stage as a moderator of performance re la t ionsh ips with facets of job s a t i s f a c t i o n and role percept ions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 18:201-218. Su l ze r -Azaro f f , B. and G. Mayer 1977 Applying Behavior Analysis Procedures with Chi ldren and Youth. Toronto: Ho l t , Rinehart & Winston, 1977. The Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia 1979 The Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia Faculty Handbook. Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia: Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia. Thorpe, G. 1970 The Administrat ion of Research in U n i v e r s i t i e s : An Invest igat ion into the Influence of Department Chairman and Research Di rectors on the Sa t i s fac t ion and Product iv i ty of Research Professors . Unpublished Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , Un ivers i ty of Missouri -Columbia. Tuckman, H. 1979 The academic reward structure in American higher education. In D. Lewis and W. Becker, J r . (eds. ) , Academic Rewards in Higher Education. Cambridge, Mass. : Ba l l inger Publ ishing Company, 1979. APPENDIX A FACULTY MEMBERS' RECRUITMENT LETTERS AND CONSENT FORM 1 60 D iv is ions of Higher Education and Educational Administrat ion Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia 6298 B i o l o g i c a l Sciences Road South Staff Of f ice Block Room 11 September 20, 1982 Dear , You have been randomly selected to par t i c ipa te in my doctora l study. The purpose of the study i s to f ind out what f a c i l i t a t e s and hinders U.B.C. education facul ty members' scholar ly a c t i v i t i e s . P a r t i c i p a t i o n w i l l involve a f o r t y - f i v e minute i n t e r - view. In the interv iew, you w i l l be asked to report inc idents in which your scholar ly a c t i v i t i e s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y f a c i l i t a t e d or hindered. A categor ica l framework of what f a c i l i t a t e s and hinders scholar ly a c t i v i t i e s w i l l be prepared from the inc idents . The benef i ts to you are i n d i r e c t . This study might be used to heighten the awareness of administrators and to enable them to c u l t i v a t e more pos i t i ve working cond i t ions . The study might f a c i l i t a t e l o c a l research and subsequent planning for facu l ty development at The Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia. Your involvement, of course, i s e n t i r e l y voluntary , and you may withdraw from the study at any time. A l l responses w i l l be kept s t r i c t l y c o n f i d e n t i a l . A dummy 161 number w i l l be the only means of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n once the interview i s completed. Please complete and return the attached consent form by September 30th. I w i l l be contacting you in the near future to arrange a su i table interview date. Thank you very much for your time and i n t e r e s t . Yours s ince re l y , (Mrs.) Sharon. Cochran P.S. If you have any questions about the study, I would be happy to discuss them with you.- Please fee l free to contact me at 1 62 Div is ions of Higher Education and Educational Administrat ion Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia 6298 B i o l o g i c a l Sciences Road South Staff Of f ice Block Room 11 October 18, 1982 Dear , In September, I sent a l e t t e r to you s o l i c i t i n g your help in my doctoral study. It i s possible that the o r i g i n a l l e t t e r and consent form was misdirected or m i s l a i d . For t h i s reason, I am enclosing a copy of the o r i g i n a l l e t t e r (which provides important d e t a i l s about the study) and a new consent form. Sincerely yours, (Mrs.) Sharon Cochran P.S. Please return the Consent Form by October 27th. 1 63 STUDY: THE FACILITATION AND HINDRANCE OF SCHOLARLY ACTIVITY AS REPORTED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA EDUCATION FACULTY MEMBERS INVESTIGATOR: Sharon Cochran CHAIRMAN: Dr. John Dennison RESEARCH SUPERVISOR: Dr. Wal t e r B o l d t The A s s o c i a t e Dean of E d u c a t i o n i s aware of the study and has no o b j e c t i o n t o i t b e i n g conducted. YOUR PARTICIPATION IS VOLUNTARY AND YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO WITHDRAW AT ANY TIME FROM THE STUDY. FROM DATE P l e a s e check the a p p r o p r i a t e i t e m s . YES, I AM WILLING TO PARTICIPATE IN YOUR RESEARCH. Rank: A s s i s t a n t A s s o c i a t e F u l l S t a t u s : Not Tenured Tenured Years from R e t i r e m e n t : Less than 15 G r e a t e r than 15 NO, I AM UNWILLING TO PARTICIPATE IN YOUR RESEARCH. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS SIGNATURE PLEASE FOLD AND STAPLE THIS FORM AND RETURN VIA UNIVERSITY MAIL BY SEPTEMBER 30th . THANK YOU APPENDIX B DEANS' RECRUITMENT LETTERS 165 Department of Administ rat ive , Adult and Higher Education Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia 6298 B i o l o g i c a l Sciences Road February 18, 1985 *Name* *Posit ion* *Univers i ty/Address* *City*, *Province* Dear *Name* I am wr i t ing to ask i f you would- a s s i s t me in my doctoral research. The work i s concerned with developing and explor ing a scheme of fac to rs , which describe from the perspective of members of a Faculty of Education, what f a c i l i t a t e s and hinders the i r scholar ly a c t i v i t y . A sample of facul ty members were asked to report inc idents in which the i r scho lar l y a c t i v i t i e s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y f a c i l i t a t e d or hindered. Categorizat ion of the incidents y ie lded twenty-three f a c t o r s . I am now seeking the judgments of Deans as, part of v a l i d a t i o n of the f a c t o r s . Inst ruct ions for the task, a descr ipt ion of the fac to rs , two rat ing forms, and a stamped addressed envelope are enclosed. I estimate that the task w i l l require twenty minutes of your t ime. Your response w i l l be kept anonymous and I s h a l l be pleased to send you an abstract of the resu l ts of the study in due course i f you would l i k e to see i t . Many thanks for your cooperation. Yours s incere ly , (Mrs.) Sharon Cochran 1 66 Department of Adminis t rat ive , Adult and Higher Education Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia 6298 B i o l o g i c a l Sciences Road March 13, 1985 *Name* *Posit ion* *University/Address* *City*, *Province* Dear *Name* In February, I sent a l e t t e r to you s o l i c i t i n g your help in my doctoral research. It i s possible that the o r i g i n a l l e t t e r and questionnaire package ( inc luding inst ruct ions for the task, a descr ipt ion sheet, two rat ing forms and a stamped addressed envelope) were misdirected or m i s l a i d . For th i s reason, I am enclosing a copy of the o r i g i n a l l e t t e r and questionnaire package. Yours s incere l y , (Mrs.) Sharon Cochran P.S. Please return both Rating Forms by March 27th in the stamped addressed envelope provided. APPENDIX C RATING FORMS 168 INSTRUCTIONS FOR RATING FORM I INSTRUCTIONS Based on your experiences as Dean of a Faculty of Education and as a facu l ty member, you are being asked to make judgments about the twenty-three factors which have been i d e n t i f i e d as f a c i l i t a t i n g and hindering scholar ly a c t i v i t y . S p e c i f i c a l l y , you are to ind icate on Rating Form I, whether you agree, disagree, or are undecided that the presence of each factor f a c i l i t a t e s the conduct of some form of scholar ly a c t i v i t y . 169 PLEASE RETURN THIS RATING FORM AND RATING FORM II BY MARCH 11TH TO THE RESEARCHER IN THE STAMPED ADDRESSED ENVELOPE. RATING FORM I Indicate by a CHECKMARK, whether you AGREE, DISAGREE, or are UNDECIDED that the PRESENCE OF EACH FACTOR BELOW FACILITATES THE CONDUCT OF SOME FORM OF SCHOLARLY ACTIVITY. (Do you —Agree , —Disagree , or are —Undecided that "Research Assistance" f a c i l i t a t e s the conduct of some form of scholar ly a c t i v i t y ? ) Reading or Studying Pr ior Scholar ly A c t i v i t i e s P a r t i c i p a t i o n in P r a c t i c a l A c t i v i t i e s Discussion Advice Funds Time Access to Data Information Reference Mater ia ls Space & Non-computer Equipment Computer Services Typing, Xeroxing, & Mai l ing Research Assistance C r i t i c a l Evaluation & Commentary Other Forms of P r a c t i c a l Assistance S k i l l s Uncomplicated Bureaucratic Procedures Opportunit ies Recognition & Appreciation AGREE— DISAGREE— UNDECIDED— AGREE— DISAGREE— UNDECIDED— AGREE— DISAGREE— UNDECIDED— AGREE— DISAGREE— UNDECIDED— AGREE— DISAGREE— UNDECIDED— AGREE— DISAGREE— UNDECIDED— AGREE— DISAGREE— UNDECIDED— AGREE— DISAGREE— UNDECIDED— AGREE— DISAGREE— UNDECIDED— AGREE— DISAGREE— UNDECIDED— AGREE— DISAGREE— UNDECIDED— AGREE— DISAGREE— UNDECIDED— AGREE— DISAGREE— UNDECIDED— AGREE— DISAGREE— UNDECIDED— AGREE— DISAGREE— UNDECIDED— AGREE— DISAGREE— UNDECIDED— AGREE— DISAGREE— UNDECIDED— AGREE— DISAGREE— UNDECIDED— AGREE— DISAGREE— UNDECIDED— AGREE— DISAGREE— UNDECIDED— 1 70 Expectations AGREE— DISAGREE— UNDECIDED— Tangible Benefi ts AGREE— DISAGREE— UNDECIDED— Col laborat ion AGREE— DISAGREE— UNDECIDED— 171 INSTRUCTIONS FOR RATING FORM II INSTRUCTIONS Based on your experiences as Dean of a Faculty of Education and as a facul ty member, you are being asked to make judgments about the twenty-three factors which have been i d e n t i f i e d as f a c i l i t a t i n g and hindering scholar ly a c t i v i t y . S p e c i f i c a l l y , you are to indicate on Rat ing Form 1 1 , whether you agree, disagree, or are undecided that the absence of each factor hinders the conduct of some form of scholar ly a c t i v i t y . 1 72 PLEASE RETURN THIS RATING FORM AND RATING FORM I BY MARCH 11TH TO THE RESEARCHER IN THE STAMPED ADDRESSED ENVELOPE. RATING FORM II Indicate by a CHECKMARK, whether you AGREE, DISAGREE, or are UNDECIDED that the ABSENCE OF EACH FACTOR BELOW HINDERS THE CONDUCT OF SOME FORM OF SCHOLARLY ACTIVITY! (Do you —Agree , —Disagree , or are —Undecided that absence of "Advice" hinders the conduct of some form of scholar ly a c t i v i t y ? ) Reading or Studying AGREE— DISAGREE— UNDECIDED— Pr io r Scholar ly A c t i v i t i e s AGREE— DISAGREE— UNDECIDED— P a r t i c i p a t i o n in P r a c t i c a l A c t i v i t i e s Discussion AGREE— AGREE— DISAGREE— DISAGREE— UNDECIDED— UNDECIDED— Advice AGREE— DISAGREE— UNDECIDED— Funds AGREE— DISAGREE— UNDECIDED— Time AGREE— DISAGREE— UNDECIDED— Access to Data AGREE— DISAGREE— UNDECIDED— Information AGREE— DISAGREE— UNDECIDED— Reference Mater ia ls AGREE— DISAGREE— UNDECIDED— Space & Non-computer Equipment Computer Services AGREE— AGREE— DISAGREE— DISAGREE— UNDECIDED— UNDECIDED— Typing, Xeroxing, & Mai l ing AGREE— DISAGREE— UNDECIDED— Research Assistance AGREE— DISAGREE— UNDECIDED— C r i t i c a l Evaluation & Commentary Other Forms of P r a c t i c a l Assi stance S k i l l s AGREE— AGREE— AGREE— DISAGREE— DISAGREE— DISAGREE— UNDECIDED— UNDECIDED— UNDECIDED— Uncomplicated Bureaucratic Procedures Opportunities AGREE— AGREE— DISAGREE— DISAGREE— UNDECIDED— UNDECIDED— Recognition & Appreciation AGREE— DISAGREE— UNDECIDED— 173 Expectations AGREE— DISAGREE— UNDECIDED— Tangible Benefi ts AGREE— DISAGREE— UNDECIDED— Col laborat ion AGREE— DISAGREE— UNDECIDED— FURTHER INFORMATION /COMMENTS /SUGGESTIONS:

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
United States 4 0
Japan 4 0
Germany 3 0
China 3 17
City Views Downloads
Tokyo 4 0
Beijing 3 0
Unknown 3 0
Mountain View 2 0
Sunnyvale 1 0
Ashburn 1 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}

Share

Share to:

Comment

Related Items