UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The management of polydisciplinary teams Layton, Diane Gertrude 1979

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1980_A6_7 L38_6.pdf [ 8.58MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0094799.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0094799-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0094799-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0094799-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0094799-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0094799-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0094799-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0094799-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0094799.ris

Full Text

THE MANAGEMENT CF POLYDISCIPLINARY TEAMS by DIANE GERTRUDE LAYTON C.E.E.G.P., Mc G i l l University, 1971 B.A., Vanderbilt University, 1974 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT CF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE CF MASTER OF SCIENCE i n THE FACULTY CF MEDICINE Health Care and Epidemiology We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA December, 1979 (8) Diane Gertrude Layton, 1979 In presenting t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l 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 a v ailable f o r reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of t h i s thesis for s c h o larly purposes may be granted by the Head of my department or his representative. It i s understood that copying or p u b l i c a t i o n 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 of gam ' V -The University of B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 ABSTRACT The purpose of t h i s study was to examine the influence of personality s p e c i a l i z a t i o n on the research and work attitudes of d i s c i p l i n a r i a n s i n socio-medical r e l a t e d f i e l d s . The study involved the development and t e s t i n g of s p e c i a l i s t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and attitudes relevant to the management of p o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y research i n academic se t t i n g s . Personality s p e c i a l i z a t i o n of the i n d i v i d u a l d i s c i p l i n a r i a n was hypothesized to be associated with s p e c i f i c attitudes toward research and styles of j organizing work i n team s i t u a t i o n s . S p e c i f i c a l l y , hypotheses tested the r e l a t i o n s h i p s of Person and Thing o r i e n t a t i o n and attitudes toward a) A n a l y t i c or H o l i s t i c approaches to research methodology b) and Mechanistic (Type I) or Organic (Type II) approaches to work organization.-In addition, information was c o l l e c t e d on a number of demographic and career variables to test f o r confounding and moderating influences on the study's hypotheses. In order to test the four Hypotheses, an a n a l y t i c f i e l d survey was conducted and data was c o l l e c t e d from academic s p e c i a l i s t s i n 32 f i e l d s of s p e c i a l i z a t i o n employed at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia. The measuring instrument of the study was a structured mailed questionnaire. A previously constructed Person and Thing Construct Scale (Frost § Barnowe 1976) was employed to measure the independent va r i a b l e of personality s p e c i a l i z a t i o n . Scales measuring the dependent variables of Research Mode and Organizational Style were constructed based on c o r r e l a t i o n a l and factor a n a l y t i c techniques. A d e s c r i p t i v e p r o f i l e of the study sample was compiled. i i The e f f e c t s of per s o n a l i t y variables were assessed i n two ways. For the Research Mode, c o r r e l a t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s and differences i n mean scores among sub-populations of s p e c i a l i s t s were explored. For the organizational data, c o r r e l a t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s and differences i n the frequencies of s p e c i a l i s t types f a l l i n g into categories of the c r i t e r i o n v a r i a b l e were examined. In addition to the hypothesized r e l a t i o n s h i p s concerning Person and Thing s p e c i a l i s t s , two other s p e c i a l i s t types were examined i n r e l a t i o n to the dependent v a r i a b l e s . In the general study population Person and Thing s p e c i a l i s t s did not associate d i f f e r e n t l y with e i t h e r the An a l y t i c or H o l i s t i c research approaches or with the Organic (Type II) or Mechanistic (Type I) organizing s t y l e s . Person and Non-Specialist types were found to s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r i n t h e i r attitudes toward i n t e r p r e t i v e s t r a t e g i e s f o r research. Thing s p e c i a l i s t s and Generalist p e r s o n a l i t y types were found to vary considerably i n t h e i r attitudes toward 3 out of 4 research mode fa c t o r s . Within the female portion of the study sample, Person s p e c i a l i s t s were found to prefer a Type II organizing approach while Thing s p e c i a l i s t s preferred a Type I approach. This was as predicted i n Hypotheses III and IV of the study. The study found s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n Person and Thing o r i e n t a t i o n between males and females and High and Low Academic Rank groups. Females had a higher mean Person score than Males and the Low Rank group a higher mean Person score than the High Rank group. S i g n i f i c a n t differences were also found in male and female attitudes toward the A n a l y t i c approach to Research, women being more An a l y t i c than men. There were notable differences i n research o r i e n t a t i o n between those having past non-university employment experience since receiving t h e i r terminal degree compared with those who had gone r i g h t into academia. Those with other employment experience being more H o l i s t i c i n t h e i r research o r i e n t a t i o n . Individuals of Low and High Academic ranks had s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t preferences for organizing. The Low Rank group p r e f e r r i n g the Type I approach compared to the High Rank group who s l i g h t l y prefer Type II. Another organizational f i n d i n g of s i g n i f i c a n c e was the d i f f e r e n c e between those having experienced c o l l a b o r a t i v e research compared with those who hadn't. Those without c o l l a b o r a t i v e experience p r e f e r r i n g Type I and those with experience p r e f e r r i n g Type I I . The study Findings are discussed i n r e l a t i o n to t h e i r g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y , requirements f o r future work and a l t e r n a t i v e hypotheses. The study r e s u l t s are interpreted i n r e l a t i o n s h i p to the management issues of assembling and coordinating p o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y teams. S p e c i f i c recommendations for member se l e c t i o n and team composition are made. i v TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE ABSTRACT i i . LIST OF TABLES x i . LIST OF FIGURES x i v . ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS X V * I. Background of the Study 1 1:1 D e f i n i t i o n of P b l y d i s c i p l i n a r y 1 Research 1:2 State of the Problem Area i n the 3 Lit e r a t u r e to Date 1:3 H i s t o r i c a l and I n s t i t u t i o n a l Context 5 1:4 Administrative Context 9 1:5 Summary 15 II. Theoretical Focus of the Study 17 2:1 Statement of the Problem 17 2:2 Assumptions of the Study 18 2:3 The Pairing of Individuals and 19 Situatio n s ; Theories of Organizational P a r t i c i p a t i o n 2:4 The S i t u a t i o n ; P o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y Teams 24 as Small Complex Professional Organizations 2:5 The Individuals; Organizational P a r t i c i p a t i o n 32 of Academic Professionals I I I . S p e c i a l i z a t i o n and the S p e c i f i c Variables 39 of the Study 3:1 Theories of Personality 39 A t t r a c t i o n to a Specialty 3:2 S p e c i a l i z a t i o n and Theories 43 of Professional S o c i a l i z a t i o n 3:3 Implications of Methodological and Theoretical 47 Orientations of S p e c i a l i s t s on the Organization of P o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y Research. v. CHAPTER PAGE I I I . 3:4 S p e c i a l i z a t i o n as the Independent 50 V a r i a b l e of the Study 3:4:a E m p i r i c a l Evidence 51 3:5 Dependent V a r i a b l e s - STUDY AREA 53 ONE; Person and Thing O r i e n t a t i o n i n R e l a t i o n to A l t e r n a t i v e Approaches t o Research 3:5:a Hypotheses of STUDY AREA ONE 56 3:6 Dependent V a r i a b l e s - STUDY AREA TWO; 56 Person and Thing O r i e n t a t i o n i n R e l a t i o n to A l t e r n a t i v e Work S t y l e s 3:6:a Hypotheses o f STUDY AREA TWO 59 IV. O p e r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n , Measurement and Data 61 C o l l e c t i o n Procedures of the Study 4:1 Objective of the Study 61 4:2 Study Design 61 4:3 O p e r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n of the Independent 62 V a r i a b l e , P e r s o n a l i t y S p e c i a l i z a t i o n 4:3:a V a l i d i t y of the P-T Construct 63 Scale 4:3:b Convergent V a l i d i t y 64 4:3:c Discriminant V a l i d i t y 65 4:3:d R e l i a b i l i t y of the Person-Thing 65 Scale 4:3:e Summary 66 v i . CHAPTER PAGE IV. (Cont'd.) 4:4 O p e r a t i o n a l i z i n g the Dependent V a r i a b l e s 66 4:4:a The Research Mode 66 4:4":b O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Approaches 67 4:4:c Other V a r i a b l e s 68 4:5 Questionnaire Construction 68 4:6 Sample 7 0 4:7 The Measuring Instrument and Data 72 C o l l e c t i o n Techniques V. A n a l y t i c Procedures of the Study 74 5:1 Ou t l i n e of Procedures 74 5:2 Study Sample 75 5:3 D i s t r i b u t i o n of Person and Thing Scores 76 5:4 Inter-Item C o r r e l a t i o n a l A n a l y s i s of 82 Person and Thing Scales 5:5 I n t e r - S c a l e C o r r e l a t i o n a l A n a l y s i s 83 5:6 R e l i a b i l i t y Tests on Person and Thing 83 Scales 5:7 C o r r e l a t i o n a l A n a l y s i s of the Research 85 Mode Items 5:8 Factor A n a l y s i s of the Research Mode Items 86 5:8:a Orthogonal Rota t i o n S p e c i f y i n g 87 TWO FACTORS 5:8:b Orthogonal R o t a t i o n S p e c i f y i n g 88 FREE FACTORS 5:8:c Oblique Rotations 89 5:9 Generating the Dimensions of the Research 90 Mode f o r use i n A n a l y s i s v i i . CHAPTER PAGE V. (Cont 1d) 5:10 R e l i a b i l i t y of the Research Mode Scales 95 5:11 Development of the O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Ratio 96 Scale 5:12 R e l i a b i l i t y of the O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Ratio 98 Scale 5:13 D i s t r i b u t i o n of O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Ratio Scores 99 VI. The Results of the Study 102 6:1 Research Mode C o r r e l a t i o n a l Findings 102 6:2 Hypothesis Tes t i n g R e l a t i n g to the Research .104 Mode 6:3 'Comparison of Other S p e c i a l i s t Groups on the 108 Dimension of the Research Mode 6:4 O r g a n i z a t i o n a l C o r r e l a t i o n a l Findings 111 6:5 Hypothesis Tesing Related to O r g a n i z a t i o n a l 112 Preferences 6:6 The E f f e c t s of Confounding V a r i a b l e s on 114 Independent V a r i a b l e s 6:7 The E f f e c t s of Confounding V a r i a b l e s on the 117 Dependent V a r i a b l e s 6:7:a The Research Mode 117 6:7:b O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Preferences 119 6:8 The Confounding V a r i a b l e s and the Study's 122 Hyp o t h e t i c a l R e l a t i o n s h i p s 6:8:a Research Mode Hypotheses 123 6:8:b O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Hypotheses 130 6:8 :c Summary 134 v i i i . CHAPTER PAGE V I I . I n t e r p r e t a t i o n , D i s c u s s i o n and Conclusions 135 7:1 Person and Thing Scale 135 7:2 I n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the Research Mode 137 Findings 7:3 I n t e r p r e t a t i o n of O r g a n i z a t i o n a l 141-Findings 7:4 Discuss i o n 145 7:5 Conclusions 148 Bi b l i o g r a p h y 151 Appendix A.O Questionnaire Design and D i s t r i b u t i o n .16.6 A . l I n t r o d u c t i o n t o the Questionnaire 167 A.2 Questionnaire: S e c t i o n ONE; 168 Person and Thing Scale A.3 Questionnaire: S e c t i o n TWO; 170 Research Mode Scale A.4 Questionnaire: S e c t i o n THREE; 175 Or g a n i z a t i o n a l Scale A.5 Questionnaire: S e c t i o n FOUR; 180 Demographic and Career Information A. 6 L e t t e r s f o r D i s t r i b u t i o n 185 B. O Factor Matrices 188 B. l Orthogonal R o t a t i o n , 189 S p e c i f y i n g Two Factors i x . Appendix PAGE B.2 Orthogonal R o t a t i o n ; 190 Free Factors B.3 Oblique R o t a t i o n ; 19.1 S p e c i f y i n g two Factors B.4 Oblique Rotation 19.4 S p e c i f y i n g Free Factors x. L i s t of Tables Table T i t l e Page 1 Breakdown of Non-Usable Questionnaires 75 by Reason of N o n - P a r t i c i p a t i o n 2 Percent Each D i s i c i p l i n a r y F i e l d Contributed 77 to the O r i g i n a l Sample Compared to the Percent each F i e l d Contributed to the Study Sample 3 Response Rate of Each C o n t r i b u t i n g D i s c i p l i n e , 78 Siz e of Sampled Group by D i s c i p l i n e and A c t u a l Number of Study Respondents by D i s c i p l i n e 4. Demographic and Career C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the 79 Study Sample 5 D i s t r i b u t i o n a l Breakdown of the Four 82 S p e c i a l i s t Groups 6 D e s c r i p t i v e S t a t i s t i c s of the Person 84 and Thing Scales 7 D e s c r i p t i v e S t a t i s t i c s of the Research 94 Mode V a r i a b l e s 8 O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Ratio Scale Formula 99 9 D e s c r i p t i v e S t a t i s t i c s of the O r g a n i z a t i o n a l 101 Ratio Scale Results 10 Pearson Product Moment C o r r e l a t i o n 102 C o e f f i c i e n t s : R e l a t i o n s h i p s between the Person and Thing Scales and the Research Mode Scales. TWO Factor Model x i . T i t l e Pearson Product Moment C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t s : R e l a t i o n s h i p s between the Person and Thing Scales and the Research Mode Scales. Four Factor Model Person and Thing O r i e n t a t i o n Scales Broken Down by S u b s p e c i a l t i e s ; Crossbreaks by scores on the Dimensions of the Research Mode: TWO Factor Model. Person and Thing O r i e n t a t i o n Broken Down by S u b s p e c i a l t i e s : Crossbreaks by Scores on the Dimensions of the Research Mode: The Four Factor Model Two Factor Research Model, Results of Student's T-Tests Comparing S p e c i a l i s t s A t t i t u d e s Towards Research Four Factor Research Model: Results of Student's T-Tests comparing S p e c i a l i s t s A t t i t u d e s Towards Approaches to Research Person Scores Compared with Type I I Organizing Scores-Chi Square Test Thing Scores Compared with Type I I Organizing Scores-Chi Square Test x i i . T i t l e E f f e c t of the Confounding V a r i a b l e s on the Independent V a r i a b l e s . Student's T-Tests on P e r s o n a l i t y O r i e n t a t i o n among 10 Sub-Groups of the Sample E f f e c t s o f the Confounding V a r i a b l e s on the Dependent V a r i a b l e , A t t i t u d e s toward Research E f f e c t s of the Confounding V a r i a b l e s on the Dependent V a r i a b l e , A t t i t u d e s toward Organizing Reserach Mode Hypotheses and Five Confounding V a r i a b l e s : Results of TWO-WAY A n a l y s i s of Variance C o n t r o l l i n g f o r Demographic and Career V a r i a b l e s D i f f e r e n c e s between Person and Thing S p e c i a l i s t s i n Type I and Type I I Approaches to Organizing: Chi-Square Tests x i i i . L i s t o f Figures Figure T i t l e Page ONE T h e o r e t i c a l R e l a t i o n s h i p s of the Study 60 x i v . Acknowledgements The process of completing t h i s t h e s i s has been a c h a l l e n g i n g educational and personal experience. Like a l l experiences i t has a h i s t o r y and I'd l i k e to express my g r a t i t u d e to those who help i n i t s development. Dr. Vance M i t c h e l l , my Chairman, provided very s p e c i a l resources; h i s experience and h i s f a i t h i n my a b i l i t i e s . Dr. Peter Frost gave f r e e l y of h i s energetic and s t i m u l a t i n g mind. I f i t were not f o r h i s help I would not have untangled many of the small and large problems which emerged i n my work. Dr. Roger Tonkin introduced me to the issues from which the t h e s i s e v e n t u a l l y took form. He a l s o provided a s p e c i a l mentorship f o r which I am g r a t e f u l . I would l i k e to thank Dr. George Szasz f o r h i s advice and e v a l u a t i o n . His o b j e c t i v i t y served as a c r i t i c a l challenge to my work. I'd a l s o l i k e to thank T r i s h a Dunn, a good f r i e n d , who helped me conduct my f i e l d survey. My peers i n the Health Services Planning Program a l s o provided i n t a n g i b l e support. My deepest g r a t i t u d e belongs to my husband, Chase, whose pe r s p e c t i v e during the experience always re f r e s h e d and encouraged me. xv. THE MANAGEMENT OF POLYDISCIPLINARY TEAMS 1. I. BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY The impetus f o r systematic developments on the top of the management of p o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y research can be traced to the experience of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l , o p e r a t i o n a l , and i n t e r p e r s o n a l d i f f i c u l t i e s which have emerged i n the process of i n i t i a t i n g and a d m i n i s t r a t i n g p o l y -d i s c i p l i n a r y e f f o r t s of one form or another ( L u z s k i 1957, Herzog 1959, B l a c k w e l l 1955, C a u d i l l and Roberts 1951, Kast and Rosenzweig 1970, Newell et a l . 1975). 1:1 D e f i n i t i o n of P o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y Research Heckenhausen (1972) defines d i s c i p l i n a r i t y as "the s p e c i a l i z e d s c i e n t i f i c e x p l o r a t i o n of a given homogeneous subj e c t matter, r e s u l t i n g i n incessant formulations and r e f o r m u l a t i o n s of the present body of knowledge about the subject matter." D i s c i p l i n a r y development and divergence occurs along seven c r i t e r i o n l e v e l s which together define the s c i e n t i f i c a t t r i b u t e s of a given d i s c i p l i n e . I n t r a - d i s c i p l i n a r y divergence takes place along some but not a l l of these c r i t e r i o n l e v e l s . The c r i t e r i a o f a d i s c i p l i n e i n c l u d e : 1) i t s m a t e r i a l f i e l d - objects of s p e c i a l i z a t i o n i n a d i s c i p l i n e , 2) i t s subject matter - the p o i n t of view from which a d i s c i p l i n e looks upon i t s m a t e r i a l f i e l d , 3) l e v e l of t h e o r e t i c a l i n t e g r a t i o n and maturity - understanding, p r e d i c t i o n and e x p l a n a t i o n of phenomena and events i n v o l v i n g the subject matter, 2. 4) methods - approaches to the observables of a subject matter; ways i n which observables are transformed i n t o data f o r more s p e c i f i c problem s o l v i n g , 5) a n a l y t i c a l t o o l s - f o r the c o n s t r u c t i o n of e m p i r i c a l feedback processes, 6) a p p l i c a t i o n - of the d i s c i p l i n e i n f i e l d s of p r a c t i c e , 7) h i s t o r i c a l contingencies - e x t r a - d i s c i p l i n a r y f o r c e s that c o n t r o l m a t e r i a l resources and determine the climate f o r growth, as w e l l as the norms of the s c i e n t i f i c community which i n f l u e n c e research i n t e r e s t s and t h e o r e t i c a l pre-occupations over time (Heckenhausen, 1972). P o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y research i n v o l v e s the c o l l a b o r a t i o n of two or more d i s c i p l i n a r y s p e c i a l i s t s along one or more c r i t e r i o n l e v e l s of t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e d i s c i p l i n e s i n a problem s o l u t i o n process. The word ' p o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y ' has been suggested by Newell et a l . (1975) as a cover term f o r the numerous t e r m i n o l o g i c a l and phenomenological concerns associated w i t h the experience of d i s c i p l i n a r y c o l l a b o r a t i o n . The extent to which p o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y c o l l a b o r a t i o n occurs among d i s c i p l i n a r i a n s i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d i n the l i t e r a t u r e by a s e r i e s of t y p o l o g i e s , based on the r e l a t i v e nature and degree of i n t e g r a t i o n found among the i n d i v i d u a l s and the d i s c i p l i n e s i n v o l v e d i n the a c t i v i t y ( B l a c k w e l l 1955, Newell et a l . 1975, Jantsch 1970, Heckenhausen 1972, Mason 1976). Jantsch's typology i s most i l l u s t r a t i v e : 3. 1) D i s c i p l i n a r i t y - s p e c i a l i z a t i o n i n i s o l a t i o n , 2) M u l t i - d i s c i p l i n a r i t y - no i n t e g r a t i o n s t r a t e g y , 3) P l u r i -- d i s c i p l i n a r i t y - cooperation without o r g a n i z a t i o n a l context, 4) Cross-- d i s c i p l i n a r i t y - organized cooperation with p o l a r i z a t i o n towards one d i s c i p l i n e , 5) Inter- - d i s c i p l i n a r i t y - organized cooperation and i n t e r g r a t i o n by higher l e v e l concepts, 6) Trans- - d i s c i p l i n a r i t y - m u l t i - l e v e l cooperation, s y n t h e s i s and new concepts developed (1970). 1:2 State of the Problem Area i n the L i t e r a t u r e to Date The problem area f a l l s i n t o the general category o f "research i n t o the management of re s e a r c h . " A good p o r t i o n of the work done i n the area has been concerned w i t h the management of i n d u s t r i a l research teams ( L i t t e r e r 1970, Shepard 1954, Pelz and Andrews 1966, Fincher 1965, Smith 1954). Most of the i n d u s t r i a l studies i n t o the management of research focus on i d e n t i f y i n g and developing the c r e a t i v e aspects of research environments (Pelz and Andrews 1966, Fincher 1965, Shepard 1954, Smith 1954, L i t t e r e r 1970, Lynton 1969). The ma j o r i t y of the e m p i r i c a l work has looked at dimensions of the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l research environment and a t t r i b u t e s of the i n d i v i d u a l s c i e n t i s t which are conducive to p r o d u c t i v i t y and s a t i s f a c t i o n . The t h e o r e t i c a l o r i e n t a t i o n of t h i s work l i n k s s p e c i f i c a t t r i b u t e s i n the i n d i v i d u a l to preferences f o r c e r t a i n types of work 4. environments (Moos 1973, Holland 1966, L i t t l e 1972, Summer 1976, L i k e r t 1961, Burns and S t a l k e r 1961, Pelz and Andrews 1966). The r a t i o n a l e behind t h i s approach being that research p r o d u c t i v i t y i s a f u n c t i o n of both the research environment and the m o t i v a t i o n a l and i n t e l l e c t u a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the researcher. Several recent l i t e r a t u r e reviews of the f i e l d corroborate the f i n d i n g that there i s a t h e o r e t i c a l and e m p i r i c a l v o i d concerning the o r g a n i z a t i o n and management of p o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y research i n academic s e t t i n g s (Newell et a l . 1975, Bimbaum 1975, Mason 1976, G i l l e s p i e 1976). Findings i n the i n d u s t r i a l s e t t i n g are not e a s i l y g e n e r a l i z a b l e to the academic s e t t i n g because of normative, i n c e n t i v e , p r o f e s s i o n a l , o r g a n i z a t i o n a l and production d i f f e r e n c e s . I t has been observed that the i n s t i t u t i o n a l context i n which research takes place i s a major f a c t o r i n shaping the organization: and management of the research process ( C a u d i l l and Roberts 1951, Lu z s k i 1957). The h i s t o r i c a l and case study approach c h a r a c t e r i z e s much of the e x i s t i n g work on the t o p i c of p o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y research i n the academic s e t t i n g . The studies reviewed tend to describe p o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y p r o j e c t s administered by t r i a l and e r r o r . Topics of concern i n c l u d e member r e l a t i o n s h i p s , complaints, o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c o n d i t i o n s , pressures and s t r u c t u r e s (Maybry 1966, S t r i n g e r 1970, B l a c k w e l l 1955, C a u d i l l and Roberts 1951, Luzski 1957, Bennis 1956, Marquis 1971, Kest, Rosenzweig and Stockman 1970). Consequently, the c o n t r i b u t i o n s of t h i s work tend to be of a d e s c r i p t i v e and p r o s c r i p t i v e nature. However, t h i s e x p e r i e n t i a l 5. m a t e r i a l i s b a s i c to the development of more systematic approaches i n the area (Newell et a l . 1975, Birnbaum 1975, G i l l e s p i e 1976, Mason 1976). More recent developments i n the area have begun to focus on s p e c i f i c aspects of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c o n t r o l r e l e v a n t to s m a l l , complex, p r o f e s s i o n a l teams. 1:5 H i s t o r i c a l and I n s t i t u t i o n a l Context The emergence of p o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y research i s best understood w i t h i n the context of the expanded f u n c t i o n a l and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n which has taken place i n most p u b l i c u n i v e r s i t i t e s i n North America during the l a s t 35 years. I t i s f r e q u e n t l y c i t e d that the modern p u b l i c u n i v e r s i t y has three major f u n c t i o n s i n s o c i e t y ; t o teach, to perform research and to provide s e r v i c e models (Mason 1976). These goals are d i v e r s e and are not n e c e s s a r i l y mutually supportive. Gabarino (1970), i n an a r t i c l e on the o r g a n i z a t i o n of u n i v e r s i t y research, documents that p r i o r to the 1940's, u n i v e r s i t i e s were comparatively simple o r g a n i z a t i o n s . However, sin c e W.W. I I most p u b l i c u n i v e r s i t i e s have experienced r a p i d growth and change i n t h e i r s i z e , complexity, s o c i a l and research f u c n t i o n s . P r i c e (1972) r e l a t e s changes.in the t r a d i t i o n a l u n i v e r s i t y s t r u c t u r e to demands of post-i n d u s t r i a l s o c i e t i e s . The epoch i s marked by: 1) the e l e v a t i o n of the s e r v i c e economy, 2) the pre-eminence of the p r o f e s s i o n a l and t e c h n i c a l c l a s s e s , 6. 3) the c e n t r a l i t y of t h e o r e t i c a l and e m p i r i c a l knowledge as a source of i n n o v a t i o n and p o l i c y f o r m u l a t i o n , 4) the p o s s i b i l i t y f o r s e l f - s u s t a i n i n g t e c h n o l o g i c a l growth, 5) the c r e a t i o n of a new i n t e l l e c t u a l technology. To t h i s l i s t we must add the i n c r e a s i n g complexity and i n t e r -dependance of the phenomena and problems as s o c i a t e d with s o c i o - t e c h n i c a l progress. Federal governments and business often provided the problems and the funds f o r u n i v e r s i t y research. This process c o n t r i b u t e d to o r g a n i z a t i o n a l and personnel c o n d i t i o n s which g r a d u a l l y changed the face of the u n i v e r s i t y (Kerr 1963, Bush 1953, Gabarino 1970). Mason (1976) observes that during the l a s t few decades u n i v e r s i t i e s have been c o n t i n u a l l y p r o v i d i n g the " i n t e l l e c t u a l f u e l " f o r s o c i a l , h e a l t h , economic, resource and defense innovations. The o r i g i n s of p o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y research are d i f f i c u l t to place c h r o n o l o g i c a l l y . Bush (1953), i n a d i s c u s s i o n of t r a d i t i o n a l and modern forms of s c i e n t i f i c teamwork, suggests that the i d e a of "team a t t a c k " i s not very new. I t i s not' s u r p r i s i n g that the e a r l i e s t p o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y e f f o r t s occurred i n a p p l i e d f i e l d s l i k e -a g r i c u l t u r e , defense, h e a l t h and water resource management. Experimentation w i t h p o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y teams grew out of a p p l i e d requirements f o r the generation and synthesis of new types of knowledge technologies. However, i t was recognized at an e a r l y stage that the t r a d i t i o n a l academic departments could not provide the n e u t r a l ground where d i f f e r e n t d i s c i p l i n a r y s p e c i a l i s t s could c o l l a b o r a t e (Ikenberry and Friedman, 1972). The t r a d i t i o n a l s t r u c t u r a l and f u n c t i o n a l sub-units of the u n i v e r s i t y 7. o r g a n i z a t i o n are the departments, f a c u l t i e s and schools. These d i v i s i o n s l i e along d i s c i p l i n a r y and p r o f e s s i o n a l boundaries. They serve to separate areas o f academic s p e c i a l i z a t i o n w h i l e a l s o f u n c t i o n i n g as the working i n f r a s t r u c t u r e of u n i v e r s i t y o r g a n i z a t i o n s . Several authors agree that the locus of power and the a b i l i t y to c o n t r o l rewards i s vested i n the department, even though the u n i v e r s i t y has experienced much e l a b o r a t i o n . The c e n t r a l focus of the department i s u s u a l l y a d i s c i p l i n e . Ikenberry and Friedman (1972) suggest that departments o f t e n resemble g u i l d s ; admission depends on the reasonable congruence of the candidate's d i s c i p l i n a r y t r a i n i n g , conceptual and methodological o r i e n t a t i o n w i t h the m a j o r i t y view of the department. Within t h i s s e t t i n g , d i s c i p l i n a r y r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , l o y a l i t i e s and rewards represent the norm. The "compartmentalism and reward process" c h a r a c t e r i z i n g departments i s continuously r e f e r r e d to as a major deterent to the coo r d i n a t i o n of p o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y research. Decisions on recruitment, promotion and tenure r e s t i n the department. Consequently, the personnel d e c i s i o n s of departments often bear d i r e c t l y on the o p p o r t u n i t i e s and i n c e n t i v e s f a c u l t y have to p a r t i c i p a t e i n c r o s s - d i s c i p l i n a r y endeavors. Therefore, n o n - t r a d i t i o n a l requirements f o r s c i e n t i f i c teamwork re q u i r e d a l t e r n a t i v e s t r u c t u r a l forms f o r r e l a t i n g research personnel. Kerr (1963) observes that f o r about 20 years, u n i v e r s i t i e s accepted the research centres and p r o j e c t s as proposed by f a c u l t y members and government agencies, making day to day adjustments as were needed and p o s s i b l e . U n i v e r s i t y commitments to these exapanded func t i o n s took form 8. i n f a c i l i t i e s , equipment, the development of new f i s c a l and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e arrangements, as w e l l as the advent of new c l a s s e s of non-teaching, research and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r o f e s s i o n a l s (Gabarino 1970, Kerr 1963). Often the funding of major research p r o j e c t s s p e c i f i e d the development of a separate and autonomous o r g a n i z a t i o n a l mechanism to manage the c o l l a b o r a t i v e s i t u a t i o n . These events c o n t r i b u t e d to increased b u r e a u c r a t i z a t i o n , s t r u c t u r a l e l a b o r a t i o n and the b i g business of u n i v e r s i t y research. This i n s t i t u t i o n a l and f u n c t i o n a l development continued s t e a d i l y , u n i n t e r r u p t e d u n t i l the end of the "Golden Age" of funding i n the l a t e s i x t i e s . I n s t i t u t e s and Centres often evolved as the formal, a d m i n i s t r a t i v e arrangements,"for housing programmatic a c t i v i t i e s , l i k e p o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y research, w i t h i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e of the u n i v e r s i t y . I t should be noted that much inf o r m a l p o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y research a l s o goes on w i t h i n u n i v e r s i t i e s , but i t i s u s u a l l y s u b - o r g a n i z a t i o n a l and t r a n s i t o r y . C r o s s - d i s c i p l i n a r y t i e s of t h i s nature can be sustained f o r short periods of time and f o r small numbers w i t h i n the conventional u n i v e r s i t y s t r u c t u r e . However, both Ikenberry and Friedman (1972) and G i l l e s p i e (1976) suggest that p o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y research of a l a r g e r and longer s c a l e requires increased o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c o n t r o l to in s u r e a product. In 1972, Ikenberry and Friedman found that there were approximately 5,000 I n s t i t u t e s and Centres l o c a t e d at American U n i v e r s i t i e s . They document the development of these type of u n i t s w i t h i n the l a s t 25 years. In a survey of 900 I n s t i t u t e s and Centres at 51 Land Grant 9. campuses i n the U.S., p o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y research i n s t i t u t e s were not i n the m a j o r i t y . However, the usefulness of the I n s t i t u t e and Centre mechanism i s that of a formal o r g a n i z a t i o n a l a l t e r n a t i v e f o r housing p o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y a c t i v i t i e s w i t h i n the u n i v e r s i t y s t r u c t u r e . In c o n t r a s t t o the s p e c i a l i s t f u n c t i o n s of the departments, I n s t i t u t e s are u s u a l l y mission o r i e n t e d and r e s t r i c t e d i n t h e i r f u n c t i o n a l mandates (Mason 1972, Ikenberry and Friedman 1976). They range i n s i z e from small ( l e s s than 30), semi-voluntary o r g a n i z a t i o n s , t o large bureaucracies, They are g e n e r a l l y d e - c e n t r a l i z e d , semi-permanent, autonomous u n i t s l i n k e d i n t o the h i e r a r c h y of u n i v e r s i t i e s at various h o r i z o n t a l and v e r t i c a l l e v e l s . 1:4 The A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Context of P o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y Research The u n i v e r s i t y environment, sponsors, academic departments and f a c u l t y present a s e r i e s of c o n s t r a i n t s to the management of p o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y endeavors from an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p e r s p e c t i v e . Emery and T r i s t (1965) have suggested that there i s a causal t e x t u r e to the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l m i l i e u which i n v o l v e s the degree of cooperation and options f o r s u r v i v a l that types of environment.', s impose upon s p e c i f i c o r g a n i z a t i o n s . The o r g a n i z a t i o n s which house p o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y research i n the u n i v e r s i t y represent a d i v e r s i f i e d phenomena. The i r impetuses, designs, dynamics and t h e i r products e x h i b i t many more d i f f e r e n c e s than they do s i m i l a r i t i e s . They vary i n r e l a t i o n to the u n i v e r s i t y 10. s e t t i n g i n which they are found, according to the problems they are organized to solve and with the l i m i t s placed on them by t h e i r funding agencies. They are as unique as the i n d i v i d u a l s who run them and the teams they create. Ikenberry and Friedman found that the m a j o r i t y of I n s t i t u t e s and Centres had research as t h e i r major concern. In general, they a s s i s t research i n one of the f o l l o w i n g ways: 1) perform research d i r e c t l y ; 2) work to f a c i l i t a t e the research o f others, 3) assemble resources toward the achievement of a research task (1972). Mason (1976), Ikenberry and Friedman (1972) and G i l l e s p i e (1976) a l l suggest that there must be a ' c r i t i c a l mass' of support f o r p o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y endeavors among a core group, f a c u l t y , u n i v e r s i t y a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and sponsors before they get o f f the ground. Core support f o r these types of e f f o r t seems to evolve i n three general ways: a) pooled group - develops out of loose consortia-type arrangements among f a c u l t y who wish to increase f a c u l t y dialogue, go outside d i s c i p l i n a r y boundaries and who o c c a s i o n a l want to perform i n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y research. 11. b) nurtured groups - i n v o l v e the gradual development of a research team through processes of s t a f f s e l e c t i o n . S everal categories seem to e x i s t ; i ) c h a r i s m a t i c leader groups, i i ) s e n i o r , w e l l respected leader groups, i i i ) common enemy groups, i v ) common needs groups. c) mandate groups - p o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y e f f o r t s created through the mandate of some a u t h o r i t y and/or the a v a i l a b i l i t y of s p e c i a l area study funds. Obtaining f a c u l t y support f o r p o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y endeavors i n v o l v e s communication, t e r r i t o r i a l , c o l l e a g u i a l r e c o g n i t i o n and endorsement problems ( G i l l e s p i e , 1976). A f f i l i a t i o n w i t h an I n s t i t u t e or Centre u s u a l l y i n v o l v e s a j o i n t appointment w i t h an a l l i e d department. The career path f o r the p r o f e s s i o n a l academic t y p i c a l l y progresses by achieving s p e c i a l i z e d e x p e r t i s e and i n demonstrating a c o n t r i b u t i o n to a . d i s c i p l i n a r y f i e l d . Centres and I n s t i t u t e s do not enjoy the same degree of l e g i t i m a t i o n as do departments w i t h i n the u n i v e r s i t y community. Consequently, these s t r u c t u r e s can o f f e r few of the t r a d i t i o n a l career rewards and i n c e n t i v e s . Therefore, departmental a f f i l i a t i o n remains one of the major f a c t o r s i n career advancement f o r the i n d i v i d u a l academic. However, Ikenberry and Friedman (1972) a s s o c i a t e a new breed of academic entrepreneur with these kinds of n o n - t r a d i t i o n a l endeavors. 12. They l i n k t h i s development to the r a p i d growth i n academic p r o f e s s i o n a l i s m s i n c e W.W. I I . Gabarino (1970), i n an a n a l y s i s of the market f o r academic research, contends that the r a p i d growth i n the demand f o r research q u i c k l y exceeded the reserach capacity a v a i l a b l e from t r a d i t i o n a l academic f a c u l t y . This r e s u l t e d i n the d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of f a c u l t y types and t a l e n t s . Hagstrom (1965) observes that s i m i l a r t o other p r o f e s s i o n s , science i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by the s p l i t t i n g of the p r o f e s s i o n a l r o l e i n t o the r o l e s of a d m i n i s t r a t o r and the t e c h n i c i a n . "Leaders n e c e s s a r i l y becoming p o l i t i c i z e d and o r i e n t e d toward o b t a i n i n g funding, access to f a c i l i t i e s and c o o r d i n a t i n g the e f f o r t s of others. The t e c h n i c i a n s becoming means o r i e n t e d , i n t e r e s t e d i n performing t h e i r s p e c i a l i z e d s k i l l s f o r e x t r i n s i c s c i e n t i f i c rewards" (Hagstrom, 1965). Yet L u s z k i (1957) found, i n a seminar attended by p o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y researchers, that d i f f i c u l t y i s oft e n experienced i n ac h i e v i n g leadership f o r these types of endeavors which provides the necessary d i r e c t i o n and at the same time develops the p o t e n t i a l i t i e s of team members. Ikenberry and Friedman (1972) suggest that a d m i n i s t r a t i v e support f o r these a c t i v i t i e s i s l i n k e d to a concern f o r i n s t i t u t i o n a l development. C h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y , a d m i n i s t r a t o r s have l i t t l e to do with the i n t e r n a l f u n c t i o n i n g o f these u n i t s . This i s borne out by the general lack of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p o l i c i e s concerning the emergence, support, e v a l u a t i o n , and d i s s o l u t i o n of these u n i t s i n North American u n i v e r s i t i e s ( L a r k i n , 1975). Kerr (1963) suggests that " t h i s i s p a r t l y a f u n c t i o n of the f a c t that a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the modern u n i v e r s i t y comes about by force of circumstances and not by choice." 13. U n i v e r s i t y a d m i n i s t r a t i o n s ' assessment of current and f u t u r e research needs, developments and f i s c a l support shape a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p o l i c i e s toward f a c i l i t a t i n g research i n the u n i v e r s i t y (Gabarino, 1970, Newell et a l . 1975). Newell et a l . (1975) suggests that "the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of a u n i v e r s i t y i s concerned with the management of research g e n e r a l l y and not w i t h s p e c i f i c research endeavors." This process includes the impact of research on the u n i v e r s i t y ; both i n t e r n a l l y (accounting, space and resource a l l o c a t i o n ) and e x t e r n a l l y ( r e l a t i o n s h i p s with governments, gran t i n g agencies, patents, q u a l i t y and output of sponsored research, c o p y r i g h t s ) . Thompson (1969) has mentioned the p o t e n t i a l d i s c i p l i n a r y b i a s of u n i v e r s i t y administrators i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n of d i s c r e t i o n a r y funding and support f o r new research developments w i t h i n the u n i v e r s i t y . P o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y research u n i t s have often emerged before u n i v e r s i t i e s can provide the r e q u i r e d budgetary and f i s c a l s e r v i c e s to meet t h e i r needs. As a r e s u l t of t h e i r r a p i d p r o l i f e r a t i o n and unusual s t a t u s ; they are not w e l l i n t e g r a t e d i n t o the mainstream of u n i v e r s i t y p o l i t i c s and power (Westwater 1974, Ikenberry and Friedman 1972). These u n i t s are " o f t e n misunderstood w i t h i n the u n i v e r s i t y o r g a n i z a t i o n because of t h e i r s p e c i a l f u n c t i o n s d i s t r u s t e d because of t h e i r s p e c i a l s t a t u s and p o o r l y l i n k e d w i t h those subunits w i t h which they have no a f f i l i a t i o n " ( B u r l i n g 1976). P f e f f e r and Salanick (1974) have shown that power d i f f e r e n c e s among subunits w i t h i n a l a r g e , U.S., r e s e a r c h - o r i e n t e d u n i v e r s i t y have resource a l l o c a t i o n consequences i n terms of amounts and types of 14. of i n t e r n a l funds d i s t r i b u t e d to the sub-units i n the i n s t i t u t i o n a l budgeting process. "The departments and the p r o f e s s i o n a l f a c u l t i e s c o n s t i t u t e the t r a d i t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e of the u n i v e r s i t y and the i n t e r -d i s c i p l i n a r y i n s t i t u t e i s not g e n e r a l l y recognized as having a l e g i t i m a t e c a l l upon a share of u n i v e r s i t y funds (Westwater 1974). This increases the p o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y research u n i t s dependance upon e x t e r n a l sources of funding. Problems o b t a i n i n g e x t e r n a l support f o r p o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y research are q u i t e common. ' Issues r e l a t i n g to sponsorship focus predominately on r e c e i v i n g returns f o r investments. Luszki (1958) has suggested that a p p l i e d reserach i s Often more expensive than b a s i c research Newell et a l . (1975) have demonstrated that a commitment of time and money i s r e q u i r e d f o r a non-research phase of team development. In a d d i t i o n to o b t a i n i n g funding, types of a v a i l a b l e funding may be more or l e s s appropriate to the group research process. I t i s ofte n mentioned i n p o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y case studies that funding s t i p u l a t i o n s o f t e n add unnecessary and a n t a g o n i s t i c pressures to the group research task ( L u s z k i 1958, C a u d i l l and Roberts 1951, B l a c k w e l l 1955). I t i s al s o d i f f i c u l t to obtain block grants which provide the length of time necessary f o r a p p l i e d , group research problems (Dorcey 1976, Mason 1976). Some funding agencies simply do not support p o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y endeavors. Others, i n c l u d i n g the N a t i o n a l Science Foundation, have sponsored management s t u d i e s i n t o i t s f u n c t i o n i n g i n order to provide a more r a t i o n a l b a s i s f o r management and s e l e c t i o n p o l i c i e s (Birnbaum 1975). 15. 1:5 Summary In summary, p o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y research and other n o n - t r a d i t i o n a l , u n i v e r s i t y a c t i v i t i e s and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e mechanisms can be traced to three types of i n i t i a t i v e s : 1) outside i n i t i a t i v e s , p r i m a r i l y f e d e r a l governments and s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t groups, 2) grass root developments w i t h i n f a c u l t y , 3) u n i v e r s i t y a d m i n i s t r a t i o n s . These sources of i n i t i a t i v e can be l i n k e d to various h i s t o r i c a l forces and vested i n t e r e s t s : 1) n a t i o n a l s e c u r i t y and problems of p o s t - i n d u s t r i a l s o c i e t i e s , 2) p r o f e s s i o n a l and personal career d r i v e s of f a c u l t y , 3) a d m i n i s t r a t i v e concerns f o r i n s t i t u t i o n a l development (Ikenberry and Friedman 1972). These developments have r e s u l t e d i n what Kerr (1963) c a l l s the " m u l t i v e r s i t y " ; i n s t i t u t i o n s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by s t r u c t u r a l dicotomies, d i s c i p l i n a r y o r i e n t a t i o n s , f r a c t i o n a l i z e d power, st a t u s d i f f e r e n c e s and va r y i n g norms of academic p r o f e s s i o n a l i s m . Consequently, he suggests "there i s a type of lawlessness i n any large u n i v e r s i t y , with' many separate sources of i n i t i a t i v e and power...", and "where the dominant value system i s r e a l i z e d mostly through research..." "These s e v e r a l competing v i s i o n s of true purpose, each r e l a t i n g to a d i f f e r e n t l a y e r of h i s t o r y , a d i f f e r e n t web of forces cause much of the malaise i n u n i v e r s i t i e s today" (Kerr 1963). 16. By way of i n t r o d u c t i o n to the research t o p i c of t h i s study, i t i s being suggested that the emergence of p o l y d i c i p l i n a r y research and the formal a d m i n i s t r a t i v e mechanisms a s s o c i a t e d with i t , are part of the general process of f u n c t i o n a l and s t r u c t u r a l e l a b o r a t i o n which has gone on w i t h i n u n i v e r s i t i e s i n response to the needs of a post i n d u s t r i a l age. We have al s o reviewed some of the major c o n s t r a i n t s operating w i t h i n the academic s e t t i n g which i n f l u e n c e the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of p o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y research u n i t s . Recent cuts i n u n i v e r s i t y funding w i l l p lace a d d i t i o n a l ' p r e s s u r e s f o r o r g a n i z a t i o n a l and personnel changes w i t h i n t h i s environment. These new pressures w i l l r e q u i r e i n c r e a s i n g l y e f f e c t i v e modes f o r o r g a n i z i n g p o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y research i n academic s e t t i n g s i f i t i s to compete as a v i a b l e format f o r producing research knowledge. 17. II.< THEORETICAL FOCUS OF THE STUDY 2:1 Statement of the Problem The purpose o f t h i s study i s the development and t e s t i n g o f s p e c i a l i s t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and a t t i t u d e s r e l e v a n t to the management of p o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y research i n academic s e t t i n g s . In reviewing the l i t e r a t u r e , one f i n d s the r e c u r r i n g theme that o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c o o r d i n a t i o n i s d i f f i c u l t to achieve i n these types of e f f o r t s . Problems i n management i n v o l v e d i f f i c u l t i e s i n assembling and c o o r d i n a t i n g human and m a t e r i a l resources toward an o b j e c t i v e accomplishment (Mason 1976). Of the many managerial problems c i t e d i n the l i t e r a t u r e on p o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y research, t h i s study focuses on the e f f e c t s of s p e c i a l i s t s ' c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s on the p o t e n t i a l f o r o g a n i z a t i o n a l c o n f l i c t . O r g a n i z a t i o n a l c o n f l i c t i s understood to be d y s f u n c t i o n a l i f i t s e r i o u s l y i n h i b i t s the processes of c o o r d i n a t i o n , p r o d u c t i v i t y , s t a b i l i t y and f l e x i b i l i t y (Pondy 1967). The i n f l u e n c e of member c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s on team composition i s understood to be a c r i t i c a l management dimension i n p o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y research and one worthy of systematic study. The s p e c i f i c aspects of t h i s problem to be looked at i n c l u d e : 1) o r g a n i z a t i o n a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n of research p r o f e s s i o n a l s , 2) s p e c i a l i s t s ' a t t i t u d e s towards a l t e r n a t i v e modes of research, 3) s p e c i a l i s t s ' a t t i t u d e s towards a l t e r n a t i v e modes of team o r g a n i z a t i o n . These s p e c i a l i s t a t t r i b u t e s have provided instances of extreme heterogeneity i n a t t i t u d e s among p a r t i c i p a n t s of p o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y teams. I f b a s i c i n d i c a t o r s f o r these s p e c i a l i s t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s can be developed 18'. and t h e i r i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s t e s t e d , they might provide a r a t i o n a l b a s i s f o r the s t r u c t u r i n g of p o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y teams. These i n d i c a t o r s could p o t e n t i a l l y be a p p l i e d to personnel p o l i c i e s concerning recruitment, grouping and workstyle arrangements i n the management of the p o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y research s i t u a t i o n . 2:2 Assumptions of the Study The approach of t h i s study assumes that i t i s p o s s i b l e to i d e n t i f y a t t r i b u t e s i n both the i n d i v i d u a l and the s t r u c t u r e of the p o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y research s i t u a t i o n which impede or f a c i l i t a t e p roductive linkages among i n d i v i d u a l s and between the i n d i v i d u a l and the demands of the p o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y research process (Holland 1966). I t i s recognized at the onset o f developing such a r a t i o n a l e , that we are attempting to e x p l a i n a t t i t u d e s and behavior on the b a s i s o f p e r s o n a l i t y p a t t e r n s , environmental models and the assembly e f f e c t of groups. A more complete explanation of the e f f e c t s of member c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s on the p o t e n t i a l f o r o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c o n f l i c t should incorporate other i n f l u e n c e s such as s i t u a t i o n a l , economic and group process v a r i a b l e s . The b a s i c assumptions of t h i s study are that both people and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s i t u a t i o n s can be c h a r a c t e r i z e d by t h e i r resemblance to one or more types. L i t t l e (1972) suggests that i t i s l e g i t i m a t e to speak of such "types", " i f we can show that they comprise h i g h l y developed sets of i m p l i c a t i o n s which can support inferences about c o r r e l a t i v e aspects of behavior i n d i f f e r e n t domains." This study takes the p o t e n t i a l p a r t i c i p a n t of p o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y research as i t s frame of reference and considers how s/he would i n f l u e n c e , and be impacted by the research team s i t u a t i o n . 19. Moos (1973) suggests t h a t there are psychometric problems a s s o c i a t e d with assessing p s y c h o s o c i a l a t t r i b u t e s and environmental c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . . . " b u t these techniques have been r e l a t i v e l y widely used and are p o t e n t i a l l y important i n the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of s a l i e n t environmental dimensions... I f the goal of i n s t i t u t i o n s i n our s o c i e t y i s t o set up co n d i t i o n s to maximize c e r t a i n types o f behaviors, a most r e l e v a n t task f o r s o c i a l science i s the systematic d e s c r i p t i o n and c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of environ-ments and t h e i r d i f f e r e n t i a l costs and b e n e f i t s f o r adaption" (Moos 1973). I f models f o r persons and environments can be e s t a b l i s h e d and v a l i d a t e d , these models can be used to derive a set of u s e f u l hypotheses about the adaptive p a i r i n g s of i n d i v i d u a l s and s i t u a t i o n s (Holland 1966, Moos 1973, Summer 1976, Burns and S t a l k e r 1961, L i t t l e 1972 and L i k e r t 1961). 2:5 The P a i r i n g of I n d i v i d u a l s and S i t u a t i o n s ; Theories of O r g a n i z a t i o n a l  P a r t i c i p a t i o n . A c e n t r a l premise of p e r s o n a l i t y psychology i s the id e a t h a t the i n d i v i d u a l i n t e r a c t s with h i s environment by breaking i t down and or g a n i z i n g i t i n t o meaningful patterns congruent with h i s own needs and p s y c h o l o g i c a l makeup ( L i t t l e 1972, Grey 1977, and Harvey 1961). Consequently, s o c i a l and p h y s i c a l environments represent stimulus s i t u a t i o n s f o r the a c t i v i t i e s and behavior o f the i n d i v i d u a l ( S h e r i f and S h e r i f 1969). Examples of stimulus s i t u a t i o n s i n the environment i n c l u d e ; o b j e c t s , other i n d i v i d u a l s , i n d i v i d u a l s i n groups, s o c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s , c u l t u r a l o b j e c t s , s o c i a l norms, language systems, t e c h n o l o g i c a l objects and values ( S h e r i f and S h e r i f 1969, L i t t l e 1972, Holland 1966 and Moos 1973). 20. Proponents of environmental and v o c a t i o n a l psychology suggest th a t more p r e c i s e p r e d i c t i o n s about human behavior can be made by assessing both the person and t h e i r stimulus environment (Holland 1966, Moos 1973 and L i t t l e 1972). Moos (1973) contends that d i f f e r e n t s o c i a l and p h y s i c a l environments r e q u i r e d i f f e r e n t types o f , " i n i t i a t i v e s , adaptive behaviors and prepatory copying mechanisms f o r the i n d i v i d u a l to be s u c c e s s f u l i n them." This n o t i o n u n d e r l i e s the concept of congruence; agreement between what the i n d i v i d u a l needs and what the s i t u a t i o n provides (Holland 1966). According to Holland (1966) the p a i r i n g of i n d i v i d u a l s and s i t u a t i o n s i s e i t h e r congruent or incongruent. Congruency i n v o l v e s s i t u a t i o n s where the elements i n the environment are w e l l s u i t e d to the person's coping a b i l i t i e s . Incongruency occurs when the requirements of a s i t u a t i o n and the i n d i v i d u a l ' s needs are i n c o n s i s t e n t . This places a type of environmental s t r e s s on the i n d i v i d u a l , c r e a t i n g a lack of p s y c h o l o g i c a l f i t between the i n d i v i d u a l and the s i t u a t i o n . Degrees of congruency vary, some i n d i v i d u a l s f i n d i n g some environments more comfortable than others. A b a s i c assumption of t h i s theory and t h i s study i s ; the j u x t a p o s i t i o n of various types of d i s c i p l i n a r y s p e c i a l i s t s and the demands of the p o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y research s i t u a t i o n r e s u l t s i n v a r y i n g b e h a v i o r i a l outcomes. At one extreme, i t i s hypothesized that congruent p a i r i n g s w i l l i n t e n s i f y d e s i r a b l e outcomes such as; personal s t a b i l i t y , v o c a t i o n a l and academic achievement and perhaps, c r e a t i v e performance. At the other extreme, incongruent p a i r i n g s are hypothesized to be l e s s p r e d i c t a b l e i n terms o f i n d i v i d u a l and group outcomes (Holland 1966). 21. L i k e r t (1961) elaborates on the e f f e c t s of d i f f e r e n t degrees of congruency by suggesting, " t h a t when experiences f a l l short of expectations, we tend to have unfavourable, a t t i t u d e s " . Krech (1962) defines a t t i t u d e s as, "enduring systems of p o s i t i v e or negative e v a l u a t i o n s , emotional f e e l i n g s and pro or con a c t i o n tendencies with respect to s o c i a l o b j e c t s " . Holland (1966) t h e o r i z e s that the i n d i v i d u a l acquires a number of s p e c i a l p r e d i s -p o s i t i o n s , preferences or h a b i t u a l ways of coping w i t h s i t u a t i o n s presented by s o c i a l , p s y c h o l o g i c a l and p h y s i c a l environments. He i d e n t i f i e s three aspects of human environments which impact upon the i n d i v i d u a l : a) p e r s o n a l i t i e s i n the environment, b) the p h y s i c a l s e t t i n g , c) s p e c i a l problems and s t r e s s e s of the environment. Moos (1973) suggests that the most s a l i e n t dimensions of an o r g a n i z a t i o n are: a) other people, b) o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r self-enhancement, c) how the system i s c o n t r o l l e d , maintained, ordered, c l a r i f i e d and changed. Consequently, people search f o r v o c a t i o n a l and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l environments, "that w i l l permit them to e x e r c i s e t h e i r s k i l l s and a b i l i t i e s , to express t h e i r a t t i t u d e s and v a l u e s , to take on agreeable r o l e s to and to avoid disagreeable one " (Holland 1966). Georgiou (1973) maintains that the b a s i c s t r a t e g i c f a c t o r i n any o r g a n i z a t i o n i s the i n d i v i d u a l . O rganization can only be a t t a i n e d based on a s c e r t a i n i n g the rewards (needs) which various i n d i v i d u a l s pursue through p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n groups. Georgiou envisions the o r g a n i z a t i o n as a market 22. place i n which i n c e n t i v e s are exchanged. The essence o f t h i s paradigm i s t h a t , "the emergence o f o r g a n i z a t i o n s , t h e i r s t r u c t u r e of r o l e s , d i v i s i o n of l a b o r , d i s t r i b u t i o n of power as w e l l as t h e i r maintenance, change and d i s s o l u t i o n can best be understood as the outcome of complex exchanges between i n d i v i d u a l s pursuing a d i v e r s i t y of goa l s . " From the pe r s p e c t i v e of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l p a r t i c i p a n t s , the o r g a n i z a t i o n o f f e r s inducements f o r member c o n t r i b u t i o n s . So long as the inducements or fav o r a b l e aspects of the s i t u a t i o n are perce i v e d to be equal or i n excess of member c o n t r i b u t i o n s , members w i l l be more l i k e l y t o j o i n or remain i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n . I f the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s i t u a t i o n i s perceived as having a low p a r t i c i p a t i o n - s a t i s f a c t i o n i n c e n t i v e , the i n d i v i d u a l i s l i k e l y to r u l e out p a r t i c i p a t i o n because the c o n d i t i o n s i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l environment are outside h i s / h e r zone of acceptance (Birnbaum 1975). I m p l i c i t i n t h i s theory i s the "sat i s f a c t i o n - c a u s e s - p e r f o r m a n c e " hypthesis. Organ (1977) i n a recent l i t e r a t u r e review of the work done i n t h i s area, f i n d s t h a t e m p i r i c a l r e s u l t s are s u f f i c i e n t l y e q u i v o c a l to j u s t i f y an open mind and continued study i n the area. He contends t h a t the " s a t i s f a c t i o n -causes-performance" hypothesis merits c o n s i d e r a t i o n from the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l p e r s p e c t i v e which views r e c i p r o c i t y i n s o c i a l exchange as a normative determinant of much i n d i v i d u a l behavior i n s o c i a l systems. However, measures of s a t i s f a c t i o n are a perceptual matter, d e f i n e d by p r i v a t e and i d i o s y n c r a t i c evaluations of the i n d i v i d u a l . Consequently, i n d i v i d u a l s d i f f e r i n what they regard as appropriate i n c e n t i v e s , c o n t r i b u t i o n s and comfortable o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s i t u a t i o n s (Summer 1976, L i k e r t 1961, Holland 1966, Moos 1973, Burns and S t a l k e r 1961). Organ suggests t h a t the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f p e r s o n a l i t y p a t t e r n s , which r e l a t e to such v a r i a t i o n , should lend greater p r e d i c t i v e power to " r e c i p r o c i t y " as a general theory 23. i n s o c i a l and organizational sciences. Caplow (1954) has offered the term "voluntarism" to connotate an organization's a b i l i t y to provide s a t i s f a c t i o n for i t s members and the desire of i t s members to continue the i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n . It i s estimated that of a l l the academics who are p o t e n t i a l l y involvable i n pol y d i s c i p l i n a r y research, only a f r a c t i o n would consider doing so (Zachar 1976). Often, "practitioners finding i t rewarding continue to develop and promote i t s practice, while those having unsatisfying experience grew b i t t e r and become harsh c r i t i c s . . . " (Newell et al. , 1975). Pa r t i c i p a t i o n i n polydisciplinary research, " . . . i s based on the researcher's decision that i t w i l l be of personal and s c i e n t i f i c p r o f i t for him to leave the central area of his d i s c i p l i n e and explore the fringes" (Caudill and Roberts 1951). Summer (1976) suggests that incentives for organizational members to perform stems from a variety of basic motivations and member characteristics. Barnard (1949) also regards the motives of the individuals p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n organizations as the c r i t i c a l determinant of organizational functioning. Summer (1976) observes that different "types" of organizations have b u i l t into them certain human processes which resu l t i n more or less productivity and s a t i s f a c t i o n for t h e i r members. Satisfaction depending upon both the characteristics of the individual and the organization. He suggests that organizational situations vary i n th e i r effect on: a) emotions and attitudes of participants, b) technological and economic payoffs, c) the psychological atmosphere. 24. 2:4 The S i t u a t i o n ; P o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y Teams as Small Complex P r o f e s s i o n a l  Organizations. P o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y research teams c o n s i s t of those academics, p r o f e s s i o n a l s , students and non-professionals who provide some needed s e r v i c e i n the conduct of a research p r o j e c t . P e l l i g r i n o (1970) defines a team as any group of persons c o o p e r a t i v e l y working together f o r the attainment of some defined g o a l . Bennis (1956) observes that when a p r o j e c t i s taken on by a group as opposed to an i n d i v i d u a l , methodologically appropriate r u l e s of s o c i a l behavior need to be found and formulated. Bush (1953) defines the team requirement.as one i n which members must submerge some of t h e i r own c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s f o r the common good. G i l l e s p i e and Gross (1976) have c h a r a c t e r i z e d p o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y research teams i n academic s e t t i n g s by suggesting that they are s m a l l , complex, p r o f e s s i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s . Small o r g a n i z a t i o n s have been defined by Gross and Grambsch (1976) as, "...goal d i r e c t e d systems i n v o l v i n g the d i r e c t i n t e r a c t i o n of a l l members". G i l l e s p i e (1976) suggests that the s i z e of small o r g a n i z a t i o n s i s l i m i t e d by, "...the face-to-face a v a i l a b i l i t y of every member to every other member." Consequently, small o r g a n i z a t i o n s range i n s i z e from three to t h i r t y members. The o r g a n i z a t i o n a l elements comprising small o r g a n i z a t i o n s are more e l u s i v e than medium or large s i z e d o r g a n i z a t i o n s . F o r m a l i z a t i o n of r o l e s and r e l a t i o n s h i p s are e a s i l y observable i n large o r g a n i z a t i o n s . Even small changes i n membership a l t e r the s t r u c t u r e of small o r g a n i z a t i o n s because of t h e i r s i z e . In l a r g e r o r g a n i z a t i o n s the b a s i c o p e r a t i o n a l f a c i l i t a t i n g mechanism i s the management h i e r a r c h y (Lawrence and Lorsch 1969). 25. However, the small o r g a n i z a t i o n represents a " . . . r e l a t i v e l y simple system compared t o large o r g a n i z a t i o n s . . . a small o r g a n i z a t i o n operates mainly through the. personal r e l a t i o n s h i p s of i t s members and only s e c o n d a r i l y through impersonal, i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d r e l a t i o n s h i p s " (Grey 1977). Consequently, the nature o f the personal r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n sm a l l o r g a n i z a t i o n s n e c e s s a r i l y e f f e c t s the o r g a n i z a t i o n s b a s i s f o r c o o r d i n a t i o n , cooperation, s t r u c t u r e and the p o t e n t i a l f o r c o n f l i c t . " O r g a n i z a t i o n a l c o n t r o l i s more or l e s s a problem i n a l l o r g a n i z a t i o n s . I t i s more of a problem i n or g a n i z a t i o n s comprised o f p r o f e s s i o n a l s and i t i s p a r t i c u l a r l y problematic i n s m a l l , complex or g a n i z a t i o n s which r e q u i r e p r o f e s s i o n a l s of d i f f e r e n t d i s c i p l i n e s to coordinate t h e i r e f f o r t s toward a common g o a l " ( G i l l e s p i e 1976) . As Georgiou (1973) suggests, the motives and the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of p a r t i c i p a t i n g team members have i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r the ways i n which the members are l i k e l y to r e s t r i c t and modify the i n c e n t i v e s and behavior of others. Conversely, the group atmosphere; i t s v a l u e s , the s t a b i l i t y of these va l u e s , as w e l l as the nature o f conformity demanded by the group, determine whether i t i s l i k e l y to have a p o s i t i v e or negative impact upon the behavior of i t s members ( L i k e r t 1961). The v i a b i l i t y of small o r g a n i z a t i o n s i m p l i e s the achievement of a b a s i s f o r c o o r d i n a t i o n developed on good i n t e r - p e r s o n a l i n t e r a c t i o n s and shared values (Caplow 1954). Therefore, a concern f o r members a t t r i b u t e s and the c o n f l i c t p o t e n t i a l inherent i n the makeup of p o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y teams becomes c e n t r a l to the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of these e n t i t i e s . 26. Newell et al. (1975) have observed that because of the nature of t h e i r p r o f e s s i o n a l membership, no one i n d i v i d u a l or o r g a n i z a t i o n a l arrangement can provide, a l l the necessary s u p e r v i s i o n and d i r e c t i o n f o r p o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y teams. A c c o r d i n g l y , G i l l e s p i e (1976) contends that the composition o f the team bears d i r e c t l y on the t o t a l a d m i n i s t r a t i v e and t e c h n i c a l process of these types o f o r g a n i z a t i o n s . The e a r l i e s t w r i t e r s i n t h i s area suggest that the problem of member c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and team composition i n p o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y research i s of c r i t i c a l importance. The p e r s o n a l i t i e s of researchers are thought to be of greater importance i n group compared to s o l o research (Luzski 1957). B l a c k w e l l (1955) found on the b a s i s o f h i s c o l l a b o r a t i v e experience, t h a t the choice o f s t a f f f o r p o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y research r e q u i r e s a t t e n t i o n to f a r more than t e c h n i c a l t r a i n i n g and competence. He provides a s e r i e s of p r o s c r i p t i v e , n on-professional q u a l i f i c a t i o n s upon which to s c r u t i n i z e p o t e n t i a l group members. C a u d i l l and Roberts (1951) suggest from t h e i r socio-medical research experience t h a t "team members need to be both i n t e l l e c t u a l l y and emotionally congenial people". M i l l e r , (1954) w r i t i n g on research design i n group p r o j e c t s , documents that research conducted i n t o s o c i a l d e p r i v a t i o n on i s o l a t e d m i l i t a r y posts, was the product of s o c i a l process. Kast, Rosenzweig and Stockman, (1951) i n analy z i n g a ceramics p o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y research p r o j e c t sponsored by N.A.S.A., acknowledge problems a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the composition o f teams, i n c l u d i n g , d i f f e r e n c e s i n s t y l e s of research, variances i n commitment and competitiveness among team members. 27. Kluckholn (1948) observes, "th a t above a l l , p o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y research i s an i n t e r - p e r s o n a l s i t u a t i o n and must be s t u d i e d i n r e l a t i o n to the s t r u c t u r e of the s i t u a t i o n as w e l l as the i n d i v i d u a l p e r s o n a l i t i e s i n v o l v e d . " B l a c k w e l l (1955) emphasizes that i n order to "keep competing i n t e r e s t s i n the i n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y team down, c a r e f u l s t a f f s e l e c t i o n i s necessary." Newell et al. (1975) have suggested a s e r i e s of personnel a t t r i b u t e s i n hopes of p r o v i d i n g p r i n c i p l e i n v e s t i g a t o r s w i t h c r i t e r i a f o r s t a f f s e l e c t i o n . S t o d g i l l (1971) notes that the r i g h t of an o r g a n i z a t i o n to determine the composition of i t s membership may be a c r i t i c a l f a c t o r i n i t s c a p a c i t y f o r s u r v i v a l . F a c u l t y members have been t r a i n e d and s e l e c t e d on the b a s i s of t h e i r a b i l i t y to conduct i n d i v i d u a l research, not f o r t h e i r a b i l i t y to p a r t i c i p a t e i n team e f f o r t (Newell et al. 1975). Bush (1950) remarks that because o f elaborate p e r s o n a l i t y and work patterns developed i n the researcher, some i n d i v i d u a l s are not able to p a r t i c i p a t e i n group work. Bennis (1956) p o i n t s out that because there i s a lack of team t r a d i t i o n i n s c i e n c e , there i s a k i n d of, "normlessness to p o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y research due to d i f f e r e n c e s among team members concerning: a) appropriate formal i n t e g r a t i n g devices, b) research methodologies". 28. G i l l e s p i e (1976) suggests that i n the absence of norms governing member i n t e r a c t i o n , b e h a v i o r i a l i n f l u e n c e s are o f t e n c a r r i e d over from other c u l t u r e s such as p r o f e s s i o n a l a s s o c i a t i o n s or the l a r g e r i n s t i t u t i o n a l s e t t i n g . In the absence of shared operating norms i n p o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y research s i t u a t i o n s , r e l a t i o n s of power, d i s c i p l i n a r y and personal r i v a l r i e s , research methodologies and p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a t u s d i f f e r e n c e s a l l become c e n t r a l to the process of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l d e c i s i o n making. P o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y case s t u d i e s provide instances of t h i s process i n d e s c r i p t i o n s of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c o n f l i c t , member d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l d i s s o l u t i o n (Maybry 1966, S t r i n g e r 1970, C a u d i l l and Roberts 1951, Kast and Rosenzweig 1970). To the extent that the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l elements of s t a t u s , power and a u t h o r i t y are c a r r i e d over from the e x t e r n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n a l environment of the u n i v e r s i t y , p o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y research teams are dependant on both the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the i n s t i t u t i o n a l environment and team members ( G i l l e s p i e 1976). P o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y o r g a n i z a t i o n s are complex. O r g a n i z a t i o n a l complexity i s defined by a high degree of knowledge r e q u i r e d to produce the o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s product. I t i s u s u a l l y measured by member education or the f u n c t i o n a l d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n or s p e c i a l i z a t i o n of task u n i t s ( G i l l e s p i e and M i l l e t i 1976). The p o t e n t i a l f o r group c o n f l i c t i n o r g a n i z a t i o n s increases w i t h the v a r i e t y of p r o f e s s i o n a l s i n c o r p o r a t e d (Thompson 1967). Lawrence and Lorsch (1969) have suggested that when o r g a n i z a t i o n a l members are h i g h l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e d , i t i s d i f f i c u l t to achieve cooperation because the i n d i v i d u a l s have such d i f f e r e n t ways of t h i n k i n g and doing t h i n g s . According to 29. Thompson (1967), i t may be p o s s i b l e to have an o r g a n i z a t i o n a l membership so d i v i d e d , that i t immobilizes coordinated a c t i v i t y . B l a c k w e l l (1955) observes that developments w i t h i n f i e l d s of s p e c i a l i z a t i o n f r e q u e n t l y have weakened and sometimes destroyed the p o s s i b i l i f o r i n t e r - f i e l d communication. Herzog (1959) comments on the b a s i s of e v a l u a t i o n research experience, t h a t , " s p e c i a l i s t s are c h a r a c t e r i z e d by i n t e r p r o f e s s i o n a l divergences i n viewpoints which p e r s i s t as b a r r i e r s to communication and consensus and which have to be overcome i n any attempt at c o l l a b o r a t i o n " . This c o n f l i c t p o t e n t i a l i s aggravated i n p o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y research due to the interdependencies imposed on team members engaged i n i n t e n s i v e type technologies (Thompson 1967). A p a r t i c u l a r k i n d of technology i s d e f i n e d by the types and patterns of human a c t i v i t i e s , equipment, m a t e r i a l s , knowledge and experience r e q u i r e d to perform a s p e c i f i c task ( G i l l e s p i e and M i l l e t t i 1976). Technologies vary i n the degree to which these requirements are known and s t a b l e (Summer 1976). Thompson has defined research as an " i n t e n s i v e - t y p e " technology. An i n t e n s i v e technology i s one i n which, "a v a r i e t y of techniques are drawn upon i n order to achieve a change i n some s p e c i f i e d o b j e c t , the s e l e c t i o n , combination and order of a p p l i c a t i o n are determined by feedback from the object i t s e l f " (Thompson 1967). I n t e n s i v e technologies are f u r t h e r c h a r a c t e r i z e d by t h e ' r e c i p r o c a l interdependances' imposed i n work processing on the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l p a r t i c i p a n t s . R e c i p r o c a l interdependance "does not n e c e s s a r i l y mean that each member i s dependant on and supports every member i n a d i r e c t way...yet they may be interdependant i n the sense that unless each i n d i v i d u a l performs adequately, the t o t a l i s j e o p a r d i z e d " (Thompson 1967). 30. As a r e s u l t of t h i s interdependence, i n t e n s i v e technologies r e q u i r e the most c o s t l y form of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c o o r d i n a t i o n ; mutual adjustment among o r g a n i z a t i o n a l p a r t i c i p a n t s . Bennis (1956) observes that team research exposes the o r g a n i z a t i o n to constant f l u x and d i s e q u i l i b r i u m . Research i n t o the dynamics of problem s o l v i n g groups looks at the assembly e f f e c t of member a t t r i b u t e s on problem-solving e f f e c t i v e n e s s . Maier (1961) has found that f o r group problem-solving te c h n o l o g i e s , "the a t t r i b u t e s of each i n d i v i d u a l may be less important than the p e c u l i a r composition of backgrounds and experiences represented by various members of the team... Group process v a r i a b l e s act to e i t h e r f a c i l i t a t e or i n h i b i t these compositional e f f e c t s " . E m p i r i c a l r e s u l t s of work i n t h i s area have shown that the problem s o l u t i o n r e s u l t s of groups composed of members who are homogeneous and heterogeneous along various dimensions produce q u a l i t a t i v e l y d i f f e r e n t s o l u t i o n s . The dimensions s t u d i e d i n c l u d e ; sex, p e r s o n a l i t y a t t r i b u t e s , values and approaches to problem s o l v i n g . Heterogeneous groups c o n s i s t e n t l y produce both q u a l i t a t i v e l y and i n n o v a t i v e l y b e t t e r s o l u t i o n s to a v a r i e t y of problem types (Shepard 1954, Smith 1971, Hoffman 1959, Hoffman and Maier 1961). These r e s u l t s are c o n s i s t e n t with M a i e r 1 s f i n d i n g s i n the i n d i v i d u a l , where the i n d i v i d u a l w i t h many perceptual d i r e c t i o n s i s more l i k e l y to be a s u c c e s s f u l problem s o l v e r than the person who i s i n f l e x i b l e and adheres to a s i n g l e d i r e c t i o n . The l o g i c a l e x t e n t i o n of these f i n d i n g s , a p p l i e d to groups, i m p l i e s that the m u l t i p l e perceptions a v a i l a b l e from members of heterogeneous problem s o l v i n g groups y i e l d s the higher q u a l i t y s o l u t i o n s . Herein, l i e s the c r e a t i v e p o t e n t i a l to be tapped i n p o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y research. •31. P e l z and Andrews (1966) found that i n d i v i d u a l research performance was gr e a t e s t i n s i t u a t i o n s which contained colleagues w i t h both s i m i l a r and d i s s i m i l a r personal a t t r i b u t e s . However, Hoffman found that the tendancy toward i n d i v i d u a l acceptance of group s o l u t i o n s was e s p e c i a l l y marked i n homogeneous groups. The i m p l i c a t i o n being that groups composed of members with s i m i l a r a t t r i b u t e s apply s i m i l a r p e r s p e c t i v e s to the problem and group s o l u t i o n s are consequently more r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e and acceptable to a l l members of the group (Hoffman 1959). I f , however, member a t t r i b u t e s become too extreme, as they of t e n do i n p o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y research, the p o t e n t i a l f o r c o n f l i c t i ncreases. Problem s o l u t i o n p r o c e ssing becomes d i f f i c u l t i f not impossible. Hoffman and Maier (1961) designed problems to place s t r a i n on heterogeneous groups by exaggerating the d i f f e r e n c e s among group members. These types of problems created greater c o n f l i c t i n the heterogeneous groups than i n the homogeneous groups. However, c e r t a i n heterogeneous groups were able to r e s o l v e the c o n f l i c t . The c o n f l i c t among p a r t i c i p a n t s r e s u l t s from opposing p o i n t s o f view, the expression of which may have e i t h e r p o s i t i v e or negative e f f e c t s on o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c o o r d i n a t i o n (Coser 1956) . Li m i t s to the f u n c t i o n a l and c r e a t i v e p o t e n t i a l i n p o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y research seems to be when teams are composed of members with unreasonably extreme a t t r i b u t e s i n r e l a t i o n to one another. Members may be more or les s compatible along dimensions such as p e r s o n a l i t y , sex, approaches to problem s o l v i n g , values as w e l l as d i s c i p l i n a r y and p r o f e s s i o n a l operating norms. We are suggesting that the degree o f heterogeneity among members of p o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y teams, provides more or le s s p o t e n t i a l f o r c o n f l i c t i n the group. 32. In summary, c e r t a i n problems of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c o o r d i n a t i o n i n the p o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y research team can be p a r t i a l l y explained by the a t t r i b u t e s o f i n d i v i d u a l o r g a n i z a t i o n a l p a r t i c i p a n t s , the i n t e r p e r s o n a l demands of the p o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y research s i t u a t i o n and the degree of heterogeneity present i n the composition of the research team. 2:5 O r g a n i z a t i o n a l P a r t i c i p a t i o n of Academic P r o f e s s i o n a l s What i s recognized i n the l i t e r a t u r e on p o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y teams i s not g e n e r a l l y recognized i n the work d e a l i n g w i t h the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n of p r o f e s s i o n a l s . Most of the l i t e r a t u r e on the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n of p r o f e s s i o n a l s focuses on large b u r e a u c r a t i c o r g a n i z a t i o n s . This m a t e r i a l tends to have an a n t i - b u r e a u c r a t i c b i a s and im p l i e s that a l l modes of p r o f e s s i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n are i n c o n f l i c t with b u r e a u c r a t i c - t y p e c o n t r o l systems (Gardner 1975, L i k e r t 1961, Dalton 1970, Aiken and Hage 1968, and M i l l e r 1954). Recent developments i n the area suggest, however, that b u r e a u c r a t i c and p r o f e s s i o n a l p r i n c i p l e s of o r g a n i z i n g are not incompatible. What i s being i n c r e a s i n g l y r e a l i z e d i s that various types of p r o f e s s i o n a l s have d i f f e r e n t o perating norms. These norms vary i n : a) the way p r o f e s s i o n a l s define the task s i t u a t i o n , b) d i f f e r e n t tolerances f o r types of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e and support systems (Goss 1961, G i l l e s p i e and Mo r r i s s y 1977, Toren 1976 and H a l l 1968). Several authors have demonstrated that some p r o f e s s i o n a l s are more or less amenable to r o u t i n a t i o n . The greater the discrepancy between the p r o f e s s i o n a l ' s norms and the o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s , the greater the p o t e n t i a l f o r c o n f l i c t , a l i e n a t i o n and d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n ( G i l l e s p i e and Morrissey 1977). 33. L i t t e r e r (1970) i n a comparative study of research and operating departments i n s e v e r a l i n d u s t r i e s found that the research departments could be g e n e r a l l y c h a r a c t e r i z e d as being l e s s s t r u c t u r e d , having fewer h i e r a r c h i c l e v e l s , w i t h broader spans of c o n t r o l , l e s s s p e c i f i c i t y of performance, fewer and l e s s comprehensive r u l e s than o p e r a t i o n a l departments. Grey (1977) suggests that there i s a tendancy f o r autonomous p r o f e s s i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s to be less s t r u c t u r e d than e i t h e r the mixed or the p r o f e s s i o n a l department of a l a r g e r o r g a n i z a t i o n . L u s z k i (1957) i n a symposium of p o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y researchers, found that c e r t a i n types of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e s may be set up i m p l i c i t l y because of the work h a b i t s and expectations of those having a major r o l e i n the research. This suggests that s p e c i a l i s t ' s a t t i t u d e s towards the work environment need to be taken i n t o account i n s t r u c t u r i n g the group s i t u a t i o n . Academic p r o f e s s i o n a l s are c h a r a c t e r i z e d by t h e i r s p e c i a l i z e d e x p e r t i s e , t h e i r autonomy i n d e c i s i o n making and a l o y a l i t y to t h e i r s p e c i a l i t y (Wilensky 1964). Gaff and Wilson (1968) found academics to be h i g h l y task o r i e n t e d people who d e r i v e a great deal of i n t r i n s i c s a t i s f a c t i o n from t h e i r work. Out of the f i v e types of s c i e n t i s t s s t u d i e d , Pelz and Andrews (1966) found that Phds. i n academic labs have the highest needs f o r s e l f - a c t u a l i z a t i o n . This group was a l s o found to be the group most s t r o n g l y i n v o l v e d i n t h e i r work. Of those academics studied and found to be the highest research performers on s e v e r a l output measures; an i n d i v i d u a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c which as s o c i a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y with performance was s t r e n g t h of o r i e n t a t i o n towards ones d i s c i p l i n e (Pelz and Andrews 1966). 34. Several s t u d i e s have demonstrated that Phds. i n both i n d u s t r i a l and academic s e t t i n g s overwhelmingly endorse an o r i e n t a t i o n towards s c i e n c e , r a t h e r than toward the o r g a n i z a t i o n s i n which they work (Pelz and Andrews 1966). Hagstrom (1965) defines the p r o f e s s i o n a l s c i e n t i s t as an i n d i v i d u a l with commitments to h i s own goals, which i m p l i e s that s/he i s not e a s i l y deployed by others. Lynton (1969) a l s o suggests t h a t s c i e n t i s t s seek to safeguard t h e i r autonomy. Thompson (1969) observes that the l o c a l markets f o r these occupati are q u i t e l i m i t e d . To the extent that the i n d i v i d u a l maintains v i s i b i l i t y among colleagues i n n a t i o n a l and i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l s and p r o f e s s i o n a l a s s o c i a t i o n s , the i n d i v i d u a l ' s r e p u t a t i o n increases and dependance on a s p e c i f i c o r g a n i z a t i o n i s decreased. M i l l e r (1954) contends that the p r o f e s s i o n a l researcher wants to choose h i s problem, be given p r o p r i e t a r y r i g h t s to p u b l i c a t i o n and have c o n t r o l over h i s working c o n d i t i o n s . Some of the above c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s have been found to be i n c o n s i s t a n t w i t h c e r t a i n demands of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c o n t r o l (Newhauser 1972). L i k e r t (1961) explains that an, "extended exposure to an education system which emphasizes i n d i v i d u a l i n i t i a t i v e , r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and a u t h o r i t y . , increases the l i k e l i h o o d that these values w i l l be accepted by the i n d i v i d u a l and c a r r i e d over i n t o work s i t u a t i o n s . " Consequently, the workstyle c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of s p e c i a l i s t s have important i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r the s t r u c t u r e of p o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y teams ( G i l l e s p i e and Gross 1976). 35, Fincher (1965) i n a review of research on research management, observes that although socio-economic, working conditions and organizational arrangements are recognized as factors e f f e c t i n g research p r o d u c t i v i t y , research on the general s t r u c t u r a l variables has been noticeably neglected. Shepard (1954) has suggested that administrative r e a l i t i e s i n the research s i t u a t i o n are an important part of the s o c i a l environment and t h e i r e f f e c t s on'.ibehavior. require i n v e s t i g a t i o n . The administrative arrangements of p o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y research s i t u a t i o n s evolve i n response to the need f o r assigning s p e c i f i c r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s and f o r developing organizational means to integrate i n d i v i d u a l s and the i n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y e f f o r t (Kast and Rosenzweig 1970). Consequently, d i s c i p l i n a r y s p e c i a l i s t ' s attitudes towards a l t e r n a t i v e forms of organizing work w i l l be explored by t h i s t h e s i s . Summer (1976) has observed that i n d i v i d u a l s vary i n t h e i r need f o r st r u c t u r e , defined as "stable expectancies". "Situations may be understructured or over structured i n r e l a t i o n to an i n d i v i d u a l ' s zone of acceptance." Varying degrees of f l e x i b i l i t y or r o u t i n a t i o n i n organizational s i t u a t i o n s present varying p r o b a b i l i t i e s that c e r t a i n behaviors may be r e s t r i c t e d or encouraged through p a r t i c i p a t i o n (Summer 1976, Organ 1977). Katz and Kahn (1966) have found that members of formal organizations do respond to v i s i b l e organizational pressures; the negative consequences of increased organizational s i z e on workers job attitudes i s well documented. Argyris (1957) has written extensively concerning the c o n f l i c t between i n d i v i d u a l needs for s e l f - a c t u a l i z a t i o n and processes imposed on the i n d i v i d u a l i n bureaucratic organizations. (Likert 1961, Gardner 1975 and Mason 1976) have a l l found that an i n d i v i d u a l member of an organization w i l l always i n t e r p r e t an i n t e r a c t i o n between himself and the organization i n terms of h i s background, culture, experiences and expectations. 36. Shepard (19S4) found, i n a study of a M.I.T. group research lab, that the i n d i v i d u a l researcher's a t t i t u d e towards the lab provided the basis for c o l l a b o r a t i o n . Birnbaum (1975), i n a study of 40 independent variables which effected the in-process performance of p o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y teams, found that the researcher's a t t i t u d e towards the project was the most important performance v a r i a b l e . Mason (1976), based on h i s study of the p o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y i n s t i t u t e s at the U n i v e r s i t y of Washington, suggests that the basis of coordination i n these enterprises does not l i e i n administrative manipulation, nor i n c o l l e c t i v e c o l l e g i a l action. I t l i e s with the i n d i v i d u a l researcher. Pelz and Andrews (1966) i n t h e i r study of s c i e n t i s t s i n f i v e types of organizational s e t t i n g s , found that these research environments varied i n t h e i r degree of organizational f l e x i b i l i t y . Measures of i n d i v i d u a l research performance within these f i v e settings v a r i e d most s i g n i f i c a n t l y with i n d i v i d u a l motivational f a c t o r s . Mason (1976) found that a major basis of formal and informal structure i n p o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y i n s t i t u t e s , r e l a t e d to the world view, research philosophy, p e r s o n a l i t y and drive of the d i r e c t o r . He also found that d i s c i p l i n a r y differences i n experience and administrative o r i e n t a t i o n created operational b a r r i e r s i n the research process. Ikenberry and Friedman (1972) suggest that men tend to define tasks and the structure of tasks i n terms of t h e i r conceptual frame of reference and personal competencies. Academic research professionals import various work standards into the group research s i t u a t i o n . Consequently, G i l l e s p i e (1976) hypothesizes that the "face-to-face" nature of these small organizations may require at least compatible working s t y l e s among members. 37. He suggests that the most important f a c t o r i n p u t t i n g a small organization together, i s to s e l e c t and combine the r i g h t people. In order to be successful, small organizations, "must structure or control member r e l a t i o n s such that d i f f e r e n t perspectives fuse together i n a complementary and productive way" ( G i l l e s p i e 1976). For instance, he found that p o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y teams di s p l a y i n g a 'status concordant' group organization were more successful i n obtaining research funding, than those which displayed a 'status disconcordance' between administrative r o l e s i n the organization and the d i s c i p l i n a r y status of members of the team. Status concordance was based on an o b j e c t i v e l y determined status ranking of a l l d i s c i p l i n e s at the University of Washington. Pelz and Andrews (1966) found that i n d i v i d u a l research performance was greatest when: a) there was a difference between what the researcher desired i n terms of autonomy and f l e x i b i l i t y and that which the organizational s e t t i n g provided. b) colleagues i n the immediate reserach environment included those whose attributes were both s i m i l a r and d i s s i m i l a r to the researcher. These findings, coupled with those r e l a t i n g to team heterogeneity i n problem so l v i n g groups, suggest that a research environment should incorporate enough d i v e r s i t y to maintain a creative tension among in d i v i d u a l s and between i n d i v i d u a l s and the structure of the s i t u a t i o n . However, evidence from the experience of p o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y resarch teams and environmental psychology, suggests that these differences must be c o n t r o l l e d i n the research environment. Otherwise, the i n d i v i d u a l ' s tolerance f o r the 38. p o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y s i t u a t i o n may be r u l e d out; coordinated a c t i v i t y becoming impossible. In c o n c l u s i o n , Toren (1966) and others have suggested that the demand f o r new forms of p r o f e s s i o n a l combinations r e q u i r e that we focus on, "...various patterns of i n t e r - p e n e t r a t i o n and cooperation i m p l i e d by these modes of o r g a n i z i n g . " In p a r t i c u l a r , t h i s study looks at the i m p l i c a t i o n s of s p e c i a l i s t s ' a t t i t u d e s towards a l t e r n a t i v e work o r g a n i z i n g s t y l e s . , 39. H I - SPECIALIZATION AND THE SPECIFIC VARIABLES OF THE STUDY: Campbell (1969) has observed that the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a d i s c i p l i n e are never p e r f e c t l y r e a l i z e d i n any given d i s c i p l i n a r y s p e c i a l i s t . The a t t r i b u t e s of d i s c i p l i n a r y s p e c i a l i s t s are better explained by theories of personality a t t r a c t i o n and p r o f e s s i o n a l s o c i a l i z a t i o n . These include explanations of the complex personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and developments which accompany processes of s e l e c t i o n , recruitment, t r a i n i n g and maintenance of the d i s c i p l i n a r y professional's i d e n t i t y . Although these processes may be applied generally, we are concerned with the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a p a r t i c u l a r type of occupational s p e c i a l i z a t i o n ; that associated with the career development of d i s c i p l i n a r y s p e c i a l i s t s . 3:1 Theories of Personality A t t r a c t i o n to a S p e c i a l i t y : Theories of p e r s o n a l i t y stress a b a s i c o r i e n t a t i o n of i n d i v i d u a l s to t h e i r worlds. These c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i d e n t i f y s p e c i a l , d i s t i n c t i v e aspects of the i n d i v i d u a l personality which are r e f e r r e d to as "core aspects of personality; those r e l a t i v e l y unchanging, universal a t t r i b u t e s of psychological man" (Maddi 1968). Personal constructs which seek to define personality are "pervasive i n personality research; f i n d i n g expression i n such notions as introversion/extroversion, etc." ( L i t t l e 1972). Personality theory suggests that c e r t a i n "discernable groups of s o c i a l responses i n the i n d i v i d u a l are the r e s u l t of these innate or learned a t t r i b u t e s . " (Likert 1932). 40. A p p l i e d to d i s c i p l i n a r y s p e c i a l i s t s , a t t r a c t i o n theory suggests that the i n d i v i d u a l develops a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c , s e l e c t i v e o r i e n t a t i o n towards the t o t a l environment and that p s y c h o l o g i c a l man opts f o r some competencies at the expense of others ( L i t t l e 1972, Holland 1966). L i t t l e (1972) defines p e r s o n a l i t y s p e c i a l i z a t i o n as "the process through which objects i n the environment become s e l e c t i v e l y attended to by man."...To say a person i s a s p e c i a l i s t i s to imply; a) that s/he i s i n t e r e s t e d i n and p o s i t i v e l y o r i e n t e d toward a set of objects or events. b) that s/he spends a comparatively large p o r t i o n of a v a i l a b l e time i n a c t i v i t i e s i n v o l v i n g the s p e c i a l i t y . c) that h i s / h e r way of t h i n k i n g about these o b j e c t s , ideas or events i s comparatively advanced. The concept of the s p e c i a l i s t thus seems to t r a n s l a t e q u i t e r e a d i l y i n t o e f f e c t i v e , c o g n i t i v e and b e h a v i o r i a l terms..." ( L i t t l e , 1972). An extension of t h i s p e r s p e c t i v e , r e l e v a n t to t h i s study and found i n v o c a t i o n a l psychology, suggests that people choose f i e l d s of study and careers which are consonant w i t h t h e i r p e r s o n a l i t y s t r u c t u r e (Holland 1966, L i t t l e 1972, Gaff & Wilson 1968). Consequently, membership i n s p e c i f i c academic and p r o f e s s i o n a l s p e c i a l t i e s may be p a r t i a l l y explained by the d i f f e r e n t i a l a t t r a c t i o n and recruitment of persons with reasonably developed p e r s o n a l i t y p a t t e r n s . There i s some e m p i r i c a l evidence to s u b s t a n t i a t e t h i s theory of a t t r a c t i o n . V o c a t i o n a l choice research deals with the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of i n d i v i d u a l s choosing a l t e r n a t i v e s p e c i a l i t i e s . 41. Research conducted at M.I.T. looked at the i n t e r e s t d i f f e r e n c e s among 250 engineers engaged i n four s p e c i a l i s t a c t i v i t i e s i n 21 i n d u s t r i a l research l a b s . Results of the study included s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s among the f o u r groups i n i n d i v i d u a l o r i e n t a t i o n s towards people, t h i n g s , ideas and economic i n c e n t i v e s . Sales engineers were low i n t h e i r i n t e r e s t i n ideas and theory and were high i n economic i n c e n t i v e s . Development engineers had a high i n t e r e s t i n things and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e engineers were h i g h l y o r i e n t e d towards people. Research engineers were high i n t h e i r o r i e n t a t i o n towards ideas and theory and low i n t h e i r i n t e r e s t i n people and economic i n c e n t i v e s (Shepard 1954). There are a number of s t u d i e s which have focused on i n t e r e s t and p e r s o n a l i t y f a c t o r s as r e l a t e d to s p e c i a l i t y choice i n medicine. These st u d i e s have looked at socio-demographic f a c t o r s , measures of academic a b i l i t y , medical G.P.A.s, c l a s s rank, p e r s o n a l i t y and i n t e r e s t f a c t o r s . These studies have g e n e r a l l y been s u c c e s s f u l i n i d e n t i f y i n g s i g n i f i c a n t p e r s o n a l i t y a s s o c i a t i o n s w i t h s p e c i a l i t y choice (Marmon 1976). For example, i n a l o n g i t u d i n a l study of 2,500 medical students from 28 medical schools i n the U.S., Shumacher i d e n t i f i e d , , on the b a s i s of p e r s o n a l i t y and i n t e r e s t t e s t s administered at entrance to medical s c h o o l , d i s t i n c t groups of i n d i v i d u a l s choosing p a r t i c u l a r s p e c i a l i t i e s at the end of medical school. Shumacher found d i s t i n c t i v e d i f f e r e n c e s i n p e r s o n a l i t y and i n t e r e s t f a c t o r s between groups of i n d i v i d u a l s choosing f u l l - t i m e p r a c t i c e compared to those who chose f u l l - t i m e or part-time academic careers. The academically o r i e n t e d group appeared to have higher t h e o r e t i c / a r t i s t i c , 42. lower p r a c t i c a l economic, higher s o c i a l welfare and dominance needs than those choosing f u l l - t i m e p r a c t i c e careers. Within t h i s academically o r i e n t e d group, the p s y c h i a t r y group appeared to have higher t h e o r e t i c / a r t i s t i c i n t e r e s t s and higher s o c i a l welfare i n t e r e s t s than the surgery or medicine groups. The academic medicine group apparently has higher s o c i a l welfare i n t e r e s t than the academic surgery group (Shumacher, 1976). In a l o n g i t u d i n a l study of choice of major i n business s c h o o l , Frost and Barnowe (1976) assessed p e r s o n a l i t y and s i t u a t i o n a l i n f l u e n c e s on choice of major. They compared student responses to the business school experience on the b a s i s of the students' o r i e n t a t i o n to persons and t h i n g s . The hypothesis that p e r s o n a l i t y o r i e n t a t i o n predisposes students to be p o s i t i v e l y i n f l u e n c e d by teachers i n person and t h i n g o r i e n t e d f i e l d s was p a r t i a l l y supported. Thing s p e c i a l i s t s appeared to be more i n f l u e n c e d by c o n s i d e r a t i o n s l i k e s a l a r y and e m p l o y a b i l i t y . Students o r i e n t e d to people appeared more i n f l u e n c e d i n t h e i r choice of major by teachers than d i d the t h i n g o r i e n t e d students. Thing s p e c i a l i s t s appeared to be more i n t r o v e r t e d than person s p e c i a l i s t s . There was some support that person o r i e n t a t i o n may i n f l u e n c e performance i n courses. L i t t l e (1972) i n a s e r i e s of p e r s o n a l i t y studies of Canadian and B r i t i s h u n i v e r s i t y students majoring i n d i f f e r e n t f i e l d s , found r e l i a b l y d i f f e r e n t p e r s o n a l i t y o r i e n t a t i o n s among students i n the p h y s i c a l , s o c i a l and humanities areas. 43. Summarizing, t h e o r i e s of p e r s o n a l i t y a t t r a c t i o n and v o c a t i o n a l choice emphasize that i n d i v i d u a l s e x h i b i t p a r t i c u l a r patterns of p e r s o n a l i t y . These a t t r i b u t e s i n c l u d e i d e n t i f i a b l e o r i e n t a t i o n s towards prefered i n t e r e s t s and competencies which can be a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the s e l e c t i v e channeling of d i s p o s i t i o n s and a b i l i t i e s i n t o f i e l d s of s p e c i a l i z a t i o n . 3:2 S p e c i a l i z a t i o n and Theories of P r o f e s s i o n a l S o c i a l i z a t i o n : As p r e v i o u s l y discussed i n the s e c t i o n r e l a t i n g t h e o r i e s of p e r s o n a l i t y , Gaff and Wilson (1968) contend that persons with p a r t i c u l a r patterns of i n t e r e s t s and values are a t t r a c t e d to i n t e l l e c t u a l c u l t u r e s and v o c a t i o n a l s e t t i n g s which are consonant with t h e i r p r e d i s p o s i t i o n s . Theories of p r o f e s s i o n a l s o c i a l i z a t i o n suggest that even i f the pre-occupation w i t h a s p e c i a l area d i d not e x i s t before entrance to t r a i n i n g , the experience of d i s c i p l i n a r y s o c i a l i z a t i o n c o n s t r a i n s one to acquire or f u r t h e r develop p a r t i c u l a r competencies. Grey (1977) p o i n t s out that the experience of education, apprenticeship and work have a strong i n f l u e n c e on producing and s u s t a i n i n g p r o f e s s i o n a l i d e n t i t y . This experience i n v o l v e s , "an extended p e r i o d of s o c i a l i z a t i o n , i n which a p s y c h o l o g i c a l and s o c i a l commitment to the p a r t i c u l a r p r o f e s s i o n a l career i s developed" ( M i l l s 1966). The r e s u l t of t h i s process i s what Holland (1966) describes as, "the way of l i f e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a p a r t i c u l a r occupational c l a s s . . . o f which the obvious work a c t i v i t i e s are only a small p a r t . " Membership i n p a r t i c u l a r occupations endows members with c e r t a i n a t t r i b u t e s and a t t i t u d e s (Grey 1977). In a study of the e f f e c t s of graduate education, Heiss 44. (1969) found that the experience of graduate school e f f e c t i v e l y s o c i a l i z e d students i n t o separate academic c u l t u r e s . Greenwood (1957) provides an i n s i g h t to e x p l a i n t h i s f i n d i n g . He suggests that advanced ed u c a t i o n a l s o c i a l i z a t i o n c o n s i s t s of exposure t o , "systematic theory and a wide knowledge of a s p e c i a l i z e d technique." Everything i n s i d e of the p r o f e s s i o n a l ' s education, "from idioms to i d e o l o g i e s " contrains one to f i t the standard norm as p r e s c r i b e d by a p r o f e s s i o n (Heiss 1969). This produces a s i t u a t i o n , "where each p r o f e s s i o n has i t s l i m i t e d f i e l d of e x p e r t i s e , s p e c i a l environment and a group psychology..." (Greenwood 1957). This c o n t r i b u t e s to what Campbell (1969) observes among academic p r o f e s s i o n a l s ; "the c r e a t i o n of a d i s c i p l i n a r y e t h n o c e n t r i c i s m . " A c q u i s i t i o n of t h i s s p e c i a l i z e d p e r s p e c t i v e r e q u i r e s p e r s o n a l i t y involvement and the l e a r n i n g of e s o t e r i c language and meaning systems. "In general, the harder and longer the p e r i o d of educational s o c i a l i z a t i o n , the more techniques, c u l t u r e and deep a t t r i b u t e s which are learned" (Grey 1977). The experience of d i s c i p l i n a r y s o c i a l i z a t i o n i n v o l v e s what P e t r i e (1976) c a l l s , "the adoption of the c o g n i t i v e map of a d i s c i p l i n e " . This c o g n i t i v e map includes b a s i c concepts, modes of i n q u i r y , problem d e f i n i t i o n s , o b s e r v a t i o n a l c a t e g o r i e s , r e p r e s e n t a t i o n techniques, standards of proof and types of explanations ( P e t r i e 1976, Janetch 1970, Heckenhausen 1970). A major p o r t i o n of the l i t e r a t u r e d i s c u s s i n g p o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y c o l l a b o r a t i o n , elaborates 45. on the consequences of differencessamong d i s c i p l i n e s along these dimensions. In terms of c h a r a c t e r i z i n g i n d i v i d u a l s p e c i a l i s t s , these p h i l o s o p h i c a l and o b s e r v a t i o n a l d i f f e r e n c e s c o n t r i b u t e to v a r y i n g s p e c i a l i s t a t t r i b u t e s , s c i e n t i f i c a t t i t u d e s and work s t y l e s (Thompson 1969, P e t r i e 1976, McGrath 1970, G i l l e s p i e 1976, Mason 1976, Newell et al. 1975) . Others have a l s o recognized that these c o g n i t i v e d i f f e r e n c e s are a s s o c i a t e d w i t h f i e l d s o f s p e c i a l i z a t i o n and are then t r a n s l a t e d i n t o the s o c i a l context of science (Campbell 1969, Thompson 1969, Hagstrom 1965, Bennis 1956). Hagstrom (1965) and P o l a n y i (1969) suggest that s c i e n c e , l i k e other p r o f e s s i o n s , i s governed by the p r i n c i p l e of mutual c o n t r o l . "The s c i e n t i s t i s both subject to c r i t i c i s m b y a l l others and encouraged by t h e i r a p p r e c i a t i o n of him. This i s how s c i e n t i f i c o p i n i o n i s formed...which enforces s c i e n t i f i c standards and regulates the d i s t r i b u t i o n of p r o f e s s i o n a l o p p o r t u n i t i e s " ( P o l a n y i , 1969). R e i f (1961) has observed, "that to c o n s t i t u t e s c i e n t i f i c knowledge, there must be i n d i v i d u a l c o n t r i b u t i o n s which are v e r i f i a b l e by other s c i e n t i s t s and usable by them f o r f u r t h e r e x t r a p o l a t i o n . . . " . The very nature of s c i e n t i f i c work i m p l i e s the need f o r the r e c o g n i t i o n ; the value o f ones work by others i n the f i e l d . " At advanced l e v e l s of d i s c i p l i n a r y s p e c i a l i z a t i o n , only s c i e n t i s t s i n ones f i e l d can understand and judge the merits of i n d i v i d u a l c o n t r i b u t i o n s . R e i f concludes by suggesting that the academic c a r r i e s out h i s work i n s e t t i n g where he i s , " e x t r a - o r d i n a r i l y dependent on the good op i n i o n of others and where h i s r e p u t a t i o n becomes t r a n s l a t e d i n t o many concrete personal consequences" ( R e i f , 1961) . 46. However, approaches to sc i e n c e , as s p e c i f i e d i n p a r t i c u l a r d i s c i p l i n e s at p a r t i c u l a r times, cover a r e s t r i c t e d range of acceptable s c i e n t i f i c a c t i v i t y . Consequently, the process of, "rewarding s o c i a l r e c o g n i t i o n i n exchange f o r i n f o r m a t i o n , " tends to produce i n d i v i d u a l conformity to d i f f e r e n t goals among d i s c i p l i n a r i a n s (Hagstrom, 1965). Consequently, d i f f e r e n c e s among i n d i v i d u a l s from d i s c i p l i n e s extend beyond s p e c i a l i t y o r i e n t a t i o n and su b j e c t matter i n t o the realm of val u e s , norms of s c i e n t i f i c behavior, approaches to seeking and v e r i f y i n g knowledge. Thompson (1969) even suggests that i n d i v i d u a l s may become over s o c i a l i z e d to the tennents of t h e i r d i s c i p l i n e , l i m i t i n g t h e i r perceptual horizons and sources f o r i n s i g h t . Spaulding and Turner (1968), i n a study of d i s c i p l i n e s and p o l i t i c a l o r i e n t a t i o n , found that p a r t y preference i s a f f e c t e d by in f o r m a t i o n gained i n academic s p e c i a l i z a t i o n . Gaff and Wilson (1968) looked at f a c u l t y o r i e n t a t i o n s toward.educational values, teaching s t y l e s and l i f e s t y l e s . They found v a l i d a t i o n f o r the concept of d i s t i n c t academic c u l t u r e s . Newell et al. (1975), l o o k i n g at management problems associated w i t h p o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y teams, found that because of t h e i r t r a i n i n g , some d i s c i p l i n a r i a n s were i n h e r e n t l y i n t o l e r a n t of other d i s c i p l i n e s and those w i t h i n the same d i s c i p l i n e o f t e n claimed s u p e r i o r i t y over c e r t a i n areas w i t h i n the same d i s c i p l i n e . G i l l e s p i e (1976) and others have documented status d i f f e r e n c e s among d i s c i p l i n e s w i t h i n an academic community. These status d i f f e r e n c e s are o f t e n demarcated by d i f f e r e n t i a l rewards, p r e s t i g e and i n f l u e n c e w i t h i n the u n i v e r s i t y s e t t i n g . Thompson (1969) suggests t h a t these s t a t u s d i f f e r e n c e s are r e l a t e d t o the v a r i o u s t r u t h s t r a t e g i e s a s s o c i a t e d with s p e c i f i c d i s c i p l i n e s . Hagstrom (1965) r e l a t e s these d i f f e r e n c e s to the i n f l u e n c e o f s p e c i f i c d i s c i p l i n e s outside of the 47. academic community, e s p e c i a l l y those d i s c i p l i n e s a s s ociated w i t h p r o f e s s i o n a l schools. In summary, t h e o r i e s of p r o f e s s i o n a l s o c i a l i z a t i o n and s o c i a l c o n t r o l a p p l i e d to d i s c i p l i n a r y s p e c i a l i s t s , suggest that p r o f e s s i o n a l s p e c i a l i z a t i o n at t h i s advanced l e v e l a l s o e f f e c t s the c o g n i t i v e , a f f e c t i v e and b e h a v i o r i a l a t t r i b u t e s o f the i n d i v i d u a l . Consequently, d i f f e r e n t academic groups have r e l i a b l y d i f f e r e n t o r i e n t a t i o n s to the content and s t r u c t u r e of r e a l i t y , as w e l l as the p u r s u i t and v e r i f i c a t i o n o f knowledge. As Gaff and Wilson (1968) suggest, there i s l i t t l e i n the t r a i n i n g of a s p e c i a l i s t which prepares him/her f o r p o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y communication. Instead, the process of intense i d e n t i f i c a t i o n w i t h the s p e c i a l i t y renders most scholars uncomfortable and inept outside of the s o c i a l context o f t h e i r f i e l d . 3.3 I m p l i c a t i o n s of Methodological and T h e o r e t i c a l O r i e n t a t i o n s of  S p e c i a l i s t s on the O r g a r i i z a t i b n i o f P o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y Research: Simmons and Davis (1957) found that methodological d i f f e r e n c e s among d i s c i p l i n a r i a n s presented the great e s t problem i n the c o l l a b o r a t i v e e f f o r t . Newell and Mar (1976), i n a study of i n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y modeling groups, found that d i f f e r e n c e s among d i s c i p l i n a r i a n s placed i n t e g r a t i v e l i m i t s on the f e a s i b l e numbers of d i s c i p l i n e s which could be i n v o l v e d i n a modeling e f f o r t . S t r i n g e r (1976), i n a case study of engineering a p p l i e d to h e a l t h systems, found t h a t conceptual d i f f e r e n c e s among p a r t i c i p a n t s were d i f f i c u l t to r e c o n c i l e because o f the s t y l e s of thought r e s u l t i n g from the patterns of t r a i n i n g i n each p r o f e s s i o n . Leonard (1972), i n an i n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y 48. p r o j e c t applying bio-medical engineering to heart surgery p a t i e n t s , found that the problem s o l v i n g and p r a c t i c a l concerns of h o s p i t a l a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , engineers and p h y s i c i a n s v a r i e d d r a s t i c a l l y . Mabry (1966), as s o c i a l - h i s t o r i a n to an i n t e r n a t i o n a l p o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y study of medical u t i l i z a t i o n , observed t h a t , "methodological safeguards had to be guaranteed to i n d i v i d u a l p a r t i c i p a n t s f o r a v a r i e t y of i d i o s y n c r a t i c and p r o f e s s i o n a l m o t i v a t i o n s , i n order to r e s o l v e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c o n f l i c t s . " Several authors suggest t h a t these problems are the r e s u l t of the p r o f e s s i o n a l s d i f f e r e n t a t t i t u d e s t o the apparatus o f research (Mason 1976, Herzog 1959, Hagstrom 1965). Marx and Suchman (1967), i n an a r t i c l e concerning the systematic r e l a t i o n s between h e a l t h and b e h a v i o r i a l s c i e n c e s , suggest that the s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between the o r i e n t a t i o n , contents, p o t e n t i a l c o n t r i b u t i o n and the personnel of various f i e l d s needs to be taken i n t o account i n order to a r r i v e at f a c t o r s which make the p a i r i n g s of f i e l d s more or le s s appropriate f o r u t i l i z a t i o n . They propose a conceptual continuum, c o n s i s t i n g o f two a x i , the t h e o r e t i c a l and the methodological. They hypothesize that i t should be p o s s i b l e to i d e n t i f y the tendencies, general o r i e n t a t i o n s and gross techniques of various f i e l d s along these continuums. Using the continuums, the fundamental congruence or incongruence of i n d i v i d u a l s and t h e i r approaches could be assessed. The a p p l i e d concern being to increase the p r o d u c t i v i t y of c o l l a b o r a t i v e e f f o r t s i n teaching, research and s e r v i c e . 49. ' Weiss (1966) has suggested that there are two a l t e r n a t i v e approaches to the study of complex s i t u a t i o n s ; the, a n a l y t i c and the i h o l i s t i c . According to Weiss, each of these approaches to problems defines i t s own type of research goals and methodology. He hypothesizes that i n p r a c t i c e , researchers tend to f a l l i n t o one or the other of these two approaches. Mason (1976) found evidence f o r d i s t i n c t i o n s among researchers concerning the degree to which they d e f i n e , "the wholeness of a problem and t h e i r i n t e g r a t i v e use of methodology." Thompson et al. (1969) have suggested t h a t d i f f e r e n t t r u t h s t r a t e g i e s and sets of methodological approaches guide the search f o r knowledge and the e l i m i n a t i o n of e r r o r w i t h i n the modern u n i v e r s i t y . They define a t r u t h s t r a t e g y as, "the . set of r u l e s a researcher a p p l i e s to assemble i n f o r m a t i o n and determine i t s s i g n i f i c a n c e . " These authors a l s o pose conceptual continua, c o n s i s t i n g of two a x i ; designed to i n d i c a t e the extent to which reasoning and empiricism guide s t r a t e g i e s f o r seeking t r u t h among the d i s c i p l i n e s . A given t r u t h s t r a t e g y may range from high to low on i t s r e l i a n c e on empiricism. S i m i l a r l y , a given s t r a t e g y can range i n i t s r e l i a n c e on a system of c o d i f i e d reasoning. Empiricism r e l a t e s to the types of experimental feedback mechanisms employed. C o d i f i e d reasoning concerns how e x p l i c i t l y the d i s c i p l i n e ' s body of knowledge i s arranged i n systems. Thompson et al. (1969) suggest that t r u t h s t r a t e g i e s have impact f o r the grouping of d i s c i p l i n a r i a n s i n academic departments, i n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y e f f o r t s and i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e of the u n i v e r s i t y , i n general. This i s because adherents of a t r u t h 50. s t r a t e g y tend to f e e l that t h e i r s i s the most u s e f u l , i f not the only proper s t r a t e g y . Consequently, s p e c i a l i s t s f e e l comfortable w i t h other adherents of t h e i r s t r a t e g y , but l e s s so w i t h r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of another s t r a t e g y . Thompson et al. (1969) observe that because there are r e l a t i v e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l d e p r i v a t i o n s and rewards as s o c i a t e d w i t h each t r u t h s t r a t e g y , these d i s t i n c t i o n s form the b a s i s of antagonisms and c o n f l i c t w i t h i n t h i s i n s t i t u t i o n a l s e t t i n g . They hypothesize that the degree of f a c u l t y p o l i t i c s i s p o s i t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h the heterogeneity o f f a c u l t y a t t i t u d e s and t h a t p l u r a l i s m of t r u t h s t r a t e g i e s u n d e r l i e s many issues i n f a c u l t y c o n f l i c t and governance. In summary, the l i t e r a t u r e suggests that d i s c i p l i n a r y s p e c i a l i s t s can be c h a r a c t e r i z e d by t h e i r a t t i t u d e s toward the apparatus of research. This contention w i l l be explored i n t h i s study because of i t s bearing on the c o n f l i c t p o t e n t i a l i n p o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y research e f f o r t s . 3:4 S p e c i a l i z a t i o n as the Independent V a r i a b l e of the Study: In order to study the i m p l i c a t i o n s of s p e c i a l i s t s ' a t t i t u d e s toward approaches to research and s t y l e s of work o r g a n i z a t i o n , we w i l l s p e c i f y the meaning of these v a r i a b l e s as used i n the study. B u i l d i n g upon the content of t h e o r i e s of p e r s o n a l i t y and p r o f e s s i o n a l s p e c i a l i z a t i o n developed e a r l i e r ; the experience of a c q u i r i n g a d i s c i p l i n e can be p a r t l y understood as an extension of the more general process of " p s y c h o - s p e c i a l i z a t i o n " . This process manifests i n one's p e r s o n a l i t y o r i e n t a t i o n to s p e c i f i c objects and events i n the environment. Consequently, L i t t l e (1972) defines the academic s p e c i a l i s t as one, "who engages i n p r o j e c t s which i n v o l v e him at the b e h a v i o r i a l , c o g n i t i v e and a f f e c t i v e l e v e l s , which takes place over f a i r l y long periods of time, which b r i n g him/her i n t o contact w i t h persons, things and i n s t i t u t i o n s which define h i s / h e r s p e c i a l i t y . " Given the numerous kinds of objects towrds which i n d i v i d u a l s may be a t t r a c t e d , s e v e r a l authors suggest, "the study of elements which p a r t i t i o n environments i n some b a s i c and primary way" ( L i t t l e 1972, Fo r s t and Barnowe 1977, Roe.1956, Rosenberg 1952). These authors have a l l suggested that "persons and t h i n g s " represent primary elements i n human environments. A major contention of t h i s approach i s that assessment of an i n d i v i d u a l ' s o r i e n t a t i o n towards persons and things w i l l f a c i l i t a t e p r e d i c t i o n s about h i s / h e r encounters w i t h other dimensions of human environments. 3:4:a E m p i r i c a l Evidence Several s t u d i e s r e p o r t i n g on peoples preferences f o r d e a l i n g w i t h s o c i a l or non s o c i a l o b j e c t s , show c o n s i s t a n t d i f f e r e n c e s among the i n d i v i d u a l s who vary along these a t t r i b u t e s . Rosenberg (1952) found t h a t there were s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between person o r i e n t e d and t h i n g o r i e n t e d i n d i v i d u a l s remaining i n the teaching p r o f e s s i o n over time. Person o r i e n t e d i n d i v i d u a l s were more l i k e l y to remain teachers than t h i n g o r i e n t e d i n d i v i d u a l s . L i t t l e (1972) found that c o l l e g e students, i d e n t i f i e d by t h e i r p e r s o n a l i t y o r i e n t a t i o n towards persons and t h i n g s , perceived s o c i a l environments d i f f e r e n t l y . Person s p e c i a l i s t s tended to construe the shopping m a l l s e t t i n g i n terms of the a t t r i b u t e s of people w i t h i n the s e t t i n g . For example, they described the s e t t i n g u s i n g the p e r s o n a l i t i e s of people observed :and types o f s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n 52. seen. Thing s p e c i a l i s t s tended to focus t h e i r d e s c r i p t i o n s on the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the p h y s i c a l s e t t i n g , d e t a i l s l i k e s p a t i a l layout. Person and t h i n g p e r s o n a l i t y o r i e n t a t i o n s have been found to c o r r e l a t e h i g h l y w i t h a s i g n i f i c a n t number of sca l e s from two w e l l v a l i d a t e d measures of v o c a t i o n a l i n t e r e s t , the Strong V o c a t i o n a l I n t e r e s t Blanks and the V o c a t i o n a l Preference Inventory. (Campbell 1970, Holland 1958). On the V.P.I., person s p e c i a l i s t s have been found to be c h a r a c t e r i z e d by high scores on s o c i a l i n t e r e s t and s c a l e dimensions such as e n t e r p r i s i n g and s e l f - c o n t r o l . Thing s p e c i a l i s t s score higher on r e a l i s m and m a s c u l i n i t y ( L i t t l e 1972, Frost £ Barnowe 1977). On the S.V.I.B., the mean P/T scores f o r 52 occupational samples has been c a l c u l a t e d . These r e s u l t s Show that person-thing measures are assessing d i f f e r e n c e s i n o r i e n t a t i o n towards the i n t e r p e r s o n a l and the mechanical-physical domains ( L i t t l e 1970). There i s some l i m i t e d evidence that person-thing o r i e n t a t i o n can p r e d i c t c e r t a i n aspects of i n t e r a c t i o n a l behavior. In an a n a l y s i s of r o l e behaviors i n small groups i n v o l v i n g the expression of p o s i t i v e and negative emotions; person o r i e n t a t i o n was found to c o r r e l a t e s i g n i f i c a n t l y w i t h the expressiveness o f p o s i t i v e a f f e c t ( L i t t l e 1972). I t has a l s o been p r e d i c t e d , though not explored, that t h i n g o r i e n t a t i o n w i l l c o r r e l a t e with more task o r i e n t e d s t r a t e g i e s during s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n . L i t t l e (1972) has developed a s e r i e s of summary c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s found to be associated w i t h person or t h i n g o r i e n t e d i n d i v i d u a l s : a) Person S p e c i a l i s t s - have preferences f o r a c t i v i t i e s i n v o l v i n g a f f i l i a t i v e , emphathetic and nurturant behaviors. T h e i r academic p u r s u i t s are most oft e n l i t e r a r y and s o c i a l s e r v i c e f i e l d s , where they place a high value on the relevance of st u d i e s to humanity. 53. b) Thing S p e c i a l i s t s - express i n t e r e s t i n a wide range of encounters with p h y s i c a l o b j e c t s , machines, a r t i f a c t s and t h i n g s . They have tendencies toward mechanical, manipulative and a n a l y t i c behaviors. Thing o r i e n t e d people have st r o n g preferences f o r order, c l a r i t y and p r a c t i c a l i t y . They are more l i k e l y to pursue academic f i e l d s such as p h y s i c a l and a p p l i e d s c i e n c e s , where s t r e s s i s placed on r i g o r . On the b a s i s of the work which supports the v a l i d i t y of these p e r s o n a l i t y constiructs, t h i s study assesses d i s c i p l i n a r y s p e c i a l i s t s ' o r e i n t a t i o n s towards persons and t h i n g s . I t i s a major contention of t h i s t h e s i s that assessment of d i s c i p l i n a r y s p e c i a l i s t s ' p e r s o n a l i t y o r i e n t a t i o n towards persons and things w i l l be a ssociated w i t h s p e c i f i c a t t i t u d e s towards work s t y l e arrangements and research modes. Using d i s c i p l i n a r i a n s ' o r i e n t a t i o n towards persons and things as the independent v a r i a b l e of s p e c i a l i z a t i o n , two h y p o t h e t i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i l l be explored i n the study: a) Person and Thing o r i e n t a t i o n i n r e l a t i o n to A n a l y t i c and H o l i s t i c approaches t o research. b) Person and Thing o r i e n t a t i o n i n r e l a t i o n to Type One and Type : Two s t y l e s of work o r g a n i z a t i o n . 3:5 Dependent v a r i a b l e s - Study Area One; Person and Thing O r i e n t a t i o n  i n R e l a t i o n to A l t e r n a t i v e Approaches to Research: 1 I t has been suggested that the tenents of s p e c i a l i z a t i o n theory, elaborated on e a r l i e r , should be r e f l e c t e d i n academic p r o f e s s i o n a l s ' behavior ( L i t t l e 1972, Thompson et al. 1969, Campbell 1969, Kilmann and M i t r o f f 1976). L i t t l e (1972) explored v o c a t i o n a l and p e r s o n a l i t y data on 54. famous twentieth century p s y c h o l o g i s t s and found dimensions of " p e r s o n a l i s t i e " versus " p h y s i c a l i s t i c " construct usage i n t h e o r i s t s ' works. High person scores were as s o c i a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y w i t h a more h o l i s t i c , p e r s o n a l , q u a l i t a t i v e , dynamic t h e o r e t i c a l - m e t h d o l o g i c a l p o s i t i o n . Low person scores s t r e s s e d an o b j e c t i v e , e l e m e n t a r i s t , t r a n s p e r s o n a l , q u a n t i t a t i v e and s t a t i c o r i e n t a t i o n i n academic work. A s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n was found between person o r i e n t a t i o n and tendencies to s t r e s s p e r s o n a l i s t i e constructs i n formal t h e o r i z i n g . These d i s t i n c t i o n s i n theory and method approaches correspond q u i t e r e a d i l y to the methodological and t h e o r e t i c a l continua proposed by Marx and Suchman 1967,' Thompson et al. 1969, and Weiss 1966. For example, Thompson et al. 's (1969) d e s c r i p t i o n of the SCIENTIFIC*ANALYTIC t r u t h s t r a t e g y corresponds conceptually to the method and theory c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the " P h y s i c a l i s t i c " or " t h i n g " o r i e n t a t i o n found i n L i t t l e ' s (1969) and F r o s t and Barnowe's (1977) s t u d i e s . While Thompson et al. 's (1969) DI RE CT * I NS PLRATIONAL t r u t h s t r a t e g y c l o s e l y approximates a more " p e r s o n a l i s t i e " o r i e n t a t i o n to research. Thompson et al.'s (1969) DIRECT*INSPIRATIONAL s t r a t e g y i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by an e m p i r i c a l and reasoning approach guided by an ever i n c r e a s i n g intimacy w i t h the phenomena under study. The most general c r i t e r i a f o r t h i s approach i s , " r e l a t i v e and meaningful knowledge based on a high r e l i a n c e on judgement". In c o n t r a s t , the SCIENTIFIC*ANALYTIC s t r a t e g y sets the researcher apart from the phenomena under study. There i s more emphasis on the c o l l e c t i o n of evidence w i t h experimental c o n t r o l , as w e l l as systematic t h e o r i z i n g based on l o g i c a l completeness. 55. Weiss's (1966) d e f i n i t i o n s of ANALYTIC versus HOLISTIC research approaches are s u b s t a n t i v e l y s i m i l a r to the DIRECT-PERSONALISTIC and SCIENTIFIC-PHYSICALISTIC d i s t i n c t i o n s proposed by L i t t l e (1969) and Thompson et al. (1969). Weiss's (1966) ANALYTIC approach i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by the process of i d e n t i f y i n g independent, dependent and i n t e r v e n i n g v a r i a b l e s and u s u a l l y some attempt at q u a n t i t a t i v e measurement of lin k a g e s . This approach does not attempt to deal with objects or events i n t h e i r f u l l concreteness, but r a t h e r , produces s i t u a t i o n a l l y l i m i t e d g e n e r a l i z a t i o n . A l t e r n a t i v e l y , Weiss's (1966) HOLISTIC approach i s more concerned with the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of system r e l a t i o n s h i p s . This viewpoint tends to e x p l a i n phenomena i n terms of the a c t i o n of the system, r a t h e r than i n terms of some i n t e r s e c t i o n of causal f a c t o r s . This leads to the development of models or typ o l o g i e s of systems and the study of the or g a n i z a t i o n of elements i n these systems. F i n a l l y Marx and Suchman (1968) have suggested a dicotomy along methodological and t h e o r e t i c a l continua which c l o s e l y approximates the content of these other sets of d e f i n i t i o n s . Marx and Suchman's (1967) GENERAL-QUANTITATIVE approach i s concerned with the formulat i o n of general laws or t h e o r i e s , w h i l e t h e i r SPECIFIC-QUALITATIVE approach tends to focus on understanding s p e c i f i c cases. The GENERAL-QUANTITATIVE approach focuses on a c t u a r i a l or p r o b a b a l i s t i c p r e d i c t i o n s based on e f f i c i e n c y or r a t i o n a l type models. The SPECIFIC-QUALITATIVE approach uses more i n t r o s p e c t i v e research techniques. P r e d i c t i o n s are made using f u n c t i o n a l or type models. B u i l d i n g upon the s i m i l a r i t y of these method-theory constructs and t h e i r t e n t a t i v e a s s o c i a t i o n with the p e r s o n a l i t y o r i e n t a t i o n of the d i s c i p l i n a r y s p e c i a l i s t , the study asks: WHETHER DISCIPLINARY SPECIALISTS, WHO ARE PERSON OR THING ORIENTED, HAVE DIFFERENT ATTITUDES TOWARDS ANALYTIC AND HOLISTIC APPROACHES TO RESEARCH? 56. 3:5:a Hypotheses of Study Area One: The s p e c i f i c hypothesis to be explored i n r e l a t i o n to t h i s question i s : A) An i n d i v i d u a l ' s p e r s o n a l i t y o r i e n t a t i o n towards persons or things w i l l be a s s o c i a t e d w i t h s p e c i f i c research approaches: I) Person s p e c i a l i s t s w i l l be a ssociated with H o l i s t i c approaches to research. II) Thing s p e c i a l i s t s w i l l be a s s o c i a t e d with A n a l y t i c approaches to research. Summarizing, "Our v i s i o n s , our s t o r i e s i f y o u - w i l l as... s c i e n t i s t s are as much a d e s c r i p t i o n of us, our p s y c h o l o g i c a l types, as they are of the t h i n g s we study" ( M i t r o f f and Kilmann 1976). 3:6 Dependent V a r i a b l e s - Study Area Two; Person and Thing O r i e n t a t i o n  i n R e l a t i o n ^ t o A l t e r n a t i v e Work S t y l e s : This s e c t i o n develops the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the d i s c i p l i n a r i a n ' s p e r s o n a l i t y o r i e n t a t i o n and a t t i t u d e s toward;.the operating norms of a l t e r n a t i v e work s i t u a t i o n s . In the s e c t i o n s of the t h e s i s d i s c u s s i n g the s t r u c t u r e of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s i t u a t i o n s and t h e i r e f f e c t s upon i n d i v i d u a l s ' i n c e n t i v e s f o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n , we developed the idea that i n d i v i d u a l s d e f i n e tasks i n terms of t h e i r own frame of reference and personal competences. R e i t e r a t i n g b r i e f l y , the net e f f e c t of v a r i ous types of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l designs e s t a b l i s h e s boundaries that d e f i n e i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h i n which o r g a n i z a t i o n a l p a r t i c i p a n t s must operate (Ikenberry and Friedman 1972). In Ikenberry and Friedman's (1972) survey of i n s t i t u t e s and centres at American u n i v e r s i t i e s , they i d e n t i f i e d three types of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l designs; the standard type, the adaptive type and the shadow i n s t i t u t e or centre. The c r i t e r i a d e f i n i n g these types were: a) the extent to which resources were stored i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n , b) the degree to which procedures were s p e c i f i e d , c) the degree of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t a b i l i t y . 57. The standard type describes a h i g h l y s t r u c t u r e d , f o r m a l i z e d , impersonal approach to o r g a n i z a t i o n . Roles and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s are more c l e a r l y s p e c i f i e d than i n the adaptive type of o r g a n i z a t i o n . The adaptive type i s c o l l e a g i a l l y organized and more ambiguous i n i t s d e f i n i t i o n of procedures, r o l e s and r e s p o n s b i l i t i e s . The shadow type i s l e s s an o r g a n i z a t i o n a l design than i t i s a l a t e n t network of persons and contacts. Mason (1976), i n h i s study of the i n s t i t u t e s and centres at the U n i v e r s i t y of Washington, expanded Ikenberry and Friedman's typology i n t o s i x types of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l design which v a r i e d from one another along the dimensions of: 1) communications flow, 2) a u t h o r i t y , 3) power, 4) r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and a c c o u n t a b i l i t y . Mason's typology, and by i m p l i c a t i o n Ikenberry and Friedman's, were recognized by Mason as v a r y i n g along an organic-mechanistic design continuum. Burns and S t a l k e r (1961) o f f e r the organic-mechanistic design continuum to describe the s t r u c t u r a l extremes which o r g a n i z a t i o n s assume e m p i r i c a l l y . Burns and S t a l k e r ' s typology i s based on seven i m p l i c i t o r g a n i z a t i o n a l design dimensions: 1) d e f i n i t i o n of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l components, 2) task and f u n c t i o n a l s p e c i f i c i t y i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n , 3) environmental-conditions and adaptions to change, 4) s o c i a l and work process arrangements, 5) info r m a t i o n processing and d e c i s i o n making p r a c t i c e s , 6) c o n f l i c t and c o n t r o l p a t t e r n s , 7) personal commitment to the o r g a n i z a t i o n . L i k e r t (1961) has proposed an o r g a n i z a t i o n a l design typology s i m i l a r to that of Burns and S t a l k e r . This typology defines a l t e r n a t i v e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e s on the b a s i s of the nature of member r e l a t i o n s h i p s , which can range from a u t h o r i t a t i v e to p a r t i c i p a t i v e . Summer (1976) presents s t i l l another o r g a n i z a t i o n a l typology c o n s i s t i n g of three b a s i c designs. He suggests that each of these types o f f e r an array of economic, 58. t e c h n o l o g i c a l , communication, c o n t r o l and member-satisfaction trade-o f f s inherent i n t h e i r design. His d e s c r i p t i o n of the three o r g a n i z a t i o n a l designs i s s u b s t a n t i v e l y s i m i l a r to the continua proposed by Burns and S t a l k e r and L i k e r t . However, Summer notes that these three types of work s t y l e arrangements can be recognized i n small groups as w e l l as large o r g a n i z a t i o n s . Using the convention of the d e s c r i p t i v e dicotomy, a l l of these t y p o l o g i e s define o r g a n i z a t i o n a l design on the b a s i s of c o n t r a s t i n g o r g a n i z i n g p r i n c i p l e s . In order to expand on the PHYSICALISTIC versus PERSONALISTIC aspects of the c o n t r a s t i n g o r g a n i z a t i o n a l designs, we w i l l use a composite of o r g a n i z i n g p r i n c i p l e s from a l l of these t y p o l o g i e s . For the sake of s i m p l i f i c a t i o n , we have combined these p r i n c i p l e s under the headings of TYPE ONE and TYPE TWO o r g a n i z a t i o n a l designs. TYPE ONE i s designed on the b a s i s of impersonal, concrete, d i r e c t i v e and task s p e c i f i c o r g a n i z i n g p r i n c i p l e s . In c o n t r a s t , TYPE TWO f u n c t i o n s on the b a s i s of p e r s o n a l i s t i c , more gen e r a l i z e d r o l e s , cooperative and expedient operating norms. Within TYPE ONE s i t u a t i o n s , i n d i v i d u a l status and tasks are defined so that the i n d i v i d u a l ' s sphere of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and a c c o u n t a b i l i t y i s w e l l understood. TYPE TWO s i t u a t i o n s r e q u i r e a more ambiguous and dynamic d e f i n i t i o n of r o l e s . This s i t u a t i o n demands much more personal i n t e r a c t i o n to define a c t i v i t i e s . In TYPE ONE o r g a n i z a t i o n s , there i s much l e s s i n t e r p e r s o n a l communication and involvement r e q u i r e d of the i n d i v i d u a l p a r t i c i p a n t . In TYPE TWO o r g a n i z a t i o n s , much j o i n t decision-making takes place. In t h i s s i t u a t i o n the sources of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c o n f l i c t are predominantly r e l a t e d to problems of mutual adjustment among p a r t i c i p a n t s . In c o n t r a s t , sources of c o n f l i c t i n TYPE ONE or g a n i z a t i o n s tend to be t h r e a t s to personal autonomy and t e r r i t o r i a l encroachment. In TYPE TWO or g a n i z a t i o n s the work process i s l a r g e l y non-r o u t i n e . In TYPE ONE the work processes are more l i k e l y to be o u t l i n e d and guided by more impersonal standards of performance. L i k e r t (1961) suggests that TYPE ONE or g a n i z a t i o n s provide, " p h y s i c a l s e c u r i t y , s t a t u s and economic i n c e n t i v e s " , i n r e t u r n f o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n . TYPE TWO s i t u a t i o n s , "provide f o r m o t i v a t i o n a l f o r c e s a r i s i n g from group processes, economic and ego g r a t i f y i n g experiences". 59. Summer (1976) r e l a t e s v a r y i n g personal tolerances f o r the org a n i z i n g p r i n c i p l e s inherent i n these a l t e r n a t i v e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l designs. He suggests that i n d i v i d u a l a t t i t u d e s toward c o n t r o l , s p e c i f i c i t y , a u t h o r i t y , t h e i r tolerance f o r ambiguity, w i l l i n g n e s s to i n v e s t oneself and requirements f o r personal growth, w i l l a l l bear on the i n d i v i d u a l ' s s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h d i f f e r e n t types of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l designs. M i t r o f f and Kilmann (1976) found that i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h s p e c i f i c p e r s o n a l i t y types described i d e a l o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s i t u a t i o n s s i m i l a r to t h e i r p e r s o n a l i t y o r i e n t a t i o n s . B u i l d i n g upon these ideas and on the presence of PHYSICALISTIC norms governing TYPE ONE o r g a n i z a t i o n a l designs and the PERSONALISTIC norms inherent i n TYPE TWO designs; i t seems reasonable to ask: WHETHER DISCIPLINARY SPECIALISTS, WHO ARE PERSON OR THING ORIENTED, HAVE DIFFERENT ATTITUDES TOWARDS ALTERNATIVE SETS OF ORGANIZING PRINCIPLES? 3:6:a Hypotheses of Study Area Two: The s p e c i f i c hypothesis to be explored i n r e l a t i o n to t h i s question i s : B) An i n d i v i d u a l ' s p e r s o n a l i t y o r i e n t a t i o n towards persons or things w i l l be as s o c i a t e d w i t h s p e c i f i c a t t i t u d e s t o w a r d . a l t e r n a t i v e types of work p r i n c i p l e s . I I I . Person s p e c i a l i s t s w i l l be associated w i t h preferences f o r TYPE TWO or g a n i z i n g p r i n c i p l e s . IV. Thing s p e c i a l i s t s w i l l be associated with preferences f o r TYPE ONE org a n i z i n g p r i n c i p l e s . In summary, t h i s study area proposes a set of hypotheses r e l a t i n g d i s c i p l i n a r y s p e c i a l i s t s ' p e r s o n a l i t y o r i e n t a t i o n to persons or things and t h e i r a t t i t u d e towards a l t e r n a t i v e modes of org a n i z i n g work environments. FIGURE ONE THEORETICAL RELATIONSHIPS OF THE STUDY P e r s o n a l i t y S p e c i a l i z a t i o n (primary l e v e l ) D i s c i p l i n a r y S p e c i a l i z a t i o n (advanced l e v e l s ) • s e l e c t i v e recruitment •educational: s o c i a l i z a t i o n • career maintenance Personal Tolerances f o r Various Types o f Human Environments - P a i r i n g of i n d i v i d u a l s and s i t u a t i o n s - o r g a n i z a t i o n a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n of, academic p r o f e s s i o n a l s 60 VARIABLES TO BE MEASURED P e r s o n a l i t y O r i e n t a t i o n to Persons or Things 0PERATI0NALIZATI0N OF VARIABLES Raw Score f o r the I n d i v i d u a l on the Person/Thing Scale SCALE ITEMS DEPENDENT A t t i t u d e s towards Research Modes: a) A n a l y t i c )) H o l i s t i c DEPENDENT A t t i t u d e s towards a l t e r n a t i v e o r g a n i z i n g [ p r i n c i p l e s i n research \work environments. a) Type I vp) Type I I Raw Score f o r the I n d i v i d u a l on the Li k e t - t y p e Scale f o r Research Modes. Raw Score f o r the I n d i v i d u a l on the Forced-Choice Scale For A l t e r n a t i v e Organizing P r i n c i p l e s . SCALE ITEMS SCALE ITEMS /O c tn Cfl H 2 > I—I jo tn jo tn cn § Cn tn 'Controlled and Confounding V a r i a b l e s Uncontrolled and Random E r r o r V a r i a b l e s , Demographic and Career Information Responses ITEMS 61. IV..OPERATIONALIZATIQN, MEASUREMENT AND DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURES OF  THE STUDY 4:1 Objective of the Study The o b j e c t i v e of t h i s t h e s i s i s to study the i n f l u e n c e of s p e c i a l i z a t i o n on the research and work a t t i t u d e s of d i s c i p l i n a r i a n s i n socio-medical f i e l d s . S p e c i f i c a l l y , the study looks at a s e r i e s of hypothesized r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the p e r s o n a l i t y a t t r i b u t e s of d i s c i p l i n a r y s p e c i a l i s t s and t h e i r a t t i t u d e s toward: 1) two a l t e r n a t i v e approaches to research; the A n a l y t i c and H o l i s t i c . 2) two a l t e r n a t i v e modes of research team o r g a n i z a t i o n ; Type I and Type I I . 4:2 Study Design Studies which are p r i m a r i l y concerned with d i s c o v e r i n g or t e s t i n g a s s o c i a t i o n s between v a r i a b l e s are d e s c r i p t i v e , r a t h e r than::: e x p l o r a t o r y or experimental i n nature (Jahoda et a l . 1951). In order to explore the hypothesized r e l a t i o n s h i p s , t h i s study takes the form of an " a n a l y t i c f i e l d survey". The a n a l y t i c survey d i f f e r s from the census type of survey i n th a t i t i s set up so that r e l a t i o n s among f a c t o r s or v a r i a b l e s can be observed ra t h e r than enumerated (Oppenheim 1966). In t h i s p a r t i c u l a r study, p e r s o n a l i t y s p e c i a l i z a t i o n i n the i n d i v i d u a l d i s c i p l i n a r i a n i s thought to be ass o c i a t e d with s p e c i f i c a t t i t u d e s towards research and s t y l e s of or g a n i z i n g i n work s i t u a t i o n s . P e r s o n a l i t y s p e c i a l i z a t i o n being the independant v a r i a b l e and a t t i t u d e s toward research modes and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t y l e s the dependent v a r i a b l e s of the study. (See Figure 1). 62. 4:3 O p e r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n of the Independent V a r i a b l e , P e r s o n a l i t y  S p e c i a l i z a t i o n : The human p e r s o n a l i t y i s a very complex phenomenon, but f o r the purposes of measurement, p e r s o n a l i t y i s defined as, "the o r g a n i z a t i o n of a c o l l e c t i o n of human t r a i t s . . . A t r a i t i s a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the i n d i v i d u a l revealed through r e c u r r i n g behaviors i n d i f f e r e n t s i t u a t i o n s and i s thought to be a r e l a t i v e l y enduring phenomenon" ( K e r l i n g e r 1973). The s p e c i f i c p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t examined by t h i s study i s the i n d i v i d u a l ' s c o g n i t i v e and a f f e c t i v e o r i e n t a t i o n towards persons and things ( L i t t l e 1972). P e r s o n a l i t y o r i e n t a t i o n towards persons and things w i l l be assessed using a Person-Thing Construct Scale. Person and Thing Scales have been developed independently by both L i t t l e (1972) and Frost and Barnowe (1976). This p a r t i c u l a r study uses Frost and Barnowe's s c a l e . The P-T Scale i s s e l f - a d m i n i s t e r i n g , c o n s i s t s of 24 items and takes approximately 4 to 8 minutes to complete. An i n d i v i d u a l ' s o r i e n t a t i o n towards person and things i s o p e r a t i o n a l l y defined on the b a s i s of raw scores obtained from responses to the s c a l e ' s items. The s c a l e i s composed of 12 person and 12 t h i n g dominated statements. The respondants are asked to i n d i c a t e the degree to which they i d e n t i f y with the a c t i v i t y described by an item along a f i v e p o i n t f a v o r a b l e - u n f a v o r a b l e continuum. The scaled values f o r each of the 12 P-T items are them summed sepa r a t e l y to give two raw person and t h i n g o r i e n t a t i o n scores. These sums are standardized by d i v i d i n g the t o t a l raw score by 12. This procedure r e s u l t s i n the i n d i v i d u a l ' s person and t h i n g scores f o r a n a l y t i c a l use. 63. The P-T s c a l e d i s c r i m i n a t e s among i n d i v i d u a l s according to four primary s p e c i a l i s t types: 1) Person S p e c i a l i s t - an i n d i v i d u a l who i n d i c a t e s a high concern f o r a f f e c t i v e , c o g n i t i v e and b e h a v i o r i a l involvement w i t h people. 2) Thing S p e c i a l i s t - an i n d i v i d u a l who i n d i c a t e s a high a f f e c t i v e , c o g n i t i v e and b e h a v i o r i a l involvement with t h i n g s . 3) G e n e r a l i s t - an i n d i v i d u a l who i n d i c a t e s a high a f f e c t i v e , c o g n i t i v e and b e h a v i o r i a l involvement with both persons and t h i n g s . 4) N o n - s p e c i a l i s t - an i n d i v i d u a l who i n d i c a t e s a low a f f e c t i v e , c o g n i t i v e and b e h a v i o r i a l involvement with persons and t h i n g s . Concerned with p r e d i c t i n g t h e i r own behavior. They are perhaps b e t t e r regarded as s e l f -s p e c i a l i s t s ( L i t t l e 1976). Various methods are a v a i l a b l e so that combinations of person and t h i n g o r i e n t a t i o n s can be c a l c u l a t e d . In t h i s study, an i n d i v i d u a l i s assigned to one of the four primary s p e c i a l i s t . t y p e s on the b a s i s of whether he/she f a l l s above or below the mean Person and Thing scores f o r the study sample. 4:3:a V a l i d i t y o f the P-T Construct Scale Campbell and Fis k e (1959) suggest that two kinds of evidence about a measure are necessary before one i s j u s t i f i e d i n usin g i t to examine r e l a t i o n s to other v a r i a b l e s : 1) evidence that d i f f e r e n t measures of the constructs y i e l d s i m i l a r r e s u l t s , 2) evidence that the construct as measured can be d i f f e r e n t i a t e d from other c o n s t r u c t s . 64. 4:3:b Convergent V a l i d i t y : A n a l y s i s of the overlap between F r o s t and Barnowe's and L i t t l e ' s s cales has been performed. F a i r l y high c o r r e l a t i o n s between the r e s p e c t i v e Person (r=.64, s=.001, n=396) and the Thing sc a l e s (r=.52, s=.001, n-396) has been found across a t o t a l sample of Canadian-business school students, Canadian mining managers and Canadian resource s c i e n t i s t s (Frost and Barnowe 1976). A n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n between F r o s t and Barnowe's Thing s c a l e and L i t t l e ' s Person s c a l e was found (r=.02). A small s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n between Frost and Barnowe's Person s c a l e and L i t t l e ' s Thing Scale was obtained (r=.10, s=.05, n=396). The authors a t t r i b u t e t h i s s i g n i f i c a n c e to a large sample s i z e . These f i n d i n g s suggest that the two instruments are tapping f a i r l y s i m i l a r aspects of the i n d i v i d u a l ' s p e r s o n a l i t y o r i e n t a t i o n . In a d d i t i o n to the above, Frost and Barnowe performed f a c t o r a n a l y s i s on both sc a l e s administered to a sample of Canadian business school students i n 1977 (n=485). Using oblique r o t a t i o n and s p e c i f y i n g two f a c t o r s f o r both s c a l e s , the f o l l o w i n g r e s u l t s were obtained. On F r o s t and Barnowe's s c a l e , a l l p e r s o n - r e l a t e d items loaded on one f a c t o r and a l l of the t h i n g items loaded on the other. L i t t l e ' s s c a l e had one person-item and three t h i n g - r e l a t e d items f a i l to load on e i t h e r f a c t o r . A more complex f a c t o r a n a l y s i s , u s i n g p r i n c i p a l a x i s with oblique r o t a t i o n , y i e l d e d more f a c t o r s f o r each of the P-T s c a l e s . Frost and Barnowe's y i e l d e d 6 p r i n c i p a l f a c t o r s and L i t t l e ' s y i e l d e d 7. While d i s t i n c t , each of the 13 f a c t o r s r e t a i n e d e i t h e r a person or t h i n g emphasis. 65. 4:3:c Disc r i m i n a n t V a l i d i t y : R e l a t i o n s h i p s between the P-T sc a l e s and other measures of p e r s o n a l i t y have a l s o been explored. Both L i t t l e ' s and Frost and Barnowe's stu d i e s have produced evidence that person and t h i n g o r i e n t a t i o n s are two, independent, i n t e r n a l l y c o n s i s t e n t p e r s o n a l i t y d i s p o s i t i o n s . Frost and Barnowe found l i t t l e overlap between person and t h i n g o r i e n t a t i o n and s e v e r a l p r e v i o u s l y developed measures of p e r s o n a l i t y . Using measures of I n t r o v e r s i o n - E x t r a v e r s i o n (Bendig 1962), Ambiguity Tolerance (MacDonald 1970) and a modified v e r s i o n of a Locus of Cont r o l Scale (Rotter 1966, C o l l i n s 1974); the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the two sets of Person-Thing s c a l e s and the above measures of p e r s o n a l i t y were explored. The only c o r r e l a t i o n above r=.30 i n v o l v e d the i n t r o v e r s i o n - e x t r a v e r s i o n s c a l e and both Person s c a l e s (Frost and Barnowe 1971). Some i n t e r e s t i n g p e r s o n a l i t y patterns emerged from t h i s work. Thing s p e c i a l i s t s were found to be b e t t e r at disembling f i g u r e s from t h e i r contexts than Person S p e c i a l i s t s . G e n e r a l i s t s were a l s o b e t t e r at t h i s task than Person S p e c i a l i s t s . Person s p e c i a l i s t s and g e n e r a l i s t s were more ex t r a v e r t e d than Thing s p e c i a l i s t s . G e n e r a l i s t s were found to be more t o l e r a n t of ambiguity than e i t h e r Person or Thing S p e c i a l i s t s . 4:3:d R e l i a b i l i t y o f the Person-Thing Scale: Results from d i f f e r e n t types of r e l i a b i l i t y s t udies of the P-T s c a l e s are al s o a v a i l a b l e . In Frost and Barnowe's st u d i e s of t h e i r own and L i t t l e ' s P-T s c a l e s , they found s p l i t - h a l f and Cronbach's alpha c o e f f i c i e n t s to be s a t i s f a c t o r i l y high on both s c a l e s (1977) . L i t t l e has t e s t e d the r e l i a b i l i t y o f h i s P-T Scale on B r i t i s h , American and Canadian s u b j e c t s . S p l i t - h a l f r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s i n these s t u d i e s were a l l above r=.72. 66. L i t t l e also presents evidence f o r the r e l i a b i l i t y of h i s s c a l e based on c o r r e l a t i o n s between s e l f - r a t i n g s , peer r a t i n g s and P-T s c a l e scores. He found general support f o r the view that the Person-Thing s c a l e i s "tapping a domain that does not r e l y upon the Person-Thing Scale method alone" (1972). 4:3:e Summary By attempting to l i n k the Person-Thing Construct with a t t i t u d i n a l c o r r e l a t e s of research modes and work o r g a n i z i n g s t y l e s , t h i s study i s a f u r t h e r t e s t of the v a l i d i t y and r e l i a b i l i t y of the thought and instrumentation behind s p e c i a l i z a t i o n theory. 4:4 O p e r a t i o n a l i z i n g the Dependent V a r i a b l e s : For purposes of measurement, a t t i t u d e s are defined as organized p r e d i s p o s i t i o n s to t h i n k , f e e l , p erceive and behave toward categories of phenomena i n c e r t a i n ways ( K e r l i n g e r 1973) . The s p e c i f i c a t t i t u d e s assessed as dependent v a r i a b l e s i n t h i s study are: a) a t t i t u d e s toward a l t e r n a t i v e modes of d e f i n i n g and observing e m p i r i c a l phenomena. b) preferences f o r a l t e r n a t i v e o r g a n i z i n g s t r a t e g i e s i n research team s i t u a t i o n s . 4:4:a The Research Mode: An i n d i v i d u a l ' s o r i e n t a t i o n towards approaches to research i s o p e r a t i o n a l l y defined on the b a s i s of raw scores obtained from responses to a L i k e r t - t y p e s c a l e developed f o r the study. A L i k e r t (1961) s c a l e i s an a t t i t u d e measuring technique which r e q u i r e s the subjects to place themselves on an continuum i n r e l a t i o n to a s e r i e s of statements. The o b j e c t i v e of 67. the c o n s t r u c t i o n procedures f o r L i k e r t Scales i s to a r r i v e at a pool of statements which are measuring the same a t t i t u d e ( s ) . In t h i s study, a t t i t u d e s toward A n a l y t i c and H o l i s t i c approaches to research are measured by asking the respondent to place themselves on a 5 p o i n t favorable-unfavorable s c a l e i n r e l a t i o n to a s e r i e s of statements concerning research. Each Research Mode item i s designed so that persons w i t h d i f f e r e n t p o i n t s o f view i n regard to a p a r t i c u l a r approach to research, should respond to the item d i f f e r e n t i a l l y . The s c o r i n g procedure f o r the L i k e r t s c a l e i s based on the d e c i s i o n that a favorable d i s p o s i t i o n towards one of the two research approaches r a t e s a high score (5) and a fav o r a b l e a t t i t u d e towards the other research approach rates a low score (1). For purposes of s c a l i n g , a favorable a t t i t u d e toward the H o l i s t i c mode i s given a high score and a favorable a t t i t u d e toward the A n a l y t i c mode i s scored low. The raw score f o r i n d i v i d u a l s on the Research Mode v a r i a b l e s i s obtained by summing the scaled scores on the i n d i v i d u a l items which represent each of the a l t e r n a t i v e research approaches. The procedure used to o b t a i n r e l i a b l e Research Mode dimensions i s elaborated i n the d i s c u s s i o n of the r e s u l t s derived from the f a c t o r a n a l y s i s of the research mode (Section 5:8). 4:4:b O p e r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n of O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Approaches: An i n d i v i d u a l ' s o r i e n t a t i o n towards a l t e r n a t i v e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l approaches i s o p e r a t i o n a l l y defined by a r a t i o score obtained on a forced-choice s c a l e developed f o r the study. The s c a l e i s designed so th a t each s c a l e - i t e m c o n s i s t s of a c o n d i t i o n a l statement and two a l t e r n a t i v e endings. Each a l t e r n a t i v e ending r e p r e s e n t i n g Type I or Type I I or g a n i z i n g approaches. The s c a l e i s s e l f - a d m i n i s t e r i n g . For each item, the subject i s asked to a l l o c a t e f i v e points unequally among the two a l t e r n a t i v e s presented. 68. This forced-choice procedure was chosen because i t best approximated the theory that organizations vary i n form along a s i n g l e continuum (Burns and S t a l k e r 1961). An i n d i v i d u a l ' s o r i e n t a t i o n towards Type I and Type I I s t r a t e g i e s i s d e rived by summing the preference p o i n t s a l l o c a t e d to the items r e p r e s e n t i n g Type I I s t r a t e g y and d i v i d i n g that number i n t o the t o t a l number of po i n t s a l l o c a t e d to both a l t e r n a t i v e s . Assuming that a t t i t u d e s are normally d i s t r i b u t e d ; a favorable a t t i t u d e toward Type I I i s considered to be a score that f a l l s above the sample mean on the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l r a t i o . Those i n d i v i d u a l s f a l l i n g below the mean are considered as having a favorable a t t i t u d e toward Type I o r g a n i z i n g s t y l e . 4:4:c Other V a r i a b l e s : An important p a r t of the a n a l y t i c survey design i s the e f f o r t to c o n t r o l f o r as many confounding and e r r o r sources as p o s s i b l e . The study attempts to c o n t r o l f o r these v a r i a b l e s by gathering i n f o r m a t i o n on demographic and experience c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the study sample (See Appendix A.5). 4:5 Questionnaire C o n s t r u c t i o n : The questionnaire items designed to tap a t t i t u d e s toward research modes and work s t y l e s were produced i n the f o l l o w i n g manner. An i n i t i a l item pool was created f o r both construct areas from d e f i n i t i o n a l statements found i n the l i t e r a t u r e . 69. A f t e r an i n i t i a l screening f o r c l a r i t y by two b e h a v i o r a l s c i e n t i s t s f a m i l i a r w i t h the concepts, a panel of three judges was ; s e l e c t e d . These judges were asked to r a t e the statements of each pool on the b a s i s of d e f i n i t i o n a l c r i t e r i a provided by the researcher, u s i n g a modified Q-Sort Methodology. The r a t e r s were graduate students from a v a r i e t y of d i s c i p l i n a r y backgrounds. Each r a t e r was given paragraphs adopted from the l i t e r a t u r e d e s c r i b i n g the c o n t r a s t i n g types of research modes and or g a n i z i n g p r i n c i p l e s . The r a t e r s were then asked to s o r t a s e r i e s of statements, typed on three by f i v e cards, on the b a s i s of the degree to which each item agreed w i t h a d e f i n i t i o n a l a l t e r n a t i v e . This process was c a r r i e d out se p a r a t e l y f o r the two constructs. Raters were asked to place the item-cards i n t o one of f i v e p i l e s . P i l e s one and two were t o be used i f the statement agreed s t r o n g l y or s l i g h t l y w i t h the Analytic/Type I I d e f i n i t i o n s . P i l e three was used f o r statements which seemed u n c l e a r , ambiguous or r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f e i t h e r a l t e r n a t i v e d e f i n i t i o n . P i l e s four and f i v e were /to be used i f the statement was s l i g h t l y or s t r o n g l y i n d i c a t i v e of the other d e f i n i t i o n a l extremes, the H o l i s t i c / T y p e I a l t e r n a t i v e s . A Spearman's Rank Order C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t was c a l c u l a t e d f o r each item pool i n order to estimate the degree of s i m i l a r i t y among the ranking of the items by the three r a t e s . I n t e r - r a t e r c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s were a l l above r=.89 f o r both the Research Mode items and the Organizing S t y l e items. This method a l s o allows f o r a v i s u a l i n s p e c t i o n of the scores f o r i n d i v i d u a l items across r a t e r s . Depending on the v a r i a b i l i t y i n scores f o r an i n d i v i d u a l item, the items were maintained, r e w r i t t e n or dropped a l t o g e t h e r . 70. The modified item pools were submitted to a second Q-Sort employing three new r a t e r s . Spearman Rank Order C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t s were c a l c u l a t e d . For the research mode the i n t e r - r a t e r c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s were a l l above r = .85. For Organizing s t y l e s a l l of the c o r r e l a t i o n s between r a t e r s were above r = .98. These items, along with the items of the Person-Thing Construct S c a l e , became the v a r i a b l e s used to measure the hypothesized c o r r e l a t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s of the s tudy. The f i r s t d r a f t of the questionnaire was submitted to a panel of judges, c o n s i s t i n g of two b e h a v i o r i a l s c i e n t i s t s and two p h y s i c i a n s , experienced i n questionnaire design. On the b a s i s of t h e i r recommendations, a second d r a f t of the questionnaire was developed. This d r a f t was submitted to a small p r e - t e s t . . The p o p u l a t i o n of the p r e - t e s t study c o n s i s t e d of d i s c i p l i n a r y s p e c i a l i s t s i n a range of f i e l d s s i m i l a r to the study's sample. Seven questionnaires were d i s t r i b u t e d and comments were re c e i v e d from a l l of the p a r t i c i p a n t s . On the b a s i s of the c r i t i c i s m s found i n the p r e - t e s t , the questionnaire was r e v i s e d again. This r e v i s i o n , along with the cover l e t t e r s , c o n s t i t u t e d the copy of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e used i n the study (See Appendix A.0). 4:6 Sample: The study sample was s e l e c t e d i n a purposive, non-random f a s h i o n . Subjects were chosen from a p o p u l a t i o n of academic s p e c i a l i s t s employed as f a c u l t y i n socio-medical r e l a t e d f i e l d s at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia as of September 1978. P r o f e s s i o n a l s employed i n these d i s c i p l i n a r y areas were chosen because they can be considered p o t e n t i a l p a r t i c i p a n t s i n a v a r i e t y of p o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y socio-medical research i s s u e s . 71. Very l i t t l e work has focused on the management problems of p o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y h e a l t h research. The Lalonde Report (1974) c l e a r l y i d e n t i f i e s the i n t e r - r e l a t e d n e s s of h e a l t h problems as they manifest themselves as research issues i n the areas of environment, human b i o l o g y , l i f e s t y l e and healthcare o r g a n i z a t i o n . Much of t h i s research i s best accomplished w i t h i n the framework of the d i s c i p l i n e s . However, there are pr e s s i n g socio-medical problems which' the h e a l t h f i e l d faces and cannot be s o l v e d i n the i s o l a t i o n of s p e c i f i c d i s c i p l i n e s . A l i s t of f i e l d s judged p o t e n t i a l l y i n v o l v a b l e i n s o c i o -medical research r e l a t e d to the c h i l d served as a b a s i s f o r s e l e c t i n g a core group of 17 p r o f e s s i o n a l areas (Tonkin 1976). A f a c u l t y p a y r o l l l i s t with the names and addresses of the i n d i v i d u a l s h i r e d by the u n i v e r s i t y was obtained. Using t h i s l i s t , the study p o p u l a t i o n was expanded to i n c l u d e 33 academic f i e l d s ' and a sample of 594 i n d i v i d u a l s p e c i a l i s t s . Cost c o n s t r a i n t s prevented the research from sampling a l a r g e r range of sampling u n i t s (academic f i e l d s ) . Consequently the sample has been s e l e c t e d i n a non-random f a s h i o n , e l i m i n a t i n g some r e l e v a n t areas of s p e c i a l i z a t i o n . Consequently, sources of random e r r o r i n the study have not been w e l l c o n t r o l l e d due to the method of sampling. The study i s l i m i t e d i n i t s g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y because of: a) i t s purposive, non-random sampling technique, b) i t s respondents are a s e l f - s e l e c t group i n an already b i a s e d sample. 72. Nevertheless, a large number of f i e l d s and i n d i v i d u a l s have been surveyed. Therefore, the sample s t u d i e d w i l l provide a good b a s i s f o r . generating hypotheses that may be a p p l i e d to a more s y s t e m a t i c a l l y sampled population i n the f u t u r e . 4:7 The Measuring Instrument and Data C o l l e c t i o n Techniques: The measuring instrument of the study i s a s t r u c t u r e d a t t i t u d e and a t t r i b u t e q u e s t i o n n a i r e . I t i s s e l f - a d m i n i s t e r i n g and takes about 30 minutes to complete. I t c o n s i s t s of f o u r p a r t s and a b r i e f i n t r o d u c t i o n . The f i r s t s e c t i o n , measuring the independent v a r i a b l e s , c o n s i s t s of 24 items. The second and t h i r d s e c t i o n s measure the dependent v a r i a b l e s and co n s i s t of 20 Research Mode and 10 O r g a n i z a t i o n a l items r e s p e c t i v e l y . The l a s t s e c t i o n c o n s i s t s of 16 demographic and career r e l a t e d questions. The q u e s t i o n n a i r e was d e l i v e r e d to the study p o p u l a t i o n by campus m a i l . M a i l questionnaires are widely used i n many types of surveys. The major weakness i n the use of the mailed questionnaire i s low response r a t e s . Those r e t u r n i n g the ques t i o n n a i r e d i f f e r from non-respondents (Charach 1975). Consequently, the f o l l o w i n g e f f o r t s were taken by the researcher t o i n f l u e n c e response r a t e s . Two cover l e t t e r s accompanied the q u e s t i o n n a i r e , one from the students's t h e s i s advisors endorsing the p r o j e c t and one from the researcher e x p l a i n i n g the nature and o b j e c t i v e s of the study (See Appendix A86.)_. Enclosed i n the questionnaire package was an envelope with the researcher's address, enabling the respondant to r e t u r n the ques t i o n n a i r e with l i t t l e e f f o r t and at no cost. In a d d i t i o n , the study sample was 73. guaranteed anonymity. _ No coding or i d e n t i f i c a t i o n system was maintained. This approach n e c e s s i t a t e d the repeated m a i l i n g of a l l reminders to the t o t a l sample because no record of returned questionnaires was maintained. The use of followups i s a demonstrated technique f o r i n c r e a s i n g response r a t e s to mailed questionnaires (Charach 1975). The ti m i n g and format of the study's follow-ups were: 1) Day One-one h a l f of the questionnaires d e l i v e r e d to one h a l f of the sample. 2) Day Two-second h a l f of the questionnaires d i s t r i b u t e d to the other h a l f of the sample. 3) Day Six-remainder note sent out to study sample. 4) Day Twelve-second copy of que s t i o n n a i r e sent to t o t a l sample. 5) Day S i x t e e n - F i n a l reminder note sent to a l l of sample. Questionnaire length i s of t e n considered to be a f a c t o r i n response r a t e s (Charach 1975, Dillman, D. et a l . 1974). The f i n a l d r a f t of the questionnaire was eight pages. An e f f o r t to get the respondents to f o l l o w the response format of the questionnaire was made by p r o v i d i n g an area f o r open-ended comments on the questionnaires design and content. The questionnaires were returned to the researcher by Campus M a i l i n care of the Department of Healthcare and Epidemiology. The researcher was the only i n d i v i d u a l to open or code the responses i n a pre-coded column on the que s t i o n n a i r e . 74. V. ANALYTIC PROCEDURES OF THE STUDY 5:1 Ou t l i n e of Procedures The a n a l y t i c a l procedures used i n the study were chosen i n order to determine the d i r e c t i o n and strength of i n f l u e n c e p e r s o n a l i t y s p e c i a l i z a t i o n has on s p e c i a l i s t ' s , ' a t t i t u d e s towards: 1) a l t e r n a t i v e research approaches. 2) opposite modes of work o r g a n i z a t i o n . The study hypothesizes that p a r t i c u l a r p e r s o n a l i t y types, assessed by the Person-Thing Construct Scale, w i l l be ass o c i a t e d with preferences f o r s p e c i f i c research modes and work o r g a n i z i n g .styles. The t h r u s t of the a n a l y s i s focuses on c o r r e l a t i o n s between the independent v a r i a b l e s of p e r s o n a l i t y o r i e n t a t i o n . a n d the dependent r v a r i a b l e s of a t t i t u d e s toward research and work. The a n a l y t i c a l process c a r r i e d out by the study takes the f o l l o w i n g form: 1. D e s c r i p t i v e p r o f i l e of the response sample. 2. R e l i a b i l i t y checkes on the scales used to measure the Independent V a r i a b l e s . 3. Steps to generate the dimensions of the Dependent V a r i a b l e s to be used f o r t e s t i n g hypotheses. 4. R e l i a b i l i t y checks on the Dependent V a r i a b l e s . 5. C o r r e l a t i o n a l a n a l y s i s . 6. Test i n g f o r s t a t i s t i c a l d i f f e r e n c e s among s p e c i a l i s t groups i n regard to a t t i t u d e s toward research and work o r g a n i z a t i o n . 75. In a d d i t i o n to the hypothesized r e l a t i o n s h i p s of the study concerning Person and Thing S p e c i a l i s t s , two other s p e c i a l i s t types are al s o examined i n r e l a t i o n to the study's dependent v a r i a b l e s . The confounding v a r i a b l e s of age, sex, academic rank, n o n - u n i v e r s i t y employment si n c e t e r m i n a l degree and c o l l a b o r a t i v e experience with other f i e l d s are a l s o considered i n the a n a l y s i s . The e f f e c t s of the p e r s o n a l i t y v a r i a b l e s are assessed i n two ways. In the research'mode, c o r r e l a t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s and d i f f e r e n c e s i n mean scores among sub-populations of s p e c i a l i s t s on the dependent v a r i a b l e s were explored. For the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l preference data, we examined c o r r e l a t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s and d i f f e r e n c e s i n the frequencies of s p e c i a l i s t types f a l l i n g i n t o the two categories of the c r i t e r i o n . v a r i a b l e . 5:2 Study Sample Out of the 594 i n d i v i d u a l s contacted by the study, 53% of the sample was accounted f o r i n one of the f o l l o w i n g ways. Out of these 314 cases, 270 or 45% were usable q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . The remaining 44 cases could not be used i n the study f o r one of the f o l l o w i n g reasons. Table 1. BREAKDOWN OF NON-USABLE QUESTIONNAIRES BY REASON OF NON-PARTICIPATION. REASON NUMBER OF CASES 90 No longer at U.B.C. 28 63% Refusal 15 34% Death 1 2% TOTAL 44 100% 76. Eighteen percent of the usable responses d i d not i d e n t i f y t h e i r departmental a f f i l i a t i o n . Two percent of the usable questionnaires i n d i c a t e d primary a f f i l i a t i o n w i t h a department other than those p o l l e d by the survey. Table 2 compares the R e l a t i v e Percentage each d i s c i p l i n a r y f i e l d c o n t r i b u t e d to the o r i g i n a l sample with the R e l a t i v e Percentage each f i e l d c ontributed to the response sample. This comparison gives a general i n d i c a t i o n of the representativeness of the study po p u l a t i o n . Out of the 32 d i s c i p l i n e s surveyed, 26 f i e l d s responded. Nursing was the f i e l d heard from most of t e n . Table 3 presents the R e l a t i v e Frequency Response Rate per D i s c i p l i n e . The Demographic and Career Experience c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the study sample are enumerated i n Table 4 . 5:3 D i s t r i b u t i o n of Person and Thing Scores: Out of the 270 cases, Person Scores were obtained f o r 233 cases. Thing scores were obtained f o r 229 cases. The d e s c r i p t i v e s t a t i s t i c s f o r these study v a r i a b l e s appears i n Table §. I t was p o s s i b l e to c a l c u l a t e both Person and Thing Scores f o r 212 out of the 270 cases. Each of the 212 i n d i v i d u a l s were assigned to a S p e c i a l i s t o r i e n t a t i o n according to the f o l l o w i n g c r i t e r i a . Depending on the i n d i v i d u a l ' s scores on both scales the case was assigned to one of four s p e c i a l i s t groups f o r a n a l y s i s purposes: Person S p e c i a l i s t s - i f Person Score = 2.90 and Thing Score < 3.02. Thing S p e c i a l i s t s - i f Person Score <2.90 and Thing Score>3.02. G e n e r a l i s t s - i f Person Score >2.90 and Thing Score >3.02. No n - S p e c i a l i s t s - i f Person Score <2.90 and Thing Score <3.02. 77. Table 2. PERCENT EACH DISCIPLINARY FIELD CONTRIBUTED TO THE ORIGINAL SAMPLE COMPARED TO THE PERCENT EACH FIELD CONTRIBUTED TO THE STUDY SAMPLE DISCIPLINARY FIELD ORIGINAL PERCENTAGE SAMPLE PERCENTAGE Law 6 3 P h y s i c a l Education 5 4.4 R e h a b i l i t a t i o n Medicine 2.1 2.2 P o l i t i c a l Science 4 2.2 Anthropology/Sociology 6 5.2 Psychology 7 7 Home Economics _2 • .0 Economics 6 2.2 P s y c h i a t r y 5 2.6 Physiology 2 1.5 Pharmaceutical Sciences 5 4.1 Pharmacology 2 1.9 S o c i a l Work 4 4.1 Nursing 10 10 D e n t i s t r y 6 5.6 P e d i a t r i c s 5 3.7 Pathology 2 3.2 Surgery 3 1.9 O b s t e t r i c s 1.3 0 Ophthamology 1.3 1.1 Medicine 4.3 6.7 Medical Genetics 1 .4 Anatomy 2 1.1 Audiology and Speech 1 0 Community and Regional Planning 2 .7 Anaesthesiology . 1 0 L i n g u i s t i c s 1 1.5 N e u r o l o g i c a l Sciences .5 1.1 Medical Microbiology .3 0 S p e c i a l Education 1 1.9 Cancer Research .7 0 Bioresource Engineering .7 .7 Diagnostic Radiology .7 0 Tot a l 100% 80% (Indicated) 20% (Other or Not Indicated) 100% 78, Table 3. RESPONSE RATE OF EACH CONTRIBUTING DISCIPLINE, SIZE OF SAMPLED GROUP BY DISCIPLINE AND ACTUAL NUMBER OF STUDY RESPONDENTS BY DISCIPLINE. DISCIPLINARY FIELD RESPONSE RATE PER DISCIPLINE ORIGINAL SAMPLED GROUP ACTUAL NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS Law P h y s i c a l Education R e h a b i l i t a t i o n Medicine P o l i t i c a l Science Anthropology/Sociology Psychology Home Economics Economics P s y c h i a t r y Physiology Pharmaceutical Sciences Pharmacology S o c i a l Work Nursing D e n t i s t r y P e d i a t r i c s Pathology Surgery O b s t e t r i c s Ophthamology Medicine Medical Genetics Anatomy Audiology and Speech Community and Regional Planning Anaesthesiology L i n g u i s t i c s N e u r o l o g i c a l Sciences Medical M i c r o b i o l o g y S p e c i a l Education Cancer Research Bioresource Engineering Diagnostic Radiology 21 38 8 44 27 12 46 13 6 29 21 6 38 37 14 48 40 19 0 14 0 17 36 6 25 28 7 31 13 4 39 28 11 36 14 5 46 24 11 47 57 27 4 in. 37 15 32 31 10 75 12 9 25 20 5 0 8 0 38 8 3 69 26 18 17 6 1 30 10 3 0 6 0 22 9 2 0 1 0 66 6 4 100 3 3 0 2 0 71 7 5 0 4 0 50 4 2 0 4 0 594 216 (Other) 6 /(•No i n d i c a t i o n ) 48 270 7 9 . Table 4. DEMOGRAPHIC AND CAREER CHARACTERISTICS OF THE STUDY SAMPLE CHARACTERISTIC FREQUENCY RELATIVE PERCENT Rank: F u l l Professor Assoc. Professor A s s i s t . Professor Research Assoc. Lecturer I n s t r u c t o r Other No response 60 77 100 6 4 16 3 4 270 22.2 28.5 37.0 2.2 1. 5. 1. 1. 5 .9 ,1 .5 100% Age: 20's 30's 40's 50's 60's no response Sex: males females no response Number of D i s c i p l i n a r y S p e c i a l i t y Areas: 1 2 3 4 no response Years of Formal Education: 0-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21 plus no response 6 109 77 57 10 11 270 174 79 17 270 105 103 34 12 16 270 15 180 56 4 6_ 270 2. 40. 28. 21. 3. 4. 100% 64.4 29.3 6.3 100% 38.9 38.1 12.6 4.4 5.9 100% 5.6 66.7 20.7 3.3 1.5 2.2 100% 80. Table 4 . (Continued) CHARACTERISTIC FREQUENCY RELATIVE PERCENT Non-University Employment Before Terminal Degree: yes 162 60 no 104 38.5 no response 4 1.5 270 100% Non-University Employment Since Terminal Degree: yes 82 30.4 no 185 68.5 no response __3 1.1 270 100% C o l l a b o r a t i v e Experience w i t h Colleagues i n Own D i s c i p l i n e : yes 214 79.3 no 50 18.5 no response _6 2.2 270" 100% C o l l a b o r a t i v e Experience wit h Colleagues from other D i s c i p l i n e s : yes 179 66.3 no 87 32.2 no response 4 1.5 270 100% Average Number of D i s c i p l i n e s Involved i n C o l l a b o r a t i o n : one 59 21.9 two 75 27.8 three 26 9.6 four 9 3.3 f i v e or more 7 2.6 no response 94 34.8 270 100% Table 4. (Continued) 81. CHARACTERISTIC FREQUENCY RELATIVE PERCENT Research P r o d u c t i v i t y Estimate f o r C o l l a b o r a t i v e Research: Highly productive 56 20.7 Productive 101 37.4 un c e r t a i n 19 7.0 unproductive 2 ..7 Highly unproductive 1 .4 no response 91 33.7 270 100% Length of C o l l a b o r a t i v e P r o j e c t s : 1-6 mos. 19 7.0 6 mos. - y r . 58 21.5 1-3 y r s . 64 23.7 3r5 y r s . 18 6.7 5 y r s plus 18 6.7 no response 94 34.4 270 100% 82. Table 5. DISTRIBUTIONAL BREAKDOWN OF THE FOUR SPECIALIST GROUPS SPECIALIST GROUP ABSOLUTE FREQUENCY RELATIVE FREQUENCY % CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY % Person S p e c i a l i s t s 56 20.7 26.4 Thing S p e c i a l i s t s 46 17.0 48.1 G e n e r a l i s t s 60 22.2 76.4 N o n - S p e c i a l i s t s 50 18.5 100.0 M i s s i n g 58 21.5 5:4 Inter-Item C o r r e l a t i o n a l A n a l y s i s of Person and Thing Scales: The Person and Thing sc a l e s were each looked at sep a r a t e l y i n an i n t e r - i t e m c o r r e l a t i o n a l a n a l y s i s u s i n g Pearson Product Moment C o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s . This was done to see how each of the Person and Thing questionnaire items r e l a t e d to the t o t a l s c a l e dimension i t was supposed to be measuring. Each of the items of the Person s c a l e c o r r e l a t e d p o s i t i v e l y w i t h the Person s c a l e . A l l of the Person items c o r r e l a t e d above r=.44 at the .001 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . Each of the items of the T h i n g v s c a l e c o r r e l a t e d p o s i t i v e l y w i t h the t o t a l Thing s c a l e . A l l of the Thing items c o r r e l a t e d with Thing o r i e n t a t i o n above r =.48 at the s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l .001, wit h the exception of two items. Item one (r=.26) and item 18 (r=.22) c o r r e l a t e d at the .001 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . The r e s u l t s of the i n t e r - i t e m c o r r e l a t i o n a l a n a l y s i s suggest that each of the items o f the Person and Thing s c a l e s seem to be r e l a t e d r a t h e r w e l l to the dimensions they were designed to measure. 83. 5:5 I n t e r - S c a l e C o r r e l a t i o n a l A n a l y s i s : A second Pearson Product Moment C o r r e a l t i o n was performed u s i n g the e n t i r e Person and Thing s c a l e s . This b i v a r i a t e c o r r e l a t i o n was c a r r i e d out to see i f the Person and Thing scales were r e l a t e d to each other. The Person and Thing sc a l e s were found to be e s s e n t i a l l y u n c o r r e l a t e d . (r=.072 n=212 s=.148) This f i n d i n g c o n t r i b u t e s to the already e x i s t i n g evidence that the Person and Thing sc a l e s are tapping two d i s t i n c t p e r s o n a l i t y c o n s t r u c t s . 5:6 R e l i a b i l i t y Tests on Person and Thing Scales: Two types of r e l i a b i l i t y t e s t s were performed on both s c a l e s . R e l i a b i l i t y i s the accuracy or p r e c i s i o n of a measuring instrument ( K e r l i n g e r , 1973). In the S p l i t - H a l f r e l i a b i l i t y t e s t , scores obtained on one h a l f o f a sca l e s items are compared to the scores obtained f o r the same i n d i v i d u a l s on the items making up the other h a l f of the s c a l e . The r e s u l t i n g r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t i s an i n d i c a t i o n of the i n t e r n a l consistancy of the s c a l e ( S e l l i t z et_ al_. 1976) . The Spearman-Brown S p l i t - h a l f r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t f o r the Person s c a l e was r=.756, n=233.12 items. The Spearman-Brown c o e f f i c i e n t f o r the Thing sca l e was r=.768, n=229, 12 items. 84. Table 6. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF THE PERSON AND THING SCALES. STATISTICS PERSON SCALE THING SCALE Mean 2.90 3.02 Mode 3.25 3.16 Median 2.96 3.03 Maximum 4.30 4.58 Minimum 1.47 1.00 Range 2.91 3.58 Standard D e v i a t i o n . .644 .613 Skewness -.232 -.109 Variance .414 .375 '85. Cronbach's alpha R e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s were a l s o c a l c u l a t e d f o r the Person and Thing s c a l e s . Alpha measures e s s e n t i a l l y the same t h i n g as the s p l i t - h a l f c o e f f i c i e n t . I f a l l the s p l i t s f o r a t e s t were made, the mean of the c o e f f i c i e n t s obtained would be alpha (Cronbach 1951). Alpha f o r the Person s c a l e was a=.808, n=233, 12 items. Alpha f o r the Thing s c a l e was a=.761, n=229, 12 items. R e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s above the .70 l e v e l are g e n e r a l l y considered to be s a t i s f a c t o r y i n d i c a t o r s of the r e l i a b i l i t y of a measuring instrument. 5:7 C o r r e l a t i o n a l A n a l y s i s of the Research Mode Items: The f o l l o w i n g steps were taken i n order to explore the construct v a l i d i t y of the A n a l y t i c and H o l i s t i c concepts found i n the l i t e r a t u r e and to generate r e l i a b l e dimensions of the Research Mode f o r use i n the a n a l y s i s . A Pearson Product-Moment c o r r e l a t i o n matrix was constructed. This i s a technique which measures the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between a l l p o s s i b l e p a i r s o f questions. In t h i s case, the research mode s e c t i o n of the questionnaire i s composed of 20 questions so the c o r r e l a t i o n matrix c o n s i s t s of 20 items by 20 items. Out of the 400 p a i r e d ' p o s s i b i l i t i e s , 55 p a i r s of questions were s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d at the s=.001 l e v e l . These c o e f f i c i e n t s ranged i n value from a high of r=.49 to a low of r=.18. Out of the 55 p a i r s , only ei g h t c o r r e l a t i o n s were above the .35 l e v e l . These c o r r e l a t i o n values are low and there i s no r e a d i l y apparent p a t t e r n to be observed w i t h i n these 55 s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s . .8.6.. Consequently, the 20 items of the research mode were subjected t o a v a r i e t y of f a c t o r a n a l y t i c techniques. "Given an array of c o r r e l a t i o n . c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r a set of v a r i a b l e s , f a c t o r a n a l y t i c techniques enable us to see whether some underlying p a t t e r n of r e l a t i o n s h i p s e x i s t s such that the data may be rearranged or reduced to a smaller set of f a c t o r s or dimensions " (Rummel 1970). 5:8 Factor A n a l y s i s of the Research Mode Items: This t h e s i s uses f a c t o r a n a l y s i s i n two ways: 1) To t e s t f o r the existence of the hypothesized dimensions of the research mode i n terms of expected numbers of s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r s and the loadings of p a r t i c u l a r items. 2) To construct i n d i c e s f o r measuring s p e c i f i c a t t i t u d e s toward research. The f a c t o r i n g techniques a p p l i e d to the research mode data are found i n the subprogram Factor i n the SPSS Manual (Nie, H. et a l . 1975). The f a c t o r model used i n the a n a l y s i s i s P r i n c i p a l f a c t o r i n g w i t h i t e r a t i o n (Pa2). This c l a s s i c a l approach to f a c t o r i n g r e s t s on the assumption that the observed c o r r e l a t i o n s are mainly the r e s u l t of some und e r l y i n g r e g u l a r i t y i n the data. In t h i s p a r t i c u l a r f a c t o r model, a v a r i a b l e i s thought :to be i n f l u e n c e d by "various determinants", some of which are common to other v a r i a b l e s i n the matrix and some of which are unique. Therefore any c o r r e l a t i o n between two v a r i a b l e s i s assumed to be due t o a common i n f l u e n c e . This approach to f a c t o r i n g i s concerned with p a t t e r n i n g a l l the v a r i a t i o n i n a set o f v a r i a b l e s 87. whether'common or unique. PA2 a u t o m a t i c a l l y replaces the main elements of the c o r r e l a t i o n matrix with communality estimates. The p r i n c i p a l diagonal i n a c o r r e l a t i o n matrix u s u a l l y contains the c o r r e l a t i o n of a v a r i a b l e w i t h i t s e l f , which i s always 1.0. Communality estimates are measures of the v a r i a t i o n of a v a r i a b l e that i s common to a l l the^other v a r i a b l e s i n the matrix (Rummel 1970). Two f a c t o r matrices are produced by f a c t o r a n a l y s i s , the unrotated and r o t a t e d f a c t o r matrices. The "unrotated f a c t o r s define the most general patterns of r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n the data. The r o t a t e d f a c t o r s d e l i n e a t e the d i s t i n c t c l u s t e r s of r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n the data" (Rummel 1970). The goal of any r o t a t i o n i s to obtain some t h e o r e t i c a l l y meaningful f a c t o r s and i f p o s s i b l e , the simplest f a c t o r s t r u c t u r e underlying the data. The r o t a t i o n a l techniques chosen to a r r i v e at terminal f a c t o r s o l u t i o n s f o r t h i s study are based on the judgement of the researcher concerning the t h e o r e t i c a l and p r a c t i c a l needs of t h i s p a r t i c u l a r research problem. 5:8:a Orthogonal Rotation S p e c i f y i n g Two Factors: The i n i t i a l f a c t o r i n g procedure s p e c i f i e d two f a c t o r s w i t h a minimum eigen value of 1.0 and orthogonal r o t a t i o n to vari-max s o l u t i o n . The two f a c t o r approach was employed to see i f the 20 items of the research mode loaded d i f f e r e n t i a l l y according to the two hypothesized research dimensions.' 88. Factor one accounted f o r 76% of the v a r i a t i o n i n the research mode v a r i a b l e s and Factor two accounted f o r 24%. Thi r t e e n of the 20 items c o r r e l a t e d to some degree on both f a c t o r s . Out of the seven unambiguous loadings, 6 loaded on Factor one and 1 loaded on Factor two. A l l but one of the t h i r t e e n double loadings c o r r e l a t e d predominantly with one or the other f a c t o r . The research mode items loading above .40 on Factor one included questions 1,4,9,11,12,17 and 19. A l l of these statements were designed to measure an A n a l y t i c approach to research. Factor two was composed of three items loading above the .40 l e v e l ; i n c l u d i n g questions 10,14 and 20. Each of these statements were designed to tap a H o l i s t i c research approach. These r e s u l t s provide some evidence f o r the existence of the two conceptually d i s t i n c t approaches to research. 5:8:b Orthogonal Rotation S p e c i f y i n g Free Factors: A more complex f a c t o r a n a l y s i s was al s o performed on the 20 research mode items. A f r e e f a c t o r determination w i t h a minimum eigen value o f 1.0 and orthogonal r o t a t i o n to a vari-max s o l u t i o n was s p e c i f i e d . A f r e e f a c t o r determination allows the researcher to e s t a b l i s h the a c t u a l number of meaningful, independent patterns of r e l a t i o n s h i p s e x i s t i n g among the research mode v a r i a b l e s . Four f a c t o r s accounted f o r 66% of the variance i n the data. Factors one and two accounting f o r 54.8% of the t o t a l v ariance. In order to define a " s a l i e n t " research mode dimension, items which loaded at .40 and above on any given f a c t o r are chosen. Items f a l l i n g below .40 are not included i n the d e f i n i t i o n of a f a c t o r . 89. F a c t o r one c o n s i s t e d o f items 2,4,5,6,13,14 and 16. A l l but one of these items (#4) were designed to define the H o l i s t i c approach to research. Factor Two c o n s i s t e d of 6 items: 1,9,10,11,12 and 19. A l l of these items, with the exception of item 10, were A n a l y t i c i n t h e i r approach to d e f i n i n g research. Factor three i s composed of one item, number 7. This question deals w i t h the need f o r s p e c i f i c i t y i n t e s t i n g f o r r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n research. Factor Four loads with two items, 17 and 20. Both of these items are concerned with i n t e r p r e t a t i v e s t r a t e g i e s f o r research. The f r e e f a c t o r r o t a t i o n introduces two new dimensions f o r d e f i n i n g the research mode, but the A n a l y t i c a l and H o l i s t i c dichotomy holds up f a i r l y w e l l . 5:8:c Oblique Rotations: In order to explore f u r t h e r the hypothesized research mode dimensions, oblique r o t a t i o n techniques were employed. Oblique runs s p e c i f y i n g two and f r e e f a c t o r s were performed. "Oblique r o t a t i o n seeks the best d e f i n i t i o n of both the c o r r e l a t e d and unc o r r e l a t e d patterns of v a r i a b l e s i n the data" (Rummel 1970). The r a t i o n a l e being that f a c t o r s are r a r e l y independent of one another i n r e a l i t y . In the two f a c t o r approach, s p e c i f y i n g an obl i m i n s o l u t i o n , the two f a c t o r s were again found to resemble the A n a l y t i c and H o l i s t i c dimensions i n content. The two f a c t o r oblique r o t a t i o n found the two f a c t o r s to be e s s e n t i a l l y u n c o r r e l a t e d w i t h one another, r=.065. 90. In the f r e e f a c t o r m a t r i x , 6 f a c t o r s loaded with a minimum eigen value above 1.08, accounting f o r 53% of the t o t a l variance i n the data. Factor one and Factor s i x r e t a i n the A n a l y t i c and H o l i s t i c c o n f i g u r a t i o n s . Factor Two i s concerned with the l e v e l of g e n e r a l i t y f o r research models. Factor 3 focuses on the i n f l u e n c e of study s e t t i n g s on research. Factor 4 i s concerned with the t e s t i n g of s p e c i f i c r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n research. Factor f i v e i s concerned with personal judgement i n research. R e l a t i o n s h i p s between the s i x f a c t o r s of the oblique solution,;were g e n e r a l l y found to be low. The highest f a c t o r c o r r e l a t i o n was between Factor one and Factor s i x at the .34 l e v e l . This suggests that the A n a l y t i c and H o l i s t i c Factors and there f o r e these approaches to research, are somewhat r e l a t e d . 5:9 Generating the Dimensions of the Research Mode f o r Use In A n a l y s i s : The r e s u l t s from the oblique r o t a t i o n s produced f a c t o r s t r u c t u r e s s u b s t a n t i v e l y s i m i l a r i n content to the orthogonal r o t a t i o n s . Because the f a c t o r c o r r e l a t i o n s of the oblique r o t a t i o n s were g e n e r a l l y low, use of the two and four f a c t o r orthogonal models seemed to provide f a c t o r s t r u c t u r e s most appropriate f o r t e s t i n g the research mode hypothes Consequently, those items loading .40 and above i n each of the orthogonal f a c t o r matrices became the questionnaire items used to measure the study's research mode dimensions. Within the Two Factor model, ten of the twenty research mode questions are used to measure the dependent v a r i a b l e s . The Four Factor model employs 16 of the o r i g i n a l 20 items. These items, weighted by t h e i r loadings on each of the f a c t o r s , form continuous s c a l e s f o r assessing a t t i t u d e s towards dimensions of the research mode. In the Two Facator Model the f o l l o w i n g items and t h e i r corresponding f a c t o r loadings make up each o f the Research Mode dimensions FACTOR ONE-HOLISTIC MODE Item 10 - I t i s more important to describe phenomena i n t h e i r approximate .43 complexity than i t i s to measure r e l a t i o n s h i p s between a few s p e c i f i c v a r i a b l e s . Item 14 - Research should be more concerned with d e s c r i b i n g and .59 understanding the nature and a c t i o n o f phenomena under study than with q u a n t i f i c a t i o n . Item 20 - Research should embody q u a l i t a t i v e methodologies which r e l y .49 on the i n t e r p r e t a t i v e s k i l l s of the s c h o l a r . FACTOR TWO-ANALYTIC MODE Item 1 - A l l research i s best performed under c o n t r o l l e d c o n d i t i o n s , .58 such as those found i n lab or f i e l d experiments or c l i n i c a l t r i a l s . Item 14 - Research should i n v o l v e c a r e f u l l y planned manipulations that .62 i s o l a t e separate v a r i a b l e s operating w i t h i n the study s i t u a t i o n . Item 9 - In study s i t u a t i o n s , one should always remain o b j e c t i v e l y .49 detached from the phenomena under study. Item 11- P r e s t i g e should be accorded s c i e n t i f i c work only to the .46 degree to which the p r a c t i t i o n e r has been able to pursue hypothesis t e s t i n g i n an experimental research s t r a t e g y . Item 12- A research p r o j e c t should i n v o l v e q u a n t i t a t i v e assessment of .47 the phenomena under study. Item 17- The a n a l y s i s of research, data should i n v o l v e t e s t i n g p r e d i c t e d .50 r e l a t i o n s h i p s f o r s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e . 92. Item 19 - Research can best be accomplished by looking at pa r t of .45 a problem using a l i m i t e d number of study v a r i a b l e s . In the Four Factor Model, the Research Mode dimensions are generated u s i n g the f o l l o w i n g c o n f i g u r a t i o n s of questionnaire items. FACTOR ONE-HOLISTIC MODE Item 4 - Research should i n v o l v e c a r e f u l l y planned manipulations .46 that i s o l a t e separate v a r i a b l e s operating w i t h i n the study s i t u a t i o n . Item 5 - The s e l e c t i o n , weighting and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of data should .50 depend considerably on personal judgement. Item 6 - In order to a r r i v e at explanations, researchers should attempt .86 to b u i l d general models of the phenomena under study. Item 13 - Researchers should remain open to elements, of s e r e n d i p i t y .62 (unexpected d i s c o v e r i e s ) and personal i n t u i t i o n w i t h i n the research process. Item 14 - Research should be more concerned w i t h d e s c r i b i n g and .62 understanding the nature and a c t i o n of phenomena under study than w i t h q u a n t i f i c a t i o n . Item 16 - A researcher should define the scope of research issues i n .74 a comprehensive manner. Item 2 - In studying observable s i t u a t i o n s , one should become .51 i n t i m a t e l y i n v o l v e d and f a m i l i a r w i t h the phenomena under s tudy. 93. FACTOR TWO-ANALYTIC MODE Item 1 - A l l research i s best performed under c o n t r o l l e d c o n d i t i o n s , .67 such as those found i n lab or f i e l d experiments and c l i n i c a l t r i a l s . Item 9 - In studying s i t u a t i o n s , one should always remain o b j e c t i v e l y .76 detached from the phenomena under study. Item 10 - I t i s more important t o describe phenomena i n t h e i r .76 approximate complexity than i t i s to measure r e l a t i o n s h i p s between a few s p e c i f i c v a r i a b l e s . Item 11 - P r e s t i g e should be accorded s c i e n t i f i c work only to the .43 degree to which the p r a c t i t i o n e r has been able to pursue hypothesis t e s t i n g i n an experimental research s t r a t e g y . Item 12 - A research p r o j e c t "should i n v o l v e q u a n t i t a t i v e assessment .73 of the phenomena under study. Item 19 - Research can be best accomplished by look i n g at par t of a .76 problem using a l i m i t e d number of study v a r i a b l e s . A FACTOR THREE-SPECIFICITY MODE, . Item 7 - The Researcher should attempt to t e s t s p e c i f i c r e l a t i o n s h i p s -.79 a c t i n g i n study s i t u a t i o n s . FACTOR FOUR-INTERPRETATIVE MODE Item 17 - The a n a l y s i s of research data should i n v o l v e t e s t i n g J44 p r e d i c t e d r e l a t i o n s h i p s f o r s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e . Item 20 - Research should embody q u a l i t a t i v e methodologies which .53. r e l y on the i n t e r p r e t a t i v e s k i l l s of the s c h o l a r . 94. Table 7. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF THE RESEARCH MODE VARIABLES TWO FACTOR MODEL STATISTIC FACTOR 1 FACTOR 2 Mean Mode Median K u r t o s i s Minimum Maximum Range Standard De v i a t i o n Standard E r r o r Skewness Variance 3.15 3.33 3.17 -.203 1.00 5.00 4.00 .773 . .049 .034 . .598 FOUR FACTOR MODEL 2.56 2.71 2.53 -.064 1.00 4.42 3.42 .677 .043 .221 .458 FACTOR 1 FACTOR-2 FACTOR 3 FACTOR 4 Mean 3.32 2.8 2.05 2.59 Mode 3.16 2.66 2;>00 3.00 Median 3.29 2.79 2.00 2.64 Maximum 4.83 4.66 5.00 4.50 Minimum 2.00 1.33 1.00 1.00 Range 2.83 3.33 4.00 3.50 Kurtos i s .532 -.265 .122 -.304 Skewness .266 .120 .775 .028 Standard De v i a t i o n ..434 .676 .744 .713 Standard E r r o r .028 .043 .047 .045 Variance .188 .457 .554 .508 95. I n d i v i d u a l scores on each of the Research mode dimensions are obtained by summing the s c a l e d responses to each of the items composing a dimension. These raw scores are then standardized by d i v i d i n g the t o t a l score on each dimension by the number of items i n a dimension. These standardized scores are the measures used i n the c o r r e l a t i o n a l and hypothesis t e s t i n g procedures d e a l i n g w i t h a t t i t u d e s towards research. 5:10 R e l i a b i l i t y of the Research Mode Scales: A f t e r f a c t o r analysis,'. Cronbach's alpha r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s were obtained f o r the 2 Factor Model of the research mode. Cronbach's alpha f o r Factor One or the H o l i s t i c mode is.' a=.623, number of cases = 251, number of items = 3. Cronbach's alpha f o r Factor Two or the A n a l y t i c mode i s a=.75, number of cases = 243, number of items = 7. These r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s are f a i r l y high and i n d i c a t e s a t i s f a c t o r y r e l i a b i l i t y of the f a c t o r s . The alpha r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r the four f a c t o r model are as f o l l o w s : Factor One ( H o l i s t i c ) - Alpha = .285 n=249 items = 6 Factor Two ( A n a l y t i c ) - Alpha = .668 n=246 items = 6 Factor Three ( S p e c i f i c i t y ) - No Alpha n=254 items = 1 Factor Four ( I n t e r p r e t a t i o n ) - Alpha = .300 n=254 items = 2. The two f a c t o r model provides a much more r e l i a b l e instrument f o r tapping a t t i t u d e s toward aspects of the research mode, than the four f a c t o r model. 96. 5:11 Development of the O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Ratio Scale: An i n t e r - i t e m c o r r e l a t i o n a l a n a l y s i s was performed on the items of the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s c a l e . This was done s e p a r a t e l y f o r each of the 10 items composing the subdimensions of the s c a l e . The purpose of t h i s procedure i s to see how each of the TYPE ONE and TYPE TWO q u e s t i o n n a i r e items c o r r e l a t e d w i t h the o r g a n i z i n g s t y l e i t was supposed to be measuring. The 10 TYPE ONE items c o r r e l a t e d p o s i t i v e l y and s i g n i f i c a n t l y (above s=.001) w i t h the t o t a l TYPE ONE s c a l e . The Pearson Product-Moment c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s were a l l above .32, w i t h the exception of the l a s t item ( j ) d e a l i n g with how to handle o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c o n f l i c t , r=.20, n=250 s=.001. A l l of the TYPE TWO items a l s o c o r r e l a t e d p o s i t i v e l y and s i g n f i c a r i t l y (s = .001 n=247); with the TYPE TWO s c a l e above r=.32. Item J was the exception c o r r e l a t i n g at r=.20, s=.001. Consequently, the d e c i s i o n was made to drop item J from the c o n s t r u c t i o n of the O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Ratio s c a l e , since i t was the only item s u b s t a n t i a l l y below the r=.30 l e v e l . The f i n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s c a l e used to c a l c u l a t e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l r a t i o .scores f o r use i n the a n a l y s i s i s composed of 18 items, 9 assessing a t t i t u d e s toward Type One o r g a n i z i n g s t y l e and 9 assessing Type Two o r g a n i z i n g s t y l e . TYPE ONE 1. In order to determine the goals, methods and a c t i v i t i e s of research work, d e c i s i o n making powers should be l i m i t e d to those few i n d i v i d u a l s i n leadership p o s i t i o n s . 2. Regarding the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a person who f i l l s a p a r t i c u l a r job, research employers should always emphasize tasks and work r o l e s only. 97. Within a research p r o j e c t , a c t i v i t i e s such as w r i t t e n records of i n t e r n a l meetings, procedures, memos progress reports and personnel reviews should always be maintained to re g u l a t e and c o n t r o l the flow and q u a l i t y of work. Research p r o j e c t s which do r e q u i r e c o l l e c t i v e e f f o r t should be t a c k l e d by having each worker do h i s / h e r own work and then have one person w i t h e x p e r t i s e and experience c o n s o l i d a t e the r e s u l t s . When co n s i d e r i n g work r e l a t i o n s h i p s and job assignments i n a research p r o j e c t , s t a f f members should always be designated a p a r t i c u l a r job and status according to t h e i r l e v e l of e x p e r t i s e and research experience. Decisions i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n of research should be c a r r i e d out on the b a s i s of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e and f i s c a l procedures set up i n i t i a l l y to guide a p r o j e c t ' s human and non-human resources a l l the way along. As f a r as managing a research s t a f f i s concerned, research employees should be r e g u l a r l y monitored by t h e i r s uperiors i n order to insure ongoing p r o d u c t i v i t y . In any research p r o j e c t , research working p l a n s , schedules and personal r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s should be adhered to as c l o s e l y as p o s s i b l e . Research tasks should be defined and coordinated by i n i t i a l l y b reaking down tasks to match areas and l e v e l s of personnel e x p e r t i s e . TYPE TWO In order to determine the goals, methods and a c t i v i t i e s of research work, decision-making powers should extend t o a l l research workers on a p r o j e c t . 98. 2. Regarding the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a person who f i l l s a p a r t i c u l a r job, research employers should always provide o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r the i n d i v i d u a l to develop h i s / h e r own p o t e n t i a l . 3. W i t h i n a research p r o j e c t , a c t i v i t i e s such as w r i t t e n records of i n t e r n a l meetings, procedures, memos, progress r e p o r t s and personnel reviews should not be o v e r l y emphasized. 4. Research p r o j e c t s which do r e q u i r e c o l l e c t i v e e f f o r t should be t a c k l e d by means of group d i s c u s s i o n and I n t e r a c t i o n ; assembling the product as a team. 5. When co n s i d e r i n g working r e l a t i o n s h i p s and job assignments i n a research p r o j e c t , s t a f f members should always assume r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s which i n t e r e s t them and be t r e a t e d as peers. 6. Decisions i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n of research should be c a r r i e d out on the basis of what i s expedient and makes sense at the time. 7. As f a r as managing a research s t a f f i s concerned, research employees should be able to make t h e i r own work r u l e s as long as they get the j ob done. 8. In any research p r o j e c t , research working plans, schedules and p e r s o n a l l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s should not be too r i g i d . 9. Research tasks should be defined and coordinated by the continuous i n t e r a c t i o n of s t a f f members during a l l phases of a p r o j e c t . 5:12 R e l i a b i l i t y of the O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Ratio Scale: Cronbach's Alpha was employed to t e s t the r e l i a b i l i t y of the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s c a l e s sub-components. The r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t f o r both Type One and Type Two sub-scales was a = .588, n = 250, N = 247. 99. number of Items = 9. This r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t i s only moderately high. In otherwords, the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l r a t i o scores obtained i n the study contain more e r r o r variance than d e s i r a b l e . This can p a r t i a l l y be a t t r i b u t e d to the lack of p r e c i s i o n i n the newly developed s c a l e . 5:13 D i s t r i b u t i o n of O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Ratio Scores: As p r e v i o u s l y o u t l i n e d , the raw score on .the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l r a t i o s c a l e represents a p r o p o r t i o n a l d i s t r i b u t i o n of unequal points between the two o r g a n i z i n g s t r u c t u r e s . Since the number of p o i n t s given to one a l t e r n a t i v e i s a f u n c t i o n of those points a l l o c a t e d to the other approach, the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l r a t i o score used i n a n a l y s i s i s derived i n the f o l l o w i n g manner. Table 8. ORGANIZATIONAL RATIO SCALE FORMULA Sum of p o i n t s a l l o c a t e d t o Type II items  Sum of p o i n t s a l l o c a t e d to both Type I and Type I I a l t e r n a t i v e s The i n d i v i d u a l ' s preference f o r Type One and Type Two i s determined by whether s/he f a l l s above or below the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l r a t i o mean f o r the study p o p u l a t i o n . I f the score of the i n d i v i d u a l O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Ratio 100. i s above the mean, the i n d i v i d u a l i s considered to have a Type I I a t t i t u d e toward work s t r u c t u r e . I f the person's score f a l l s below the mean, the person i s considered to have a Type I o r i e n t a t i o n to work s t r u c t u r e . As a r e s u l t of t h i s b i v a r i a t e d i s i g n a t i o n , a t t i t u d e toward work i s t r e a t e d as a dichotomous v a r i a b l e i n the a n a l y s i s . Out of the 270 respondents, 248 v a l i d scores f o r the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l r a t i o were derived. Out of the 248 cases, 134 (54%) of the sample p r e f e r r e d a Type I approach, compared to 114 (46%) i n d i v i d u a l s who p r e f e r r e d a Type I I approach. The d e s c r i p t i v e s t a t i s t i c s f o r the O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Ratio Scores appear on the f o l l o w i n g page. In summary, the preceding s e c t i o n o u t l i n e s the a n a l y t i c a l procedures used to prepare the data f o r t e s t i n g the study hypotheses. The methods and r e s u l t s of these t e s t s are elaborated on i n the f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n . 101. Table 9. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF THE ORGANIZATIONAL RATIO SCALE RESULTS STATISTIC Mean .536 Median .527 Mode .467 Standard D e v i a t i o n .134 Variance .018 Minimum .111 Maximum .889 Range .778 Skewness .043 Ku r t o s i s -.141 102. VI. THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY 6:1 Research Mode C o r r e l a t i o n a l Findings : Pearson Product Moment C o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t r was used to describe the degree of l i n e a r a s s o c i a t i o n between the p e r s o n a l i t y and research mode v a r i a b l e s of the study. C o r r e l a t i o n s were c a r r i e d out using both the 2 and 4 f a c t o r Research Mode models. Table, 10 . PEARSON PRODUCT MOMENT CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS: RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE PERSON AND THING SCALES AND THE RESEARCH MODE SCALES. TWO FACTOR MODEL PERSONALITY SCALES RESEARCH SCALES ANALYTIC HOLISTIC Person Scale r = .0428 n = 203 p = .27 r = -.0617 n = 203 ' p = .19 Thing Scale r = T .0908 n = 200 !p = .10 r = =.1598 n = 199 p = .012 In the Two Factor model, Person O r i e n t a t i o n was not s i g n i f i c a n t l y c o r r e l a t e d with e i t h e r the A n a l y t i c or H o l i s t i c dimensions of the Research Scale. Thing O r i e n t a t i o n i s not s i g n i f i c a n t l y c o r r e l a t e d with the A n a l y t i c dimension of the Research Scale. There was a s l i g h t l y n egative, s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between 1 0 3 . Thing o r i e n t a t i o n and the H o l i s t i c mode of r = -.16, p = .07. This was not p r e d i c t e d by the study but i s the l o g i c a l i nverse of Hypothesis I. (Hypothesis I - Person S p e c i a l i s t ' s w i l l be as s o c i a t e d w i t h H o l i s t i c Approaches to Research) With the exception of t h i s negative c o r r e l a t i o n between Thing O r i e n t a t i o n and the H o l i s t i c Mode, none of the study's c o r r e l a t i o n s i n the general sample were as hypothesized. Table 11. PEARSON PRODUCT MOMENT CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS: RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE PERSON AND THING SCALES AND THE RESEARCH MODE SCALES. FOUR FACTOR MODEL PERSONALITY SCALES RESEARCH SCALES FACTOR 1 FACTOR 2 FACTOR 3 FACTOR 4 H o l i s t i c A n a l y t i c S p e c i f i c i t y I n t e r p r e t a t i o n Person Scale r = .61 r = -.14 r = -.30 r = .15 n = 143 n =113 n = 137 n = 117 p = .001 p = .07 p = .001 p = .05 Thing Scale r = -.05 r = -.001 r = -.03 r = .03 n = 121 n = 102 n = 118 n = 105 p = .30 p = .49 p = .37 p = .35 In the four f a c t o r model, r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the p e r s o n a l i t y s c a l e s and the dimensions of the research mode are more c l e a r l y defined. .104. The Person s c a l e c o r r e l a t e s p o s i t i v e l y and s i g n i f i c a n t l y w i t h the H o l i s t i c approach to research ( r = .61, p = .001). This r e l a t i o n s h i p i s p r e d i c t e d i n Hypothesis One. Factor Two, rep r e s e n t i n g the A n a l y t i c approach to' research, i s s l i g h t l y n e g a t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d with the Person s c a l e (r = .14, p = .07). Although not p r e d i c t e d , t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p i s the l o g i c a l inverse of Hypothesis I. S p e c i f i c i t y i n research, Factor 3, was al s o moderately n e g a t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h the Person s c a l e ( r = -.30, p = .001). This r e l a t i o n s h i p i s one that could be expected c o n s i d e r i n g the more general methodology of the H o l i s t i c approach to research. Factor Four i s s l i g h t l y p o s i t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d with Person o r i e n t a t i o n ( r = .15, p = .05). This f a c t o r i s weighted toward u t i l i z i n g the scholars s k i l l s f o r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . None of the four research dimensions c o r r e l a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y with the Thing s c a l e . The s l i g h t l y negative c o r r e l a t i o n found with the 2 f a c t o r approach to H o l i s t i c research r e t a i n s i t s d i r e c t i o n but looses i t s magnitude and s i g n i f i c a n c e . P e r s o n a l i t y o r i e n t a t i o n as measured by the Thing s c a l e seems g e n e r a l l y unassociated with a t t i t u d e s to research. 6:2 Hypothesis T e s t i n g R e l a t i n g to the Research Mode The study population was sub-divided i n t o four categories of s p e c i a l i s t s d erived from the Person-Thing Construct Scale. The mean, sum and standard d e v i a t i o n f o r each of the Research mode dimensions was c a l c u l a t e d f o r each group of s p e c i a l i s t s . : This was done f o r both the two and four f a c t o r models of the Research Mode. 105. Table 12 . PERSON AND THING ORIENTATION SCALES BROKEN DOWN BY .SUBSPECIALTIES; CROSSBREAKS BY SCORES ON THE DIMENSIONS OF THE RESEARCH MODE: TWO FACTOR MODEL SUBSPECIALTIES RESEARCH MODE DIMENSIONS Factor One ( H o l i s t i c ) Factor Two (A n a l y t i c ) STATISTIC Person S p e c i a l i s t s 3.55 3.20 mean 56 56 count 199.0 179.14 sum 1.56 2.15 Std. dev. Thing S p e c i a l i s t s 3.37 2.84 mean 46 46 count 163.67 130.43 sum 1.82 1.79 Std. dev. Ge n e r a l i s t s 3.27 3.03 mean 60 60 count 196.33 181.86 sum 1.28 1.70 Std. dev. No n - S p e c i a l i s t s 3.71 3.60 mean 50 50 count 185.33 180.00 sum 1.97 2.47 Std. dev. 106. Table 13 . PERSON AND THING ORIENTATION BROKEN DOWN BY SUB-SPECIALTIES : CROSS BREAKS BY SCORES ON THE DIMENSIONS OF THE RESEARCH MODE: THE FOUR FACTOR MODEL SUBSPECIALTIES RESEARCH MODE DIMENSIONS Factor 1 H o l i s t i c Factor 2 Analytic Factor 3 S p e c i f i c i t y Factor 4 Interpretation S t a t i s t i c Person 3.48 3.30 2.45 3.03 mean Spe c i a l i s t s 56 56 56 56 count 194.83 184.60 137.00 169.50 „ sum 1.16 1.93 1.74 1.62 Std. dev. Thing 3.55 3.37 1.91 2.77 mean Spe c i a l i s t s 46 46 46 46 count 163.50 155.00 88.00 127.50 sum 1.24 J 2.06 , •;- -76 , 1.18 Std. dev. Generalists 3.74 3.22 2.60 •:. ... 2:63/ mean 60 60 60 60 coUnt 224.33 193.40 156.00 157.50 sum 1.64 1.42 1.89 1.08 Std. dev. Non-Specialists 4.05 3.48 2.82 3.10 mean 50 50 50 50 count 202.50 174.00 141.00 159.50 sum 1.90 1.98 2.23 2.27 Std. dev. 107. In order to see i f the d i f f e r e n t types of s p e c i a l i s t s v a r i e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n the mean values obtained on each of the research dimensions, Students T-tests were performed using both the Two and Four Facto r Research Models. According t o Hypothesis I and I I we would expect to f i n d the f o l l o w i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s : I. Person S p e c i a l i s t s w i l l be associated w i t h H o l i s t i c approaches to research. I I . Thing S p e c i a l i s t s w i l l be associated with A n a l y t i c approaches to research. The f o l l o w i n g r e s u l t s were obtained using the two and four f a c t o r models. (Tables '14 and 15) Both of the study's Research Mode hypotheses (I and I I ) were unconfirmed i n the general study population using both the Two and Four Factor Models. In the two f a c t o r model there was considerable d i f f e r e n c e between Person and Thing s p e c i a l i s t s ' a t t i t u d e s toward the H o l i s t i c Factor. Although not a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p at the .05 l e v e l , i t i s a p r e d i c t e d tendency to be noted i n the means of the two groups (Px = 3.55, Tx = 3.37). In the Four Factor model, the only research dimension d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g the two t e s t groups i s t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward t e s t i n g f o r s p e c i f i c r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n research. Person s p e c i a l i s t s have a much higher, though not s i g n i f i c a n t , mean s p e c i f i c i t y score (Px = 2.45) than Thing S p e c i a l i s t s (Tx =1.91). 108. 6:3 Comparison of Other S p e d a l i s t Groups on the Dimensions of the  Research Mode: In a d d i t i o n to the hypothesized r e l a t i o n s h i p s of the study, a l l combinations of s p e c i a l i s t groups were compared f o r s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e i r p o p u l a t i o n means on the research mode dimension. These r e l a t i o n s h i p s were test e d u s i n g both the Two and Four Factor research models applying the Student's T - t e s t . 1 I t i s important t o acknowledge that using a large number of T-tests increases the l i k e l i h o o d of some s i g n i f i c a n t f i n d i n g s on a chance b a s i s . However, s t a t i s t i c a l comparison of the s u b - s p e c i a l i s t types, not included i n the formal hypotheses of the study, were explored i n order to seek f u r t h e r c l a r i f i c a t i o n of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between d i f f e r e n t types of p e r s o n a l i t y s p e c i a l i z a t i o n and various approaches to research. However, no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were obtained at the .05 s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l among any of the other s p e c i a l i s t :groups using the two f a c t o r research model. Thing s p e c i a l i s t s and G e n e r a l i s t s v a r i e d n o t i c a b l y (T=-1.53 P=.12) i n t h e i r a t t i t u d e s toward the A n a l y t i c mode to research. Thing s p e c i a l i s t s being l e s s A n a l y t i c i n t h e i r preferences than G e n e r a l i s t s . In the Four Factor model, two s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n a t t i t u d e s toward research were found. Person s p e c i a l i s t s and non-s p e c i a l i s t s were found to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t (T=1.92 P=.05) i n a t t i t u d e s toward Factor Four ( i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ) . N o n - s p e c i a l i s t s 109. Table 14 . TWO FACTOR RESEARCH MODEL, RESULTS OF STUDENT'S T-TESTS COMPARING SPECIALISTS ATTITUDES TOWARDS RESEARCH SPECIALIST COMPARISON GROUPS RESEARCH MODE DIMENSIONS Factor 1 ( H o l i s t i c ) F a c t o r 2 (A n a l y t i c ) Hypothesis Person I S p e c i a l i s t s and compared to II Thing S p e c i a l i s t s Person S p e c i a l i s t s compared to Gen e r a l i s t s Person S p e c i a l i s t s compared to Non - S p e c i a l i s t s t = .64 df = 91 s = .53 t = 1.13 df = 109 s = .26 t = df = s = -.72 • 96 .47 t = 1.25 df = 93 s = .22 t = df s = -.79* 104 .43 t = df s = - .45 90 .65 k = separate variance estimate -2 t a i l e d p r o b a b i l i t y -pooled variance estimate -except where noted Thing S p e c i a l i s t s compared to Ge n e r a l i s t s t = df = s = -24 • 98 .80 t = df s = -1.53 97 .12 Thing S p e c i a l i s t s compared to Non-S p e c i a l i s t s t = -.28 df = 85 s = .64 t = df s = -1.07 • 83 .28 Ge n e r a l i s t s compared to Non - S p e c i a l i s t s t = -.28 df = 101 s = .78 t = df s = .26 : 96 .79 110. Table 15 . FOUR FACTOR RESEARCH MODEL: RESULTS OF STUDENT'S T-TESTS COMPARING SPECIALISTS ATTITUDES TOWARDS APPROACHES TO RESEARCH SPECIALIST COMPARISON GROUPS RESEARCH MODE DIMENSIONS Hypothesis Person I S p e c i a l i s t s and compared to I I Thing S p e c i a l i s t s Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 (Holi s t i c " ) ( A n a l y t i c ) f s p e c i f i c i t y ) ' ("Interpretation! t = .36 t = .31 t = 1.07 t = .36 df =96 df = 90 df = 97 • ' df = 96 s = .71 s = .76 s = .28 s = .71 Person S p e c i a l i s t s compared to Ge n e r a l i s t s f = .17 t = -1.50* t = -.45 t = 1.25 df = 107 df = 85.07 df = 107 df = 110 s = .86 s = .13 s = .65 s = .21 Person S p e c i a l i s t s compared to Non - S p e c i a l i s t s t = -1.06 t = =.87 t = -.36 t = 1.92 df =96 df = 94 df = 96 df = 95 s = .29 s = .38 s = .72 s = .05 Thing S p e c i a l i s t s compared t o Ge n e r a l i s t s t = df s = .57 t = 97 df .57 s = -2.23 96 .02 t = df s = •1.48 100 14 t = .84 df = 102 s = .40 Thing S p e c i a l i s t s compared to Non - S p e c i a l i s t s t = df s = -.73 t = 86 df .47 s = -1.32 84 19 t = df 5 = •1.31 89 .19 t = 1.55 df = 87 s = .12 Ge n e r a l i s t s compared to Non- S p e c i a l i s t s t = df s = -1.30 t = 97 df .19 s = .42* t = 74.14 df .67 s = .06 99 .95 t = .86 df = 101 s = 39 111. s c o r i n g s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher on the mean value f o r t h i s research dimension. Thing s p e c i a l i s t s and G e n e r a l i s t s were found to vary s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n t h e i r a t t i t u d e s toward Factor 2 ( A n a l y t i c ) at the (T=-.2.23 P=.02) l e v e l . Thing s p e c i a l i s t s being more l i k e l y to p r e f e r the A n a l y t i c approach than G e n e r a l i s t s . 6:4 O r g a n i z a t i o n a l C o r r e l a t i o n a l Findings: The c o r r e l a t i o n a l method employed to t e s t f o r the p r e d i c t e d a s s o c i a t i o n s between Person and Thing o r i e n t a t i o n and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l preferences i s the Point B i - s e r i a l c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t . The Point B i - s e r i a l c o e f f i c i e n t i s a measure of c o r r e l a t i o n e s t i m a t i n g Product Moment type c o r r e l a t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s f o r v a r i a b l e s with the f o l l o w i n g a t t r i b u t e s : i ) one v a r i a b l e i s measured i n a graduated continous f a s h i o n . (Person and Thing scales) i i ) the other v a r i a b l e i s i n the form of a d i s c r e t e dicotomy. ( O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Preferences) The Point B i - s e r i a l c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t i n d i c a t e s the magnitude of l i n e a r a s s o c i a t i o n between two v a r i a b l e s but not the d i r e c t i o n of the a s s o c i a t i o n . Using McNemar's (1962) formula the f o l l o w i n g rpb's were found: The Person Scale c o r r e l a t e s w i t h the O r g a n i z a t i o n a l s c a l e rpb = .47 n = 248. The Thing Scale c o r r e l a t e s with the O r g a n i z a t i o n a l s c a l e rpb = .16 n = 248. 112. The Person s c a l e seems to be a b e t t e r p r e d i c t o r of o r g a n i z a t i o n preferences than the Thing s c a l e 6.5 Hypothesis T e s t i n g Related to O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Preferences: In order to t e s t f o r the st r e n g t h of the r e l a t i o n s h i p s found i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c o r r e l a t i o n s the f o l l o w i n g procedures were employed. Chi square t e s t s were performed to see i f the frequency of d i f f e r e n t types of s p e c i a l i s t s , broken down by t h e i r o r g a n i z a t i o n a l preferences, v a r i e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y from an expected frequency i f the n u l l hypothesis of "no d i f f e r e n c e i n o r g a n i z a t i o n a l preference among s p e c i a l i s t types" i s assumed. In other words we are t e s t i n g Hypothesis I I I and IV by assuming that the Hypothesized d i f f e r e n c e s w i l l not be found. Hypothesis I I I . Person S p e c i a l i s t s w i l l be associated w i t h preferences f o r Type I I o r g a n i z i n g p r i n c i p l e s . Hypothesis IV. Thing S p e c i a l i s t s w i l l be associated with preferences f o r Type I o r g a n i z i n g p r i n c i p l e s . Ho. There w i l l be no d i f f e r e n c e i n Person and Thing s p e c i a l i s t s '  preferences f o r Type I or Type I I o r g a n i z i n g p r i n c i p l e s . In order to perform the Chi square t e s t s , 2 x 2 contingency t a b l e s were constructed. Both the Person and Thing scales are continuous s c a l e s , so i t was necessary to d i v i d e the study p o p u l a t i o n according to whether or not the i n d i v i d u a l scored above or below the mean on each of the two s c a l e s i n order to perform the Chi square t e s t . 113. The adequacy of the means as a d i v i d i n g l i n e f o r p a r t i t i o n i n g the population was checked using a scattergram of Person and Thing scores p l o t t e d w i t h Type I and Type I I scores. A f t e r a v i s u a l i n s p e c t i o n of these p l o t s , i t was decided that the means were an appropriate p a r t i t i o n i n g measure. The O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Ratio Mean was used to dicotomize the study p o p u l a t i o n according to whether or not the i n d i v i d u a l scored high or low i n t h e i r preferences f o r Type I I approach to o r g a n i z i n g . This r e s u l t e d i n the f o l l o w i n g contingency t a b l e s . Table 16 . PERSON SCORES COMPARED WITH TYPE I I ORGANIZING SCORES - CHI SQUARE TEST High ..Low Count Type I I Type I I Row % Score Score Column% T o t a l % High 69 52 122 Person 57% 43% r „ , . c Score 59% 51.5% 55% C o T T n e . ? * C h l S q U a r e 31.7% 23.9% 94649 df = 1 Low 48 49 97 p = . 33 Person 49.5% 50.5% Score 41% 48.5% 44.5% 22% 22.5% 117 101 218 53.7% 46.3% 100% 114. Table 1 7 . THING SCORES COMPARED WITH TYPE I I ORGANIZING:SCORES1- CHI SQUARE TEST High Low Count Type I I Type I I Row % Score Score Column % T o t a l % High 61 48 109 S^ore 54% 4s!s% 51.4% C O T " " ? d C M S q U a T e* 28% 22.6% j r i dr = 1 Low 52 51 103 s = .50 Thing 50.5% 49.5% Score 46. % 51.5% 48.6% 24.5% 24.1%  113 99 212 53.3% 46.7% 100% No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found between S p e c i a l i s t s s c o r i n g High or Low on the Person and Thing s c a l e s and t h e i r preferences f o r e i t h e r Type I I or Type I or g a n i z i n g s t y l e s . The N u l l Hypothesis of no d i f f e r e n c e among s p e c i a l i s t groups was supported. Hypothesis I I I and IV of the study were not confirmed i n the general study p o p u l a t i o n . 6:6 The E f f e c t s of Confounding V a r i a b l e s on Independent V a r i a b l e s : The e f f e c t s o f p o t e n t i a l l y confounding v a r i a b l e s were explored i n order to t e s t f o r t h e i r i n f l u e n c e on both the independent and dependent v a r i a b l e s of the study. The e f f e c t s of age, sex, academic ranks, non-115. u n i v e r s i t y employment since t e r m i n a l degree and c o l l a b o r a t i v e research experience wit h s p e c i a l i s t s from d i f f e r e n t d i s c i p l i n e s were a l l looked at i n the f o l l o w i n g manner. In order to t e s t f o r the effects- o f these v a r i a b l e s on the Independent v a r i a b l e s , measuring Person and Thing o r i e n t a t i o n , a s e r i e s o f Student T-tests were performed. Each of the f i v e confounding v a r i a b l e s were dichotomized and the study po p u l a t i o n d i v i d e d according to the f o l l o w i n g c r i t e r i a : 1. AGE: Age group I - greater or equal to age 40 Age group I I - le s s than age 40 2. SEX: Group I - Males Group I I - Females 3. RANK: Rank Group I - A s s i s t a n t Professor and below Rank Group I I - F u l l and Associa t e Professor 4. COLLABORATIVE EXPERIENCE: Group I - yes Group I I - no 5. NON-UNIVERSITY EMPLOYMENT SINCE DEGREE: Group I - yes Group I I - no -116. Table 18 . EFFECT OF THE CONFOUNDING VARIABLES ON THE INDEPENDENT VARIABLES. STUDENT'S T-TESTS ON PERSONALITY ORIENTATION AMONG 10 SUB-GROUPS OF THE SAMPLE S i g n i f i c a n t GROUPS SCALE T-VALUE DEGREES OF 2-TAIL COMPARED FREEDOM PROBABILITY AGE - <40 Thing Scale -1.02 219 .307 =40 Person Scale -0.72 222 .470 SEX: - Males Person Scale -3.99 216 *.000 - Females Thing Scale .69 213 .491 RANK: - A s s i s t a n t Professor and below Person Scale 3.02 227 *.003 - F u l l and Associate Professor Thing Scale -0.01 223 .989 INTERDISCIPLINARY COLLABORATIVE EXPERIENCE - Yes Person Scale .27 228 .787 - No Thing Scale .69 224 .494 NON-UNIVERSITY EMPLOYMENT SINCE TERMINAL DEGREE - Yes Person Scale .41 229 .680 - No Thing Scale -.57 225 .573 117. T-tests were performed to see i f the mean Person and Thing Scores f o r these groups v a r i e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y . Table, 18 shows the r e s u l t s of these procedures. Two of the f i v e confounding v a r i a b l e s produce s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t mean scores on the Person Scale. D i f f e r e n c e s i n Academic Rank produced mean d i f f e r e n c e s between Group I ~ ^Q03) a n <^ ^ r o u P (x = 2.79).(n = 112, 117) The low Rank group having a s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r mean Person score than the high Rank group. Sexual d i f f e r e n c e s a l s o produced s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t mean person scores. Females having a higher mean Person score o f (p - ^000) ^ n _ ^ ^ a n d males having a mean score of (x = 2.79)(n=152) Person scores d i d not vary s i g n i f i c a n t l y w i t h age, employment or types of c o l l a b o r a t i v e e f f o r t . No s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s were found among any of the f i v e confounding v a r i a b l e s and scores on the Thing s c a l e . 6:7 The E f f e c t s of Confounding V a r i a b l e s on the Dependent V a r i a b l e s : 6:7:a The Research Mode: The e f f e c t s of the Fi v e Confounding V a r i a b l e s were then looked at i n r e l a t i o n to the dependent v a r i a b l e s measuring the research mode. The Two Factor Research Mode model was employed i n t h i s a n a l y s i s . Student-T-tests were performed to see i f the various a t t r i b u t e s of the study p o p u l a t i o n a s s o c i a t e d d i f f e r e n t l y with p a r t i c u l a r approaches to research. Table 19 contains the r e s u l t s of t h i s a n a l y s i s . 118. Table 19 . EFFECTS OF THE CONFOUNDING VARIABLES ON THE DEPENDENT VARIABLE, ATTITUDES TOWARD RESEARCH COMPARISON GROUPS ANALYTIC Scores HOLISTIC Scores AGE: Age Group ^ 40 = 1 Age Group < 40 = 2 T =-.30 df = 238 s i g . = .767 T = .82 df = 240 s i g . = 412 RANK: Asst. Prof, and below = 1 Assoc. Prof, and above = 2 T =-.29 df = 238 s i g . = .774 T = .91 df = 246 s i g . = .365 SEX: Males = 1 Females = 2 T = 3.55 df = 226 s i g . = .000* means; 1 = 2.47 (n=158) 2 = 2.81 (n=70 T =-.95 df = 235 s i g . = .342 EMPLOYMENT: Non-univ. employment, yes = 1 Non-univ. employment, no = 2 T = 1.10 df = 239 s i g . = .270 T = 1.54 df = 247 s i g . = .126* means; 1=3.26 (n=78) 2=3.10 (n=171) COLLABORATION: I n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y C o l l a b . , yes = 1 I n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y C o l l a b . , no = 2 T =-.80 df = 238 s i g . = 422 T =-1.23 df = 246 s i g . = .219 (* = s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e or approaching s i g n i f i c a n c e ) The only f i n d i n g s i g n i f i c a n t above the .05 l e v e l was sexual d i f f e r e n c e s i n a t t i t u d e s toward the A n a l y t i c approach to research. Males and females had a s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t mean . -, • ^ n • u- u U = 2.81, n = 70) A n a l y t i c score. Females s c o r i n g higher £ _ Q Q O j than males (x = 2.48, n = 158). The only other r e l a t i o n s h i p o f s t a t i s t i c a l i n t e r e s t was the d i f f e r e n c e i n i n d i v i d u a l s who had been employed i n n o n - u n i v e r s i t y s e t t i n g s compared to those who hadn't. These groups v a r i e d (T= 1.54, df = 247, p = .12) i n t h e i r a t t i t u d e s toward the H o l i s t i c mode toward research. Those employed elsewhere, s c o r i n g higher on the H o l i s t i c Approach to Research (x = 3.26, n = 78) than those who had not been employed i n another s e t t i n g (x = 3.10, n = 171). \ 6:7:b O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Preferences: The e f f e c t s of age, sex, rank, n o n - u n i v e r s i t y employment sin c e degree and c o l l a b o r a t i v e experience with other d i s c i p l i n e s were then looked at i n r e l a t i o n to the dependent v a r i a b l e s o f Type I and Type I I o r g a n i z i n g s t y l e s . In order to t e s t f o r sub-group d i f f e r e n c e s , Chi square t e s t s were performed comparing the expected versus the obtained frequencies; assuming the N u l l hypothesis of no d i f f e r e n c e s among the sub-groups. Results from t h i s a n a l y s i s appear i n Table 20 Level of academic rank showed d i f f e r e n c e s i n atti t u d e s , toward Type I and Type I I approaches to o r g a n i z i n g . W ithin the Low Rank 120. TABLE 20 : EFFECTS OF THE CONFOUNDING VARIABLES ON THE DEPENDENT VARIABLE, ATTITUDES TOWARD ORGANIZING Sex by Organ i z a t i o n O r i e n t a t i o n : Corrected Chi square = 1.48, df Males ORGANIZING STYLE TYPE I TYPE I I 83(51%) 80(49%) Count row% T o t a l 163 100% SEX Females 43(60.6%) 28(39.4%) 126 . 108 71 100% 234 100% C o l l a b o r a t i v e Experience by O r g a n i z a t i o n a l O r i e n t a t i o n : Corrected Chi square = 9.45, df = 1 s i g = .002* COLLABORATION I n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y C o l l a b o r a t i o n YES ORGANIZING STYLE TYPE I TYPE I I 76 87 (46.6%) (53.4%) I n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y 56 26 C o l l a b o r a t i o n (68.3%) (31.7%) NO Count row% T o t a l 163 100% 82 100% 132 113 245 100% Employment by Organization  O r i e n t a t i o n : Corrected Chi square = .138 df = 1 ORGANIZING STYLE TYPE I TYPE I I Count row% T o t a l s i g = .70 EMPLOYMENT Non-Univers i t y Employment YES 40 (51.3%) 38 (48. 7%) 78 100% Non-University Employment NO 92 (54.8%) 76 (45. .2%) 168 100% 132 114 246 100% 121. Table 2 0 . (Continued) Rank by O r g a n i z a t i o n a l  O r i e n t a t i o n : Corrected Chi Square = 3.28 df = 1 s i g = .07* RANK TYPE I ORGANIZING STYLE TYPE I I Count row% T o t a l Low Rank 73 48 121 (60.3%) (39.7%) 100% High Rank 60 65 125 (48.0%) (52.0%) 100% 133 113 246 100% Age by O r g a n i z a t i o n a l  O r i e n t a t i o n : Corrected Chi Square df = 1 s i g = .93 AGE ORGANIZING STYLE 005 TYPE I TYPE II Count row% T o t a l 1 40 71 (53.8%) 61 (46.2%) 132 <-40 59 (54.1%) 50 (45.9%) 109 130 111 i241 (* = s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e ) 122. group 73 or 60.3% of the group p r e f e r r e d Type I approach, while 48 or 39.7% of the group p r e f e r r e d the Type I I approach. Within the Higher Ranking group, the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l preferences were d i s t r i b u t e d more evenly, 48% p r e f e r r i n g the Type I approach and 52% p r e f e r r i n g the Type I I approach. (Corrected Chi square = 3.28, df = 1, p = .07) The o r g a n i z a t i o n a l preferences of those having experienced i n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y c o l l a b o r a t i o n were s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t than those who had not experienced i n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y c o l l a b o r a t i o n . (Corrected Chi square = 9.45, df = 1, p = .002) Out of those having c o l l a b o r a t i o n experience 76 or 46.6% p r e f e r r e d the Type I approach and 87 or 53.4% p r e f e r r e d the Type I I approach to o r g a n i z i n g . Those without c o l l a b o r a t i v e experience p r e f e r r e d Type I 68.3%' and Type I I 31.7%. Sexual d i f f e r e n c e s a l s o seem to make a d i f f e r e n c e i n o r g a n i z a t i o n a l preferences, although not at a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t l e v e l . (Corrected Chi square = 1.48, df = 1, p = .22) The male popul a t i o n i s f a i r l y evenly d i v i d e d i n t h e i r Type I/Type I I preferences 80 (49%)/83(51%), w h i l e the female p o p u l a t i o n i s s p l i t 60.6% (43) Type I and 39.4% (28) Type I I . 6:8 The Confounding V a r i a b l e s and the Study's H y p o t h e t i c a l R e l a t i o n s h i p s F i n a l l y , the study looks at d i f f e r e n c e s i n the hypothesized r e l a t i o n s h i p s between p e r s o n a l i t y o r i e n t a t i o n and a t t i t u d e s toward research and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e s , accounting f o r the moderating i n f l u e n c e of sex, age, academic ranks, c o l l a b o r a t i v e experience and employment experience s i n c e r e c e i v i n g the t e r m i n a l degree. 123. 6:8:a Research Mode Hypotheses In order to analyze the e f f e c t s of the confounding v a r i a b l e s on the hypothesized r e l a t i o n s h i p s between p e r s o n a l i t y o r i e n t a t i o n and a t t i t u d e s toward reserach, a two-way a n a l y s i s of variance i s employed. F a c t o r i a l a n a l y s i s of va r i a n c e i s the s t a t i s t i c a l method that analyzes the independent and i n t e r a c t i v e e f f e c t s of two or more independent v a r i a b l e s on a dependent v a r i a b l e ( K e r l i n g e r 1973). A c l a s s i c experimental approach f o r f a c t o r i a l designs w i t h unequal c e l l s , found i n the S.P.S.S. (Nie et a l . 1975) sub-program A.N.Q.V.A., was used i n t h i s a n a l y s i s . In order to perform the two-way a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e , two independent v a r i a b l e s and a s i n g l e c r i t e r i o n v a r i a b l e are s p e c i f i e d . The a n a l y s i s of variance was performed i n two stages. The f i r s t a n a l y s i s looks at a t t i t u d e s toward the A n a l y t i c mode of research as the dependent v a r i a b l e . The second s e t looks a t a t t i t u d e s toward the H o l i s t i c mode of research as the dependent v a r i a b l e . In both stages, p e r s o n a l i t y o r i e n t a t i o n and each o f the confounding v a r i a b l e s are designated as the independent v a r i a b l e s of the f a c t o r i a l design. The r e s u l t s of the ten a n a l y s i s of variance procedures are l i s t e d i n Table 21. None of the independent or confounding v a r i a b l e s s i g n i f i c a n t l y e f f e c t e d a t t i t u d e s toward the A n a l y t i c approach to research, e i t h e r independently or j o i n t l y . 124. However, two r e l a t i o n s h i p s of i n t e r e s t emerged when a t t i t u d e s toward H o l i s t i c approaches to research were analyzed. In the two-way anova, s p e c i f y i n g d i f f e r e n c e s i n employment experience s i n c e r e c e i v i n g t e r m i n a l degree and person or t h i n g p e r s o n a l i t y o r i e n t a t i o n , the f o l l o w i n g r e s u l t s emerged. The a d d i t i v e e f f e c t of employment experience s i n c e r e c e i v i n g t e r m i n a l degree and p e r s o n a l i t y o r i e n t a t i o n on a t t i t u d e s toward the H o l i s t i c Mode i s found to be almost s i g n i f i c a n t at the .08 l e v e l F = 2.550. The main e f f e c t of employment experience si n c e r e c e i v i n g the term i n a l degree on a t t i t u d e s toward the H o l i s t i c Mode i s s i g n i f i c a n t at the .06 l e v e l , F = 3.513. The main e f f e c t of p e r s o n a l i t y o r i e n t a t i o n on a t t i t u d e s toward the H o l i s t i c approach i s not s i g n i f i c a n t (P = .39, F = .725) . The i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t o f employment experience and p e r s o n a l i t y o r i e n t a t i o n on a t t i t u d e s towards the h o l i s t i c approach to research i s a l s o not s i g n i f i c a n t (P = .601, F = .275). These r e s u l t s suggest that d i f f e r e n t employment experiences (non-u n i v e r s i t y employment versus u n i v e r s i t y employment a f t e r r e c e i v i n g the term i n a l degree) can be s i g n i f i c a n t l y a s s o c i a t e d with d i f f e r e n t a t t i t u d e s toward the H o l i s t i c Mode of research. This f i n d i n g a p p l i e s , r egardless of whether one i s o r i e n t e d to persons or t h i n g s . P e r s o n a l i t y o r i e n t a t i o n does not have an important independent e f f e c t on a t t i t u d e s toward the H o l i s t i c Research Mode. Nor i s the j o i n t e f f e c t of p e r s o n a l i t y o r i e n t a t i o n and employment experience on a t t i t u d e s toward the H o l i s t i c Mode s i g n i f i c a n t . 125. Table 21 . RESEARCH MODE HYPOTHESES AND FIVE CONFOUNDING VARIABLES: RESULTS OF TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE *= s i g n i f i c a n t M a t r i x H o l i s t i c Mode by sex, p e r s o n a l i t y o r i e n t a t i o n Source of V a r i a t i o n Sum of Squares DF Mean Square F S i g n i f F Main E f f e c t s 3.743 2 1.872 2. .962 0.057 sex 2.297 1 2.297 3. .634 0.060 p e r s o n a l i t y i 2.407 1 2.407 3, .809 0.054 2-way i n t e r a c t i o n s sex p e r s o n a l i t y 0.082 1 0.082 0. .129 0.720 explained 3.825 3 1.275 2. .017 0.118 r e s i d u a l 53.720 85 .632 t o t a l 57.545 88 .654 270 cases processed 181 cases missing M a t r i x H o l i s t i c mode by Employment since Terminal Degree, P e r s o n a l i t y o r i e n t a t i o n ; Source of V a r i a t i o n Main E f f e c t s 3. . 184 2 1. .592 2. .550 0. .084 employsi 2. .194 1 2. . 194 3. .513 0. .064 p e r s o n a l i t y 0. .453 1 0. .453 0. .725 0. .397 2-way i n t e r a c t i o n s employsi p e r s o n a l i t y 0, .172 .1 0. . 172 0. .275 0. .601 explained 3, .356 3 1. .119 1. .791 0, .154 r e s i d u a l 56, .824 91 0. .624 t o t a l 60. . 180 94 0. .640 270 cases processed 175 cases missing 126. Table 21 . (Continued) * = s i g n i f i c a n t M a t r i x H o l i s t i c Mode by Academic rank and P e r s o n a l i t y o r i e n t a t i o n : Source o f V a r i a t i o n Sum of Squares DF Mean Square F S i g n i f i F Main e f f e c t s 1.510 2 0.755 1. .158 0.319 Rank 0.629 1 0.629 0. .964 0.329 P e r s o n a l i t y 1.109 1 1.109 1. .700 0.196 2-way i n t e r a c t i o n s rank p e r s o n a l i t y 0.317 1 0.317 0. .486 0.488 explained 1.827 3 0.609 0, .934 0.428 r e s i d u a l 58.053 89 0.652 T o t a l 59.880 92 0.651 270 cases processed 177 cases missing M a t r i x H o l i s t i c Mode by age and p e r s o n a l i t y : Source o f V a r i a t i o n : Main e f f e c t s 1. .457 2 0. .728 1. .079 0. .345 age 0. .774 1 0. .774 1. .147 0. .287 p e r s o n a l i t y 0. .596 1 0, .596 0. .882 0, .350 2-way i n t e r a c t i o n s 0. .001 1 age p e r s o n a l i t y 0. .001 0. .001 0. .973 explained 1. .458 3 0, .486 0. .720 0. .543 r e s i d u a l 57, .388 85 0, .675 T o t a l 58 .846 88 0, .669 270 cases processed 181 cases missing 127. Table 21". (Continued) . * = s i g n i f i c a n t  M a t r i x H o l i s t i c Mode by C o l l a b o r a t i v e experience with other f i e l d s and p e r s o n a l i t y o r i e n t a t i o n : Source of V a r i a t i o n Sum of Squares DF Mean Square F S i g n i f F Main e f f e c t s 0.895 2 0.447 0. .701 0.499 c o l l d i f f 0.102 1 0.102 0. .160 0.690 p e r s o n a l i t y 0.749 1 0 .749 1. .172 0.282 2-way i n t e r a c t i o n s c o l l d i f f p e r s o n a l i t y 0.388 1 0.388 0. .607 0.438 explained 1.283 3 0.428 0. .669 0.573 r e s i d u a l 57.492 90 0.639 T o t a l 58.775 93 0.632 270 cases processed 176 cases missing M a t r i x A n a l y t i c Mode by age and p e r s o n a l i t y : Source of V a r i a t i o n Main e f f e c t s 0. 433 2 0. .216 0, .380 -0. 685 age 0. 212 1 0. ;212 0, .373 0 .543 p e r s o n a l i t y 0. 266 1 0. .266 0. ,468 0 .496 2-way i n t e r a c t i o n s age p e r s o n a l i t y 0, .969 1 0. .969 1 .704 0 .195 explained 1, .402 3 0, .467 0 .822 0 .486 r e s i d u a l 47 , .219 83 0, .569 T o t a l 48 .621 86 0. .565 270 cases processed 183 cases missing 128. Table, 21. (Continued) * = s i g n i f i c a n t M a t r i x A n a l y t i c Mode by C o l l a b o r a t i v e experience with other f i e l d s and p e r s o n a l i t y o r i e n t a t i o n : Source of V a r i a t i o n Sum of DF Mean F S i g n i f of Squares Square F Main e f f e c t s 0, .238 2 0. .119 0. 212 0. ,809 c o l l d i f f 0. .026 1 0. ,026 0. ,047 0. ,829 p e r s o n a l i t y Q, .215 1 0. .215 0. ,384 0. .537 2-way i n t e r a c t i o n s 0, ,228 1 0. ,228 0. ,407 0. ,525 c o l l d i f f p e r s o n a l i t y 0, .466 3 0. .155 0. ,277 0. ,842 explained 49, .380 88 0, .561 r e s i d u a l 48 .846 91 0. .548 T o t a l 270 cases processed 178 cases missing M a t r i x A n a l y t i c Mode by Sex and P e r s o n a l i t y O r i e n t a t i o n : Source of V a r i a t i o n Main e f f e c t s 0.829 2 0.414 0.735 0.483 sex 0.490 1 0.490 0.868 0.354 p e r s o n a l i t y 0.144 1 0.144 0.255 0.615 2-way i n t e r a c t i o n s 0.476 1 0.476 0.882 0.350 sex p e r s o n a l i t y explained 1.818 3 0.606 1.123 0.344 r e s i d u a l 48.041 89 0.540 T o t a l 49.859 92 0.542 270 cases processed 177 cases missing 129. Tablec 2 1 . (Continued) * = s i g n i f i c a n t  M a t r i x A n a l y t i c Mode by Employment s i n c e Terminal Degree, and P e r s o n a l i t y O r i e n t a t i o n : Source of V a r i a t i o n Sum of Squares DF Mean Square F S i g n i f i F Main e f f e c t s 1.342 2 0.671 1. .243 0.293 employsi 1.122 1 1.122 2. .279 0.153 p e r s o n a l i t y 0.044 1 0.044 0. .082 0.776 2-way i n t e r a c t i o n s 0.476 1 0.476 0. .882 0.350 employsi p e r s o n a l i t y explained 1.818 3 0.606 1, .123 0.344 r e s i d u a l 48.041 89 0.540 T o t a l 49.859 92 0.542 270 cases processed 177 cases missing M a t r i x A n a l y t i c Mode by Academic Rank and P e r s o n a l i t y O r i e n t a t i o n : Source of V a r i a t i o n Main e f f e c t s 0.539 2 0. 269 0. .484 0. .618 rank 0.309 1 0. 309 0. ,555 0. .458 p e r s o n a l i t y . 0.135 1 0. 135 0. .243 0. .623 2-way i n t e r a c t i o n s 0.866 1 0. ,866 1. .556 0. .216 rank p e r s o n a l i t y explained 1.404 3 0. ,468 0. .841 0, .475 r e s i d u a l 48.412 87 0. .556 T o t a l 49.816 90 0. .554 270 cases processed 179 cases missing 130. The other f i n d i n g of i n t e r e s t i s the r e l a t i o n s h i p s of sex and p e r s o n a l i t y o r i e n t a t i o n on the H o l i s t i c Mode. The a d d i t i v e e f f e c t of sex and p e r s o n a l i t y d i f f e r e n c e s i s s i g n i f i c a n t at the.05 l e v e l , F = 2.962. The main e f f e c t of sexual d i f f e r e n c e s on a t t i t u d e s towards H o l i s t i c research i s s i g n i f i c a n t at the .06 l e v e l , F = 3.634. The main e f f e c t o f p e r s o n a l i t y d i f f e r e n c e s o n ^ E f o l i s t i c o r i e n t a t i o n i s s i g n i f i c a n t at the,.05 l e v e l , F = 3.809. However, the i n t e r a c t i v e e f f e c t s of sex and p e r s o n a l i t y d i f f e r e n c e s on a t t i t u d e s toward the H o l i s t i c Mode i s not s i g n i f i c a n t ; P = .720, F = .129. These r e s u l t s suggest that there are independent e f f e c t s of both sex and p e r s o n a l i t y o r i e n t a t i o n which i n f l u e n c e a t t i t u d e s toward the H o l i s t i c approach to research. In other words, sexual d i f f e r e n c e s e f f e c t a t t i t u d e s toward the H o l i s t i c Mode no matter what p e r s o n a l i t y o r i e n t a t i o n the i n d i v i d u a l has. A l s o , p e r s o n a l i t y d i f f e r e n c e s e f f e c t a t t i t u d e s towards the H o l i s t i c Mode regardless of sexual gender. However, the e f f e c t s of sex and p e r s o n a l i t y do not combine to i n f l u e n c e a t t i t u d e s toward the H o l i s t i c Mode to any s i g n i f i c a n t degree. They vary independently of one another i n t h e i r i n f l u e n c e on the dependent v a r i a b l e . 6:8:b O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Hypotheses: None of the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between Person and Thing s p e c i a l i s t s preferences f o r o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t y l e s were a f f e c t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y by 131. TABLE 22 . CONTROLLING FOR DEMOGRAPHIC AND CAREER VARIABLES: DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PERSON AND THING SPECIALISTS IN TYPE I AND TYPE I I APPROACHES TO ORGANIZING: Chi Square Tests CONTROL GROUPS: CONTINGENCY TABLES FEMALES TYPE I TYPE I I Corrected Chi Square = 1.72 df = 1 Person 6 9 15 s i g = .18 S p e c i a l i s t s (40.0%) (60.0%) Thing 5 1 S p e c i a l i s t s (83.3%) (16.7%) 6 11 10 21 MALES Corrected Chi Square = .106 df =:i Person 16 15 31 s i g = .744 S p e c i a l i s t s (51.6%) (48.4%) Thing 17 21 S p e c i a l i s t s (44.7%) (55.3%) 38 33 36 69 Less than 40 Corrected Chi Square = .021 df = 1 Person 11 13 24 s i g = .884 S p e c i a l i s t s (45.8%) (54.2%) Thing 13 12 S p e c i a l i s t s (52.0%) (48.0%) 25 24 25 49 Older or Equal to 40 Corrected Chi Square = .018 df = 1 Person 12 12 24 s i g = .892 S p e c i a l i s t s (50.0%) (50.0%) Thing 9 10 S p e c i a l i s t s (47.4%) (52.6%) 19 21 22 43 132. Table 22 . (Continued) CONTROL GROUPS CONTINGENCY TABLES I n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y C o l l a b o r a t i o n YES TYPE I TYPE I I Corrected Chi Square = .012 df = 1 s i g = .91 Person S p e c i a l i s t s 15 (45.5%) 18 (54.5%) 33 Thing S p e c i a l i s t s 14 (43.8%) 29 18 (56.3%) 36 32 I n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y  C o l l a b o r a t i o n NO Corrected Chi Square df = 1 s i g = .780 = .077 Person S p e c i a l i s t s Thing S p e c i a l i s t s 16 (51.6%) 22 (57.9%) 38 15 (48.4%) 16 (42.1%) 31 31 38 Non-University  Employment YES Corrected Chi Square df = 1 s i g = .20 1.63 Person S p e c i a l i s t s Thing S p e c i a l i s t s (47.4%) 1 (12.5%) 10 10 (52.6%) 19 7 (87.5%) 8 17 27 133,. Table 22-. (Continued) CONTROL GROUPS CONTINGENCY TABLES High Rank Corrected Chi Square = df = 1 s i g = .20 .004' Person S p e c i a l i s t s Thing S p e c i a l i s t s TYPE" I 9 (42.9%) 12 (46.2%) 21 TYPE I I 12 (57.1%) 14 (53.8%) 26 Low Rank Corrected Chi Square df = 1 s i g = .844 .038 Person S p e c i a l i s t s Thing S p e c i a l i s t s 15 (53.6%) 11 (55.0%) 26 13 (46.4%) 9 (45.0%) 22 134. c o n t r o l l i n g f o r the career and experience v a r i a b l e s . The most notable o r g a n i z a t i o n a l preference d i f f e r e n c e was between female Person and Thing s p e c i a l i s t s . Person s p e c i a l i s t s p r e f e r r i n g Type II 60% (6) t o Type i:40% (9). Thing s p e c i a l i s t s p r e f e r r i n g Type I 83% (5) to Type II 17% (1). (Corrected Chi square = 1.72, df = 1, p = .18). These f i n d i n g s are c o n s i s t a n t with what was p r e d i c t e d i n Hypothesis III and IV of the study. Person and Thing s p e c i a l i s t s a l s o d i f f e r e d i n t h e i r o r g a n i z a t i o n a l preferences w i t h i n the group having experienced n o n - u n i v e r s i t y employment. Person s p e c i a l i s t s p r e f e r r i n g a Type I s t y l e 47.4% (9) compared to 12.5% (1) of the Thing s p e c i a l i s t s . Person s p e c i a l i s t s p r e f e r r i n g Type II s t y l e 52.6% (10) compared to 87.5% (7) of the Thing s p e c i a l i s t s . (Corrected Chi square = 1.63, df = 1, p = .20) The f a c t that Person s p e c i a l i s t s s l i g h t l y p r e f e r the Type II approach i s as p r e d i c t e d i n Hypothesis I I I . However, contrary to Hypothesis IV, Thing s p e c i a l i s t s overwhelmingly p r e f e r a Type II approach. 6:8:c Summary This s e c t i o n has reported the study's f i n d i n g . In the l a s t chapter of the t h e s i s the f i n d i n g s are i n t e r p r e t e d , the study's l i m i t s noted and suggestions f o r future work are made. 135. V I I . INTERPRETATION, DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS The f i n d i n g s o f t h i s study suggest that d i s c i p l i n a r y s p e c i a l i s t s can be i d e n t i f i e d according to s p e c i f i c p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s and t h e i r a t t i t u d e s towards p a r t i c u l a r s t y l e s of research and work o r g a n i z a t i o n . In the general study p o p u l a t i o n Person and Thing s p e c i a l i s t s d i d not a s s o c i a t e d i f f e r e n t i a l l y with e i t h e r the A n a l y t i c and H o l i s t i c modes of research or with Type I and Type I I o r g a n i z i n g s t y l e s . However, other categories of s p e c i a l i s t s , assessed by the Person-Thing Construct s c a l e , showed some s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h the research mode v a r i a b l e s . In a d d i t i o n , the e f f e c t s of moderating v a r i a b l e s were found to i n f l u e n c e both the independent and dependent v a r i a b l e s of the study. 7:1 Person and Thing Scales: This study found a d d i t i o n a l evidence to support the contention that the Person and Thing Scales are tapping two d i s t i n c t , i n t e r n a l l y c o n s i s t a n t p e r s o n a l i t y dimensions. Using a study population of d i s c i p l i n a r y s p e c i a l i s t s from a v a r i e t y of socio-medical f i e l d s , the r e l i a b i l i t y of Frost and' .Barnowels (1977) s c a l e was found to be s a t i s f a c t o r i l y h i g h . In general, the Person Scale was found to be a b e t t e r p r e d i c t o r of a t t i t u d e s toward research and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l preferences than the Thing s c a l e . ' 136. In the Four Factor research model the Person s c a l e c o r r e l a t e d p o s i t i v e l y and s i g n i f i c a n t l y w i t h the H o l i s t i c Factor (jr=. 61 ,p= . 001), The A n a l y t i c Factor was s l i g h t l y n e g a t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d with the Person s c a l e (r=14, p=.07). S p e c i f i c i t y i n research was a l s o moderately n e g a t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h the Person Scale (r=-.30, p=.001). The research i n t e r p r e t a t i o n f a c t o r (4) was s l i g h t l y p o s i t i v e l y and s i g n i f i c a n t l y a ssociated w i t h the Person Scale (r=.15, p=.05). The Person Scale c o r r e l a t e d w i t h the O r g a n i z a t i o n a l - R a t i o Scale at rpb'.-.47. In c o n t r a s t , the Thing sc a l e d i d not c o r r e l a t e to any s i g n i f i c a n t magnitude with e i t h e r the research mode or o r g a n i z a t i o n a l measures. In con c l u s i o n , p e r s o n a l i t y as measured by the Thing Scale, seems g e n e r a l l y unassociated with a t t i t u d e s towards research and • o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e . While p e r s o n a l i t y , as measured by the Person s c a l e , seems moderately a s s o c i a t e d with a t t i t u d e measures of research approaches_and o r g a n i z i n g s t y l e s . The study found d i f f e r e n c e s i n the mean Person and Thing scores among various sub-groups o f the pop u l a t i o n s t u d i e d . Sexual d i f f e r e n c e s were found to be associated with d i f f e r e n t p e r s o n a l i t y o r i e n t a t i o n s assessed by the Person and Thing s c a l e s . (T=-3.99, p=.000) Females were found t o be s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher i n . Person o r i e n t a t i o n than males. Males had a higher mean score f o r Thing o r i e n t a t i o n than females, but t h i s f i n d i n g was not s i g n i f i c a n t . These f i n d i n g s are s i m i l a r to Frost and Barnowe's f i n d i n g s (1976) that females have higher Person scores and lower Thing scores than men. These o r i e n t a t i o n d i f f e r e n c e s may be due to d i f f e r e n c e s i n s o c i a l i z a t i o n . \ •137. There was a l s o a s i g n i f i c a n t .difference i n Person o r i e n t a t i o n between High and Low academic Rank groups. The High s t a t u s group ( f u l l and as s o c i a t e p rofessors) having a s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower Person o r i e n t a t i o n than the Low status group ( a s s i s t a n t p r o f e s s o r s and below) (T=3.02, p=.003) This f i n d i n g suggests that there may be some d i f f e r e n t i a l success r a t e i n a c h i e v i n g academic s t a t u s f o r those i n d i v i d u a l s who are l e s s people oriented;than t h e i r colleagues. This may be r e l a t e d to the f a c t that these i n d i v i d u a l s are le s s i n t e r e s t e d i n s o c i a l d i s t r a c t i o n s , which allows them to work towards academic goals with more singlemindedness than people o r i e n t e d i n d i v i d u a l s . An a l t e r n a t i v e e xplanation to the d i f f e r e n c e i n Person o r i e n t a t i o n between the High and Low academic Ranks may be that once a High rank i s achieved, an i n d i v i d u a l may no longer have to be so concerned about s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s , e s p e c i a l l y among ones colleagues. 7:2 I n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the Research Mode Fi n d i n g s : In general the study found some e m p i r i c a l evidence to support the theory d e s c r i b i n g the A n a l y t i c and H o l i s t i c conceptual approaches to research. The d i f f e r e n t f a c t o r a n a l y t i c techniques a p p l i e d to the research mode data produced s i m i l a r patterns o f loadings f o r p a r t i c u l a r Research Mode items. The A n a l y t i c and H o l i s t i c dichotomy was found to recur i n a l l four f a c t o r r o t a t i o n s , along wit h dimensions of the research mode not a r t i c u l a t e d by the study. Although these two dimensions were found to e x i s t , they are not e n t i r e l y independent of one another. The A n a l y t i c and H o l i s t i c f a c t o r s of the Four Factor model c o r r e l a t e at r=.34. 138. The A n a l y t i c and H o l i s t c scales of the Two f a c t o r model c o r r e l a t e d r=.37 at the .001 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . These f i n d i n g s are not i n c o n s i s t a n t w i t h the t h e o r e t i c a l continua proposed by Thompson et al_. (1969), Marx et_ al_. (1967) and Weiss (1966) . I n d i v i d u a l s vary i n the degree to which they incorporate e i t h e r or both of the A n a l y t i c and H o l i s t i c extremes i n t h e i r a t t i t u d i n a l approaches toward research. There was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n male and female a t t i t u d e s toward the A n a l y t i c approach to research. Females s c o r i n g s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h er than the males on the A n a l y t i c dimension of the Two Factor model. This d i f f e r e n c e suggests that women who achieve academic p o s i t i o n s tend to be more A n a l y t i c a l i n t h e i r approach to research than men. This f i n d i n g may be r e l a t e d to d i f f e r e n t i a l recruitment and performance standards operating f o r men and women i n achiev i n g academic p o s i t i o n s (T=3.55, df=226, p=.000). There was a l s o a notable d i f f e r e n c e i n the research o r i e n t a t i o n of those i n d i v i d u a l s who had been employed i n n o n - u n i v e r s i t y s e t t i n g s since o b t a i n i n g t h e i r t e r m i n a l degree compared to those who had gone r i g h t into_academia. Those having other employment experience being more H o l i s t i c (T=1.54;df=247;p=.12), than the pure academics.. This f i n d i n g may be r e l a t e d to the f a c t that because of t h e i r experience, these i n d i v i d u a l s may be more open to problem s o l v i n g approaches other than the " i d e a l " experimental paradigm prevalent i n academia. The problems found outside of the academic s e t t i n g may o r i e n t the i n d i v i d u a l to a more H o l i s t i c approach to problem s o l v i n g . 139. P r e d i c t e d d i f f e r e n c e s i n Research A t t i t u d e s between Person and Thing S p e c i a l i s t s (Hypothesis I and I I ) were unconfirmed by the general study p o p u l a t i o n , using both the two and four Factor Research Models. In a d d i t i o n the study found no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s among any of the other s p e c i a l i s t groups i n t h e i r a t t i t u d e s towards the Two Factor model of the Research Mode. Within the Four Factor model, Person and n o n - s p e c i a l i s t s were found to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t i n t h e i r a t t i t u d e s toward i n t e r p r e t a t i v e s t r a t e g i e s f o r research (Factor 4). (T=1.92, p=.05) Frost and Barnowe and L i t t l e have suggested that n o n - s p e c i a l i s t p e r s o n a l i t y types tend to be self-concerned types of i n d i v i d u a l s . I t seems from t h i s study f i n d i n g that i n d i v i d u a l s who are other-concerned or people o r i e n t e d i n t e r p r e t s i t u a t i o n s , i n c l u d i n g i n t e r p r e t a t i v e s t r a t e g i e s , d i f f e r e n t l y from the more ego-centric or s e l f -s p e c i a l i s t type of i n d i v i d u a l . The s e l f - s p e c i a l i s t s being more concerned with the s k i l l s of the scholar being applied to i n t e r p r e t a t i o n than the Person s p e c i a l i s t . Thing s p e c i a l i s t s and G e n e r a l i s t s were found to vary s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n t h e i r a t t i t u d e s toward the A n a l y t i c dimension of the Four Factor model. (T=2.23, p=.02) Thing s p e c i a l i s t s are o r i e n t e d to mechanical-physical domains of t h e i r environment. G e n e r a l i s t types are h i g h l y o r i e n t e d to both the p e r s o n a l i s t i e and p h y s i c a l i s t i c domains of t h e i r environment. G e n e r a l i s t s score lower than Thing s p e c i a l i s t s on the a n a l y t i c dimension. This s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n a t t i t u d e towards A n a l y t i c research may be r e l a t e d to the greater range of u n p r e d i c t a b i l i t y i n the phenomena which 140. i n t e r e s t s the G e n e r a l i s t compared to the more p r e c i s e and t a n g i b l e i n t e r e s t of the Thing s p e c i a l i s t . The i n t e r e s t focus of the Thing s p e c i a l i s t being more amenable to the manipulative, c o n t r o l l e d A n a l y t i c approach. Out of a l l the s p e c i a l i s t sub-groups, Thing and N o n - s p e c i a l i s t s v a r i e d the most i n t h e i r approaches t o research. They d i f f e r e d i n three of the four research mode f a c t o r s (2,3,4) at p=.20 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . Thing s p e c i a l i s t s and Non - s p e c i a l i s t s do not d i f f e r i n t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward the H o l i s t i c mode. However, the N o n - s p e c i a l i s t i s considerably more A n a l y t i c than the Thing s p e c i a l i s t . The two types of S p e c i a l i s t s a l s o d i f f e r considerably i n t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward the need f o r t e s t i n g s p e c i f i c r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n research. The Thing s p e c i a l i s t being more concerned with s p e c i f i c i t y than the N o n - s p e c i a l i s t . The greatest divergence i s i n choice of i n t e r p r e t a t i v e s t r a t e g i e s . Factor 10 i s made up of two items, one concerned with research i n t e r p r e t a t i o n on the b a s i s of s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e and the other concerned with i n t e r p r e t a t i o n based on the q u a l i t a t i v e judgements of the s c h o l a r . This f a c t o r i s weighted i n the d i r e c t i o n of the q u a l i t a t i v e methodology and the N o n - s p e c i a l i s t s score s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher on t h i s f a c t o r than the Thing s p e c i a l i s t s . The s e l f - s p e c i a l i s t s seeming much more concerned with i n t e r p r e t i n g research r e s u l t s r e l y i n g on the scholar's p e r s p e c t i v e . F i n a l l y , the study c o n t r o l l e d f o r the simultaneous e f f e c t s of the confounding and p e r s o n a l i t y v a r i a b l e s on the dependent v a r i a b l e s of the research mode. D i f f e r e n t employment experiences were found to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y and independently a s s o c i a t e d with a t t i t u d e s toward the H o l i s t i c approach to research, regardless of p e r s o n a l i t y o r i e n t a t i o n (F=3.513 S= .06). 141. Sex: and p e r s o n a l i t y o r i e n t a t i o n were a l s o found to a f f e c t a t t i t u d e s toward the H o l i s t i c Research mode but not i n an i n t e r a c t i v e manner. In other words, both v a r i a b l e s of sex and p e r s o n a l i t y a f f e c t a t t i t u d e s toward the H o l i s t i c mode, but independent of one another's i n f l u e n c e . (Sex; F= 3.634 S = .06) ( P e r s o n a l i t y ; F= 3.809 rS = .05) 7:3 I n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f O r g a n i z a t i o n a l F i n d i ngs: In the general study p o p u l a t i o n no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found among s p e c i a l i s t s with a high Person or high Thing o r i e n t a t i o n and preferences f o r s p e c i f i c o r g a n i z i n g s t y l e s . Hypotheses I I I and IV were unconfirmed. However, two v a r i a b l e s of career experience r e l a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y to s p e c i f i c o r g a n i z a t i o n a l preferences. I n d i v i d u a l s of Low and High academic rank had s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t p e r s p e c t i v e s on o r g a n i z a t i o n a l designs f o r research teams. The Low ranking group p r e f e r i n g a Type I approach ( I - 60.3%/II-39.7%) compared to the High status group, whose preferences were much more evenly 2 d i s t r i b u t e d between the two a l t e r n a t i v e s . (1-48%/H-52%) (Chi =3.28, p=.07). As a group however, more of the High status i n d i v i d u a l s p r e f e r e d Type I I approach to team o r g a n i z a t i o n than the Type I approach. This f i n d i n g might be explained by the accumulation of experience i n o r g a n i z i n g f o r research which presumably accompanies the achievement of a High academic rank. This experience may enable a more adaptable, f l e x i b l e approach to work o r g a n i z a t i o n , which the more inexperienced researcher may not be capable or confident enough to pursue. The other o r g a n i z a t i o n a l f i n d i n g of s i g n i f i c a n c e was the d i f f e r e n c e 142. i n o r g a n i z a t i o n a l preference between those i n d i v i d u a l s ' having experienced i n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y c o l l a b o r a t i o n and those that had not. Within the group having experienced i t , - there was a s l i g h t tendancy to p r e f e r a Type I I approach to o r g a n i z a t i o n 87/53.4% compared to the Type I approach 76/46.6%. Those not having experienced i n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y c o l l a b o r a t i v e . research f e l t that the best way to handle team research i s through a w e l l defined o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e . This group prefered the Type I approach 56/68.3% to 23/31.7%. This d i f f e r e n c e between the two groups may again be r e l a t e d to the e f f e c t s of experience on o r g a n i z i n g a t t i t u d e s . Those with knowledge of the r e a l s i t u a t i o n having considerably d i f f e r e n t opinions 2 than those presented with the h y p o t h e t i c a l team s i t u a t i o n . (Chi =9.45, p=.002) There was a l s o a tendancy f o r sex to be a s s o c i a t e d with d i f f e r e n t o r g a n i z a t i o n a l preferences. This was not a s i g n i f i c a n t f i n d i n g , but i t was a n o t i c a b l e trend i n the data. The male p o p u l a t i o n of the study was s p l i t 80-'49%-83-51%) i n i t s preference f o r the Type I and Type I I approaches. However, the female p o p u l a t i o n of the study p r e f e r r e d the Type I approach 60.6%/43 to 39.4%/28. (Chi 2=1.48, p=.22) Considering each of the other o r g a n i z a t i o n a l preference f i n d i n g s , i t seems reasonable to i n t e r p r e t t h i s f i n d i n g i n l i g h t of the i n f l u e n c e of experience on preference f o r s t y l e s of o r g a n i z i n g . The female p o p u l a t i o n may be less experienced than the male study p o p u l a t i o n i n o r g a n i z i n g f o r team research, and consequently p r e f e r s a more systematic and w e l l defined approach to the work o r g a n i z a t i o n s i t u a t i o n . Sex was a l s o found to moderate the f i n d i n g s of the O r g a n i z a t i o n a l preference Hypotheses of the study. Within the female p o p u l a t i o n of the 143. study, Person s p e c i a l i s t s p r e f e r e d a Type I I approach to or g a n i z i n g 60% to 40%. Thing s p e c i a l i s t s p r e f e r e d a Type I approach i n 83% of cases compared to only 16% of the cases p r e f e r i n g the Type I I appraoch. ALthough t h i s f i n d i n g was only s i g n i f i c a n t at the .18 l e v e l , these 2 r e s u l t s are p r e d i c t e d by Hypothesis I I I and IV of the study. (Chi = 1.72, p=.18) W i t h i n the male pop u l a t i o n of the study, the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l preferences of the two s p e c i a l i s t types were note s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t and they were not i n the d i r e c t i o n s p r e d i c t e d i n Hypothesis I I I and IV. Males: TYPE I TYPE I I Person S p e c i a l i s t s 51.6% 48.4% Chi 2=vl06, p=.744 Thing S p e c i a l i s t s 44.7% 55.3% Although the experience of employment i n n o n - u n i v e r s i t y s e t t i n g s since o b t a i n i n g terminal degree d i d not i n f l u e n c e preferences f o r s p e c i f i c types of or g a n i z i n g s t y l e s d i r e c t l y , i t moderates the r e l a t i o n s h i p between p e r s o n a l i t y o r i e n t a t i o n and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l preferences (Chi2=i.63) (s=.20). Within t h i s group, both Person and Thing s p e c i a l i s t s p r e f e r r i n g the Type I I approach: TYPE I TYPE I I Person S p e c i a l i s t s 47.4% 52.6% Thing S p e c i a l i s t s 12.5% 87.5% This f i n d i n g adds to the n o t i o n that o r g a n i z a t i o n a l experience may be a more important i n f l u e n c e on o r g a n i z a t i o n a l preferences f o r team research than p e r s o n a l i t y . 144. In summary, the f o l l o w i n g general r e s u l t s emerged from the study: 1. Evidence was found to support the r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y of the Person-Thing construct s c a l e (Frost and Barnowe 1977, L i t t l e 1972) 2. The Person Scale was found to be a b e t t e r p r e d i c t o r of ' o r g a n i z a t i o n a l and research a t t i t u d e s than the Thing Scale/" 3. The study found d i f f e r e n c e s i n Person and Thing p e r s o n a l i t y o r i e n t a t i o n between males and females and between High and Low academic rank groups. 4. The f a c t o r a n a l y t i c techniques of the study provided some evidence f o r the construct v a l i d i t y of the A n a l y t i c - H o l i s t i c Research continuum theory. 5. S i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n research a t t i t u d e s were found between male and females and i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h d i f f e r e n t post-u n i v e r s i t y employment experiences. 6. The study d i d not f i n d d i f f e r e n c e s between Person and Thing s p e c i a l i s t s ' a t t i t u d e s toward Research, as p r e d i c t e d by Hypotheses I and I I . However, there were s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t research a t t i t u d e s among other types of s p e c i a l i s t s (Person/Non-specialists and T h i n g / G e n e r a l i s t s ) . 145. 7. Employment, sex and p e r s o n a l i t y v a r i a b l e s were found to independently e f f e c t a t t i t u d e s toward the H o l i s t i c Mode of research. 8. I n d i v i d u a l s with d i f f e r e n t academic ranks and those with d i f f e r e n t i n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y c o l l a b o r a t i v e experiences had s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t a t t i t u d e s toward o r g a n i z a t i o n . 9. Within the female p o p u l a t i o n of the study, Person s p e c i a l i s t s were found to p r e f e r a Type I I o r g a n i z i n g s t y l e and Thing s p e c i a l i s t s p r e f e r r e d a Type I or g a n i z i n g s t y l e . This was the only instance where Hypothesis I I I and IV were confirmed. 7:4 Discus s i o n : The f i n d i n g s of t h i s study suggest that p e r s o n a l i t y s p e c i a l i z a t i o n i n d i s c i p l i n a r i a n s only p a r t i a l l y explains a t t i t u d e s toward s p e c i f i c research modes. In a d d i t i o n , career and o r g a n i z a t i o n experience v a r i a b l e s may be more important i n p r e d i c t i n g preferences f o r o r g a n i z i n g s t y l e s than p e r s o n a l i t y s p e c i a l i z a t i o n . The f i n d i n g s of the study are l i m i t e d i n t h e i r general a p p l i c a b i l i t y . The study d i d not look at a complete range of d i s c i p l i n a r y s p e c i a l i s t s and was l i m i t e d to one u n i v e r s i t y . In a d d i t i o n , the non-random sampling technique and the response b i a s operating i n the study p r o h i b i t s the researcher from g e n e r a l i z i n g beyond the study sample. 146. A requirement f o r f u t u r e s t u d i e s i n t h i s are would be the use of a random sampling s t r a t e g y , which would take sex and career v a r i a b l e s i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n while p a r t i t i o n i n g , and generate equal numbers of respondents from a wider range of d i s c i p l i n e s . Other u n i v e r s i t y s e t t i n g s should be surveyed. There may be some recruitment b i a s unique to U.B.C. compared to other i n s t i t u t i o n s which i s r e f l e c t e d i n s p e c i a l i s t s ' preferences f o r types of research. There was some evidence to suggest that past employment i n no n - u n i v e r s i t y s e t t i n g s e f f e c t s a researcher's approach to problem s o l v i n g . I t would be i n t e r e s t i n g to see i f the A n a l y t i c - H o l i s t i c continuum i s appropriate f o r d e f i n i n g problem s o l v i n g approaches i n other types of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s e t t i n g s . In other words, the p a r t i c u l a r type of research environment may be more important than p e r s o n a l i t y o r i e n t a t i o n i n p r e d i c t i n g preferences f o r research modes. A d d i t i o n a l career and experience v a r i a b l e s , i n c l u d i n g the f i e l d of d i s c i p l i n a r y a f f i l i a t i o n , should be looked at to see what other types of v a r i a b l e s e f f e c t a t t i t u d e s toward research. Perhaps these c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the i n d i v i d u a l e f f e c t a t t i t u d e s more than measures designed t o tap " p s y c h o s p e c i a l i z a t i o n . " The measures designed to tap the Research Mode are subject to problems of r e l i a b i l i t y . Although some evidence was presented f o r the construct v a l i d i t y o f the A n a l y t i c and H o l i s t i c dimensions, more work i s r e q u i r e d i n d e f i n i n g and a r t i c u l a t i n g these and other dimensions of problem s o l v i n g s t r a t e g i e s . The A n a l y t i c - H o l i s t i c continuum may only be appropriate f o r a c e r t a i n range o f f i e l d s . This i s suggested by the low response r a t e i n the study of f i e l d s l i k e law. The study a l s o found that s p e c i f i c o r g a n i z a t i o n preferences 147. i n d i s c i p l i n a r y s p e c i a l i s t s were not predominantly r e l a t e d to p e r s o n a l i t y o r i e n t a t i o n . W ithin the female p o p u l a t i o n of the study the o r g a n i z a t i o n preferences p r e d i c t e d by Hypothesis I I I and IV of the study emerged. Person s p e c i a l i s t s p r e f e r r i n g a Type I I approach and Thing s p e c i a l i s t s p r e f e r r i n g a Type I approach. Instead, the study found that o r g a n i z a t i o n a l preference i s somewhat in f l u e n c e d by sex and career experience v a r i a b l e s . In p a r t i c u l a r , o r g a n i z a t i o n a l a t t i t u d e s gained i n the process of conducting research seem to i n f l u e n c e a t t i t u d e s toward o r g a n i z a t i o n a l designs. Those having experienced c o l l a b o r a t i o n w i t h other d i s c i p l i n e s having a s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t o r g a n i z a t i o n a l outlook than those who hadn't had t h i s type of research experience. Higher status academics a l s o have a s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t a t t i t u d e towards o r g a n i z a t i o n a l preferences than lower status academics. Non-university employment since t e r m i n a l degree was a l s o found to moderate the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l preferences of Person and Thing s p e c i a l i s t s . In the l i g h t of these o r g a n i z a t i o n a l experience v a r i a b l e s , i t would be i n t e r e s t i n g at some fu t u r e date to see i f sexual d i f f e r e n c e s i n o r g a n i z a t i o n a l preference were ':true' sexual d i f f e r e n c e s or the r e s u l t of d i f f e r e n t o r g a n i z a t i o n a l experiences between males and females. There were problems of measurement and r e l i a b i l i t y i n u s i n g a forced-choice s c a l e f o r tapping a t t i t u d e s toward o r g a n i z i n g f o r research. Underlying dimensions present i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n design data could not be d e r i v e d , so the accuracy of the two sc a l e s used i n the a n a l y s i s may be c a l l e d i n t o question. Future work i n t h i s area should focus on developing a more r e l i a b l e instrument f o r measuring a t t i t u d e s toward o r g a n i z i n g . 148. Another problem of the study, noted i n c r i t i q u e s of the questionnaires by the study respondents, i s the d e f i n i t i o n a l and communication ambiguities i n t r y i n g to measure ideas such as approaches to research and o r g a n i z i n g s t y l e s . Many of the comments suggested that these v a r i a b l e s are dependent on the s p e c i f i c s of a research problem and s i t u a t i o n and are th e r e f o r e d i f f i c u l t to a b s t r a c t • to general a t t i t u d e s toward research and o r g a n i z i n g . Some of the response b i a s i n the study may be a t t r i b u t e d to the d i s c i p l i n a r y b i a s inherent i n both the design and appeal of the que s t i o n n a i r e . 7:5 Conclusions: The f i n d i n g s of the Research mode s e c t i o n of the t h e s i s provide some i n s i g h t s f o r moderating the c o n f l i c t p o t e n t i a l of p o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y teams. C o n t r a s t i n g preferences f o r s p e c i f i c approaches to research can be documented w i t h i n a popu l a t i o n of academic s p e c i a l i s t s i n s o c i o - m e d i c a l l y r e l a t e d f i e l d s . The presence of these s t r a t e g y d i f f e r e n c e s should not be ignored by organizers of p o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y teams. A t t i t u d e s towards the apparatus of research i n the p o t e n t i a l p a r t i c i p a n t of p o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y research can be assessed u s i n g the f o l l o w i n g c r i t e r i a : 1) The l e v e l of s p e c i f i c i t y p r e f e r r e d by a researcher f o r problem s o l u t i o n : general models or t e s t i n g s p e c i f i c r e l a t i o n s h i p s . 2) The type of o b s e r v a t i o n a l s t r a t e g i e s p r e f e r r e d by the researcher; experimental or d e s c r i p t i v e . 149. 3) The types of i n t e r p r e t a t i v e methods to be employed by the researcher; q u a l i t a t i v e or s t a t i s t i c a l . 4) Where the researcher f a l l s along the A n a l y t i c - H o l i s t i c continuum i n c o n c e p t u a l i z i n g a research task. Decisions concerning recruitment and grouping p r a c t i c e s of p a r t i c i p a n t s should r e f l e c t a p o l i c y of t r y i n g to minimize extreme divergences among team members along the c r i t e r i a o u t l i n e d above i t a research product i s to emerge. In a d d i t i o n , the leaders .-.of p o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y teams should be aware of p o t e n t i a l sexual d i f f e r e n c e s i n a t t i t u d e s toward research. A l s o , researchers who are self-concerned types of i n d i v i d u a l s should probably not be grouped with Thing o r i e n t e d types o f s p e c i a l i s t s because t h e i r a t t i t u d e s toward research vary considerably. Recommendations to leaders o r g a n i z i n g a team o f p o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y research should i n c l u d e c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the past research and o r g a n i z a t i o n experiences of the p o t e n t i a l p a r t i c i p a n t . Those with n o n - u n i v e r s i t y employment si n c e t e r m i n a l degree, higher academic rank and i n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y c o l l a b o r a t i v e experience w i l l probably have d i f f e r e n t o r g a n i z i n g s t y l e s than those without b e n e f i t of these experiences. The sex of p a r t i c i p a n t s may a l s o make a d i f f e r e n c e i n the i n d i v i d u a l ' s e::i'• • t expectations f o r o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e . Those i n d i v i d u a l s a s s ociated with the three experience v a r i a b l e s of the study tending to p r e f e r a more f l e x i b l e , Type I I s t y l e of o r g a n i z i n g . Those with l e s s experience seem to p r e f e r a more s t r u c t u r e d research environment. These a t t r i b u t e s of p a r t i c i p a n t s should be taken i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n grouping and or g a n i z i n g s p e c i a l i s t s f o r p o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y teams. 150. In summary, t h i s study has developed and te s t e d a set of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of d i s c i p l i n a r y s p e c i a l i s t s r e l e v a n t to the management of p o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y research teams. The study was only p a r t i a l l y s u c c e s s f u l i n p r e d i c t i n g linkages between p e r s o n a l i t y attributes.-of s p e c i a l i s t s and s p e c i f i c research and work a t t i t u d i n a l c o r r e l a t e s . However, the study d i d f i n d s e v e r a l moderating v a r i a b l e s which may help to provide g u i d e l i n e s f o r team composition i n p o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y research. The planning concern being to avoid instances of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c o n f l i c t among p a r t i c i p a n t s of p o l y d i s c i p l i n a r y research. BIBLIOGRAPHY Aiken, M. and Hage, J . O r g a n i z a t i o n a l interdependence and i n t r a -o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e . American S o c i a l o g i c a l Review, 1968, 33. A l d r i c h , H. O r g a n i z a t i o n a l boundaries and i n t e r - o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c o n f l i c t . Human Relations, 1971, 24, 279-93. A l l e n , G.R. The Graduate Student's Guide to Theses and Dissertations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1975. A r g y r i s , C. Personality and Organization. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1957. Barnard, C.I. Organization and Management. Cambridge: Harvard U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1949. Barnes, L.B. O r g a n i z a t i o n a l change and f i e l d experiments. In J.D. Thompson and V.H. Vroom (Eds.), Organizational Design and Research. P i t t s b u r g h : U n i v e r s i t y of P i t t s b u r g h Press, 1971. B e l l a , D.A. and Williamson, K.J. C o n f l i c t s i n i n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y research. Journal of Environment Systems, 1977, 6, 105-123. Bennis, W.G. Some b a r r i e r s to teamwork i n s o c i a l research. Social Problems, 1956,3, 223-235. Birnbaum, P. Management of i n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y research p r o j e c t s i n academic i n s t i t u t i o n s (Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r i s t y of Washington, 1975) Dissertation Abstracts International, 1975. ( U n i v e r s i t y M i c r o f i l m s No. 76-17, 403). B l a c k w e l l , G.W. M u l t i d i s c i p l i n a r y team research. Social Forces, 1955, 33, 367-374. 152. B l a l o c k , H. Causal inferences in non-experimental Research. New York: W.W. Norton and Co. 1964. Blau, P. P r e s i d e n t i a l Address: Parameters of s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e . American socialogical Review, 197A, 39, 615-35. Bush, G.P. and Hattery, L.H. S c i e n t i f i c research its administration and organization. Washington: American U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1950. Bush, G.P. and Hattery, L.H. Teamwork in research. Washington: American U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1953. Busse, E.W. A d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the i n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y research team. Journal of Medical Education, 1965^ 40, • 832-839. Campbell, D.T. and Stanley, J.C. Experimental and quazi-experimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1963. Campbell, D.T. Manual for Strong Vocational Interest Blanks for Men and Women. Stanford: Stanford U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1970. Caplow, T. The Sociology of work. Minneapolis: U n i v e r s i t y of Minnesota Press, 1954. C a n d i l l , W. and Roberts, B.H. P i t f a l l s i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n of i n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y research. Human Organization, 1951., 10, 12-15. Charach, L. Using mail questionnaires; The optimal methodology and an example. 1975. Coser, L. The functions of social conflict. New York: The Free Press, 1956. Cronbach, L. C o e f f i c i e n t alpha and the i n t e r n a l s t r u c t u r e of t e s t s . Psychometrika, 1951,, XVI, 297-334. Cummins, R. Some a p p l i c a t i o n s of Q methodology to teaching and educational research. Journal of Educational Research, 1963., 57(2), 96-98. Dalton, G.W.; Lawrence, P.R. and Lorsch, J.W. Organizational structure and design, I l l i n o i s : Dorsey Press, 1970. Deutscher, I. (ED.) What wesay/What we do, Glenview: S c o t t , Foresman and Co., 1973. Dillman, D.A.; Christenson, J.A.; Carpenter, E.H. and Brooks, R.M. Increasing m a i l questionnaire response, a four s t a t e comparison, American Sociological Review, 1974, 39, 744-56. D i m i t r i o u , B. The i n t e r p e n e t r a t i o n of p o l i t i c s and planning, Socio-Economic Planning Science, 1973., 7, 55-65. Dorcey, A. and Fox, I. An assessment of u n i v e r s i t y i n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y research: The Wisconsin River and the Lower Fraser River water q u a l i t y s t u d i e s . Proceedings of the conference on interdisciplinary Analysis of Water Resource Systems, 1973:, 321-367. Duncan, R. C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l environments and perceived environmental u n c e r t a i n t y . Administrative Science Quarterly 1972, 17, 327-331. E i s e n t h a l , S. E v a l u a t i o n of a community mental h e a l t h r o l e u s i n g a ': s t r u c t u r e d Q s o r t . Community Mental Health Journal 191 A, 9-10, 25-33. Emery, F.E. and T r i s t , E.L. The causal t e x t u r e of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l environments. Human Relations 1965, 18, 21-32. 154. E t z i o n i , A. (ed.) Readings on Modern Organizations. New Jersey: P r e n t i c e H a l l , 1969. Fincher, C. Faculty perceptions of the research environment. Athens: I n s t i t u t e of Higher Education, U n i v e r s i t y of Georgia, 1965. Forcese, D.P. and Richer, S. Social research methods. Englewood c l i f f s : P r e n t i c e H a l l , 1973. Ford, H. An atmosphere for excellence. The Pennsylvania S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y College of Human Development, O f f i c e of the Dean, 1972. Ford, H. A time of transition. The Pennsylvania State U n i v e r s i t y College of Human Development, O f f i c e of the Dean. 1975. Foundation f o r Research on Human Behavior. Human f a c t o r s i n Research A d m i n i s t r a t i o n . Seminar Report. Ann Arbor, 1955. Friedman, J . A conceptual model f o r the a n a l y s i s o f planning behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly 1967, 12, 345-370. F r o s t , P.J. and Barnowe, J.T. Convergence on a co n s t r u c t : a se r e n d i p i t o u s meeting o f measures<,Faculty of Commerce and Business A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, DRAFT, 1977. Garbarino, J.W. Managing U n i v e r s i t y research: personnel and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l p o l i c i e s . California Management Review, 1970, 12, 65-75. Gaff, J.G. and Wilson, R.C. F a c u l t y c u l t u r e s and i n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y s t u d i e s . Journal of Higher Education, 1968, 186-201. 155. Gardner, N. The n o n - h i e r a r c h i c a l o r g a n i z a t i o n of the f u t u r e , Theory . vs. r e a l i t y . Public Administration Review, 1975, 36. Georgiou, P. The goal paradigm and notes toward a counter paradigm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1973., 19, 291-310. G i l l e s p i e , D. Organizational Success: An initial inquiry. Unpublished d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of Washington, 1976. G i l l e s p i e , D.F. A general model of group goals and effectiveness. Working paper #5, Research Improvement Program, U n i v e r s i t y of Washington, 1975. G i l l e s p i e , D.F. and Mar, B.F. Selection of experimental pre-proposal research groups for Phase II. Working paper #6, Research improvement Program, U n i v e r s i t y of Washington, 1975. G i l l e s p i e , D.F. and M i l e t i , D.S. O r g a n i z a t i o n a l adaptions to changing c u l t u r a l contingencies. Sociological Inquiry, 1976., 46, 135-41. G i l l e s p i e , D.F. and M i l e t i , D.S. Technology and the study of o r g a n i z a t i o n s : an overview and a p p r a i s a l . Academy of Management Review, 1977, January, 7-16. Goss, M. Influence and a u t h o r i t y among ph y s i c i a n s i n an out p a t i e n t c l i n i c . American sociological review, 1961, 26, 39-50. Gray, C.A. Hospital Administration Student's Orientation to Professionalization. Unpublished Master's Theses, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1977. Greenwood, E. A t t i t u d e s of a p r o f e s s i o n . Social Work, 1957, 2, 44-55. Gross, B.M. What are your or g a n i z a t i o n ' s o b j e c t i v e s ? A general systems approach to planning. Human Relations, 1916, 18, 195-216. 156. Hagstrom, W.O. The S a i e n t i f i e Community. New York: Basic Books Inc., 1965. Hagstrom, W.O. T r a d i t i o n a l and modern forms of s c i e n t i f i c teamwork. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1964., 4, 241-263. H a l l , R.H. P r o f e s s i o n a l i z a t i o n and b u r e a u c r a t i z a t i o n . American Sociological Review, 1968, 33, 92-104. Hartup, W.W. University Models and Human Development, an H i s t o r i c a l Perspective. Lecture, 1974, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Harvey, O.J., Hunt, D.E. and Schroder, H.M.. Conceptual Systems and Personality Organization, New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1961. Heckenhausen, H. Some approaches to d i s c i p l i n e and i n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r i t y . In o r g a n i z a t i o n f o r economic co-operation and development, Interdisciplinarity, Problems on Teaching and Research in Universities, 1972, 83-89. Hedberg, P., Nystrom, C , Starbuck, W.H. Camping on see-saws: P r e s c r i p t i o n s f o r a s e l f - d e s i g n i n g o r g a n i z a t i o n . A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Science Quarterly, 1976, 21, 41-65. Hei s s , A.M. The prep a r a t i o n of c o l l e g e and U n i v e r s i t y teachers. In Report on the Education Professions, Washington: Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , 1969. Herzog, E. Some Guidelines for Evaluative Research, U.S.D. of H.E.W., Children's Bureau, Washington, 1959. Hickson, D.J. , Hining s , C.R., Lee, CA. , Schneck, R.C. and Pennings, J.M. A s t r a t e g i c contingencies theory of i n t r a - o r g a n i z a t i o n a l power. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1971, 16, 216-27. 157. H i l l i e r , J . The R and D manager wears f i v e h a t s , Research Management, 1972, July, 33-41. Hoffman, L.R. Homogeneity of member p e r s o n a l i t y and i t s e f f e c t s on group problem s o l v i n g . Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1959, 58, 27-32. Hoffman, L.R. and Maier, N. Q u a l i t y and acceptance of problem s o l u t i o n s by members of homogeneous groups. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1961, 62, 401-407. Holland, J.L. The Psychology of Vocational Choice, Waltham: B l a i s d e l l P u b l i s h i n g Co., 1966. Ikenberry, S.O. and Friedman, R.C. Beyond Academic Departments. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., 1972. I n s t i t u t e f o r S o c i a l Research. Interviewers Manual. Survey Research Centre, U n i v e r s i t y of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1976. Isacc, S. and W i l l i a m , M. Handbook in Research and Evaluation. San Diego: Robert Knapp P u b l i s h e r s , 1971. Jahooda, M., Deutch, M and Cook, S. Research Methods in Social Relations. New York: Dryden Press, 1951. Jantsch, E. I n t e r and t r a n s d i s c i p l i n a r y U n i v e r s i t y : A systems approach to education and i n n o v a t i o n . Policy Sciences, 1970, 1, 403-28. J e l i n e k , M. Technology, org a n i z a t i o n s and contingency. Academy of Management Review, 1977,2, 17-26. Kash, D.E. Research and development at the u n i v e r s i t y . Science, 1966, 160, 1313-18. Kast, F.E., Rosenzweig, J.E. and Stockman, J.W. I n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y research i n a u n i v e r s i t y s e t t i n g . Academy of Management Journal, 1970, 13, 311-24. 158. Katz, D. and Kahn, R.L. The Social Psychology of Organizations. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1966. K e r l i n g e r , F. Foundations of Behaviorial Research. New York: H o l t , Rinehart and Winston Inc., 1973. Kerr, C. The Uses of the University, Cambridge: Harvard U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1963. Kluckholn, C. An a n t h r o p o l o g i s t looks at psychology. American Psychologist. 1948, 3, 439-443. Krech, D., C r u t c h f i e l d , R. and Ballachey, E. Individual in Society. New York: McGraw H i l l , 1962. LaLonde M. A new Perspective on the Health of Canadians, a Working document. Health and Welfare Canada, 1974. L a r k i n , P.A. Some Thoughts on Institutes at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, O f f i c e of the Dean of Graduate Studies, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1975. Lawrence, P.R. and Lorsch, J.W. Organization and Environment. Homewood: Richard Irwin Inc., 1969. L i k e r t , R. A Technique f o r the measurement of a t t i t u d e s . Archives of Psychology. 1932,#140. L i k e r t , R. New Patterns of Management. New York: McGraw H i l l Book Co., 1961. L i t t e r e r , J.A. Research departments w i t h i n large o r g a n i z a t i o n s . California Management Review. 1970., 12, 77-84. L i t t l e , B.R. Person - Thing Orientation, A Provisional Manual for the T-P Scale. Department of Experimental Psychology, Oxford U n i v e r s i t y , 1972. 159. L i t t l e , B.R. S p e c i a l i z a t i o n and the v a r i e t i e s of environmental experience Wapner, S. et_ a l . (eds.) Experiencing the Environment. New York: Plenum Press, 1976, 81-116. L i t t l e , B.R. P s y c h o l o g i c a l man as s c i e n t i s t , humanist and s p e c i a l i s t . Journal of Experimental Research in Personality. 1912, 95-118. Lordahl, D.S. Modern Statistics for Behaviorial Sciences. New York: Ronald Press Co., 1967. L u s z k i , M.B. Team research i n s o c i a l s c i e nce, major consequences of a growing trend. Human Organization. 1957, 21-24. L u s z k i , M.B. Interdisciplinary Team Research Methods and Problems. New York. Lynton, R.P. L i n k i n g an i n n o v a t i v e subsystem i n t o the system. Administrative Science Quarterly. 1969, 14, 398-416. Mabry, J.H., Cartwright, A., Pearson, J . , S i l v e r , G. and Vukmanovic, C. The n a t u r a l h i s t o r y o f an i n t e r n a t i o n a l c o l l a b o r a t i v e study o f medical care u t i l i z a t i o n . Social Sciences Information, 1966, 4. Maddi, S. Personality Theories, a Comparative Analysis. Homewood, I l l i n o i s : Dorsey Press, 1968. Mar, B.T., Newell, W.T. and Saxberg, B.O. Interdisciplinary Research' Issues in a University Setting. Working Paper No. 7, Research Improvement Program. U n i v e r s i t y of Washington, 1976. Mar, B.T., Newell, W.T. and Saxberg, B.O. I n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y research i n the u n i v e r s i t y s e t t i n g . Environmental Science and Technology, 1976, 10. i'60. Marmon, T. National Health Insurance and the Health Labor Force. 1976, DRAFT. Marquis, D.G. Organized confusion. Technology Review, 1971,74, 75-6. Marx, J . , Suchman, E.A. and H e l l e r , D.B. A systematic framework f o r r e l a t i n g the b e h a v i o r i a l sciences to the healt h care f i e l d s . Inquiry, 1967, 4, 48-58. Mason, J.R. Organized Interdisciplinary Research Units in Universities, Patterns and Constraints. Unpublished d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n . U n i v e r s i t y of Washington, 1976. McDonough, J . J . One day i n l i f e of Ivan Denisovich: a study of the s t r u c t u r a l r e q u i s i t e s of o r g a n i z a t i o n . Human Relations, 28, 295-328. McGraph, J.H. Research Methods and Designs for Education. Scranton: I n t e r n a t i o n a l Textbook Co., 1970. McKinlay, J.B. Excerpts from the Second Annual Report of the Multidisciplinary University - Wide Fellowship Program in Health Services Research and Policy. Boston U n i v e r s i t y . 1975. McNemar, Q. Psychological Statistics. New York: J . Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1962. M i l l e r , D.C. The shaping of research design i n l a r g e - s c a l e group research. Social Forces, 1954-5, 33, 383-9. M i l l s , D.L. Status, values and certainty of occupational choice. Unpublished d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , Stanford U n i v e r s i t y , 1962. M i t r o f f , I. and Kilmann, R. On o r g a n i z a t i o n s t o r i e s : an approach to the design and a n a l y s i s of or g a n i z a t i o n s through myths and s t o r i e s . R.H. Kilmann, L.R. Pondy and D.P. S l e v i n s (Eds.) Management of Organization Design. V o l . I , 1976, 189-207. 161. Moos, R.H. Co n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n of human environments. American Psychologist, 1973, 28, 652-665. Morrissey, E. and G i l l e s p i e , D.F. Technology and the c o n f l i c t of p r o f e s s i o n a l s i n b u r e a u c r a t i c o r g a n i z a t i o n s . The Sociological Quarterly. 1975, 16, 319-332. Murphy, G. and L i k e r t , R. Public Opinion- and the Individual. New York: Harper Brothers P u b l i s h e r s , 1938. Neuhauser, D. The h o s p i t a l as a matrix o r g a n i z a t i o n . Hospital Administration. 1972, Fall, 8-23. Newell, W.T. and Saxberg, B.O. Management of i n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y research i n u n i v e r s i t i e s faces problems; an overview. Working Paper #1. Research Improvement Program 1975, U n i v e r s i t y of Washington.. S e a t t l e . Newell, W.T., Saxberg, B.,0. and Mason, J.R. Emergence of i n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y research at the U n i v e r s i t y of Washington, patt e r n s and c o n s t r a i n t s . Working Paper §2, Research Improvement Program, 1975, U n i v e r s i t y of Washington, S e a t t l e . Newell, W.T., Saxberg, B.O. and Birnbaum, P.H. Measures of e f f e c t i v e n e s s and e f f i c i e n c y f o r u n i v e r s i t y i n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y o r g a n i z a t i o n s . Working Paper #3, Research Improvement Program, 1975, U n i v e r s i t y of Washington, S e a t t l e . Oppenheim, A.N. Questionnaire Design and Attitude Measurement. New York: Basic Books Inc. 1966. Organ, D.W. A r e a p p r a i s a l and r e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the s a t i s f a c t i o n causes performance hypothesis. Academy of Management Review, 1977, January, 46-53. 162. Palmer, A.M. (ed.) Research Centers Directory, D e t r o i t : Gale Research. Co., 1975. P e l l e g r i n o , E.D. The changing matrix of c l i n i c a l d e c i s i o n making i n the h o s p i t a l o r g a n i z a t i o n . Organization Research on Health Institutions, I n s t i t u t e f o r s o c i a l Research, Ann Arbor, 1970. P e l z , D.C. and Andrews, F.M. Scientists in Organizations, New York: John Wiley and Sons Inc., 1966. Perry, R.W., G i l l e s p i e , D.F. and M i l e t i , D.S. System s t r e s s and the p e r s i s t e n c e o f emergent o r g a n i z a t i o n s . Sociological Inquiry, #2, Vol. 44, 111-119. P e t r i e , H.G. Do you see what I see? The epistemology of i n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y i n q u i r y . Educational Research, 1976, February, 9-14. Pondy, L.R. O r g a n i z a t i o n a l c o n f l i c t : concepts and models. Administrative Science Quarterly. 1967, 12, 296-320. Pugh, D., Hickson, D.J., Hini n g s , C.R., McDonald, K., Turner, C. and Lupton, T. A conceptual scheme f o r o r g a n i z a t i o n a l ^ a n a l y s i s . Administrative Science Quarterly. 1963, 289-315. R e i f , F. The competitive world of the pure s c i e n t i s t . Science, 1961, 134 1957-1962. Rosner, M.M. A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Controls and in n o v a t i o n . Behaviorial Science. 1968, 1, 36-43. Rummel, R.J. Understanding f a c t o r a n a l y s i s . Journal of Conflict Resolution. 1967, 11, 444-80. Rummel, R.J. Applied Factor Analysis. Evanston: Northwestern U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1970. 163. Runkel, P.J. and McGraith, J.E. Research on Unman Behavior, a Systematic Guide to Method. New York: H o l t , Rinehart and Winston Inc., 1972. Sa l a n c i k , G.R. and P f e f f e r , J . The Bases and use of power i n o r g a n i z a t i o n a l d e c i s i o n making: the case o f a u n i v e r s i t y . Administrative Science Quarterly. V o l . 19, 453-473. Schumacher, C.F. I n t e r e s t and p e r s o n a l i t y f a c t o r s as r e l a t e d to choice of mddical career. Journal of Medical Education. 1963, 38, 932-942. S e l l i t i z , C., Wrightsman, L.S. and Cook, S. Research Methods in Social Relations, New York: H o l t , Rinehart and Winston, 1976. Se w e l l , W.R.D. arid L i t t l e , B.R. S p e c i a l i s t s , Laymen and the process o f environmental a p p r a i s a l . Regional Studies, 1973, 7, 161-71. Shepard, H. The value system of a u n i v s e r s i t y research group. American Sociological Review. 1954, 19, 456-462. S h e r i f , M. and S h e r i f , C.W. (eds.) Interdisciplinary Relations in the Social Sciences. Chicago: A l d i n e Pub. Co., 1969. Simmons, O.G. and James, D. I n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y c o l l a b o r a t i o n i n mental i l l n e s s research. American Journal of Sociology. 1957, 63, 297-303. Simon, H. The b i r t h of an Organization. Public Administration Review. 1953, 13, 227-236. Smith, G.G. S c i e n t i f i c performance and the composition of research teams. Administrative Science Quarterly. 1971, 16, 486-495. Souder, W.E., Maher, P.M. and Rubenstein, A.H. Two s u c c e s s f u l experiments i n p r o j e c t s e l e c t i o n . Research Management. 1972, Sept. 44-54. 164. Spaulding, C.B. and Turner, H.A. P o l i t i c a l o r i e n t a t i o n and f i e l d of s p e c i a l i z a t i o n among c o l l e g e p r o f e s s o r s . Sociology of Education. :1968, XLVII, 247-62. S t o g d i l l , R.M. Dimensions of o r g a n i z a t i o n theory. In Thompson and Vroom (eds.) Organizational Design and Research. P i t t s b u r g h : U n i v e r s i t y of P i t t s b u r g h Press, 1971. S t r i n g e r , J . D i s c i p l i n e i n place o f d i s c i p l i n e s : some problems of or g a n i z i n g m u l t i - d i s c i p l i n a r y research i n h e a l t h care systems.. In Hopkins, C.E. (ed) Methodology of Identifying, Measuring and Evaluating Outcomes of Health Service Programs, Systems and Subsystems. Washington, Conference S e r i e s Dept. of H.E.W., 1970. Summer, C.E. S t r a t e g i e s f o r o r g a n i z a t i o n a l design. In Kilman et a l . (eds.) The Management of Organizational Design. New York: North Holl a n d , V o l . 1, 1976. Szasz, G., F i s h , D. and Riches, E. A Prospective Analysis of the Attrition of First Year Medical Students at Four Western Canadian Medical Schools. 1966-1969. Thompson, J.D. Organizations in Action. New York: McGraw H i l l Book Co., 1967. Thompson, J.D., Hawkes, R.W. and Avery, R.W. Truth S t r a t e g i e s and U n i v e r s i t y O rganization. Educational Administration Quarterly, 1969, 5, 4-25. Tonkin, R. McCreary Centre for the Study of Childhood; Proposal. Department of P e d i a t r i c s , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1976. 165. Toren, N. Bureaucracy and p r o f e s s i o n a l i s m , a r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n of Weber's t h e s i s . The Academy of Management Review, 1976, 3, 36-46. Treece, E.W. and Treece, J.W. Elements of Research in Nursing. S t . Louis: C V . Mosby, 1973. Tung, R.S.L. An Empirical Investigation, of the Environmental Characteristics and Organizational Variables. Unpublished Phd. D i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, 1976. Warner, M.M. (ed.) An Annotated Bibliography of Health care Teamwork and Health Centre Development. Department of Health Care and Epidemiology, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. Weiss, R.S. A l t e r n a t i v e Approaches i n the Study of Complex S i t u a t i o n s . Human Organization 1966, 25, 198-205. Westwater, Notes on Water Research i n Western Canada, #7, March 1974, Interdisciplinary Research: It's Purpose and It's Problems. Westwater I n s t i t u t e , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. White, K.L. Cr o s s - n a t i o n a l socio-medical research, planning and execution, costs and b e n e f i t s . Seminar on Methods i n Cross-National Socio-Medical Research, Hannover, March 5-8, 1974. Wilensky, H. The Dynamics of P r o f e s s i o n a l i s m : the case of h o s p i t a l a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . Hospital Administration, 1962, Spring, 6-24. 166. APPENDIX A.O QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGN AND DISTRIBUTION A . l I n t r o d u c t i o n to the Questionnaire A.2 Questionnaire: S e c t i o n ONE; Person and Thing Scale A.3 Questionnaire: S e c t i o n TWO; Research Mode Scale A.4 Questionnaire: S e c t i o n THREE; O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Scale A.5 Questionnaire: S e c t i o n FOUR; Demographic and Career Information. A.6 L e t t e r s f o r D i s t r i b u t i o n 167. A . l I n t r o d u c t i o n to the Questionnaire POLYDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH TEAMS Int r o d u c t i o n : The o b j e c t i v e of t h i s q u estionnaire i s to study the i n f l u e n c e of s p e c i a l i z a t i o n on i n d i v i d u a l a t t i t u d e s towards approaches to research and s t y l e s of work o r g a n i z a t i o n . The questionnaire i s designed to obtain your views concerning: a) preferences f o r various types of l e i s u r e and work a c t i v i t i e s . b) ways of o r g a n i z i n g and conducting research. The questionnaire takes about 25 minutes to complete and c o n s i s t s of four s e c t i o n s . The f i r s t s e c t i o n i s a standardized p e r s o n a l i t y t e s t which looks at i n d i v i d u a l o r i e n t a t i o n s towards various types of l e i s u r e and work a c t i v i t i e s . The next three s e c t i o n s were developed f o r t h i s study's purpose. Two s e c t i o n s are designed to o b t a i n information on your a t t i t u d e s towards o r g a n i z i n g and conducting research. The l a s t s e c t i o n of the questionnaire asks f o r demographic and career i n f o r m a t i o n . Your responses w i l l be handled i n an anonymous and c o n f i d e n t i a l manner. In answering the questions, please be as complete as p o s s i b l e and use the response format provided. I f you have any comments on the questionnaire or on any i n d i v i d u a l item, please f e e l f r e e to place them i n the unused margin or i n the space provided at the end of the qu e s t i o n n a i r e . I would l i k e to thank you i n advance f o r completing the questionnaire and f o r p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n t h i s study. Diane G. Layton 168. A.2 Person and Thing Scale SECTION ONE I n s t r u c t i o n s : A number of job t i t l e s , a c t i v i t i e s and amusements are l i s t e d below. For each, show how you would f e e l doing that k i n d of f u l l t i m e work or t a k i n g p a r t i n that a c t i v i t i y or way of enjoying y o u r s e l f i n your l e i s u r e time. I n d i c a t e the extent to which you would LIKE or DISLIKE each k i n d of work, a c t i v i t y or amusement by p l a c i n g a mark i n the appropriate box to the r i g h t of each item. For jobs don't worry about whether you would be good at the job or about not being t r a i n e d f o r i t . Forget about how much money you could make or whether you could get ahead. Think only about whether you would l i k e to do the work done on that job. For a c t i v i t i e s and amusements, give the f i r s t answer that comes to mind. Do not think over or compare various p o s s i b i l i t i e s . Think only about whether you would l i k e to do what i s s t a t e d . 169. JOB OCCUPATIONS 1. Astronomer 2. Church worker 3. C i v i l engineer . . 4. Computer operator 5. Elementary school teacher... 6. Mechanical engineer 7. R e c e p t i o n i s t 8. S o c i a l worker.... 9. S t a t i s t i c i a n 10. YMCA/YWCA s t a f f member ACTIVITIES 11. Operating machinery 12. A d j u s t i n g a carburetor 13. I n t e r v i e w i n g job a p p l i c a n t s . 14. Meeting and d i r e c t i n g people 15. Making s t a t i s t i c a l c h a r t s . . . 16; Operating o f f i c e machines... 17. I n t e r v i e w i n g prospect i n . . . . s e l l i n g 18. Organizing cabinets and .... c l o s e t s 19. S t a r t i n g a conversation with a stranger. 20. I n t e r v i e w i n g c l i e n t s AMUSEMENTS 21. S o l v i n g mechanical p u z z l e s . . 22. Being a c t i v e i n a church.... group 23. B u i l d i n g a r a d i o or s t e r i o . . set 24. E n t e r t a i n i n g others S t r o n g l y Like 5 Somewhat Like 4 I n d i f -f e r e n t 3 Somewhat D i s l i k e 2 Strongly D i s l i k e 1 170. A.3 Research Mode Scale SECTION TWO Research Modes Research attempts to gain s o l u t i o n s to problems by s y s t e m a t i c a l l y searching f o r f a c t s and r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Every d i c i p l i n e r e l i e s on research. However, the p r a c t i c e of research v a r i e s from f i e l d to f i e l d . L i s t e d below are a number of statements concerning approaches t o problems and i n v e s t i g a t i v e procedures. Please complete t h i s s e c t i o n of the que s t i o n n a i r e by checking the one category o f the f i v e provided which most c l o s e l y f i t s your t h e o r e t i c a l i d e a l f o r conducting research. Recognizing that your opinion w i l l vary with study circumstances and be hindered by p r a c t i c a l c o n s t r a i n t s , respond to the items on the b a s i s o f your p r e f e r r e d approach to conducting research. 1. A l l research i s best performed under c o n t r o l l e d c o n d i t i o n s , such as those found i n lab or f i e l d experiments and c l i n i c a l t r i a l s . s t r o n g l y agree agree u n c e r t a i n disagree s t r o n g l y disagree 2. In studying observable s i t u a t i o n s one should become i n t i m a t e l y i n v o l v e d and f a m i l i a r w i t h the phenomena under study. s t r o n g l y agree agree u n c e r t a i n disagree s t r o n g l y disagree 1 7 1 . 3. One should be very s k e p t i c a l of research founded upon personal i n t u i t i o n , compared to research guided by e x i s t i n g evidence, s t r o n g l y agree agree u n c e r t a i n disagree s t r o n g l y disagree 4. Research should i n v o l v e c a r e f u l l y planned manipulations that i s o l a t e separate v a r i a b l e s operating w i t h i n the study s i t u a t i o n , s t r o n g l y agree agree u n c e r t a i n disagree s t r o n g l y disagree 5. The s e l e c t i o n , weighting and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of data should depend considerably on personal judgement, s t r o n g l y agree agree u n c e r t a i n disagree s t r o n g l y disagree 6. In order to a r r i v e at explanations, researchers should attempt to b u i l d general models of the phenomena under study, s t r o n g l y agree agree u n c e r t a i n disagree s t r o n g l y disagree 7. The researcher should attempt to t e s t s p e c i f i c r e l a t i o n s h i p s a c t i n g i n study s i t u a t i o n s , s t r o n g l y agree agree u n c e r t a i n disagree s t r o n g l y disagree 8. More research d o l l a r s should be spent on the development of s c i e n t i f i c instruments ( i e . hardware and assessment techniques) f o r the p r e c i s e measurement of v a r i a b l e s , s t r o n g l y agree agree u n c e r t a i n disagree s t r o n g l y disagree 172. 9. In studying s i t u a t i o n s , one should always remain o b j e c t i v e l y detached from the phenomena under study, s t r o n g l y agree agree u n c e r t a i n disagree s t r o n g l y disagree 10. I t i s more important to describe phenomena i n t h e i r approximate complexity, than i t i s to measure r e l a t i o n s h i p s between a few s p e c i f i c v a r i a b l e s , s t r o n g l y agree agree u n c e r t a i n disagree s t r o n g l y disagree 11. P r e s t i g e should be accorded s c i e n t i f i c work only to the degree to which the p r a c t i t i o n e r has been able to pursue hypothesis t e s t i n g i n an experimental research s t r a t e g y . s t r o n g l y agree agree u n c e r t a i n disagree s t r o n g l y disagree 12. A research p r o j e c t should i n v o l v e q u a n t i t a t i v e assessment of the phenomena under study. s t r o n g l y agree agree u n c e r t a i n disagree s t r o n g l y disagree 13. Researchers should remain open to elements of s e r e n d i p i t y [unexpected d i s c o v e r i e s ) and personal i n t u i t i o n w i t h i n the research process. s t r o n g l y agree agree u n c e r t a i n disagree s t r o n g l y disagree 14. Research should be more concerned with' d e s c r i b i n g and understanding the nature and a c t i o n of phenomena under study, than with q u a n t i f i c a t i o n . 173. s t r o n g l y agree agree u n c e r t a i n disagree s t r o n g l y disagree 15. A research p l a n should t r y to accommodate as many study v a r i a b l e s as p o s s i b l e , s t r o n g l y agree agree u n c e r t a i n disagree s t r o n g l y disagree 16. A researcher should define the scope of research issues i n a comprehensive manner, s t r o n g l y agree agree u n c e r t a i n disagree s t r o n g l y disagree 17. The a n a l y s i s of research data should i n v o l v e t e s t i n g p r e d i c t e d r e l a t i o n s h i p s f o r s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e . s t r o n g l y agree agree u n c e r t a i n disagree s t r o n g l y disagree 18. The study s e t t i n g s i n which research should be performed o f t e n increase problems of research design ( i e . f i e l d s t u d i e s , survey research, p a r t i c i p a n t - o b s e r v a t i o n ) . s t r o n g l y agree agree u n c e r t a i n disagree s t r o n g l y disagree 19. Research can be best accomplished by looking at p a r t of a problem u s i n g a l i m i t e d number of study v a r i a b l e s . s t r o n g l y agree agree u n c e r t a i n disagree s t r o n g l y disagree 174. 20. Research should embody q u a l i t a t i v e methodologies which r e l y on the i n t e r p r e t a t i v e s k i l l s of the s c h o l a r , s t r o n g l y agree agree u n c e r t a i n disagree s t r o n g l y disagree 175. A.4 O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Scale SECTION THREE Organizing f o r Research: Imagine that you have been given u n l i m i t e d funds, as p r i n c i p a l i n v e s t i g a t o r , to conduct a research p r o j e c t i n a problem area of your choice. There are no funding agency s t i p u l a t i o n s concerning the way i n which you design and carry out the research. The only requirements are that the p r o j e c t be completed w i t h i n a three year p e r i o d and that you h i r e a team of three or more experienced researchers to a s s i s t you. Faced with these circum-stances, there would be a number of de c i s i o n s to make concerning your general approach to o r g a n i z i n g the research team. L i s t e d below are a number of a l t e r n a t i v e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s t r a t e g i e s you might consider. Some a l t e r n a t i v e s may be eq u a l l y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of you or: e q u a l l y u n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c . While t h i s i s a d i s t i n c t p o s s i b i l i t y , never the l e s s , choose the a l t e r n a t i v e which i s r e l a t i v e l y more c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of you. There are no r i g h t or wrong answers. In general, t r y to r e l a t e the s i t u a t i o n i n the item to your own personal research work experience. For each item you have f i v e p o i n t s to d i s t r i b u t e i n any one of s i x p o s s i b l e combinations. Be sure that the numbers you assign to each p a i r of a l t e r n a t i v e s presented to you i n the item sum to equal f i v e . 176. EXAMPLE ITEM In a l l o c a t i n g work r e s p o n s i b i l i t y w i t h i n a p r o j e c t , p r i n c i p a l i n v e s t i g a t o r s should: A. Assume d i r e c t r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r a l l aspects of the work process. B. Delegate complete r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to s t a f f members f o r s p e c i f i c aspects of the work process. 1. I f A i s completely c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of what you would do and B i s completely unchar-a c t e r i s t i c w r i t e a "5" on your t e s t under A and a "0" under B, thus: 2. I f A i s considerably c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of what you would do and B i s somewhat c h a r a c t e r i s t i c , w r i t e a "4" on your t e s t sheet under A and "1" under B, thus: 3. I f A i s only s l i g h t l y more c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of what you would do than B i s , w r i t e a "3" on your t e s t sheet under A and a "2" under B, thus: 4. Each of the above three combinations may be used i n the converse order: that i s , f o r example, should you f e e l B i s s l i g h t l y more c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of you than A, w r i t e a "2" on your t e s t sheet under A and a "3" under B, thus and so on f o r A=l, B=4; or A=0, B=5. 177. 1. In order to determine the goals, methods and a c t i v i t i e s of research work, decision-making powers should: A) be l i m i t e d to those few i n d i v i d u a l s i n leadership p o s i t i o n s . B) extend to a l l research workers on a p r o j e c t . 2. Regarding the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f a person who f i l l s a p a r t i c u l a r job, research employers should always: A) provide o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r the i n d i v i d u a l to develop h i s / h e r own p o t e n t i a l . B) emphasize tasks and work r o l e s only. 3. Within a research p r o j e c t , a c t i v i t i e s such as w r i t t e n records o f i n t e r n a l meetings, procedures, memos, progress r e p o r t s and personnel review should: A) always be maintained to r e g u l a t e and c o n t r o l the flow and q u a l i t y of work. B) not be o v e r l y emphasized. 4. Research p r o j e c t s which do r e q u i r e c o l l e c t i v e e f f o r t should be t a c k l e d by: A) having each worker do h i s / h e r own work and then have one person w i t h e x p e r t i s e and experience c o n s o l i d a t e the r e s u l t s . B) means o f group d i s c u s s i o n and i n t e r a c t i o n ; assembling the product as a team. 1 7 8 . . When co n s i d e r i n g working r e l a t i o n s h i p s and job assignments i n a research p r o j e c t , s t a f f members should always: A) be designated a p a r t i c u l a r job and status according to t h e i r l e v e l o f e x p e r t i s e and research experience. B) assume r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s which i n t e r e s t them and be tr e a t e d as peers. . Decisions i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n of research should be c a r r i e d out on the b a s i s of: A) what i s expedient and makes sense at the time. B) a d m i n i s t r a t i v e and f i s c a l procedures s et up i n i t i a l l y to guide a p r o j e c t ' s human and non-human resources a l l the way along. . As f a r as managing a research s t a f f i s concerned, research employees should be: A) r e g u l a r l y monitored by t h e i r s u p e r i o r s i n order to in s u r e ongoing p r o d u c t i v i t y . B) able to make t h e i r own work r u l e s as long as they get the j ob done. . In any research p r o j e c t , research working p l a n s , schedules and personal r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s should: A) not be too r i g i d . B) be adhered to as c l o s e l y as p o s s i b l e . 179. 9. Research tasks should be defined and coordinated by: A) the continuous i n t e r a c t i o n of s t a f f members during a l l phases of a p r o j e c t . B) i n i t i a l l y breaking down tasks to match areas and l e v e l s of personnel e x p e r t i s e . 10. In o r g a n i z i n g f o r team research s i t u a t i o n s : A) one has to accept i n t e r p e r s o n a l c o n f l i c t and the f r u s t a t i o n of working with others. B) c o n f l i c t can u s u a l l y be handled by c o l l e c t i v e a t t e n t i o n to s t a f f morale. 180. A.5 Demographic and Career Information SECTION FOUR I n s t r u c t i o n s : Please f i l l i n or check the appropriate category i n order to provide the requested demographic and career i n f o r m a t i o n . 1. Academic T i t l e or Rank: a) f u l l p r o f e ssor | | f) i n s t r u c t o r | | b) asso c i a t e p r o f e s s o r | [ g) p o s t d o c t o r a l appointment j j c) a s s i s t a n t p r o f e s s o r | | h) other | | d) research a s s o c i a t e | | Please s p e c i f y ^ e) l e c t u r e r [ [  2. Age 3. Sex 4. Please l i s t your areas of d i s c i p l i n a r y t r a i n i n g and the degree obtained at the appropriate l e v e l s of s p e c i a l i z a t i o n : MAJOR FIELD a) Undergraduate t r a i n i n g b) Masters l e v e l c) Terminal academic or p r o f e s s i o n a l . . . . . degree(s) d) Post-Doctoral or S p e c i a l i s t t r a i n i n g . . 5. Please l i s t your current d i s c i p l i n a r y a f f i l i a t i o n s (appointments i n academic f i e l d s ) w i t h i n the u n i v e r s i t y . a) c) b) d) 181. 6. Please check the number of years of formal education you have completed since f i r s t e n t ering u n i v e r s i t y . a) 0-5 y r s . b) 6-10 y r s . c) 11-15 y r s . d) 16-20 y r s . e) 21+ y r s . • • P • 7. Please check the time category which corresponds most c l o s e l y to the years passed s i n c e the completion of your most recent degree. 1 a) 0-5 y r s . • b) 6-10 y r s . • c) 11-15 y r s . • d) 16-20 y r s . • e) 21+ y r s . • 8. Have you ever been employed f u l l time f o r a n o n - u n i v e r s i t y r e l a t e d o r g a n i z a t i o n s i n c e beginning your academic t r a i n i n g ? Do not consider short term ( l e s s than s i x months) part-time or summer employment experiences. Yes Q No | | 9. Have you ever been employed f u l l time f o r a n o n - u n i v e r s i t y r e l a t e d o r g a n i z a t i o n since o b t a i n i n g your most recent degree? Yes I I No • • 1 8 2 . 10. Please estimate your current d i s t r i b u t i o n of e f f o r t ( t h i s academic term) using an estimated percentage breakdown of your t o t a l working time. Use f a c t o r s of f i v e i n e s t i m a t i n g the percentage of your time spent i n the f o l l o w i n g work a c t i v i t i e s . I n s t r u c t i o n s : I f no time was devoted to a s p e c i f i c category, place 0% next to the a c t i v i t y . I f 5% or less was spent, i n d i c a t e 5%. I f 6-10% was spent i n d i c a t e 10%. I f 11-15% was spent i n d i c a t e 15% and so on... Please make sure your percentages sum to 100%! a) a d v i s i n g students b) committee work ( w i t h i n the u n i v e r s i t y ) c) e d i t o r i a l work d) s e r v i c e to c l i e n t s ( p a t i e n t s ) e) teaching f) c o n s u l t i n g ( e x t e r n a l to u n i v e r s i t y and c l i n i c a l commitments). g) research h) a d m i n i s t r a t i o n ( u n i v e r s i t y or departmental r e l a t e d b u s i n e s s ) . i ) e x t r a - c u r r i c u l a r (speaking, conferences) j ) other 11. Have you had any c o l l a b o r a t i v e research experience working with one or more colleagues from your own f i e l d ? ( i e . the academic d i s c i p l i n e you i d e n t i f y with most s t r o n g l y ) . Yes Q No 183. 12. Have you had any c o l l a b o r a t i v e research experience working w i t h one or more colleagues from f i e l d s other than your own? Yes |~] No | | The f o l l o w i n g three questions are to be answered only i f you  have answered yes, to number 12. 13. On the average, how many d i s c i p l i n e s , other than your own, have you c o l l a b o r a t e d w i t h at any one time? a) one other f i e l d | [ b) two other f i e l d s | | c) three other f i e l d s [ j d) four other f i e l d s | | e) f i v e or more | | 14. Please l i s t the f i e l d s your c o l l a b o r a t i v e research has i n c l u d e d : (other than your own). a) . d )  b) , e) <o : f ) 15. Assess the degree to.vvhich you f e e l t h a t , on the average, your c o l l a b o r a t i v e research has been pro d u c t i v e , ( i e . research goals accomplished to your s a t i s f a c t i o n ) h i g h l y productive productive u n c e r t a i n unproductive h i g h l y unproductive 184. 16. What was the average length of time these a s s o c i a t i o n s existed? a) 1-6 mos. | [ b) 6 mos. - 1 y r . j j I c) 1 y r . - 3 y r s . | | d) 3 y r s . - 5 y r s . e) 5 yrs.+ | | COMMENTS 185. A.6 L e t t e r s f o r D i s t r i b u t i o n THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Health Sciences Centre F a c u l t y of Medicine, Department of Health Care and Epidemiology Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Dear Fa c u l t y Member: As a M.Sc. candidate i n Health Services Planning, I am studying s p e c i a l i s t ' s a t t i t u d e s towards research approaches and work environments. Research i n v o l v i n g s p e c i a l i s t s from d i f f e r e n t d i s c i p l i n e s and p r o f e s s i o n s has often i n v o l v e d a great deal of c o n f l i c t . Planning f o r such endeavors has given l i t t l e c o n s i d e r a t i o n to i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n problem s o l v i n g approaches and personal s t y l e s of or g a n i z i n g . Systematic knowledge i n t h i s area i s r e l a t i v e l y scarce. Consequently, your help and cooperation i n f i l l i n g out the enclosed questionnaire i s requested. This study has been approved by the U n i v e r s i t y Committee on Research I n v o l v i n g Human Subjects. The information requested w i l l be used pu r e l y f o r research purposes and i n d i v i d u a l anonymity i s guaranteed. Reminders w i l l be sent to every member of the sample because an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n system i s not being maintained. Please r e t u r n the completed q u e s t i o n n a i r e i n the enclosed s e l f - a d d r e s s e d envelope. I f you have f i l l e d i n and returned the que s t i o n n a i r e , please excuse and ignore the a d d i t i o n a l reminders. Thank you f o r your a s s i s t a n c e and the use of your v a l u a b l e time. A copy of the completed study w i l l be a v a i l a b l e upon request. S i n c e r e l y , Diane G. Layton Department of Health Care and Epidemiology F a c u l t y of Medicine 186. A. 6 (Continued) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGARDING A STUDY INTO THE MANAGEMENT OF POLYDISCIPLINARY TEAMS: Dear Colleague; As Chairman and member of Diane Layton's t h e s i s committee, we endorse her study and urge you to p a r t i c i p a t e . The enclosed q u e s t i o n n a i r e i s not lengthy and you are asked to do a minimum of s e l f - r e p o r t i n g . Your response w i l l help provide an important l e a r n i n g experience and inf o r m a t i o n of value to colleagues who are i n t e r e s t e d i n e f f e c t i v e forms of organized research e f f o r t . S i n c e r e l y , Dr. V. M i t c h e l l , B.S., M.B.A., Ph.D. Fa c u l t y of Commerce and Business A d m i n i s t r a t i o n Dr. G. Szasz, M.D. Department of Health Care and Epidemiology F a c u l t y of Medicine. 1 8 7 . A.6 (Continued) REGARDING THE QUESTIONNAIRE ON POLYDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH TEAMS: Dear F a c u l t y Member; Last week I sent you a questionnaire designed to study s p e c i a l i s t ' s a t t i t u d e s towards o r g a n i z i n g and conducting research p r o j e c t s . I f you have f i l l e d out and returned the q u e s t i o n n a i r e , please accept my thanks and excuse t h i s reminder. I f you have not yet completed the q u e s t i o n n a i r e , I ask that you do so as soon as p o s s i b l e . Your help i n c a r r y i n g out t h i s t h e s i s study i s needed and w i l l be deeply appreciated. S i n c e r e l y , Diane G. Layton Department of Health Care and Epidemiology 1 8 8 . APPENDIX B.O FACTOR MATRICES B . l Orthogonal Rotation; S p e c i f y i n g Two Factors B.2 Orthogonal Ro t a t i o n ; Free Factors B.3 Oblique Rotation; S p e c i f y i n g Two Factors B.4 Oblique Rotation; S p e c i f y i n g Free Factors 189. B . l Orthogonal R o t a t i o n , S p e c i f y i n g Two Factors VARIMAX ROTATED FACTOR MATRIX Research Mode Items 0BRIG1 0BQUAL2 C0NANAL3 C0NANAL4 0BQUAL5 C0NH0L6 CONANAL7 0BRIG8 0BRIG9 OBQUAL10 CONANL11 0BRIG12 C0NH0L13 C0NH0L14 CONHOL15 CONHOL16 0BRIG17 0BQUAL18 C0NANL19 ' 0BQUAL20 Factor 1 0.58836 -0.27310 0.35239 0.62823 0.11901 -0.26906 0.35908 0.35556 0.49027 0.20232 0.46905 0.47801 -0.12187 0.20080 0.00307 -0.19066 0.50693 -0.16527 0.45393 0.26714 Factor 2 0.25931 0.20094 0.25016 0.22348 0.34727 0.26794 -0.14161 0.03740 0.26145 0.43487 0.08815 0.21045 0.23030 0.59225 0.30510 0.05341 0.06114 -0.07702 0.09130 0.49232 190. B.2 Orthogonal Rotation; Free Factors Research Mode Items 0BRIG1 0BQUAL2 C0NANAL3 C0NANAL4 0BQUAL5 C0NH0L6 C0NANAL7 0BRIG8 0BRIG9 OBQUAL10 C0NANL11 0BRIG12 C0NH0L13 CONHOL14 CONHOL15 CONHOL16 0BRIG17 0BQUAL18 C0NANL19 OBQUAL20 VARIMAX ROTATED FACTOR MATRIX Factor 1 Factor 2 0.39007 0.51470 0.75430 0.46562 0.50201 0.86186 -0.23622 0.10198 0.35702 0.33380 0.32456 0.38421 0.62086 0.54447 0.78994 0.74936 -0.02430 0.69224 0.35221 0.14234 0.69961 0.36012 0.43194 0.27575 0.20865 0.38939 -0.11605 0.36286 0.76378 0.76917 0.43463 0.73234 0.12135 0.15702 0.40469 0.33697 0.26228 0.59754 0.76436 0.02448 Factor 3 Factor 4 0.05388 0.05801 0.06091 0.24589 0.00276 0.13365 -0.79841 0.17857 0.03325 0.12734 -0.09665 0.13790 0.23472 0.03104 0.13751 0.23746 -0.00817 0.11465 0.04310 0.00352 0.15777 0.07852 0.11406 0.08523 0.11528 0.01853 0.03186 0.07096 0.18309 0.09915 0.17900 0.15348 0.09333 0.17169 0.05324 -0.17362 0.44024 0.05860 0.00892 0.53668 191. B.3. Oblique Rotation S p e c i f y i n g Two Factors FACTOR PATTERN Research Mode Items 0BRIG1 0BQUAL2 C0NANAL3 C0NANAL4 0BQUAL5 C0NH0L6 C0NANAL7 0BRIG8 OBRIG9 OBQUAL10 CONANL11 OBRIG12 CONHOL13 CONHOL14 CONHOL15 CONHOL16 OBRIG17 OBQUAL18 CONANL19 OBQUAL20 Factor 1 0.62413 -0.23717 0.38932 0.65769 0.17445 -0.22222 0.33188 0.35767 0.52749 0.27114 0.47818 0.50703 -0.08285 0.29536 0.05291 -0.17978 0.51121 -0.17600 0.46374 0.34462 Factor 2 0.11882 0.25839 0.16373 0.07476 0.31174 0.32285 -0.22010 -0.04462 0.14329 0.37821 -0.02098 0.09632 0.25254 0.53214 0.29703 0.09561 -0.05598 -0.03745 -0.01446 0.41949 192. B.3 (Continued) FACTOR CORRELATIONS Factor 1 Factor 2 FACTOR STRUCTURE  Research Mode Items 0BRIG1 0BQUAL2 C0NANAL3 C0NANAL4 0BQUAL5 C0NH0L6 CONANAL7 0BRIG8 0BRIG9 OBQUALIO CONANL11 OBRIG12 C0NH0L13 C0NH0L14 C0NH0L15 CONHOL16 Factor 1 1.00000 0.06573 Factor 1 0.63194 0.22019 0.40008 0.66261 0.19494 •0.20100 0.31741 0.35474 0.53691 0.29600 0.47680 0.51336 -0.06625 0.33034 0.07244 -0.17349 Factor 2 0.06573 1.00000 Factor 2 0.15985 0.24280 0.18932 0.11799 0.32320 0.30824 -0.19829 -0.02111 0.17796 0.39604 0.01045 0.12964 0.24709 0.55155 0.30051 0.08380 1 9 3 . B.3 (Continued) FACTOR STRUCTURE1 Research Mode Items Factor 1 Factor 2 0BRIG17 0.50753 -0.02238 0BQUAL18 -0.17846 -0.04902 C0NANL19 0.46279 0.01602 0BQUAL20 0.37219 0.44214 194. B.4 Oblique R o t a t i o n , S p e c i f y i n g Free Factors FACTOR PATTERN Research Mode Items F a c t o r 1 Factor 2 Fact o r 3 Factor 4 F a c t o r 5 Factor 6 0BRIG1 0BQUAL2 C0NANAL3 CONANAL4 0BQUAL5 C0NH0L6 C0NANAL7 0BRIG8 0BRIG9 OBQUAL10 CONANL11 OBRIG12 CONHOL13 CONHOL14 CONHOL15 CONHOL16 OBRIG17 OBQUAL18 C0NANL19 OBQUAL20 0.62823 0.04813 0.03158 -0.05549 -0.04711 •0.16818 0.21018 -0.17650 0.08945 -0.10719 0.09883 -0.23826 0.02281 0.00820 -0.45716 0.34108 -0.25759 -0.08958 -0.06894 -0.28856 0.13167 0.22530 -0.23411 -0.06886 -0.37108 0.17327 0.60879 0.18613 0.08163 -0.06321 0.09777 -0.50284 0.04675 0.07522 -0.09123 0.27649 -0.08393 -0.18504 -0.03986 -0.02412 0.27558 -0.12511 -0.16599 -0.11.943 -0.42403 0.14996 0.00940 0.00151 0.19203 0.01161 0.56815 0.06899 0.16668 -0.15118 -0.06143 0.13018 -0.08617 -0.03969 ,-0.34079 ; 0.14357 •0.14533 0.06066 0.10918 0.05211 -0.39931 •0.13760 0.07431 -0.02168 -0.10241 -0.07432 0.00707 -0.00308 -0.35546 0.36551 0.03935 0.01721 -0.03461 0.00912 0.44039 0.00489 0.10264 -0.11841 -0.16827 -0.49849 0.00753 0.00661 0.05841 0.43884 0.06328 -0.03225 0.56801 -0.04990 -0.07294 0.12346 0.06690 0.07543 0.02307 0.01586 -0.06116 -0.27564 0.17748 0.00134 0.10761 0.13088 -0.02052 0.05041 -0.01687 -0.02428 0.00499 0.50320 0.00332 0.46447 0.03032 0.77790 0.27315 -0.00108 0.17531 -0.02559 0.03484 0.38248 195. FACTOR CORRELATIONS Factor 1 Factor 1 1.00000 Factor 2 -0.32219 Factor 3 -0.11311 Factor 4 -0.24084 Facto r 5 -0.19030 Factor 6 0.34170 FACTOR STRUCTURE  Research Mode Items 0BRIG1 0BQUAL2 C0NANAL3 C0NANAL4 0BQUAL5 CONHOL6 C0NANAL7 0BRIG8 0BRIG9 OBQUAL10 C0NANL11 0BRIG12 Factor 2 -0.32219 1.00000 0.11521 0.15898 -0.10043 -0.04832 Factor 1 0.69212 0.21662 0.29481 0.55044 0.16576 0.03434 0.24797 0.33036 0.44583 0 .27025 0.57630 0.37590 Factor 3 -0.11311 0.11521 1.00000 0.01490 0.08186 -0.23664 Factor 2 -0.16331 0.26895 -0.22545 -0.36611 0.18322 -0.59130 -0.50701 -0.19707 -0.20966 -0.03370 -0.11288 -0.22373 Factor 4 -0.24084 0.15898 0.01490 1.00000 0.03745 -0.05445 Factor 3 -0.08062 -0.14102 -0.07859 -0.21346 -0.24960 0.22079 -0.02460 -0:.22281 -0.24924" -0.12963 0.10230 -0.16758 Factor 5 -0.19030 -0.10043 0.08186 0.03745 1.00000 -0.22950 Factor 4 -0.21010 0.15665 -0.07612 -0.21131 -0.08102 0.13435 -0.03007 -0.12213 -0.22432 0.13047 -0.27705 -0.40635 Factor 6 0.34170 -0.04832 -0.23664 -0.05445 -0.22950 1.00000 Factor 5 -0.21172 -0.10770 -0.47456 -0.36755 -0.43581 -0.15060 -0.04881 -0.07938 -0.48312 -0.12604 -0.16926 0.00484 Factor 6 0.39618 -0.00479 0.25197 0.35105 0.15791 0.04621 0.04662 0.12575 0.24831 0.54051 0.17701 0.50812 196. ' ' FACTOR STRUCTURE • (Continued) Research Mode Items Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor 6 C0NH0L13 C0NH0L14 C0NH0L15 C0NH0L16 0BRIG17 0BQUAL18 C0NANL19 OBQUAL20 -0.10342 0.16699 0.09352 0.08178 -0.37382 0.04070 0.14553 0.06974 -0.18925 -0.10292 -0.23974 0.75505 0.04609 -0.00536 -0.41258 0.34462 -0.03978 0.33090 -0.08004 0.03047 0.01041 0.43112 0.02258 -0.02079 0.33835 -0.25934 -0.24182 -0.55381 -0.07279 0.28134 -0.07970 0.12138 0.44918 0.07770 0.00480 -0.12605 0.56178 -0.23008 -0.14387 -0.02175 -0.04553 0.22653 0.26408 0.00008 -0.10400 -0.10657 -0.38109 0.46998 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0094799/manifest

Comment

Related Items