UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Productivity of university educators Brown, Daniel John 1968

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1968_A8 B76.pdf [ 6.29MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0102400.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0102400-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0102400-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0102400-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0102400-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0102400-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0102400-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0102400-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0102400.ris

Full Text

THE:  PRODUCTIVITY: O F  UNIVERSITY-' EDUCATORS'  by DANIEL JOHN: BROWN  4  B.Sc-., U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, 1963  A"' T H E S I S SUBMITTED I N P A R T I A L F U L F I L M E N T OF THE  REQUIREMENTS  MASTER  in  FOR THE DEGREE OF  O F ARTS I N EDUCATION?  the-Department of  EDUCATIONAL  ADMINISTRATION^  We accept this, t h e s i s as conforming tb the r e t i r e d standard'  THE UNIVERSITY" O F BRITISH! COLUMBIA  August, 1968  In presenting this thesis  in p a r t i a l fulfilment of the requirements  for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available Study. thesis  for reference and  I further agree that permission for extensive  copying of  this  for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my  Department or by h.ils representatives. or publication of this thesis  It is understood that  copying  for financial gain shall not be allowed  without my written permission.  Department of The University of B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada  i  ABSTRACT  This; s u r v e y i n v e s t i g a t e s ; some, of the s o c i a l d e t e r m i n a n t s of e d u c a t i o n a l ' p r o d u c t i v i t y .  A." t h e o r y w i t h i t s b a s i s i n  sociology  o f s m a l l groups fs: p r e s e n t e d i n an attempt" t o  p l a i n how  leader  b e h a v i o r and  the ex-  colleagueal relations i n a  u n i v e r s i t y department might a f f e c t the p r o d u c t i v i t y o f p r o fessors.  A sample of. u n i v e r s i t y s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s was  s e l e c t e d and  v a r i a t i o n s o f H a l p i n ' s LBDQ; and  OCDQ" a l o n g  with  a q u a n t i t a t i v e assessment o f . ' p r o d u c t i v i t y were a d m i n i s t e r e d ! by i n t e r v i e w . s i s and t o the The  39%  The  d a t a were; s u b j e c t e d t o r e g r e s s i o n  of" the p r o d u c t i v i t y v a r i a n c e was  analy-  found a c c o u n t a b l e  predictors. v a r i a b l e s o f aloofness? (a l e a d e r ' s  behavior),  consideration  (the l e a d e r ' s  s t a f f ''humanly"), t h r u s t ( t h e l e a d e r ' s  bureaucratic  tendency to t r e a t h i s tendency to s e t an  example), h i n d r a n c e (group f e e l i n g t h a t t h e y are r e q u i r e d 1  do "'busywork"'), i n t i m a c y  (the s o c i a l dimension),; and  t i o n emphasis (the leader's; b e h a v i o r w h i c h i s f o c u s e d production),  the number o f s t u d e n t a s s i s t a n t s , and  producon  the o r i e n t -  a t i o n towards t e a c h i n g emerged asi s i g n i f i c a n t p r e d i c t o r ' s productivity.  to  of  Other p r e d i c t o r s , such as r e s e a r c h o r i e n t a t i o n ,  t r a v e l fund a v a i l a b i l i t y , d e g r e e , degree d a t e , rank, a p p r o x imate age,  m o r a l e , s t i m u l a t i o n , i n i t i a t i n g s t r u c t u r e , and  p u b l i c a t i o n emphasis were not s i g n i f i c a n t but i n the  predicted  direction. Five exploratory  a n a l y s e s were c o n d u c t e d .  The r e s u l t s  accounted f o r l e s s p r o d u c t i v i t y v a r i a n c e "but tended t o supp o r t the aboye f i n d i n g s .  iii  TABLE. OF." CONTENTS. . •  Chapter; I Chapter I I :  Introduction Theory  ;  • PAGE  1 '5  Conditions  6  A'xioms  9  Explanations, and Hypotheses;  15  Corollaries  21  Covariates  22  Chapter III  Methodology  25  Population  25  Sample  26  Survey Procedure  30  Interview Procedure  33  The Agreement Index  3*+.  Interview Schedule  39  The Minisurvey  hO.  A Methodological Note  1+2  Preparation of the Data "for Regression  U-6  Exploratory Analysis Discussion  51  Explanation of Regression Analysis  53  Chapter IV Chapter V Chapter VI  Data Analysis Results; Discussion of Results Conclusions  Summary o f Results  56 62 67 67  PAGE Commentary-  . 6 8  F u r t h e r Research  70  The E d u c a t i o n a l Aaminis?tratbr  72  Bibliography Appendix*  lh 78;  U n i v e r s i t y Department Q u e s t i o n n a i r e  78  Department Member Interview  82  M l n i s u r v e y P r o d u c t i v i t y Index  88-  D i s c u s s i o n o f Explorartory A n a l y s i s R e s u l t s  93  V  LIST TABLE'  OF"  TABLES  TITLE  PAGE  1  Sampling D i s t r i b u t i o n by U n i v e r s i t y Department  28  2  A n a l y s i s ' R e s u l t s from M u l t i p l e Regression  56  3  A n a l y s i s R e s u l t s from Stepwise Regression  58  h  A n a l y s i s ' Results from Simple Regression  60  5  Response D i s t r i b u t i o n s f o r Agreement Index  .81  6  S e l e c t e d Response D i s t r i b u t i o n s f o r Department . 8 5  Member Interview 7  C o r r e l a t i o n Matrix f o r A l l V a r i a b l e s  8  Results- o f Minisurvey::.  86  Academics: and Teachers; 90  Combined 9  Results- of M i n i s u r v e y :  Academics;  91  10  Res>ults o f Minisurvey r  Teachers:  92  11  E x p l o r a t o r y A n a l y s i s Results:Regression  from Group Consensus  Multiple and Academic 95  Weightings 12"  Exploratory Analysis Results: Regression  Stepwise  from Group consensus and Academic 95  Weightings 13  E x p l o r a t o r y A n a l y s i s Results:from Group Consensus  1*+  Weightings'  Regression  and Academic Weightings  Exploratory Analysis Results: Regression  Simple  96  Multiple  from Group Consensus" and Teacher 96  vi TITLE  .  Exploratory Analysis' Results: Regression  PAGE Stepwise".  from Group Consensus" and Teacher 97  Weightings E x p l o r a t o r y A n a l y s i s Results:-  Simple  Regression  from Group Consensus; and Teacher Weightings • E x p l o r a t o r y A n a l y s i s Results:* Regression  Multiple.  from I n d i v i d u a l Response and  Combined A'cademic: and Teacher Weightings^ E x p l o r a t o r y A n a l y s i s . Results:" Regression  from I n d i v i d u a l Response and  . E x p l o r a t o r y A n a l y s i s Results:-  Simple  from I n d i v i d u a l Response and Combined  A'cademic 99  Exploratory Analysis Results:  Multiple  from I n d i v i d u a l Response and 100  Academic Weightings Exploratory Analysis Results:  Stepwise  from I n d i v i d u a l Response and 100  Academic Weightings Exploratory Analysis R s u l t s : e  Simple  Regression  from I n d i v i d u a l Response and Academic Weightings Exploratory Analysis Results: Regression  99  Regression  and Teacher Weightings  Regression  98  Stepwise  Combined Academic and Teacher Weightings"  Regression  98  101  Multiple  from I n d i v i d u a l Response and  Teacher Weightings  101  TITLE Exploratory Analysis Results:  PAGE Stepwise  R e g r e s s i o n from I n d i v i d u a l Response and Teacher Weightings E x p l o r a t o r y A n a l y s i s Results:-  102 Simple Regression  f r o m . I n d i v i d u a l Response and Teacher Weightings  103  viii  ACEN0WLEDGEIvO!NTS  Hy most s i n c e r e thanks are due to those who were i n s t r u m e n t a l i n b r i n g i n g t h i s study t o f r u i t i o n *  These i n c l u d e  the members o f my t h e s i s committee, Dr. Lawrence W. Downey, a s chairman, D r . H a r o l d J . Dycfc, and D r . B r a x t o n M. A l f r e d . Dr. Downey p r o v i d e d the I n i t i a l impetus f o r the study$ the a i d t h a t made the study p o s s i b l e , and I n v a l u a b l e guidance as the survey p r o g r e s s e d .  D r . Dycfc provided c o n s i d e r a b l e  guidance and encouragement throughout the l a t t e r stages o f t h i s work.  D r . A l f r e d served as a frequent a d v i s o r on r e -  search methods and also, played a most s u p p o r t i v e  role.  A d d i t i o n a l acknowledgements a r e due to H a r o l d  Leibel  and B r i a n Cudworth, f e l l o w students i n educational, a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , who adapted the H a l p i n instruments setting. a constant  to a u n i v e r s i t y  F i n a l l y , many thanks a r e due to. my w i f e , M a m i e , source o f encouragement and a i d throughout the  many endeavours a s s o c i a t e d with t h i s  thesis.  CHARTER I  INTRODUCTION  The  study o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s o c i o l o g y presents  questions  regarding  many  the i n t e r a c t i o n s o f i n d i v i d u a l s i n a  modern bureaucracy... One who proposes to i n v e s t i g a t e t h i s area o f human a f f a i r s must have a strong  b e l i e f i n the  1  potency o f the s o c i a l determinants; o f human b e h a v i o r as) compared w i t h determinants which a r e p h y s i c a l , b i o l o g i c a l , or p s y c h o l o g i c a l .  T h i s study proposesrto  investigate, i n  both a t h e o r e t i c a l and a p r a c t i c a l v e i n , some o f the b e haviors key  of professionals: i n u n i v e r s i t y organizations.  concept i n t h i s survey i s t h a t of e d u c a t i o n a l  i t y as a p p l i e d to u n i v e r s i t y professors;.. may be considered  Their productivity  and t h e i r  a l c o n t r i b u t i o n s .such as t h e i r teaching  are these:-,  productiv-  to be t h e i r p r o f e s s i o n a l contributions-  such a s ' t h e i r w r i t i n g s and r e s e a r c h ,  endeavours.,  The;  The c e n t r a l questions  organization-  and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e  of this investigation  do some o f the v a r i a b l e s which operate i n an  o r g a n i z a t i o n , f o r i n s t a n c e , t h o s e ^ r e l a t i n g tor l e a d e r s h i p : :  behaviors and group work r e l a t i o n s , . h a v e an i n f l u e n c e on :  educational  productivity?  From the p r a c t i c a l .and p r e s c r i p -  t i v e p o i n t o f view of: the study o f e d u c a t i o n a l  administra-  t i o n , what can a department head do to f a c i l i t a t e  greater  2  productivity on the part of his subordinates?  Other ques-  tions immediately arise.. Is the large degree of individual autonomy and the looseness of the university departmental structure sufficient to minimize any effect of leadershipand work relations variables minimal when compared to factors such as economic considerations or a person's own orientation? This thesis is; an attempt to begin to answer some of: these intricate problems relating to educational productivity. The question of the social determinants of group productivity is implicit in most of the writings on administration.  Since the advent of trie'"Human Relations School"  great stress has been placed upon the importance of the sociological factors which are believed to profoundly influence human productivity. This present study attempts to investigate one small aspect of this problem— the results of the efforts of a university group. Groups of researchers are normally to be found at universities, research institutes, and in the laboratories of governments and commercial enterprises.  As, these groups f i t into their respective organ-  izational structures, they are administered by a leader who serves to coordinate and direct group efforts.  This  particular group situation is characterized by a strongly professional attitude of its membership. The members consider themselves to be autonomous in that they as individuals exercise considerable discretion over their work. They tend to be status-striving such that they endeavour to achieve^  3 p r o f e s s i o n a l r e c o g n i t i o n and  promotion through t h e i r work.  A l s o , t h e s e p e r s o n n e l tend to be w o r k - o r i e n t e d — t h e y h i g h l y d e d i c a t e d to t h e i r r e s e a r c h and  i t s related  are  scholarly  activities:. One  may  ask q u e s t i o n s on the p r o b l e m o f  p r o d u c t i v i t y f r o m e i t h e r o f two one  major p o i n t s o f v i e w .  can t a k e a t h e o r e t i c a l s t a n c e and  organizational o r one  educational  ask,"what -factors i n an  s e t t i n g a f f e c t an i n d i v i d u a l ' s  can ask,"what can an a d m i n i s t r a t o r  productivity?"  do t o f o s t e r  p r o d u c t i v i t y i n the p e r s o n n e l s u b o r d i n a t e t o him?" a s p e c t i s concerned w i t h t h e o r y b u i l d i n g and ations.  The  The  The  ;  ' r u n n i n g ' an e d u c a t i o n a l  first  asks f o r e x p l a n -  second i s concerned w i t h p r e d i c t i o n and  p r a c t i c a l problems o f  Either  the  organization.  f i r s t i s concerned w i t h the q u a l i t y o f e x p l a n a t i o n w h i l e  the second i s concerned w i t h the s e l e c t i o n o f f a c t o r s  for  prediction. T h i s s t u d y adopts the j o i n t g o a l s o f both the above approaches to r e s e a r c h . construction,  I n a s e c t i o n devoted to t h e o r y  i t w i l l state  the r a t i o n a l e used t o d e r i v e tested.  (as e x p l i c i t l y as  possible),  the hypotheses w h i c h are  I n a s e c t i o n on methodology, i t w i l l d i s c u s s  m e t h o d o l o g i c a l s t e p s and both t h e o r e t i c a l and  the t h e o r y .  The  the  problems w h i c h are o f i n t e r e s t to  predictive research.  to a n a l y s i s w i l l discuss  later  The  s e c t i o n devoted  the r e s u l t s as found i n r e l a t i o n to  f i n a l s e c t i o n w i l l t h e n summarize the  planned r e s u l t s , some e x p l o r a t o r y  r e s u l t s , and w i l l o f f e r a  commentary on the t h e o r e t i c a l i m p l i c a t i o n s o f the  study,  p o s s i b l e f u t u r e r e s e a r c h , and educational  administrator.  some r a m i f i c a t i o n s f o r the  5  CHAPTER  II  THEORY  The t h e o r y i n t h i s t h e s i s has been g i v e n the format o f an a x i o m a t i c t h e o r y s i m i l a r to t h a t proposed by Z e t t e r b e r g (1965a).  T h i s mode o f .explanation was chosen because I t s  assumptions a r e made e x p l i c i t l y , i t r e q u i r e s a d e f i n i t i o n f o r each concept used, and i t s l o g i c i s c l e a r l y expressed; i n s h o r t , i t attempts to be r i g o r o u s ,  i t i s seen t h a t the .  f u n c t i o n o f a t h e o r y i s t6 p r o v i d e a basis:; f o r the generat i o n o f hypotheses may then be t e s t e d e m p i r i c a l l y to giveevidence f o r o r c a s t doubt upon the explanations from which they were deduced. The t h e o r y developed below concerns i t s e l f w i t h the. e x p l a n a t i o n as: to why c e r t a i n p r e d i c t o r s  ((the l e a d e r s h i p  s t y l e and work r e l a t i o n v a r i a b l e s ) might a f f e c t  productivity*  The antecedent c o n d i t i o n s s t a t e d l i m i t the scope o f the t h e o r y to groups which a r e v e r y s i m i l a r t o r e s e a r c h groups. axioms  The  (or assumptions), which a r e g i v e n a r e statements which  are f r e q u e n t l y u t i l i z e d  i n the e x p l a n a t i o n s which f o l l o w .  The  e x p l a n a t i o n s themselves a r e a c t u a l l y t h e o r i e s i n miniature.— they begin w i t h a p r e d i c t o r and l e a d through a c h a i n o f cause and e f f e c t u n t i l they a r r i v e a t p r o d u c t i v i t y .  Assuming  that  the l o g i c i s sound, the axioms; and antecedent c o n d i t i o n s a r e  6 c o r r e c t , and t h a t t r a n s i t i v i t y h o l d s , from each o f the explanations  o f f e r e d may be deduced a hypothesis  relating  the p r e d i c t o r to the dependent v a r i a b l e o f p r o d u c t i v i t y . The f o l l o w i n g are. seven antecedent c o n d i t i o n s which e s t a b l i s h the boundaries o f a p p l i c a b i l i t y o f the theories; to be p r e s e n t e d . intended  I t i s understood t h a t the t h e o r i e s a r e n o t r  to a p p l y to group; s i t u a t i o n s under which the seven  c o n d i t i o n s a r e not met. CONDITIONS' C o n d i t i o n CI The f o l l o w i n g axioms apply to a s m a l l group. Definition:;-  a s m a l l group; i s , d e f i n e d as; a s m a l l aggregate o f %  people between the members o f three and twenty, who i n t e r a c t with face-to-face  contact.  C o n d i t i o n C2 The assumptions a p p l y to the members o f a s m a l l group* Definition:;  group members are- persons, the elements: o f ax ::  groupv C o n d i t i o n C3 The group i s t a s k - o r i e n t e d . Definition :-" a t a s k - o r i e n t e d group i s d e f i n e d as a group whose primary reason f o r e x i s t e n c e i s the accomplishment o f tasks. C o n d i t i o n CkThe group- has a formal  leader..  Definition;.': ar formal appointed and  has  l e a d e r i s a group l e a d e r who i s ;  the formal r e c o g n i t i o n as being  the group-,  leader. Condition  C5  Av norm which p r e s c r i b e s i n d i v i d u a l autonomy i s  present.  Definition:•autonomy i s d e f i n e d as a s e t o f b e l i e f s ; which i n f e r t h a t an i n d i v i d u a l should  r e t a i n a l a r g e measure of  c o n t r o l over the d i r e c t i o n , i n t e n s i t y , content, and  time of  his. work,. The  presence of: t h i s , norm has  been w e l l documented as a?  r e s u l t o f surveys o f many r e s e a r c h and izations.  Scott  p r o f e s s i o n a l organ-  ( 1 9 6 5 ) reports; t h a t i n a s o c i a l  agency i n v e s t i g a t e d , those who  welfare  were p r o f e s s i o n a l l y i n c l i n e d  were more demanding of autonomy..  Hagstrom ( 1 9 6 + ) , i n a l  d i s c u s s i o n o f s c i e n t i f i c teamwork, i n d i c a t e s t h a t autonomy norm i s . very s t r o n g — o n e response from an was : -  " T e l l i n g someone what to do i s taboo."  the s c i e n t i s t - s u p e r v i s o r relationship;^ G l a s e r  the interview  Investigating (1963)  states:  "Recognized competence i n r e s e a r c h o f both parties? i s ; shown to be a source of mutual a t t r a c t i o n , r e c i p r o c i t y In work and maintenance of autonomy". T h i s comment emanated from the e m p i r i c a l study o f a l a r g e government r e s e a r c h o r g a n i z a t i o n .  Kornhauser and  Hagstrom  ( 1 9 6 2 ) c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e t h a t the r e s u l t s of many previous: s t u d i e s show t h a t s c i e n t i s t s p l a c e a h i g h value on freedom of r e s e a r c h . (I960)  A. survey of u n i v e r s i t y s c i e n t i s t s by West:  suggests t h a t they w i l l t o l e r a t e o n l y minimal  r e s t r i c t i o n s on t h e i r freedom.  Baumgartel ( 1 9 5 7 ) ,  on  8 i n v e s t i g a t i n g the. leadership; s t y l e s , of r e s e a r c h  adminis-  t r a t o r s , found t h a t j o i n t d e c i s i o n making w i t h the ates c o n t r i b u t e d  to g r e a t e r m o t i v a t i o n  a t t i t u d e s toward the o r g a n i z a t i o n . naval r e s e a r c h  l :  more p o s i t i v e  In an e a r l i e r study of a  l a b o r a t o r y , Shepherd and  found the s c i e n t i s t s  and  Brown (1956) a l s o F e l z (195-6),  stress, f o r independence.  i n h i s i n i t i a l s t u d i e s on performance on r e s e a r c h t i o n s , indicates.-that p r o d u c t i v i t y was of a c t i o n was Condition  subordin-  organiza-  h i g h e r when autonomy  granted.  C6-  A norm, which endorses, s t a t u s - s t r i v i n g behavior i s p r e s r  ent. Definition:  s t a t u s - s t r i v i n g i s the behavior on the p a r t of  i n d i v i d u a l s to attempt to g a i n upward m o b i l i t y by promotion o r through r e c o g n i t i o n by t h e i r contemporaries w i t h i n  their  profession. S t a t u s - s t r i v i n g became apparent when a number of organizations survey of 1,311  were s t u d i e d .  research  P.elz and Andrews (1966), from a  s c i e n t i s t s i n eleven d i f f e r e n t l a b o r a t o r i e s ,  found t h a t both s t a t u s - s t r i v i n g f o r o r g a n i z a t i o n a l promotion and  s t a t u s - s t r i v i n g f o r p r o f e s s i o n a l r e c o g n i t i o n were both  present.  Marcson ( i 9 6 0 ) , u s i n g a case study approach, found  t h a t involvement, s e l f - r e a l i z a t i o n , and  status  recognition  (from the group as w e l l as from the p r o f e s s i o n ) are what he c a l l s the " p r o f e s s i o n a l needs of the s c i e n t i s t " . of a u n i v e r s i t y s o c i a l r e s e a r c h  The  study  group by Bennis (1956) under-  l i n e s the norm of s t a t u s - s t r i v i n g as being a potent moti-  v a t o r f o r research,, C o n d i t i o n C7 A: norm which s t r e s s e s d e v o t i o n to work i s p r e s e n t . Definitions  d e v o t i o n to work i s . behavior  on the p a r t o f  i n d i v i d u a l s which i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by i n t e n s e  interest,  c o n c e n t r a t i o n , e f f o r t and time d i r e c t e d towards t h e i r work. P e l z and Andrews ( I 9 6 6 ) , i n t h e i r major study, i n d i c a t e t h a t s c i e n t i s t s ^ a r e i n v o l v e d w i t h t h e i r work, u n i v e r s i t y s c i e n t i s t s being more i n v o l v e d than those i n government institutions.  Shepherd and Brown (1956), found t h a t there  was a h i g h emphasis on s c i e n c e i n the r e s e a r c h l a b o r a t o r y which was s t u d i e d .  Bennis (1956), i n h i s study on r e s e a r c h  groups, s t a t e s t h a t t h i s same strong work norm o p e r a t e s . The  c o n d i t i o n s which d e s c r i b e a u n i v e r s i t y r e s e a r c h  department have now been s t a t e d and an attempt has been made to s u b s t a n t i a t e them.. The f o l l o w i n g a r e f o u r axioms which w i l l be used f r e q u e n t l y i n the explanations  or t h e o r i e s .  The  approach used here i s an a p p l i c a t i o n o f the s o c i o l o g y o f s m a l l groups. AXIOMS Axiom A l The  g r e a t e r the power o f a norm, the g r e a t e r the con-  f o r m i t y o f behavior  o f group members t o t h a t norm, and, the  l e s s the power o f a'norm, the l e s s the conformity o f behavior o f group members to t h a t norm. Definitionr  a norm i s a r u l e f o r member behavior which i s  shared and  by the group and which a r i s e s : from a person's values;  the circumstancesvof  Definition;"  behavior..  the power o f a norm i s d e f i n e d as the extent  to which a group w i l l  tend to impose•sanctions  upon a member  who v i o l a t e s , o r conforms to the. norm. Definition;  c o n f o r m i t y i s any a c t i o n o r l i m i t a t i o n o f a c t i o n  i n accordance w i t h a g i v e n rule.,  (The o p p o s i t e o f conformity  i s violation)."* With r e f e r e n c e to the power o f a norm, g r e a t e r powermeans g r e a t e r s e v e r i t y of.punishments i n the form o f o s t r a c i s m , for  i n s t a n c e , as a r e s u l t o f normative v i o l a t i o n , o r , g r e a t e r  reward o r reinforcement behavior.  f o r a h i g h l e v e l o f conforming  F o r example, a group may b r i n g pressure to bear:  on an i n d i v i d u a l who exceeds the agreed productivity..  r a t e - o f group  T h i s may be done by simply r e g i s t e r i n g  dis-  a p p r o v a l , by i n t e r f e r i n g w i t h the d e v i a t e s work, by t h r e a t i n g !  the wayward member, o r by any o f a number o f other means. the other hand, should a member be p e r c e i v e d as being  On  extreme-  l y - h e l p f u l " i n the work s i t u a t i o n , , he tends: to be rewarded w i t h r e t u r n f a v o u r s , group f r i e n d s h i p , ensured  s t a t u s as a  group member, and/or other p o s i t i v e reinforcements action.  f o r his;  However, i t i s seen t h a t the extent to which .he i s  sanctioned  ( e i t h e r p o s i t i v e l y o r n e g a t i v e l y ) w i l l depend on  the r e l a t i v e s t r e n g t h and importance o f the norm i n q u e s t i o n as p e r c e i v e d by h i s f e l l o w group members, as w e l l as the extent to which he conforms to d e v i a t e s from the norm.  &  p o s i t i v e example o f the f o r e g o i n g would be a group member.  who i s p o l i t e to h i s f e l l o w s when a " p o l i t e n e s s norm" holds.. He w i l l be rewarded return.  (though m i l d l y ) w i t h p o l i t e n e s s i n  Should he save- the group from d i s s o l u t i o n by out-  s i d e i n f l u e n c e under circumstances where a l l members a r e agreed t h a t the s a f e t y o r intactriess o f the group i s a prirmary concern, then group members w i l l tend to reward h i s action highly.  A" n e g a t i v e example might be the v i o l a t i o n o f  a "promptness; norm". or  Members may express t h e i r d i s a p p r o v a l  begin a c t i v i t i e s without the d e v i a t e , but he r e c e i v e s no  major punishment.  Should he v i o l a t e an " i n c e s t norm" o r be r  g u i l t y o f g r o s s l y n o n - p r o f e s s i o n a l behavior, about which there a r e s t r o n g f e e l i n g s , then he may be excluded from the. group o r ~ i n the most extreme c a s e s , the group- may terminate his  life.  I t i s suggested  , then, t h a t the s t r o n g e r these  s a n c t i o n s , the more l i k e l y i n d i v i d u a l members w i l l to  them.  conform  I n the case o f the r e s e a r c h group, where members  have emerged from a -lengthly t r a i n i n g and s e l e c t i o n process, and where membership i n the group i s v a l u e d , t h a t group member behavior w i l l conform l a r g e l y to the powerful norms, and, w i t h r e s p e c t to the l e s s e r norms, much g r e a t e r deviance w i l l be t o l e r a t e d .  I n o t h e r words, a v e r y weak norm o f p h y s i c a l  f i t n e s s would e l i c i t  very l i t t l e  conforming behavior and  v i r t u a l l y no n e g a t i v e s a n c t i o n s i n i t s v i o l a t i o n . Axiom A2 The g r e a t e r the number o r i n t e n s i t y o f v i o l a t i o n s o f norms on the p a r t o f a person, the l e s s the g r o u p - d i r e c t e d communication to him over time.  D e f i n i t i o n : communication i s d e f i n e d as the exchange o f i n f o r m a t i o n and the t r a n s m i s s i o n o f meaning., Definition:-  group-directed  communication i s t h a t communica-  t i o n which i s i n i t i a t e d by any member o f a group and i s -  d i r e c t e d towards: a g i v e n  individual.  This* axiom concerns i t s e l f w i t h one type o f n e g a t i v e sanction—that  o f communication r e d u c t i o n t o the d e v i a t e .  i s acknowledged t h a t other forms o f n e g a t i v e  It  s a n c t i o n may  w e l l take p l a c e , but i n the context o f a p r o f e s s i o n a l r e search group i t i s suggested t h a t i n the case o f the p o s s i b l e other s a n c t i o n s use.  there e x i s t norms which would p r o h i b i t t h e i i r  An experiment by Schacter: (1951)". showed t h a t group-  members who d i s a g r e e d w i t h a d e v i a t e ' s  o p i n i o n tended to stop  communicating t o him towards the end o f the d i s c u s s i o n , demonstrating t h a t they were r e d e f i n i n g the p s y c h o l o g i c a l group and e x c l u d i n g  the d e v i a t e , who was v i o l a t i n g a pre-  d e f i n e d consensus norm.  Evidence f o r the above a s s e r t i o n may  be a l s o taken from the r e s u l t s o f a study by F e s t i n g e r and Thibaut  (1951), wherein the communication towards the h o l d e r s  of extreme o p i n i o n s diminished  as- time progressed.  Once  a g a i n , the p s y c h o l o g i c a l group was r e d e f i n e d t o the e x c l u s i o n of the d e v i a t e . Axiom A3 The  g r e a t e r the number and d u r a t i o n o f communications,  the g r e a t e r the s t i m u l a t i o n , and, the l e s s the number and d u r a t i o n o f communications, the l e s s the s t i m u l a t i o n * Definition:  s t i m u l a t i o n i s the r a t e o f r e c e p t i o n o f : ideas  13 of common i n t e r e s t , a s s i s t a n c e , and  encouragements of  one  person from another. This axiom presupposes very s t r o n g l y t h a t the group i s a research  group and  applicable.  that the c o n d i t i o n s  Support f o r t h i s assumption may  P e l z and Andrews (1966) who research  s t a t e d above are be taken from  s t a t e t h a t communication w i t h i n  l a b o r a t o r i e s g r e a t l y promoted the s t i m u l a t i o n o f  s c i e n t i s t s to produce,  Marcson (i960): suggests t h a t one  of  the needs of a s c i e n t i s t s i n involvement w i t h others  i n order  to produce the s t i m u l a t i o n needed.  (1956),  Bush and H a t l e r y  i n d i s c u s s i n g s t u d i e s on s c i e n t i f i c r e s e a r c h , recommend teamwork and scientists.  highly  communication as a means of s t i m u l a t i n g  In an e m p i r i c a l study on medical  researchers,  Pelz. (1956) s t a t e s : " R e s u l t s i n d i c a t e t h a t s c i e n t i s t s tend to perform more a c c e p t a b l y when they are c l o s e l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h colleagues; having a v a r i e t y of values.;, experiences, and; d i s c i p l i n e s , and when s u p e r v i s o r s provide f r e q u e n t s t i m u l a t i o n combined w i t h autonomy o f a c t i o n . " Frequent; c o n t a c t stimulation.  between s c i e n t i s t s i s seen as a source of  I t seems reasonable to suggest t h a t a s c i e n -  t i s t working l a r g e l y alone would tend to communicate; l e s s w i t h his- f e l l o w s and  thus the i n f l u x of new  i d e a s and- encour-  agements; to him would be reduced., Axiom A l f The i t y , and,  g r e a t e r the stimulation,-, the g r e a t e r the  productiv-  the l e s s the s t i m u l a t i o n , the l e s s the p r o d u c t i v i t y .  Definition:'  a^ person"s p r o d u c t i v i t y i s d e f i n e d a s h i s number-  o f work u n i t s produced per u n i t o f time . 7  Definitiont.  group, p r o d u c t i v i t y i s the sum  of i n d i v i d u a l  productivities:.. The  a r t i c l e s quoted i n support of axiom A3  a p p l i c a b l e to t h i s assumption as, well.-  are l a r g e l y  P e l z and Andrews  (1966$ e x p l a i n t h a t c o l l e a g u e s enhance performance by s t i m u l a t i o n through c o n t a c t . u n i v e r s i t y s i z e and  Crane (1965)", i n a study o f  s c h o l a r l y p r o d u c t i v i t y , suggests that  both g r e a t e r p r o d u c t i v i t y and  -  g r e a t e r r e c o g n i t i o n of students  from major u n i v e r s i t i e s , r e s u l t e d from the contacts- t h a t t h e s e students had  w i t h eminent s c i e n t i s t s i n t h e i r  respective  f i e l d s — c o n t a c t s , t h a t i s , f o r both s t i m u l a t i o n and job o p p o r t u n i t i e s ^  (1956).., i n the above q u o t a t i o n ,  Pelz  makes the p o i n t about frequent acceptable  future  performance.  s t i m u l a t i o n l e a d i n g to more  Considering  the" evidence presented  h e r e , i t seems reasonable to suggest t h a t an i n d i v i d u a l who i s not s t i m u l a t e d an u n w i l l i n g n e s s  f o r any  reason, be i t lack,,of communication,  to d i s c u s s h i s work w i t h c o l l e a g u e s ,  or a  l a c k o f adequate; s e l f - e x p r e s s i o n , f o r example, w i l l tend to have h i s r e s e a r c h p r o d u c t i v i t y l i m i t e d to w r i t t e n and  h i s - own  materials;  resources;.  The' f o u r axioms which are a p p l i c a b l e to t h i s study havenow  been s t a t e d , and  them.  The  an attempt has  t h e o r i e s or explanations  of the t e n explanations  been made to are now  substantiate  discussed.  begins w i t h a^ p r e d i c t o r v a r i a b l e  ends w i t h the dependent v a r i a b l e of p r o d u c t i v i t y . hypotheses generated by the explanations  and  The  c o n s i s t simply  each p r e d i c t o r v a r i a b l e w i t h i t s i n d i v i d u a l e f f e c t  Each  on  of  15 productivity, EXPLANATIONS AND  HYPOTHESES'  Explanation E l The  g r e a t e r the i n i t i a t i n g  s t r u c t u r e on the p a r t of a  l e a d e r , the g r e a t e r the group- p r o d u c t i v i t y , . Definition:-  initiating  s t r u c t u r e , as d e f i n e d by Halpiri ,  (1966"), r e f e r s to "the. l e a d e r " s behavior i n d e l i n e a t i n g the r e l a t i o n s h i p : between h i m s e l f and and  members of the work-group,  i n endeavoring to e s t a b l i s h w e l l - d e f i n e d p a t t e r n s  o r g a n i z a t i o n , channels, of communication, and  of  methods of  procedure". In a group i n which a devotion-to-work p r e s c r i p t i o n ( c o n d i t i o n C 7 X i s , present, serve: to expedite t h i s behavior, norm.  t h i s type of l e a d e r behavior  the work of subordinates,.  will  As a r e s u l t  of  the l e a d e r tends: to r e i n f o r c e the group work  Ass t h i s norm i s strengthened,  so w i l l p r o d u c t i v i t y  i n c r e a s e , by axiom A l , wherein group members? conform to s t r o n g norms. E x p l a n a t i o n E2F: The  g r e a t e r a l e a d e r " s c o n s i d e r a t i o n , the g r e a t e r  the  groups p r o d u c t i v i t y . Definition:'  H a l p i n (1966) d e f i n e s c o n s i d e r a t i o n as: "behavior  i n d i c a t i v e of f r i e n d s h i p , mutual t r u s t , r e s p e c t , and. warmth i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the l e a d e r and his  staff.."  the members of  f  C o n s i d e r a t i o n , as d e f i n e d , i m p l i e s t h a t the group w i l l  have f r i e n d l y s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s w i t h i t s l e a d e r .  This  of s o c i a l r e l a t i o n i n t u r n implies, t h a t t h e r e w i l l higher  l e v e l of communication between l e a d e r and  Greater  kind  be.a  group.  communication r e s u l t s i n greater, s t i m u l a t i o n of group  members-by axiom Ag and  c o n d i t i o n s C'6 and  s t r i v i n g and work norms)... Alk, the g r e a t e r ductivity.  C7  (the  status-  By the same c o n d i t i o n s and  axiom  s t i m u l a t i o n r e s u l t s i n g r e a t e r group; p r o -  Hereafter,  t h i s c o n s i d e r a t i o n w i l l be  called  consideration I I . Explanation  E3  The, g r e a t e r the group; disengagement, the- l e s s the productivity. Definition::  disengagement i s d e f i n e d by H a l p i n  "the t e a c h e r s '  tendency to be "hot w i t h .it"»  (I966) as  T h i s dimension  d e s c r i b e s a group which i s "going through the motions," a group- t h a t i s "not i n gear." w i t h r e s p e c t to the t a s k a t hand* I t corresponds to the more g e n e r a l described  by Durkheim.  the t e a c h e r s "  concept o f anomie as  In s h o r t , t h i s s u b t e s t focuses; upon  behavior i n a task-oriented situation."'  A: d i s c u s s i o n i n v o l v i n g disengagement and research  firstr  i t s e f f e c t on  group p r o d u c t i v i t y presumes a s i t u a t i o n out o f con-  text' from t h a t assumed by the s t a t u s - s t r i v i n g and work prescriptions.  Should the group be disengaged, and  these norms not be o p e r a t i n g ,  then t h e i r l a c k of  .implies a r e d u c t i o n i n p r o d u c t i v i t y by axiom A l *  should strength The  group;  which i s disengaged does not come under the r u b r i c o f a research  group;' as proposed by t h i s thesis:.  17 Explanation The  Eh  g r e a t e r the group hindrance,  the l e s s the group"s  productivity. Definition?- Halpin  ( I 9 6 6 ) d e f i n e s hindrance as; "the  teachers'  f e e l i n g t h a t the p r i n c i p a l burdens them w i t h r o u t i n e d u t i e s , committee demands, and construe  other requirements which the  as unnecessary "busywork".. The  teachers  teachers  perceive  t h a t the p r i n c i p a l i s h i n d e r i n g r a t h e r than f a c i l i t a t i n g t h e i r work."" I f group members f e e l t h a t t h e i r l e a d e r i s burdening them w i t h p e t t y d u t i e s and  i s hindering  t h e i r work, they w i l l  p e r c e i v e the l e a d e r to be v i o l a t i n g both the autonomy and work norms ( c o n d i t i o n s C'5 and results The  C7)..  i n reduced group-to-leader  r e d u c t i o n i n group-to—leader  T h i s v i o l a t i n g o f norms communication, by axiom  communication e f f e c t s  less  s t i m u l a t i o n on the p a r t of group members by axiom A3 and conditions of s t a t u s e s t r i v i n g C6 and  C7).  and w o r k - o r i e n t a t i o n  With these same c o n d i t i o n s and  A2.  the  (condition  axiom Bk,  the  reduction i n s t i m u l a t i o n results, i n a reduction i n productivity. Explanation The  E5  g r e a t e r the group: i n t i m a c y ,  the g r e a t e r the group  productivity. Definition:::  intimacy  i s : d e f i n e d by H a l p i n  ( 1 9 6 6 ) as  teachers ' enjoyment of f r i e n d l y s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s w i t h 1  "the each  other."' Intimacy, as d e f i n e d , i s the extent of f r i e n d l y group  18 s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s and  the g r e a t e r the group intimacy,  greater, the amount of intra^-group- communication. g r e a t e r t h i s communication, the g r e a t e r i s the of group members by axiom A3  the  The  stimulation  and w i t h the antecedent con-  d i t i o n s of' s t a t u s - s t r i v i n g and work, CT6 and  C7...  This  great-  er s t i m u l a t i o n r e s u l t s i n g r e a t e r - p r o d u c t i v i t y by axiom A% under the same two Explanation The  conditions:..  E6  g r e a t e r the leader's; a l o o f n e s s ,  the: l e s s the group:;  productivity., Definition:-  Halpin*s  follows::- "Aloofness  (1966) d e f i n i t i o n o f a l o o f n e s s i s as  r e f e r s to behavior by the p r i n c i p a l which  i s : c h a r a c t e r i z e d a s formal book" and  and  impersonal:.  He  p r e f e r s to be guided by r u l e s and  than to d e a l w i t h the t e a c h e r s situation.  "goes by  policies  i n an i n f o r m a l ,  the  rather  face-to-face  H i s behavior, i n . b r i e f , i s u n i v e r s a l i s t i c  rather  than p a r t i c u l a r i s t i c ; nomothetic r a t h e r than i d i o s y n c r a t i c . To  m a i n t a i n t h i s s t y l e , he keeps h i m s e l f — a t  l e a s t , "emotion-  a l l y " — a t a d i s t a n c e from h i s s t a f f . " ' The he  more a-leader  i s a l o o f i n the above sense, the more  tends to v i o l a t e the autonomy norm (C5)  personal  and  nomothetic.  i n t h a t he i s ; im-  T h i s normative v i o l a t i o n then  r e s u l t s i n - l e s s group-to-leader communication by axiom  A2.  Keeping the antecedent c o n d i t i o n s of s t a t u s - s t r i v i n g and work (C6 and  C7I  i n mind, t h i s : r e d u c t i o n i n group—to-leader com-  munication determines l e s s group member s t i m u l a t i o n and a l l y , by axiom &h,  the s t i m u l a t i o n decrease results-: i n a  fin-  19 r e d u c t i o n o f group p r o d u c t i v i t y . Explanation E 7 The g r e a t e r the l e a d e r ' s p r o d u c t i o n  emphasis, the l e s s  the p r o d u c t i v i t y o f the group* production  is  by the p r i n c i p a l which i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by c l o s e  "behavior  emphasis, as: d e f i n e d by H a l p i n  (1966)  Definition:  s u p e r v i s i o n o f the s t a f f .  He i s h i g h l y d i r e c t i v e and plays;  the r o l e o f a 'straw boss".  H i s communication tends to go  i n o n l y one d i r e c t i o n , and he i s ; not s e n s i t i v e to feedback from the s t a f f . "  1  The p r o d u c t i o n  emphasis, behavior w i t h i t s c l o s e super-  v i s i o n and h i g h d i r e c t i o n tends: to v i o l a t e the autonomy norm (C5) o f ' t h e r e s e a r c h groupv  The g r e a t e r the. v i o l a t i o n of  t h i s norm, the l e s s the g r o u p - d i r e c t e d l e a d e r tends; to be by axiom A2>*  communication to the  T h i s r e d u c t i o n i n group-  d i r e c t e d communication then e f f e c t s r e d u c t i o n o f s t i m u l a t i o n of the p a r t o f group members- by axiom A3 and the antecedent c o n d i t i o n s o f s t a t u s s t r i v i n g and work (C"6 and C"7).  Finally,  by axiom Al+ and c o n d i t i o n s C6 and C7, the l e s s the s t i m u l a t i o n o f group members, the l e s s t h e i r p r o d u c t i v i t y * Explanation  E8  The g r e a t e r the s t i m u l a t i o n o f group members, the g r e a t er the group p r o d u c t i v i t y * R e c a l l i n g the antecedent c o n d i t i o n s o f s t a t u s  striving  and w o r k - 0 r l e n t i a t i 6 n (C6'' and Cf)], the. g r e a t e r the degree o f 7  ;  s t i m u l a t i o n o f group members, the g r e a t e r the degree group^ p r o d u c t i v i t y which o c c u r s .  T h i s i s axiom A l f .  20 E x p l a n a t i o n E9 The  i  g r e a t e r t h e t h r u s t on t h e p a r t o f a l e a d e r , t h e  g r e a t e r t h e group"s p r o d u c t i v i t y . Definition;"  " T h r u s t r e f e r s t o b e h a v i o r by t h e p r i n c i p a l  w h i c h i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by h i s e v i d e n t e f f o r t i n t r y i n g t o 'move t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n .  1  T h r u s t b e h a v i o r i s marked n o t by  c l o s e s u p e r v i s i o n , b u t by example w h i c h he p e r s o n a l l y s e t s . . Apparently,  because he does n o t a s k t h e t e a c h e r s t o g i v e o f  themselves, any more than he W i l l i n g l y gives, o f h i m s e l f ; h i s b e h a v i o r , though s t a r k l y t a s k - o r i e n t e d , i s n o n e t h e l e s s f a v o r a b l y by t h e t e a c h e r s . "  from H a l p i n  viewed  (1966)*  T h i s type o f l e a d e r b e h a v i o r tends; t o r e i n f o r c e t h e p r e e x i s t i n g work norm o f c o n d i t i o n C7 because t h e l e a d e r s e t s an example o f h i g h p r o d u c t i v i t y . , As h i g h p r o d u c t i o n i s a method o f s t a t u s - s t r i v i n g , so t h e s t a t u s - s t r i v i n g p r e s c r i p t i o n ( c o n d i t i o n C"6) i s a l s o r e i n f o r c e d . W i t h b o t h t h e s e norms strengthened,  group, p r o d u c t i v i t y r i s e s i n r e s p o n s e , a c c o r d -  i n g t o axiom A l w h i c h r e l a t e s t o t h e power o f group norms. E x p l a n a t i o n E10 The  greater a leader's c o n s i d e r a t i o n , the greater the  group's p r o d u c t i v i t y . Definition;;  Halpin  (1966)  sense t o be " b e h a v i o r  defines consideration i n this;  by t h e p r i n c i p a l w h i c h i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d  by an i n c l i n a t i o n t o t r e a t t h e t e a c h e r s  'humanly , t o t r y t o 1  do a l i t t l e something e x t r a , f o r them i n human terms."  This  i s n o t t h e same c o n s i d e r a t i o n w h i c h r e l a t e s t o l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e as;• g i v e n i n e x p l a n a t i o n E 2 . C o n s i d e r a t i o n as d e f i n e d  21 -  i  above w i l l h e r e a f t e r be r e f e r r e d to as c o n s i d e r a t i o n I . Behavior o f the l e a d e r which i n v o l v e s c o n s i d e r a t i o n I i m p l i e s communication between l e a d e r and group vrhich would otherwise not e x i s t .  This i n c r e a s e i n g r o u p - d i r e c t e d  communication under the c o n d i t i o n s o f s t a t u s - s t r i v i n g and work-orientation  (C6 and C?) tends to e f f e c t g r e a t e r  stim-  u l a t i o n on the p a r t o f the p a r t i c i p a n t s by axiom A3. r e s u l t i n g s t i m u l a t i o n then c o n t r i b u t e s  to h i g h e r  The  productivity  by means o f axiom AU- under c o n d i t i o n s C6 and C7. COROLLARIES The hypotheses-to-be-tested are o n l y some o f the poss i b l e hypotheses t h a t may be deduced from the t h e o r i e s presented.  I f the t h e o r i e s a r e broken down i n t o t h e i r sep-  arate cause-and-effect  u n i t s , these i n d i v i d u a l u n i t s such as  the aforementioned axioms may be t e s t e d . t i o n o f these cause-and-effect  A l s o , any combina-  u n i t s , such as the r e l a t i o n  between axiom A2 and axiom Al+, which may be deduced by using  axiom A3, may be t e s t e d , a t l e a s t i n p r i n c i p l e .  In  t h i s case, by axiom A2, the more v i o l a t i o n s o f group norms, the fewer communications.  And by axiom Ah, the g r e a t e r the  s t i m u l a t i o n , the g r e a t e r the p r o d u c t i v i t y .  L i n k i n g these  two axioms through axiom A3 which s t a t e s that the g r e a t e r the number and d u r a t i o n o f communications, the g r e a t e r the s t i m u l a t i o n , then the r e s u l t i s t h a t the more v i o l a t i o n s o f group norms, the l e s s the p r o d u c t i v i t y . I t should  be noted, however, t h a t c o n f i r m a t i o n o f the  22 predicted  r e s u l t s tends to s t r e n g t h e n a l l aspects o f the  theory, so t h a t the most u s e f u l t e s t o f the t h e o r y i s that which encompasses a l l o f i t s p a r t s  (Z'etterberg, 1 9 6 5 b ) •  In  t h i s way, the t e s t s a c t u a l l y support o r r e f u t e the e n t i r e cause-and-effect  chain.  COVARIATES A great many other-'variables: besides;, the t e n predictorsmay e a s i l y be seen to i n f l u e n c e e d u c a t i o n a l  productivity.  These f a c t o r s - range from the s o c i a l to the p s y c h o l o g i c a l , economic?, b i o l o g i c a l , and p h y s i c a l * . The s o c i a l f a c t o r s : i n c l u d e an i n d i v i d u a l " s rank, which may w e l l f a c i l i t a t e , h i s a b i l i t y t o produce i f he i s a s e n i o r man because deferences; j  are made to him. The o p p o s i t e  a p p l i e s to a j u n i o r man who:  both d e f e r s and r e c e i v e s l e s s deference..  The r e c e i p t o f a  Doctor of: P h i l o s o p h y degree may i n d i c a t e academic competence: and  r e s u l t a n t greater  p r o d u c t i v i t y compared t o the r e c e i p t  o f a- masters; degree*  Although the studies: on morale ((or  e s p r i t ) a r e i n c o n c l u s i v e , common sens;e might i n d i c a t e t h a t a research  group- may w e l l f u n c t i o n best i n an atmosphere o f  high morale r a t h e r than low morale..  The date o f r e c e i p t o f  the h i g h e s t degree which an i n d i v i d u a l holds may a l s o be q u i t e significant.  I f the date i s v e r y r e c e n t ,  t h i s may i n d i c a t e  t h a t the i n d i v i d u a l i s j u s t now embarking on an academic c a r e e r and the teaching  r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s may be absorbing  energy that w i l l s h o r t l y be d i r e c t e d toward r e s e a r c h and" publishing.  I f t h e date i s . over a" decade ago, t h i s may  i n d i c a t e t h a t the i n d i v i d u a l may have an i n f e r i o r degree compared to h i s modern contemporaries o r t h a t he has had more time to be out of" c o n t a c t w i t h the new developments i n h i s d i s c i p l i n e which a r e r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e to s t u d e n t s . Another s o c i a l v a r i a b l e o f concern i s the emphasis on p u b l i c a t i o n found w i t h i n  a g i v e n department.  An i n d i v i d u a l i n a  department w i t h h i g h p u b l i c a t i o n emphasis- may respond to such a departmental norm o r simply be h i r e d on the b a s i s o f h i g h p e r s o n a l p r o d u c t i v i t y by those i n charge o f the department who s u b s c r i b e to t h a t norm.  In e i t h e r case, where a h i g h  p u b l i c a t i o n emphasis p r e v a i l s , an i n d i v i d u a l i s more- l i k e l y to be h i g h l y p r o d u c t i v e .  A. f i n a l s o c i a l f a c t o r i s the number  of graduate student a s s i s t a n t s  a l l o c a t e d to a p r o f e s s o r .  If  t h i s number i s l a r g e , then both h i s teaching and r e s e a r c h a r e expedited, r e s u l t i n g i n g r e a t e r The  psychological  productivity.  v a r i a b l e o f primary concern i n this;  study i s t h a t o f an i n d i v i d u a l ' s o r i e n t a t i o n to t e a c h i n g , r e s e a r c h , o r both teaching and r e s e a r c h .  If his orientation  i s towards t e a c h i n g , i t seems reasonable to suggest t h a t h i s energies w i l l be d i r e c t e d toxfards  towards the srtudents more than  the more p e r s o n a l p u r s u i t s  o f r e s e a r c h and  publishing  I f h i s i s a r e s e a r c h o r i e n t a t i o n , he may w e l l r e g i s t e r more h i g h l y on a p u b l i c a t i o n index.  And i f h i s o r i e n t a t i o n i s  both t e a c h i n g and r e s e a r c h , i t i s d i f f i c u l t to say whether h i s t e a c h i n g time d e t r a c t s , from h i s r e s e a r c h pursuits- o r whether such teaching pursuits-augment h i s r e s e a r c h and publishing  capabilities.  The two economic v a r i a b l e s ' t o be  2k considered are the a v a i l a b i l i t y o f " t r a v e l funds and the amount o f r e s e a r c h grants r e c e i v e d .  A' s m a l l t r a v e l fund  allowance tends to c u r t a i l a person's a b i l i t y to attend conferences a t which he may c o n t r i b u t e to academic  d e l i v e r papers o r g e n e r a l l y  discussions . -  The slzre o f r e s e a r c h  grants" t h a t a person a c q u i r e s tends to l i m i t the extent o f his  r e s e a r c h and h i s consequent a b i l i t y to r e p o r t f i n d i n g s  which may  result.  i s t h a t o f age.  The b i o l o g i c a l f a c t o r o f major note here T h i s v a r i a b l e may  tend to r e s u l t i n i n -  creased p r o d u c t i v i t y as competence i s gained through experi e n c e , o r i t may  coincide with a reduction i n creative  p o t e n t i a l w i t h consequent r e d u c t i o n i n s c h o l a s t i c ity.  The f i n a l v a r i a b l e , a p h y s i c a l one, is: time.  spent under the i n f l u e n c e o f a department i n t o account.  The  time  head must be taken  This, time f a c t o r must, be l i m i t e d  spent under the department  productiv-  to the time  head i n q u e s t i o n , otherwise t h e '  p r o d u c t i v i t y to be measured may not be a f u n c t i o n o f c o n d i - . t i o n s i n t h a t p a r t i c u l a r department  at a l l .  25  CHAPTER I I I  METHODOLOGY  POPULATION The  s t a t i s t i c a l p o p u l a t i o n was d e f i n e d as. those  scientists  social  ( e x c l u d i n g those personnel who were c l e a r l y i n  n o n - s o c i a l pursuits:) i n the departments o f Anthropology, S o c i o l o g y , Psychology, P o l i t i c a l Science, Economics, Educational  A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology, and Edu-  cational  S o c i o l o g y i n the f i v e major u n i v e r s i t i e s  Columbia, and A l b e r t a ,  :  i n British  These u n i v e r s i t i e s : were the U n i v e r s i t y  of A l b e r t a a t Edmonton, the U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l g a r y a t C a l g a r y , Simon F r a s e r U n i v e r s i t y a t Burnaby, the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia  1  Victoria,  a t Vancouver, and the U n i v e r s i t y o f V i c t o r i a a t T h i s s t a t i s t i c a l p o p u l a t i o n s t a t e s the l i m i t s o f  i n f e r e n c e t o which g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s , may be made from a. sample of t h i s p o p u l a t i o n .  The conceptual  p o p u l a t i o n , however,  extends beyond the above p o p u l a t i o n t o those  social  scientists  working under c o n d i t i o n s not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i s s i m i l a r t o those o f the above s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s - . study- has  tentative generalizability  I n other words, t h i s to u n i v e r s i t i e s  beyond  B r i t i s h Columbia and A l b e r t a . Although the above p o p u l a t i o n d e f i n e s 3^ departments, f o u r were e l i m i n a t e d from the p o p u l a t i o n because  they  contained  two o r fewer, subjects..  The o r i g i n a l  population  estimate was made from the u n i v e r s i t y calendars which were a v a i l a b l e a t the time..  As t h i s estimate, was made p r i o r to :  most o f the 1968 u n i v e r s i t y calendars  being made a v a i l a b l e ,  the use- o f 19&7 and 1966- calendars.; r e s u l t e d i n the suppress i o n o f the p o p u l a t i o n f i g u r e .  When the i n d i v i d u a l  depart-  ments were c o n s u l t e d , the p o p u l a t i o n was found to be e x a c t l y 382 (which includes: Simon F r a s e r U n i v e r s i t y ) . SAMPLE": As- t h i s study i s mainly .concerned w i t h the r e l a t i o n s between l e a d e r and group and among group members, the method of random c l u s t e r sampling was considered appropriate.  to be the most  I f i n d i v i d u a l sampling were used, then a  minimum number o f s u b j e c t s from each department would have t o be chosen ( a t random from the e n t i r e population).'in o r d e r t o g a i n a measure o f group consensus r e g a r d i n g  the l e a d e r  be-  haviors; and c o l l e a g u e a l r e l a t i o n s - i n q u e s t i o n * The  random c l u s t e r sampling procedure was executed as;  follows:  each o f the 30 departments w i t h i n the p o p u l a t i o n  was assigned  a unique t w o - d i g i t number--.  Then, by means; o f a  s t r a i g h t p i n and a t a b l e o f random numbers, t h e departments to be i n c l u d e d i n the sample were s e l e c t e d i n t u r n . s e l e c t i o n continued, uals; was maintained.  As the;  a. r e c o r d o f the t o t a l number o f i n d i v i d When t h i s t o t a l became  approximately  equal t o 180 s u b j e c t s , the s e l e c t i o n was terminated.  The  sample s i z e o f 180 was chosen because: a s i z e o f over 100 was  r e q u i r e d f o r the intended method o f a n a l y s i s (with 100 the a b s o l u t e recommended minimum), because i t was  being  expected'  t h a t a c o n s i d e r a b l e number of subjects: would not be a v a i l a b l e for  the i n t e r v i e w and  because replacement w i t h t h i s  method I s not p o s s i b l e . s i z e was in  excess  inflated  sampling  As a r e s u l t , t h i s o r i g i n a l sample  to hjfo of the p o p u l a t i o n , a percentage w e l l  o f what might be considered normal sample s i z e *  I t was  not attempted to s t r a t i f y by e i t h e r s u b j e c t  matter or by u n i v e r s i t i e s ; .  However, the random C l u s t e r  sampling'technique  r e s u l t e d ! i n c l o s e l y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e samples  for  Only two d i s c i p l i n e s were p o o r l y r e p r e s e n t -  universities.  ed:-' was  economics had  a small representation while sociology  over-represented  i n terms: of the p o p u l a t i o n breakdown f o r  each s u b j e c t a r e a . Table I gives; an i n d i c a t i o n as to how d i s t r i b u t e d across u n i v e r s i t y departments. e n t i t l e d " C o p u l a t i o n Total"', l i s t s  the subjects; were The f i r s t  column,  the t o t a l number of. i n -  d i v i d u a l s ' i n the sampled departments, the t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n by u n i v e r s i t y , and  the t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n f o r the study*  second column, e n t i t l e d  "Department Sample Size"' g i v e s the  number of sampled i n d i v i d u a l s per department and of  sampled i n d i v i d u a l s by u n i v e r s i t y .  entitled  :  total  t h i r d column,  based on the o r i g i n a l p o p u l a t i o n s i z e  The f o u r t h and f i n a l column, e n t i t l e d lists  The  the  " P r e d i c t e d Sample S i z e " , gives the i n i t i a l  s i z e estimates  The  sample' estimate,  " A c t u a l Sample S i z e "  the number of subjects' a v a i l a b l e to be i n t e r v i e w e d  department, by u n i v e r s i t y , and f o r the e n t i r e study.  The  by  f i g u r e s ; i n parentheses, below the f o u r t o t a l s i n d i c a t e the c o r r e c t e d t o t a l s a f t e r Simon F r a s e r U n i v e r s i t y was; excluded from the survey,  1  the reasons f o r which a r e explained below* TABLE  1  SAMPLING DISTRIBUTION BY UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT Department';  Population Total  Department Sample. Size  Predicted Sample. Size;  Actual Sample Size:  77 22 22 IT lh  6 16 20 13 15  h 18 9 13 11  82  70  55  13 6 9 3  9 3 11 2'  71  31  25  19  9  9  9  0  9  9  0  1  University 'of Alberta1  Anthropology Sociology Psychology P o l i t i c a l Science Educ. Admin.. Non-Sampled \ Population Total  7 22: 22: 17 l*f kh 126  7  University of Calgary AnthropologySociology E d u c Admin* Educ • Psychology Educ. S o c i o l o g y Non-Sampled Population Total.  13 6 9 , 3 /  7 h 5 3  M-0  Simon F r a s e r University AnthropologySociology Non-Sampled Population Total  33  29 TABLE  - 1 (CONTINUED)  SAMPLING DISTRIBUTION BY UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT* Population Total  Department  Department: P r e d i c t e d Sample: SampleSize; Size-.  Actual Sample Size  U n i v e r s i t y of-. B r i t i s h Columbia Anthropology Sociology Psychology P o l i t i c a l Science Educ. Admin. Non-Sampled Population Total  7 12 20  6  7 12 20  lU, if  3 6 16  • 10 20 12  l*f if  .8  3  if  50  107  57  .52  36  7 8  7 8  7  if  T'  7  University of Victoria 1  AnthropologySociology Psychology P o l i t i c a l Science Economics? Non-Sampled Fopulation 5  TotalF i n a l totals:.  6  6  6  if  7 3  28  23  19  207 (198)  179 (1790  (129)  6  5  8  36" 382  (3W  129  I t should be noted t h a t the a c t u a l department s i z e d i f f e r e d from t h a t p r e d i c t e d  (see Table 1)".  T h i s i s evident  because o f the absenses of c e r t a i n p r o f e s s o r s o f f i c e s during  from t h e i r  the p e r i o d o f time when d a t a was being gathered  a t the u n i v e r s i t y concerned. f l e c t i o n o f the f o u r r e f u s a l s .  The d i s c r e p a n c y i s a l s o a r e These r e f u s a l s account f o r 2%  30 of  the sample red-action, w h i l e the absenses account f o r 33$  of  the a t t r i t i o n .  W i t h i n t h i s 33$, 12$ i s accountable to  p r o f e s s o r s who had moved away t o teach'summer s e s s i o n , who had changed p o s i t i o n s permanently, The f o u r r e f u s a l s  o r who were on h o l i d a y s .  (accounting f o r 2$ o f the a t t r i t i o n )  -  gave  most p l a u s i b l e reasons f o r r e f u s a l which, i n the author's, view, were not connected w i t h p r o d u c t i v i t y .  This leaves  21$ o f the sample r e p r e s e n t i n g s u b j e c t s u n a v a i l a b l e f o r interview.  Although i t i s c o r r e c t t h a t t h e r e were some i n -  stances o f poor h e a l t h which prevented some i n d i v i d u a l s maintaining the u s u a l o f f i c e hours, i t i s a l s o c o r r e c t  from that  some s u b j e c t s maintained o t h e r o f f i c e s o r worked a t home p a r t l y to a v o i d i n t e r r u p t i o n s  (such as p r o d u c t i v i t y s u r v e y s ) .  I t would seem p l a u s i b l e t h a t w h i l e some were away from the o f f i c e on n o t - s o - p r o d u c t i v e p u r s u i t s , i t was e v i d e n t t h a t others were away a t conferences o r were p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n f i e l d research.  The p o i n t to be made i s t h i s : :  w h i l e the 21$ o f  unaccountable non-returns i s a h i g h percentage, i t would seem d i f f i c u l t to develop a r a t i o n a l e t h a t would suggest t h a t o t h e r than random b i a s i n f l u e n c e s the r e s u l t s a c t u a l l y For  collected.  each r a t i o n a l e developed t h a t would i n t r o d u c e b i a s , t h e r e  appears to be a counter r a t i o n a l e which would tend to reduce t h i s bias to an a c c e p t a b l e l e v e l * .  SURVEY PROCEDURE A l l d a t a - g a t h e r i n g f o r t h i s aspect o f the survey took p l a c e between May 23 and June 28, 1968.  Time spent a t the  v a r i o u s u n i v e r s i t i e s was:  s i x days a t the U n i v e r s i t y o f  A l b e r t a , broken i n t o two sets o f three days each w i t h an i n t e r v a l o f two weeks, three days a t the U n i v e r s i t y of C a l gary, broken i n t o two sets of one day and then two days, separated by two weeks, about t e n days a t the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, d i v i d e d i n t o two sets o f f i v e days .each, separated by two weeks, and two days a t the U n i v e r s i t y o f " V i c t o r i a , separated by a month's i n t e r v a l . As i s e a s i l y understood, the t o p i c o f e d u c a t i o n a l p r o d u c t i v i t y i s one which might be termed As a r e s u l t , i t was  'confidential'.  thought b e s t to secure the? p e r m i s s i o n off  the department heads i n q u e s t i o n p r i o r to commencing views: w i t h any department members.  inter-  The method of, g a i n i n g  access to the v a r i o u s departments was: simply a telephone c a l l from Dr., I*.W. Downey, chairman of the Centre f o r the Study o f A d m i n i s t r a t i o n i n E d u c a t i o n , F a c u l t y o f E d u c a t i o n , the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia; (the author s; department head) r  to the department head whose department was; next to be i n t e r viewed.  A few heads of departments?were contacted  by the a u t h o r .  directly  The purpose o f the department head c o n s u l t a -  t i o n v/as to i n f o r m these gentlemen o f the purpose and procedure o f the survey and to r e a s s u r e them t h a t i t was  con-  f i d e n t i a l and t h a t i t would have no. r e f l e c t i o n on e i t h e r departments o r i n d i v i d u a l s . Department head r e a c t i o n s were extremely v a r i e d .  They  ranged from s l i g h t apprehension to the statement t h a t the study was  a waste o f time to the remark t h a t the department  32 "had  j u s t ' p a r t i c i p a t e d i n a-'similar study.  was  granted  i n a l l cases and  However, entree-  many of these gentlemen, e i t h e r  through p e r s o n a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n of e d u c a t i o n a l p r o d u c t i v i t y • or simply by occupying  the p o s i t i o n of department head, had  g i v e n c o n s i d e r a b l e thought to the problem. e x c e l l e n t suggestions  Some o f f e r e d  r e g a r d i n g the present study and  p o s s i b l e v a r i a t i o n s of i t .  other  The author i s of the o p i n i o n t h a t  this, b r i e f c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h each department head served e s t a b l i s h considerable rapport.  I t also resulted i n d i r e c t  a i d such as the answers to questions lists  to  regarding  the department,  of department members, and o c e a s s i o n a l l y c i r c u l a r s which  i n d i c a t e d the impending i n t e r v i e w w i t h i t s o f f i c i a l  sanction.  Regarding Simon F r a s e r U n i v e r s i t y ' s e x c l u s i o n from the study, when the head of the P o l i t i c a l S c i e n c e , S o c i o l o g y Anthropology department was  telephoned  by the author, i t  became c l e a r t h a t because t h i s department had had partment heads i n c l o s e s u c c e s s i o n , and  and  three  because the  survey depended on a c e r t a i n degree of c o n t i n u i t y o f mental l e a d e r s h i p over time, t h a t this-department  was  de-  present departnot  s u i t a b l e f o r i n v e s t i g a t i o n by t h i s study.  As; a r e s u l t ,  department was  s i n c e this'was the  d e l e t e d from the sample and  this  o n l y department r e p r e s e n t i n g Simon F r a s e r U n i v e r s i t y , the u n i v e r s i t y was  d e l e t e d from the p o p u l a t i o n ofC the study.  might be mentioned i n passing  t h a t the f o u r remaining  uni-  v e r s i t i e s are more homogeneous i n many r e s p e c t s than the deleted.  It  one  33 INTERVIEW PROCEDURE The  i n d i v i d u a l department members were then approached*-  d u r i n g normal working hours and when they were alone ( i n s o f a r as was  possible).  I n t r o d u c t i o n s were made i n t h i s  way:  "Excuse me, Dr. Andrews? I'm Dan Brown from the Department pf E d u c a t i o n a l A d m i n i s t r a t i o n a t the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia and we're i n t e r e s t e d i n some of the l e a d e r s h i p v a r i a b l e s and work r e l a t i o n v a r i a b l e s t h a t we b e l i e v e might a f f e c t an i n d i v i d u a l "s< p r o d u c t i v i t y i n a s o c i a l s c i e n c e department such as t h i s one. I was wondering i f i t were understood t h a t any i n f o r m a t i o n I might g a i n would be completely c o n f i d e n t i a l , would you be k i n d enough to g i v e me a ten-minute i n t e r v i e w on t h i s , a t your convenience?"' Department members reacted to the request f o r an i n t e r v i e w i n a number of d i f f e r e n t ways.  Most interviewees  e l e c t e d to  commence the i n t e r v i e w a t the time of i n i t i a l i n q u i r y , b u t some decided  to postpone i t f o r a few hours or a day.  The  ten-minute time demand, which u s u a l l y l a s t e d f o r f i f t e e n minutes and  on o c c a s i o n continued  f o r f o r t y - f i v e , d i d not  appear to be onorous i n any o f the cases.questions  regarding d e t a i l s o f the study,  purpose and expressed  f o r whom the author was  two  a  such as the  working.  a few  challenged  One  study's.  nature  checked this, p o i n t d u r i n g the i n t e r v i e w ,  the author's. c e r t i f i c a t i o n to conduct such  an i n t e r v i e w (they vrere both s a t i s f i e d ) . encountered.  few  A l t h o u g h most  l i t t l e or no concern about the c o n f i d e n t i a l  of the survey, and  Many had  A few r e f u s a l s were  d i d not wish to d i v u l g e departmental  secrecy.  Another was.not i n t e r e s t e d i n t h i s kind of research t o p i c . Two  others r e f u s e d o u t r i g h t , saying t h a t they disagreed  very  much w i t h the methods: employed i n survey r e s e a r c h g e n e r a l l y .  3^  Most i n t e r v i e w e e s were g i v e n to commenting on the studybut the g e n e r a l tone o f the. response  c o u l d never be p r e d i c t e d  (by the author) on the basis, o f any obvious  criterion*  S o c i o l o g i s t s were sometimes most c r i t i c a l w h i l e p s y c h o l o g i s t s were, a t times, most e n t h u s i a s t i c Those who had methodol o g i c a l i n t e r e s t s tended employed. agreed  to be c r i t i c a l o f the instruments:  Whenever c r i t i c i s m was encountered,  to i t f o r the sake o f t r a n q u i l l i t y .  the author  Most remarks, o f  a c r i t i c a l kind were q u i t e w e l l j u s t i f i e d , i n the author's; view* The  i n t e r v i e w progressed from questions on t h e man and  h i s a c t i v i t i e s ; to a b r i e f , t h i r t y - t h r e e i t e m q u e s t i o n n a i r e r e g a r d i n g the department head behavior and c o l l e a g u e a l r e l a t i o n s w i t h i n the. department.  The c l a r i f i c a t i o n o f the occas-  s i o n a l i t e m was r e q u i r e d , both on the agreement index and on the i n t e r v i e w schedule i t s e l f  (b6th d e s c r i b e d i n d e t a i l  below).  THE AGREEMENT INDEX The instrument u t i l i z e d as a measure o f eleven o f the p r e d i c t o r s i n t h i s study i s a v a r i a t i o n on those devised by Andrew H a l p i n (1966), t i o n Questionnaire  c a l l e d the Leadership Behavior  Descrip-  (which measures i n i t i a t i n g s t r u c t u r e and  c o n s i d e r a t i o n I I ) and the O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Climate D e s c r i p t i o n Questionnaire  (which measures disengagement, hindrance,  esprit,  i n t i m a c y , a l o o f n e s s , p r o d u c t i o n emphasis, t h r u s t , and c o n s i d eration I ) .  The Leadership-Behavior  D e s c r i p t i o n Questionnaire  ( h e r e a f t e r termed LBDQ) was c o n s t r u c t e d by a d m i n i s t e r i n g a  number o f sample items which d e s c r i b e d l e a d e r behavior to three hundred United S t a t e s A i r Force crew members who then rated-'their commanders on the i t e m s .  Af f a c t o r a n a l y s i s was  a p p l i e d to the items and two e m p i r i c a l l y d e f i n e d c l u s t e r s emergedr  i n i t i a t i n g s t r u c t u r e and c o n s i d e r a t i o n , which t o -  gether accounted  f o r 8hfo o f the common v a r i a n c e .  The: pub-  l i s h e d form o f the LBDQ which has: f i f t e e n items f o r each dimension, has an estimated r e l i a b i l i t y o f 0.93 f o r i n i t i a t i n g s t r u c t u r e and 0.86 f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n * The' O r g a n i z a t i o n a l C l i m a t e D e s c r i p t i o n Questionnaire? ( h e r e a f t e r termed the O.CDQ;) had s i m i l a r origins... about 1000 items which were statements  A bank o f  about l e a d e r and group  behavior- (with s p e c i f i c r e f e r e n c e t o p r i n c i p a l behavior and p r i n c i p a l ^ t e a c h e r r e l a t i o n s - i n p u b l i c schools) was reduced t o a total of eighty. 1,151  These e i g h t y items were administered to  teachers 1 i n seventy-one  responses scale.well..  elementary schools w i t h the  being r e g i s t e r e d on a- f o r c e d - c h o i c e L i k e r t  frequency  F a c t o r a n a l y s i s was a p p l i e d t o t h i s instrument as The-number o f items was reduced  t o s i x t y - f o u r and e i g h t  e m p i r i c a l l y d e f i n e d c l u s t e r s : emerged, f o u r r e l a t i n g to teacher group behavior (the f i r s t f o u r mentioned above) and f o u r r e l a t i n g p r i n c i p a l behavior (the second f o u r mentioned  above).  The development o f both the above instruments i s d e s c r i b e d i n c o n s i d e r a b l e d e t a i l by H a l p i n (1966).. During the e a r l i e r stages o f t h i s present study i t was intended t o apply the H a l p i n instruments d i r e c t l y t o respondents i n u n i v e r s i t y departments..  However i t was noted that-  some o f the items were simply n o t a p p l i c a b l e to the u n i v e r s i t y scene.  Some o f the LBDQ items were  n o t considered  applic-  a b l e because o f the s p e c i a l s u p e r i o r - s u b o r d i n a t e r e l a t i o n s h i p which e x i s t s i n a u n i v e r s i t y department (as opposed to t h a t in  the United States A i r F o r c e ) .  Many o f the OCDQ items  were d i r e c t e d s p e c i f i c a l l y to the r o l e r e l a t i o n s h i p s which e x i s t i n the p u b l i c schools:.; As a. r e s u l t , two new instruments x^ere d e v i s e d .  The H a l p i n instruments were changed by the  d e l e t i o n o f some items, the a d d i t i o n o f o t h e r s , and the a l t e r ation of s t i l l others.  I n most cases, the changes were t h e  s u b s t i t u t i o n o f "department h e a d  u:  f o r "he" o r " p r i n c i p a l " "  and  the s u b s t i t u t i o n o f "department members" o r "members."'  for  " t e a c h e r s " o r " s t a f f members" ., 7  I n a l l cases, the attempt  was- made to keep the s u b s t a n t i v e aspect o f each  dimension  i n t a c t so t h a t the r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y o f the o r i g i n a l instruments  might s t i l l  r e t a i n some meaning.  The o r i g i n a l instruments  s u f f e r e d two other changes i n  t h i s study besides the a l t e r a t i o n o f the items..  First, i t  was decided by the author t h a t the frequency s c a l e used by H a l p i n was inadequate when one c o n s i d e r s the problem o f i n tensity.  I n o t h e r words-, i n response  "Father shouts a t me.,", the respondent  t o a statement  such as,  who uses a frequency  s c a l e may r e g i s t e r "seldom"', w h i l e i n f a c t , f a t h e r may s e l dom shout but when he does, the e n t i r e c i t y knows i t . However, a respondent  on an i n t e n s i t y s c a l e would  "very l o u d " y e t f a t h e r seldom shouts..  register  F o r the above reason,  an agreement s c a l e was. used i n the present study.  T h i s is.  37 s t i l l a L i k e r t s c a l e and the respondents: were asked to answer by i n d i c a t i n g whether they s t r o n g l y d i s a g r e e , d i s a g r e e , a r e u n c e r t a i n (or n e i t h e r d i s a g r e e nor agree!, agree, o r s t r o n g l y T h i s s c a l e , r e g i s t e r e d on the i n t e g e r s 1 2 3 ^ 5>  agree.  allows f o r frequency and i n t e n s i t y to be p r e s e n t i n a s i n g l e response. the two.  U n f o r t u n a t e l y , i t a l s o demands the compromise o f One other aspect o f this, s c a l e , as opposed t o  H a l p i n s s c a l e embodying f o u r c h o i c e s , is: t h a t i t allows, an 1  i n d i v i d u a l to make a n e u t r a l commitment.  T h i s approach is;  l e s s p r o f i t a b l e i n s o f a r as i n d i v i d u a l items a r e concerned, but i n terms o f t h e g e n e r a l responses; and the c o o p e r a t i o n o f the i n d i v i d u a l who i s w i l l i n g to spend  the time f i l l i n g  index p u r e l y as. a f a v o u r to the i n t e r v i e w e r , i t i s f e l t the instrument may b e . l e s s bothersome to complete  i n an that  as a r e s u l t *  The second change to be noted r e g a r d i n g the instruments i s t h a t they were a p p l i e d to a p o p u l a t i o n d i f f e r e n t i n many ways from t h a t on which they were developed.  I n defense o f  such an a p p l i c a t i o n , i t may be s a i d that the LBDQ, i s o f g e n e r a l a p p l i c a b i l i t y , w h i l e the OCDQ was developed from the responses o f educators, and s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s ; may c e r t a i n l y be termed  '"educators".  However, i t is: noted t h a t t h e r e e x i s t  many common sense d i f f e r e n c e s between the s o c i a l  scientists  i n B r i t i s h Columbia-and A l b e r t a u n i v e r s i t i e s i n 1968 and the American  elementary teachers i n 19&3.  as a warning  ^he above f a c t s e r v e s  that r e s u l t s from an u n t e s t e d instrument should-  be t r e a t e d w i t h due c i r c u m s p e c t i o n .  One  f i n a l p o i n t of note i s that one o t h e r dimension  added to the t e n o r i g i n a l c l u s t e r s . "'stimulation", was  T h i s dimension,  was-:  called  envisaged as one of s p e c i a l importance  on  the u n i v e r s i t y scene and i s i n c l u d e d i n the instrument on r a t i o n a l grounds only.. By t h i s i t i s meant t h a t the c r i t e r i o n f o r i n c l u s i o n o f each i t e m i n t h i s c l u s t e r i s t h a t o f l i k e c o n t e n t w i t h the o t h e r s and a d e f e n s i b l e l i n k w i t h the theo-  i r e t i c a l d e f i n i t i o n of "stimulation". The author i s r e s p o n s i b l e o n l y f o r the s c a l e used i n the above i n s t r u m e n t s .  The a l t e r a t i o n and content o f the i n s t r u -  ments i s the work o f o t h e r s , as i n d i c a t e d i n the "acknowledgements" One  section.  f a m i l i a r o b s e r v a t i o n about u n i v e r s i t y p r o f e s s o r s i s  t h a t they tend to have l i t t l e  time.  F o r t h i s reason i t was:  decided to c u r t a i l the above instruments so t h a t they might be answered, along w i t h s e v e r a l i n t e r v i e w q u e s t i o n s , w i t h i n t e n or f i f t e e n minutes.  I t was  found t h a t i f t h r e e items were  s e l e c t e d from each s u b t e s t , then the t h i r t y - t h r e e chosen c o u l d be answered w i t h i n a reasonable time.  items  As a r e s u l t , the  t h r e e items t h a t were chosen were those t h r e e deemed to be q u i t e s i m i l a r i n content w i t h the remainder and those which seemed the most s u i t a b l e as o p e r a t i o n a l d e f i n e r s of the concept being measured.  Again, these items were chosen  on  r a t i o n a l grounds a l o n e . A' copy o f the agreement index has been i n c l u d e d i n the appendix*  ' 39 INTERVIEW All  SCHEDULE i n f o r m a t i o n gathered  d u r i n g the survey t h a t was not  determined by the agreement index i s contained view schedule. two s e c t i o n s :  i n the i n t e r -  T h i s i n f o r m a t i o n may be s u b c a t e g o r i z e d  into  t h a t concerned w i t h the c o v a r i a t e s o f pro-  d u c t i v i t y mentioned above, such as g r a n t s , p e r s o n a l o r i e n t a t i o n , and degree, and t h a t Which i s used t o form ah opera t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n o f p r o d u c t i v i t y i t s e l f , such as books p u b l i s h e d , conferences  attended,  and d i s s e r t a t i o n s d i r e c t e d .  P r o d u c t i v i t y i s d e f i n e d i n t h i s study as the weighted sum o f a number o f separate f a c t o r s . of  Although  the weighting  each f a c t o r was determined by those i n the p o p u l a t i o n o f :  s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s , the f a c t o r s themselves, were i n i t i a l l y e s t a b l i s h e d by the author  i n c o l l a b o r a t i o n w i t h the members;  of  the Centre, f o r the Study o f A d m i n i s t r a t i o n i n E d u c a t i o n  at  the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia*  1  I t would seem  a p p r o p r i a t e here to d i s c u s s the reasons- f o r i n c l u s i o n o f each p a r t o f the g l o b a l concept The  of p r o d u c t i v i t y .  o p e r a t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n of p r o d u c t i v i t y includes  twenty-one separate v a r i a b l e s .  The three questions  regarding  books p u b l i s h e d , monographs p u b l i s h e d , and a r t i c l e s : published" d u r i n g the time p e r i o d was: i n c l u d e d because- i t i s understood' t h a t p u b l i c a t i o n i s p a r t o f the normal r o l e expectations f o r social s c i e n t i s t s i n this population.  The same argument  a p p l i e s to work i n press o r work i n p r o g r e s s . to The  A l l are s u b j e c t  the i n f l u e n c e s o f l e a d e r s h i p and work r e l a t i o n v a r i a b l e s . three questions  r e l a t i n g to help w i t h student theses and  d i s s e r t a t i o n s account f o r another p r o f e s s o r i a l r o l e expectation.-  A f u r t h e r seven f a c t o r s r e l a t e to some of the d i v e r s e  a c t i v i t i e s which may scientists.  be undertaken by u n i v e r s i t y  Reviewing  social  manuscripts f o r a p u b l i s h i n g  firm  p r o v i d e s ' a s e r v i c e and i s a l s o a measure o f p r o f e s s i o n a l recognition.  Presence on the e d i t o r i a l board of a j o u r n a l  indicates* both s e r v i c e and r e c o g n i t i o n as. well...  Being a  guest l e c t u r e r a t conferences and doing c o n s u l t i n g work r e f l e c t r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s o u t s i d e the u n i v e r s i t y .  An  o f f i c e r s h i p or d i r e c t o r s h i p i n a p r o f e s s i o n a l a s s o c i a t i o n i s . a n o t h e r measure of both r e c o g n i t i o n and s e r v i c e .  Partici-  p a t i o n a t l e a r n e d s o c i e t i e s and attendance a t conf erences> are measures o f s e r v i c e w i t h i n the e d u c a t i o n a l sphere i n terms of the t r a n s m i s s i o n o f knowledge among contemporaries* t h e r e are t e a c h i n g time and meeting service.,  Finally  time, both measures o f  The former i s a ' r e f l e c t i o n o f s e r v i c e to students;  and the l a t t e r is: an i n d i c a t o r o f s e r v i c e to the. department, f a c u l t y , or u n i v e r s i t y . A., copy o f the i n t e r v i e w schedule has. been i n c l u d e d i n the  appendix*  THE  MINISURVEY The instruments used i n the above survey were intended'  to gather d a t a , which, when combined, would render a s i n g l e score f o r the e d u c a t i o n a l p r o d u c t i v i t y f o r any g i v e n respondent*  However, i t became obvious t h a t these d a t a may  bined i n any number of ways.  be com-  I t was. apparent t h a t weights  hi had  to be assigned to each f a c e t of p r o d u c t i v i t y . These,  weightings  could be assigned a r b i t r a r i l y by the author, or by  the author  i n c o n s u l t a t i o n w i t h h i s t h e s i s committee members,  or by a panel subjects, who  ( p a r t of the p o p u l a t i o n s t u d i e d ) or by the were sampled.  be weighted, i t was; decided  As. there were twenty-six to a p p l y the weightings  r  items  to  of a  panel of judges to the p r o d u c t i v i t y measure so t h a t a f i n a l score o f p r o d u c t i v i t y might be c a l c u l a t e d . The s t a t i s t i c a l p o p u l a t i o n of t h i s minisurvey  consists .  of those s u b j e c t s i n the departments of Economics and c a t i o n a l Psychology The  a t the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h  Edu-  Columbia.  conceptual p o p u l a t i o n , however, c o n s i s t s o f those;  i n d i v i d u a l s who. are not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from the ones; i n the two  departments, above.  A. random sample of f i f t e e n  was  s e l e c t e d u s i n g the same procedure as above, namely, by a s s i g n ment of a t w o - d i g i t number to each s u b j e c t and sample through the use of a p i n and  the  t a b l e of random numbers.  As- no c o n f i d e n t i a l i n f o r m a t i o n was department heads were c o n s u l t e d and  chosing  to be gained,  no  s u b j e c t s were approached  d i r e c t l y , d u r i n g normal working hours and when alone whenever possible.  The author  pose i n c a l l i n g , and minutes i n f i l l i n g  i n t r o d u c e d h i m s e l f , explained h i s purrequested  the s u b j e c t spend about t e n  i n what he would c o n s i d e r to be j u s t weights-,  on a q u a n t i t a t i v e p r o d u c t i v i t y i n s t r u m e n t . r e g i s t e r e d i n the minisurvey  as w e l l .  Two  r e f u s a l s : were  Both d i s a g r e e d  enough  w i t h such a q u a n t i t a t i v e approach to e d u c a t i o n a l p r o d u c t i v i t y t h a t they d i d not wish to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the c o n s t r u c t i o n of  k2 a q u a n t i t a t i v e instrument.  Replacements  were made f o r those  who were not a v a i l a b l e and f o r those who r e f u s e d .  As two  were n o t a v a i l a b l e , the replacement percentage i s 26% and this; i s not c o n s i d e r e d to bias the r e s u l t s unduly.  The r e f u s a l s  c o n t r i b u t e t o 13$ o f the replacement but as no obvious r a t i o n ale  i s e v i d e n t as to why the responses o f the r e f u s e r s should  be s u b s t a n t i a l l y d i f f e r e n t from those who c o n s i d e r e d thems e l v e s p r o d u c t i v e i n o t h e r than q u a n t i t a t i v e ways, t h i s re«* placement  figure i s disregarded.  A copy o f the p r o d u c t i v i t y index has. been included, i n the  appendix..  A METHODOLOGICAL NOTE: P r i o r to the a n a l y s i s o f the f i n d i n g s o f t h i s study, some-', a t t e n t i o n should be g i v e n t o the soundness on which the conclusions: a r e based.  o f the procedures  This s e c t i o n i s devoted  to a ' d i s c u s s i o n o f some o f the m e t h o d o l o g i c a l d i f f i c u l t i e s ; which were encountered by t h i s survey* As-: modern u n i v e r s i t i e s a r e c h a r a c t e r i z e d by f r e q u e n t s h i f t s ' o f p e r s o n n e l , i t might be expected t h a t the averager time span f o r departments department  to have some i n f l u e n c e on t h e i r  members might be rather, s h o r t .  g e o g r a p h i c a l l y mobile and department filled  P r o f e s s o r s are  headships a r e f r e q u e n t l y  o n l y to be vacated s h o r t l y thereafter..  Because of t h i s  problem, the u n d e r l y i n g assumption o f c o n t i n u i t y which  pervades  t h i s ; study i s . o n l y p a r t l y f u l f i l l e d * Another problem r e g a r d i n g the a p p l i c a t i o n o f a theory o f  small to a u n i v e r s i t y department i s : fulfill  the size-requirement  lined earlier?  does: a l a r g e department  i m p l i c i t i n the assumptions out-  Are not sub-groups d i s c e r n a b l e  ment of eighteen  members?.  i n a depart-  Is i t not p o s s i b l e t h a t the l e a d e r  behavior toward c e r t a i n sub-groups may be d i f f e r e n t from the' l e a d e r behavior toward o t h e r s ? group- f o r m a t i o n ,  Whatever the b a s i s f o r the sub-  i s i t not l i k e l y t h a t the work r e l a t i o n s w i l l  v a r y between sub-groups? The  s t a t u s o f the p r o d u c t i v i t y concept as a dependent  v a r i a b l e i s a l s o seen as a ' d i f f i c u l t y .  T h i s study attempts  to account f o r the p r e d i c t i o n o f a l i s t o f p r e d i c t o r s and c o v a r i a t e s r o f p r o d u c t i v i t y as a dependent v a r i a b l e . not d i f f i c u l t t o a p p r e c i a t e  It is  the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t p r o d u c t i v i t y  many, i n t u r n , i n f l u e n c e some o f the independent v a r i a b l e s o f t h i s survey.  Any c a u s a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s Which are imputed t o  the r e s u l t s may i n f a c t be: r e c i p r o c a l . . Regarding the instruments used i n t h i s survey, i t i s noted t h a t n e i t h e r has been p r e t e s t e d a b i l i t y or v a l i d i t y .  as a check f o r r e l i -  T h e i r v a l i d i t y r e s t s on i n t u i t i v e a p -  peal, w i t h some r e f e r e n c e  to an e m p i r i c a l f o u n d a t i o n  i n the  case o f the adapted LBDQ..and OCDQ.. One i n t e r e s t i n g c r i t i c i s m encountered d u r i n g  the i n t e r v i e w i n g was t h a t the p r o d u c t i v i t y  instrument, because o f i t s q u a n t i t a t i v e approach, d e f i n e s a- "busy" man r a t h e r than a " p r o d u c t i v e "  man.  I n s o f a r as these  men a r e the same, t h a t i s , i n s o f a r as p r o d u c t i v e and  v i c e v e r s a , the instrument has some v a l i d i t y .  when the p r o f e s s o r who p u b l i s h e s  productively  men a r e busy However,  ( i n the  e s t i m a t i o n o f h i s colleagues)., but o n l y p u b l i s h e s  rarely is  r a t e d by such an instrument, he tends, to be scored producer.,  The  low  same c r i t i c i s m a p p l i e s to the s u b j e c t who  known as an e x c e l l e n t teacher,  is  a key c o n t r i b u t o r to d e p a r t -  mental a f f a i r s , or i n v e s t s h i s time as a p o l i t i c a l An  as.a  activist.  e f f o r t to overcome t h i s s e r i o u s problem was- made by  the author d u r i n g strument.  the f o r m u l a t i o n  of. the p r o d u c t i v i t y i n -  However, i t became evident  t h a t the i n t r o d u c t i o n  of q u a l i t a t i v e aspects to the measure was' beset w i t h more d i f f i c u l t i e s than the s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d which was  used.  A suggestion was  q u a n t i t a t i v e measure-  made to g i v e each p u b l i c a -  t i o n mentioned by the respondents a r a t i n g on the b a s i s of i t s publisher. houses and  I t i s . w e l l known t h a t c e r t a i n p u b l i s h i n g  j o u r n a l s are r a t e d h i g h l y by c e r t a i n d i s c i p l i n e s ,  w h i l e other outlets, are considered  s.ecohd c l a s s or unknown.  Although panels could have been e s t a b l i s h e d i n each d i s c i p l i n e to judge each o u t l e t , this:, would not be a d e f e n s i b l e i n d i c a t o r as to the q u a l i t y o f a book or a r t i c l e . ,  Fbrr  example, a j o u r n a l i n b i o l o g y which is-unknown to anthrop o l o g i s t s may  accept a h i g h q u a l i t y a r t i c l e from an anthro-  p o l o g i s t because, o f the a r t i c l e ' s relevance biology.  Another approach t h a t was  to a t o p i c i n  considered  was  the  assessment of department members by each other on an o v e r a l l productivity rating.  T h i s technique, w h i l e i t has  v a l i d i t y , l a c k the c o m p a r a b i l i t y study i n v o l v i n g a c o n s i d e r a b l e The  obvious  required f o r a large-scale  number, of v a r i a b l e s .  major disadvantage of t h i s r e s e a r c h appears ' to be:  t h a t ' i t was  c a r r i e d out  " i n situ".,  The  f a c t ' t h a t the  i g a t i o n was. conducted i n a " T e a l l i f e "  environment  g r e a t l y to the problem o f c o n t r o l of v a r i a b l e s . desired  invest-  contributes  I t i s never  to c o n t r o l a l l p o s s i b l e v a r i a b l e s , but o n l y f o r those  f a c t o r s f o r which a r a t i o n a l e may  be developed which would  i n d i c a t e : t h a t those c e r t a i n f a c t o r s have an i n f l u e n c e on dependent v a r i a b l e . . error biasv influences  Control  i s then focused on the  I t i s understood t h a t e r r o r due  systematic  to random  on p r o d u c t i v i t y i s not o f major concern because  these i n f l u e n c e s  are indeed random and  not s y s t e m a t i c . How-  ever, w i t h a l i m i t e d number of" independent v a r i a b l e s i n t o account, any  f a c t o r s which are not c o n t r o l l e d  confounded w i t h those which have been measured. some of the n o n - c o n t r o l l e d  v a r i a b l e s which are  w i t h the independent v a r i a b l e s and  Here are confounded  the i n f l u e n c e o f which  i n s i t u study to a d e s c r i p t i v e  speculative  h i r i n g p r a c t i c e s , e f f e c t s outside  level:  time span s p e c i f i e d , s t i m u l a t i o n from o u t s i d e the presence of i n f o r m a l  leadership,  and  o l o g i c a l , administrative, and  other influences  and  operating  of  the  the department,  the s p e c i a l s t a t u s of  a c t i n g head as compared to a f u l l head of department, personal orientations  taken  are  tends to reduce any  various  the  an  and  such as t h e o r e t i c a l , methodnon-behavioral.  With these  on the dependent v a r i a b l e , i t '  i s d i f f i c u l t to say whether the v a r i a t i o n i n p r o d u c t i v i t y i s due  to the f a c t o r suggested by the s t a t i s t i c s or i s a c t u a l l y ,  due  to another source of v a r i a t i o n . One  f u r t h e r warning i s a p p r o p r i a t e .  The  t o p i c under  i n v e s t i g a t i o n does not a l l o w any k i n d o f approach an ex post f a c t o a t t a c k on the problem.  other than  As' there i s no  m a n i p u l a t i o n o f v a r i a b l e s i n v o l v e d (but merely an attempt to  measure them), the r e s u l t s must be viewed w i t h some c i r -  cumspection  for, t h i s reason as w e l l ,  PREPARATION OF THE DATA. FOR REGRESSION ' First  the data gathered i n the agreement index and the  i n t e r v i e w d a t a were combined and transformed i n t o v a r i a b l e s s u i t a b l e f o r use i n r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s . commentary on how these adjustments As the reader may r e c a l l ,  The f o l l o w i n g i s a  were made.  the data gathered i n the agre  ment index represented eleven v a r i a b l e s each having three items each to which the respondent gave an answer on a f i v e p o i n t o r d i n a l s c a l e which extended to strong- agreement..  from s t r o n g  disagreement  I n o r d e r to make the d a t a ' s u i t a b l e f o r  r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s , l e t us f i r s t c o n s i d e r the case where the r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d that the response d i s t r i b u t i o n to a l l the items, o f a" p a r t i c u l a r v a r i a b l e were normal w i t h a mean of 3 m. v  tl  As the normal, curve i s symmetrical, i t may be  a s s e r t e d t h a t w i t h these p a r t i c u l a r items', f (2) f(hY  and f (CL) must equal f ( 5 ) . -  Again, because the normal  curve i s symmetrical, the random, independent d i s t a n c e from x2Xu to  , :  3  , !  r  to " 5 . 1 1  variable  equals the d i s t a n c e from ' 3  and the d i s t a n c e from " 1 " to " 3 "3  must equal  r  r  to tht  equals the d i s t a n c e from  But, i t is. s t r e s s e d , nothing may be mentioned  1  about the d i s t a n c e between " l - and '2:" as compared to t h a t 1  between 2. v  a normal  and  n  3".  ,  The above argument i s v a l i d as l o n g as:  (or more important, monotonic e i t h e r s i d e of t h e  mean and symmetrical about t h e mean)- d i s t r i b u t i o n ' i n v o l v i n g an infinite-number: o f c a s e s i s , assumed.  Thus the o r d i n a l  s c a l e c o u l d be transformed i n t o an i n t e r v a l one i f responses "1" and  " 5 " w e r e removed.  However,•this  the l o s s o f c r u c i a l d a t a , a t the  would r e s u l t i n  extremes of the scales..  problem of having e i t h e r an o r d i n a l s c a l e or i n t e r v a l for  r e g r e s s i o n may  scale  be overcome by f i n d i n g the average o f the:  responses f('l) and f (2),  to r e s u l t ' i n the number f ( x ) .  number has: i t s . unique c o u n t e r p a r t on the independent a x i s , namely x. * ,!  The.  As may  f  be seen, t h i s  r  x  This  variable  would be l o c a t e d  t  near to what i s ' 2 ' and to the l e f t of i t . . The same probe a p p l i e d to f(k).  cedure may to  the r i g h t o f  fl  +v t  L e t t h i s new  because o f the.symmetric these two new  and f (5)  to render a p o i n t just:  p o i n t be named ' x  ,M  .  Again,  and" monotonic p r o p e r t y of the curve,  points: are e q u i d i s t a n t from the midpoint  Hence, the o r i g i n a l o r d i n a l s c a l e may  '3*»  be: c o l l a p s e d i n t o an  i n t e r v a l t h r e e - p o i n t s c a l e wit^i a wider range than the o r i g i n a l "2 , , !  "3",  "if* s c a l e .  A r i t h m e t i c a l l y , t h i s new  c o n s t r u c t e d by t r a n s f o r m i n g a l l " l ' s i n t o into  ,;  s c a l e may  be  2 s and a l l 'Vs l!  "+"s. The r a t i o n a l e proceeds s i m i l a r l y f o r those items which  do not render a response d i s t r i b u t i o n which i s approximately normal. , !  2  I !  In these cases, the d i s t r i b u t i o n peaks a t e i t h e r  or +". ,,5  I f the o r i g i n a l assumption o f a normal d i s t r i -  b u t i o n on a- v a r i a b l e s t i l l h o l d s , then the q u e s t i o n would  .  have rendered a normal d i s t r i b u t i o n i n the responses,-were the response categories appropriate and not biased towards one extreme.  From this i t follows that the number of r e -  sponses to one side of the mean should equal the number of responses on the other side. located at  I  '2  , !  ,  As a r e s u l t , i f the mean were  then the scale may be envisaged as a seven-  point scale, with those responses, which would have been located i n categories r  l".  and ' 0  I ;  having been registered i n  Again, i f the responses: to the l e f t of the mean (those;  i n the hypothetical categories — 1 . " and 0 r  v  and i n the r e a l  1]  category ' 1 " ) were averaged and an 'x were found to corres1  pond to t h e i r f CxX, and the same procedure is. applied to the:categories  | !  3  I ;  ,  ,!l  f , and ,!  , . then the *x* and 'x" * w i l l  define an i n t e r v a l scale of two equal lengths.  I t i s ac-  knowl edged' that'this procedure' I s an approximation'to the; trichotomization discussed above.  One further adjustment i s  necessary before the procedures, are comparable: which were empirically centred on " 2 " or h r  oh  ,  3  |  !  v  the scales  must be recentered  .  The thirty-three items i n the agreement index were adjusted according to the method described.  One f i n a l r e -  quirement was the combination of the trios- of items; into a single measure f o r each i n d i v i d u a l v a r i a b l e .  As the l e v e l s  of each item were made equal, the item scores were then added to give an o v e r a l l score f o r each v a r i a b l e .  This is;  seen as. legitimate because the items f o r any given variable would have the same variance.  The scales f o r the eleven  >9 f a c t o r s : then c o n s i s t e d o f seven p o i n t s , ranging from •12", w i t h a midpoint o f '9 '* 1  '6' to  A- consensus measure among  i n d i v i d u a l s was then c a l c u l a t e d by averaging the scores o f each f a c t o r over a group o f i n d i v i d u a l s . . The c o v a r i a t e s o f p r o d u c t i v i t y a l s o were adjusted p r i o r to t h e i r s u b j e c t i o n to r e g r e s s i o n analysis:. t h a t were understood  The measures  to apply w i t h i n the g i v e n time span had  t h e i r scores d i v i d e d by the time span i n months.  Two measures,  that'-of the number o f graduate a s s i s t a n t s who were a v a i l a b l e ; to a g i v e n p r o f e s s o r , and t h a t o f the number o f years s i n c e the respondent's  h i g h e s t degree had b'een awarded (degree  were then entered d i r e c t l y i n t o r e g r e s s i o n . namely the departmental  date)  Two o t h e r s ,  emphasis on p u b l i c a t i o n and the-  a v a i l a b i l i t y o f t r a v e l funds were adjusted i n the same manner as the H a l p i n v a r i a b l e s d e s c r i b e d above.  The item on  r e s e a r c h grants: r e c e i v e d was c o r r e c t e d f o r those who had r e p o r t e d shared g r a n t s .  When the grants were h e l d  jointly,  the t o t a l amount was e q u a l l y d i v i d e d among a l l r e c i p i e n t s ; and  t h i s amount was then combined w i t h any others r e c e i v e d  as a s o l e r e c i p i e n t by the respondent. The remaining  covariates- were f i r s t dichotomized ( o r  t r i c h o t o m i z e d ) and then entered i n t o the r e g r e s s i o n as dummy variables.  F i r s t , considering personal o r i e n t a t i o n , four  responses, were r e g i s t e r e d : ,  towards r e s e a r c h , and towards  t e a c h i n g and r e s e a r c h j o i n t l y .  As the development category  was viewed as having g r e a t e r s i m i l a r i t i e s w i t h the teaching o r i e n t a t i o n than w i t h the other c a t e g o r i e s , the two  'developers  1  were p l a c e d i n t h e t e a c h i n g c a t e g o r y .  Als t h i s v a r i a b l e was.  t r i c h o t o m i z e d , i t i n t r o d u c e d two dummy v a r i a b l e s i n t o t h e regression:  t h e f i r s t was e q u a l t o '1' i f a respondent's  o r i e n t a t i o n was t o t e a c h i n g (and '0 o t h e r w i s e ) ; t h e second I:  was e q u a l t o '1 i f t h e respondent's^ o r i e n t a t i o n was towards ,  ,!  r e s e a r c h (and "0 o t h e r w i s e ! . r  The; f i n a l c a t e g o r y , t h a t o f  a j o i n t o r i e n t a t i o n t o r e s e a r c h and t e a c h i n g , was t a k e n as the base on w h i c h t h e o t h e r results:; o f t h e two dummy v a r i a b l e s ; were, compared.  The items r e p o r t i n g d e g r e e , • r a n k , and approx-  imate age were d i c h o t o m i z e d  i n a l i k e manner.  c a t e g o r y e l i c i t e d o n l y two responses: a doctorate. that i t s  r  The degree  a masters degree o r  A: s i n g l e dummy v a r i a b l e was. i n t r o d u c e d such  v a l u e was: " l  l :  when t h e degree was a doctorate-, and  •0" when t h e degree was: n o t .  I n t h i s : way, t h e r e s u l t s : would  i n d i c a t e i f the: presence o f t h e d o c t o r a t e was: c o n c u r r e n t w i t h greater productivity.  The ranks: as r e p o r t e d , formed t h e f i v e ;  categories of lecturer, instructor, a s s i s t a n t professor, • a s s o c i a t e p r o f e s s o r , and f u l l p r o f e s s o r ((or t h e i r e q u i v a l e n t s ) . Two c a t e g o r i e s : o f ranks were formed:  j u n i o r and s e n i o r , t h e  s e n i o r being t h e a s s o c i a t e and f u l l p r o f e s s o r s , t h e j u n i o r the r e m a i n d e r .  I t s h o u l d be mentioned i n p a s s i n g , t h a t i n  the case o f p o s t d o c t o r a l r e s e a r c h f e l l o w s , t h e i r rank a t t h e i r home campuses; was: t h e r a n k r e p o r t e d . was t h e n g i v e n a v a l u e o f * l  l :  The dummy v a r i a b l e  f o r t h e s e n i o r s ; and '0' f o r  the j u n i o r s , thus u s i n g t h e j u n i o r s as a base. i t e m o f approximate age was d i c h o t o m i x e d  F i n a l l y , the  i n t o those over and  under f o r t y y e a r s , and t h e younger group was- a g a i n used as a  base.. The  r e s u l t s of the minisurvey, provided the w e i g h t i n g s  which were used to combine the d i v e r s e productivity.  The  f i n a l p r o d u c t i v i t y score was  by f i n d i n g the weighted sum published,  calculated  o f books; p u b l i s h e d ,  a r t i c l e s published,  a r t i c l e s i n press,  items r e l a t i n g to  monographs  books i n p r e s s ,  monographs andi  books i n progress-, monographs and  i n progress, doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n s d i r e c t e d ,  articles  doctoral,  committees, masters theses, d i r e c t e d , p o s i t i o n s a s manuscriptreviewer, p o s i t i o n s as o f f i c e r or d i r e c t o r of a organization,  professional  number of times a guest l e c t u r e r , number o f  e d i t o r i a l boards of j o u r n a l s , number of papers given, p a r t i c i p a t e d i n , and  meetings c h a i r e d  a t meetings o f  s o c i e t i e s , number of conferences attended, plus weighting o f teaching  and  panels learned  a special  time spent i n meetings*  EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS DISCUSSION One  of the f u n c t i o n s  of r e s e a r c h ,  expeeially  research  i n a p r o f e s s i o n a l f a c u l t y such as: education, i s to what i n f o r m a t i o n rather'than  may  discover,  be gained through p r e d i c t i o n alone  s o l e l y to t e s t t h e o r e t i c a l l y d e r i v e d  hypotheses.  In o t h e r words, i f the r e l a t i o n s h i p between two  variables i s  found i t i s not always necessary to e s t a b l i s h a  possible  explanation  to account f o r the r e l a t i o n s h i p .  that-one v a r i a b l e p r e d i c t s another may  The  discovery  have many p r a c t i c a l  p o s s i b i l i t i e s yet have no immediate t h e o r e t i c a l importance. In accordance w i t h the above argument, one  aspect of  the  a n a l y s i s of the data gathered i n t h i s survey i s devoted methods:which were not planned when the study was I t was  f e l t t h a t such e f f o r t s : would be rewarded by  to  devised., the  s p e c u l a t i o n s and possible, p r a c t i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n s to which they might g i v e r i s e . . I t i s p o s s i b l e to analyze the d a t a , not j u s t on the b a s i s of groups consenses  o f a l l members of a u n i v e r s i t y department,  but a l s o from the p e r s o n a l or p e r c e p t u a l p o i n t of view., Perhaps^ l e a d e r behavior and work r e l a t i o n s i n f l u e n c e an i n d i v i d u a l ' s p r o d u c t i v i t y more d i r e c t l y as the  individual  h i m s e l f p e r c e i v e s the l e a d e r behavior and working c l i m a t e i n a department.,  Eerhaps l e a d e r b e h a v i o r s and work r e l a t i o n s  v a r y s u f f i c i e n t l y from s u b j e c t to s u b j e c t such t h a t each man . a c t u a l l y works i n a u n i v e r s i t y department which he p e r c e i v e s q u i t e d i f f e r e n t l y from h i s c o l l e a g u e s . c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , i t was to i n d i v i d u a l responses  decided to analyze the data; a c c o r d i n g alone, w i t h no measure of group-  consensus being taken i n t o Still  Because of these-  account.  i n an e x p l o r a t o r y v e i n , i t was: d i s c o v e r e d t h a t the  t e a c h i n g and  committee meeting items i n the minisurvey r e g ^  istereu" a" l a r g e standard e r r o r of t h e i r means: when the data were being processed to l o c a t e the means.  Further investiga-  t i o n i n d i c a t e d t h a t the minisurvey respondents d i v i d e d i n t o two  sets:  those who  could be  r a t e d t e a c h i n g and  easily  committee  meeting s e r v i c e s as: being h i g h l y p r o d u c t i v e e n t e r p r i s e s , and those who  r a t e d them comparable to the other aspects of  educational productivity.  E v i d e n t l y those w i t h a t e a c h i n g  orientation  ( h e r e a f t e r mentioned as ' t e a c h e r s ' ) , have a  d i f f e r e n t concept  o f p r o d u c t i v i t y f r o m t h o s e who h a v e a  research orientation  ( h e r e a f t e r named ' a c a d e m i c s ' ) .  This  d i s t i n c t i o n d i d n o t a p p e a r t o be r e l a t e d t o a n y o b v i o u s c o n s i d e r a t i o n s u c h as f a c u l t y . i t was d e c i d e d  I n accordance  w i t h t h e above,  t o a n a l y z e t h e d a t a i n t h r e e o t h e r ways:  a c c o r d i n g t o t h e o r i e n t a t i o n s o f t e a c h e r s , academics, t e a c h e r s and a c a d e m i c s c o m b i n e d the o r i g i n a l The  (.the c o m b i n e d method  and being  plan).  d a t a were then a n a l y z e d i n s i x ways: - On a g r o u p (original - On a g r o u p - On a g r o u p  b a s i s w i t h a c a d e m i c : and t e a c h e r plan) b a s i s w i t h academic weights b a s i s w i t h teacher weights;  weights  - On a n i n d i v i d u a l b a s i s w i t h a c a d e m i c a n d t e a c h e r weights; - On a n i n d i v i d u a l b a s i s w i t h a c a d e m i c w e i g h t s - On a n i n d i v i d u a l b a s i s w i t h t e a c h e r w e i g h t s . EXPLANATION OF REGRESSION ANALYSIS: Regression analysis i s a s t a t i s t i c a l is  attempted  method w h e r e i n i t  to establish a relationship of prediction  tween a s e t o f p r e d i c t o r , o r independent  v a r i a b l e s and ( i n  the present case) a s i n g l e dependent v a r i a b l e . lationship i s illustrated example:  be-  This r e -  i n i t s most s i m p l e f o r m b y t h e  Y= a + bX, w h e r e Y( i s t h e d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e , X i s  the independent  variable or predictor, a i s the value of the  p r e d i c t i o n when X=0, and b i s t h e s l o p e o f t h e l i n e i n t h i s straight-line relationship  (the slope being the r a t i o of the  change o f t h e dependent v a r i a b l e f o r each u n i t o f change o f  the p r e d i c t o r ) .  I t should be noted, as i n any  a n a l y s i s , the Y which i s p r e d i c t e d ponding to any  the a c t u a l Y  g i v e n p r e d i c t o r v a l u e X may  However, i f i t i s e s t a b l i s h e d small  and  statistical corres-  be q u i t e d i f f e r e n t .  t h a t the s l o p e , b, has  a very  p r o b a b i l i t y of being equal to zero (as would be  the  case i f the r e l a t i o n s h i p were n o n e x i s t e n t ) then i t may s a i d t h a t a trend may  be  exists.  This, method of trend  be  determination  extended from p r e d i c t i o n equations where o n l y  one  p r e d i c t o r v a r i a b l e i s to be found to the case where s e v e r a l are  included. A multiple  regression  a n a l y s i s , one which i n d i c a t e s  p r o b a b i l i t y of the e x i s t e n c e and  the dependent v a r i a b l e  taken i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n )  of a trend  between each p r e d i c t o r  (with a l l other predictor's was  and  being  performed on the data to  determine both the combined a b i l i t y of a l l the variables  the  independent  taken together i n p r e d i c t i n g i n d i v i d u a l p r o d u c t i v i t y ,  the c o n t r i b u t i o n of each i n t u r n .  This and  analyses were c a r r i e d out through the use  the  of the  R e g r e s s i o n Package, a multi-purpose r e g r e s s i o n  following  Triangular  program  a v a i l a b l e a t the Computing Centre, U n i v e r s i t y of  British  Columbia. A stepwise r e g r e s s i o n , analysis:, one p r e d i c t o r s which are best able i n the dependent v a r i a b l e and  to account f o r the  variance  a t the same time have a h i g h  p r o b a b i l i t y of t h e i r a s s o c i a t e d a l s o performed on the d a t a .  which s e l e c t s those  t r e n d s being non-zero,  Results  from t h i s  was  analysis  i n d i c a t e which are the most economical v a r i a b l e s which might  be used f o r p r e d i c t i o n of p r o d u c t i v i t y . case of stepwise r e g r e s s i o n , out  through the use  In the p a r t i c u l a r  the a n a l y s i s was  also c a r r i e d  of the computer program U n i v e r s i t y of.  B r i t i s h Columbia-- STEP, an a d a p t a t i o n of the  original  B i o m e d i c a l Computer Programs: w r i t t e n a t the Department of:' Freventive  Medicine, U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a aU Los  A simple r e g r e s s i o n  analysis  (depicted  Angeles.  i n the above  f o r m u l a ) , which considers:: the p r e d i c t i v e a b i l i t y of each independent v a r i a b l e , i n t u r n and o t h e r p r e d i c t o r s , was technique was  without r e f e r e n c e  to  performed on the data as w e l l .  used to determine i f t h e r e were any  the This  independent  v a r i a b l e s which a l o n e might be adequate p r e d i c t o r s withouthaving to take a l l the o t h e r s i n t o account..  CHAPTER Iff DATA: ANALYSIS". RESULTS'  The p r e d i c t o r v a r i a b l e s  c a l c u l a t e d on the basis: o f  group consensus^and the p r o d u c t i v i t y v a r i a b l e  calculated  on the b a s i s • of. the teacher and academic weightings, combined were f i r s t analyzed u s i n g the m u l t i p l e  regression  The r e s u l t s , a r e summarized i n Table 2".  program.  TABLE' 2: ANALYSIS RESULTS FROM MULTIPLE REGRESSION! COEFFICIENT OF MULTIPLE DETERMINATION::  .3922:  F-PROB.: 0.0000 STANDARD ERROR OFPRODUCTIVITY r CONSTANT COEFFICIENT: 25.71 STANDARD' ERROR::26.3M1  PREDICTOR  7.60  ;  PAW. TOTAL BETA BETA;. STAND:.. F F COEFF. COEFF. ERROR RATIO 'PROS. .133  1.32:  2.2M-  0.35  0..56  .206  1.91  r.2b  Z. 22  0.1J  .057  o'M  1..6I  0.09  0.75  *" i n t i m a c y  -.313  -3.98  2.17  3.35  0.07  + aloofness  -.,61M-  -5.03  2:. 67  3.5^  0.06'  .372.  3.72  1.94- -  3.67  0.06  3.36  V.90  0.03  disengagement hindrance — es-prit  * p r o d u c t i o n emphasis * thrus t  ~.6M-3  - ~7  .MI-  57  TABLE  PREDICTOR  + consideration  I  st- s t i m u l a t i o n ar. i n i t i a t i n g  structure  consideration  II  2.  CONTINUED  PART. BETA COEFF..  TOTAL BETA" COEFF.  STAND. F ERROR RATIO  F PROB.  .267?  *+.8?  2.52-  3.7^  0.05  .210  2.32  2.28  I.03  0.31  .116  1.12  2.0>f  0.30  0.59  -0.30  1.93  0.02  0.85  2.89  0.V7  25.58  0.23  2.67  0.01  0.89  -If. 17  1.92  if.70  0.03  O.76  I..76  0.18  0.67  .089  1.83 .  2.55  0.51  0.if8  -.125  -0.001  0.001  2.05  0.15  3.33  2.32  2.05  0.15  -0.06  0.18  0.10  .0.7^  o.ki  2.0*f  0.04-  0.82  -0.91  2.10  0.18  0.67  -.029  + student a s s i s t a n t s . publication  emphasis  .008  + teaching o r i e n t a t i o n research  orientation  t r a v e l funds  =  grants degree  =  degree date;  -.03**  rank =-  ,!  +  age: ,:  0.000  i n d i c a t e s a s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t Cat t h e 0 . 1 0 l e v e l ) i n the p r e d i c t e d d i r e c t i o n indicates a non-significant direction  r e s u l t i n the p r e d i c t e d  indicates, a s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t ( a t the 0 . 1 0 l e v e l ) o p p o s i t e from the d i r e c t i o n p r e d i c t e d . The  same data were then analyzed u s i n g the two s t e p -  wise r e g r e s s i o n  computer programs.  The a l f a l e v e l f o r  acceptance and r e j e c t i o n was 0 . 1 0 , the same f o r both  58  programs.  The  r e s u l t s , w h i c h were i d e n t i c a l , a r e g i v e n h e r e . TABLE  3  ANALYSTS' RESULTS FROM STEPWISE REGRESSION COEFFICIENT OF MULTIPLE DETERMINATION:: F-EROB.:  0.0000  STANDARD ERROR OF PRODUCTIVITY"::  CONSTANT COEFFICIENT:.  32..00  STANDARD ERROR:  PREDICTOR *~ h i n d r a n c e *" i n t i m a c y  orientation  ' + ' and The  3.70  STAND.. F F ERROR RATIO PROB.  1.35  0.70  M  3.72" 12.15  2.95  0.50  3%.H>1  0.000  -H-.63  1M  10.35  0.002  .  program were' examined.  u a l p l o t i s - a p i c t u r e o f the way and  the r e s i d u a l s  each s t i m u l a t i o n measure o f 6 . 0 ,  the p r e d i c t e d  (the  BioA. r e s i d differ-  actual p r o d u c t i v i t y values) vary  a l o n g each independent v a r i a b l e i n t u r n .  f o r p r o d u c t i v i t y , and  0.001  2.  r e s i d u a l s p l o t t e d by the computer f r o m the  ence between p r e d i c t e d  0.05  1.00  as i n d i c a t e d i n T a b l e  medical stepwise regression  7.60  TOTAL BETA COEFF.  -3  + student assistants: + teaching  ..3IO6  For instance,  t h e r e i s one  predicted  the v a l u e s g r e a t e r t h a n and  value  l e s s than  v a l u e w h i c h c o r r e s p o n d to those s u b j e c t s  have a s t i m u l a t i o n measure o f 6 . 0 .  for  P l o t s : are examined  who be-  cause t h e y are c l e a r v i s u a l i n d i c a t o r s which i n f o r m the i n v e s t i g a t o r i f the assumptions: made d u r i n g the a n a l y s i s were i n f a c t w a r r a n t e d .  regression  These c a r d i n a l assumptions:  concerning  the r e g r e s s i o n e r r o r s are::: the e r r o r s are. i n d e -  pendent (randomly i n f l u e n c e d by other f a c t o r s ) ; the e r r o r s have a zero mean; the e r r o r s have a constant v a r i a n c e ; and the e r r o r s have a normal d i s t r i b u t i o n .  While the e r r o r s a r e  independent i n s o f a r as other v a r i a b l e s could be taken  into  account, i n t h i s study, and w h i l e the errors: have a zero mean because a constant term appears i n the model, the p l o t s i n d i c a t e most c l e a r l y the a p p l i c a b i l i t y o f the r e g r e s s i o n model (the model determines  i f some o f the p r e d i c t o r v a r i a b l e s  should be represented as squared  o r cubic terms i n the equa-  t i o n i n s t e a d o f simple l i n e a r terms as i n t h i s s t u d y ) .  The  p l o t s were examined and the e r r o r s appeared to have a cons t a n t v a r i a n c e , to have a normal d i s t r i b u t i o n , and t h e r e was no evidence o f l a c k o f f i t t h a t might i n d i c a t e the p r e s ence o f c u r v i l i n e a r i t y . The data were then analyzed by the simple r e g r e s s i o n ' program to determine the presence o f any o u t s t a n d i n g p r e d i c t o r s which a r e a b l e ' t'o> p r e d i c t independently o f ' the o t h e r independent v a r i a b l e s .  Results are reported i n Table  h.  The r e s u l t s o f the m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e t h a t some v a r i a b l e s v a r y as p r e d i c t e d w i t h the dependent v a r i a b l e , others v a r y as p r e d i c t e d but n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y , and s t i l l others v a r y i n the o p p o s i t e d i r e c t i o n from t h a t p r e d i c t e d .  Aloofness, consideration I, thrust,  i n t i m a c y , p r o d u c t i o n emphasis., hindrance, the number o f student assistants-, and a person's ings  o r i e n t a t i o n towards teach-  emerged as s i g n i f i c a n t p r e d i c t o r s o f e d u c a t i o n a l produc-  60  tivity.  Insofar  as the manipulations on the l e a d e r s h i p and  work r e l a t i o n v a r i a b l e s allow them t o be considered as i n t e r v a l s c a l e v a r i a b l e s , then some comparisons may be made among these and the o t h e r s i g n i f i c a n t c o v a r i a t e s of s u p e r i o r i t y o f p r e d i c t i o n . regression  a n a l y s i s could  as t o t h e i r order  I f the s c a l e s remained o r d i n a l ,  be l e g i t i m a t e l y a p p l i e d  to them  because the beta c o e f f i c i e n t s would r e t a i n t h e i r s i g h s under any monotonic t r a n s f o r m a t i o n .  However, there would be no b a s i s  f o r comparison i n s o f a r , as; r e l a t i v e p r e d i c t i b i l i t y i s concerned. TABLE *+ ANALYSIS RESULTS FROM SIMPLE REGRESSION  PREDICTOR  ' COEFF. MULT. DETERM.  hindrance  0.02H-  aloofness.  TOTAL. BETA COEFF.  F STAND. ERROR RATIO  F PROB.  0.81  3.17  0.07  0.030  lM l.ki  0171  3.88  0.0U-  production emphasis  O.OH-1  2.03  0.86  5M  0.02  student assistants  0.190  2.81  0.51  29.69  teaching  0.065  -V.79  1.61  8.76  0.00k  O.OH-O  5A0  2.12  6.if 7  0.01  orientation  degree  0.000  On the b a s i s o f the p a r t i a l beta- c o e f f i c i e n t s ? , i t would appear: t h a t the order o f p r e d i c t i v e power i s r t h r u s t , a l o o f n e s s ,  num-  b e r o f student a s s i s t a n t s , p r o d u c t i o n emphasis, intimacy, and. consideration indeterminate. but  I , w i t h the s t a t u s  o f teaching  o r i e n t a t i o n being  Other v a r i a b l e s a l s o c o n t r i b u t e d  non-signif i c a n t l y .  as p r o d i c t o r s ,  The v a r i a b l e s : which covary I n the  p r e d i c t e d d i r e c t i o n , even though t h e i r beta c o e f f i c i e n t s were not s i g n i f i c a n t were:., e s p r i t , s t i m u l a t i o n , i n i t i a t i n g t u r e , p u b l i c a t i o n emphasis, r e s e a r c h  struc-  o r i e n t a t i o n , t r a v e l fund  a v a i l a b i l i t y , degree, degree date, rank, and age (which was p r e d i c t e d i n both d i r e c t i o n s ) . determination  The c o e f f i c i e n t o f m u l t i p l e  (R-squared), accounted f o r 39.22$ o f the v a r i -  ance i n p r o d u c t i v i t y .  The c e n t r a l d i f f e r e n c e s between the  m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n and stepwise r e g r e s s i o n analyses t h a t hindrance was considered  were  s i g n i f i c a n t i n the l a t t e r but  not i n the former, and t h a t the R-squared value f o r the s t e p wise r e g r e s s i o n was c o n s i d e r a b l y s i o n r e s u l t s , obtained  lower.  ted  regres-  c h i e f l y f o r i n t e r e s t purposes, r e g -  i s t e r e d d i f f e r e n t l y from the other expected.  The simple  two analyses,  as: might be  Three v a r i a b l e s ; a r e o f note.because they p r e d i c -  ( n o n - s l g n i f i c a n t l y ) i n the d i r e c t i o n opposite  suggested i n the theory  section.  from t h a t  They were c o n s i d e r a t i o n I I ,  disengagement, and the amount o f r e s e a r c h  grants  received.  CHAPTER  7"  DISCUSSION OF RESULTS; T h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n d i c a t e s t h a t aloofness to which a l e a d e r  i s bureaucratic),  extent to which &. l e a d e r  consideration  (the extent I (the  treats: h i s s t a f f "humanly"), t h r u s t  (the extent to which a l e a d e r  sets an example),; intimacy ( t h e  s o c i a l dimension), p r o d u c t i o n emphasis, (leader behavior which i s narrowly focused on p r o d u c t i o n ) ,  and hindrance (the e x t e n t  to which "busywork""annoys, the work group) emerge as s i g n i f i cant s o c i a l p r e d i c t o r s  of educational  productivity.  The;  number o f student a s s i s t a n t s ; and a person's o r i e n t a t i o n t o wards: teaching  (as compared to others whose o r i e n t a t i o n s ; a r e  towards both teaching nificant. here.  and r e s e a r c h ) a l s o r e g i s t e r e d as s i g -  However a note o f c a u t i o n should" be i n t e r j e c t e d i  P r e d i c t i o n does not n e c e s s a r i l y imply c a u s a t i o n .  Sta-  t i s t i c a l r e s u l t s : cannot by themselves i l l u m i n a t e : any determi- • nants o f p r o d u c t i v i t y - — t h e y when aided  can only make: i n f e r e n c e s ,  by explanations: are able  t i o n s h i p s which a r e always, s u b j e c t  to suggest c a u s a l to f u r t h e r  which, rela-  verification.  Assruming methodological soundness, an i n v e s t i g a t o r must t u r n to his, theory ( e x p l i c i t o r i m p l i c i t ) to check i f h i s findings; "make sense" . 5  The  methods o f further, v e r i f i c a t i o n must be d i r e c t e d  towards the i n t e t e r m i n a t e r e s u l t s , o f t h i s survey. found  I t was  t h a t e s p r i t (morale), s t i m u l a t i o n ( t h e extent to which  id'eas a r e exchanged), i n i t i a t i n g s t r u c t u r e d e a d e r d i r e c t l v e ness w i t h regard to the e n t i r e group), p u b l i c a t i o n emphasis r  ( f o r s a l a r y i n c r e a s e and promotion),  research o r i e n t a t i o n  (again as compared to those, whose o r i e n t a t i o n i s both  teach-  i n g and r e s e a r c h ) , the a v a i l a b i l i t y o f p r o f e s s o r s ' t r a v e l funds, the r e c e i p t o f a d o c t o r a t e (as compared to a masters' degree), the date of. the h i g h e s t degree, a. man's rank ( s e n i o r rank as opposed to j u n i o r ) , and h i s age  Cover f o r t y  as opposed  to under f o r t y ) a l l p r e d i c t e d a change i n p r o d u c t i v i t y i n the same d i r e c t i o n as: was done i n the theory s e c t i o n but n o t beyond the p o s s i b i l i t y o f a chance p r e d i c t i o n alone ( n o t s i g nificantly). Some note should be taken o f those p r e d i c t o r s which were s i g n i f i c a n t y e t i n the wrong d i r e c t i o n from t h a t hypothesized' or suggested  i n the theory section.. These were intimacy,  p r o d u c t i o n emphasis, and t h r u s t i n the m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n and  i n t i m a c y along w i t h hindrance i n the stepwise r e g r e s s i o n -  results..  Obviously, a l t e r n a t e explanations a r e i n o r d e r .  When the adapted H a l p i n instrument i s : c o n s u l t e d w i t h these, r e s u l t s i n mind, some d i f f e r e n t explanations suggest  them-  selves . With regard to intimacy, the emphasis i s v e r y much on f r i e n d s h i p almost  to the e x c l u s i o n o f others beyond the: d e -  partment i n question.,  The three, items, mentioning  the l o c a -  t i o n o f c l o s e s t f r i e n d s i n the department, t h e home: v i s i t s  o f department members, and c o n v e r s a t i o n about personal l i v e s : i n the department might be construed s i o n as w e l l as a f r a t e r n a l one.  as an i n s u l a r i t y dimen-  I f t h i s i s indeed  the case,  then i f i n s u l a r i t y leads to low p r o d u c t i v i t y , i t might be p r e d i c t e d t h a t those o f h i g h i n t i m a c y (as construed way) may w e l l be l e s s  i n this  productive.  The o r i g i n a l H a l p i n d e f i n i t i o n o f p r o d u c t i o n emphasis; i m p l i e s a l e a d e r who might w e l l v i o l a t e the norms o f a u n i v e r s i t y work group.  However, i f the l e a d e r ' s r o l e i s viewed  l i b e r a l l y by those i n the work group, a c t i o n s such as d e t e r mining teaching assignments., ensuring colleagues work to c a p a c i t y and i n s i s t i n g that departmental  r e g u l a t i o n s be f o l -  lowed may be viewed as some o f the l e g i t i m a t e r o l e t i o n s o f a departmental  leader.  expecta-  I f , then, p r o d u c t i o n  empha-  s i s : has been o p e r a t i o n a l l y d e f i n e d as a guidance dimension wherein departmental  o p e r a t i o n s are expedited,  p o s s i b l e t h a t those departments having  then i t i s .  "smoother operations"'  may w e l l tend toward g r e a t e r e d u c a t i o n a l p r o d u c t i v i t y . The problem regarding the v a r i a b l e o f t h r u s t may be answered s i m i l a r l y .  Again,  i f the o p e r a t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n  i s c o n s u l t e d , the words "department head works l o n g e r hours than department members"-, "'the department head o f f e r s cons t r u c t i v e c r i t i c i s m " ' , and "the department head s e t s an example by working hard h i m s e l f "'are those to which the interviewees responded.  The two items on the department head's work h a b i t s  are answered from the p o i n t o f view o f the work group, t h a t i s , w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o the group's own work h a b i t s .  Is i t  65 not p o s s i b l e t h a t those-, groups which are l e s s p r o d u c t i v e y e t have a l e a d e r who  expends an average work e f f o r t would tend  to r a t e him h i g h on e f f o r t because they themselves  are r e l a -  t i v e l y l e s s i n c l i n e d to work as hard as the department head or work the same number of hours? Those department members who dom  The o p p o s i t e a l s o h o l d s .  are v e r y hard workers would  sel-  i n d i c a t e that the boss works, longer hours o r t h a t he works  l o n g e r hours, or t h a t he works hard because what an p r o f e s s o r would regard as working normal expenditure of e f f o r t .  average  hard to them i s ' j u s t a  I f , i n f a c t , hard work and  h i g h p r o d u c t i v i t y v a r y together, then i t seems reasonable t h a t t h i s dimension would be n e g a t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h educational productivity. F i n a l l y , the r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e t h a t the concept of h i n drance a l s o v a r i e s w i t h p r o d u c t i v i t y i n the manner opposite: from t h a t which was  predicted.  I t i s proposed  to c o n s i d e r  the hindrance problem from the same p o i n t of view i n which the t h r u s t c o u n t e r e x p l a n a t i o n was  o f f e r e d above.  The  opera-  t i o n a l definers. o f hindrance r e l a t e to. such concepts, as the i n t e r f e r e n c e of r o u t i n e d u t i e s , burdensome committee work, and  the problem o f paperwork.  A g a i n , the more p r o d u c t i v e  respondents: may view these o b l i g a t i o n s as; being much more onorous; than those: who  are l e s s p r o d u c t i v e .  As a- r e s u l t ,  those h i g h i n hindrance are a s s o c i a t e d w i t h h i g h p r o d u c t i v i t y w h i l e those low i n hindrance: are. a s s o c i a t e d w i t h low tivity.  produc-  (This: argument assumes, of course, t h a t any g i v e n  i n d i v i d u a l ' s time i s l i m i t e d and t h a t , on the average, a. h i g h  i n d i v i d u a l p r o d u c t i v i t y demands a h i g h time investment  and a  66  c o n s i d e r a b l e work e f f o r t . ) Is i t not p o s s i b l e to r e v e r s e any r a t i o n a l e  suggested  by the theory so t h a t the r e s u l t s o f a study may be accommodated?  I n the author's o p i n i o n , the p o t e n t i a l f o r r e v e r s e  r a t i o n a l e s among the v a r i a b l e s considered i n t h i s survey has been v i r t u a l l y exhausted.  Only one o f the remaining v a r i a b l e s  (disengagement) appears to lend i t s e l f  to such an o p p o s i t e  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n as do the above f o u r . Some mention should be made o f the three v a r i a b l e s , which, though they were not s i g n i f i c a n t p r e d i c t o r s , d i d r e g i s t e r r e s u l t s c o n t r a r y to those suggested  by the theory s e c t i o n .  These were disengagement (group non-involvement),  considera-  t i o n II , ( l e a d e r - s t a f f r e l a t i o n s i n v o l v i n g warmth, r e s p e c t , ;  t r u s t and f r i e n d s h i p ) , and amount of g r a n t s .  Disengagement  may v a r y p o s i t i v e l y w i t h p r o d u c t i v i t y I f , again, those who are h i g h l y p r o d u c t i v e tend to respond used as disengagement measures.  p o s i t i v e l y to the items  Very t e n t a t i v e l y , i t may be  suggested  that c o n s i d e r a t i o n I I represents an i n s u l a r i t y  dimension  i n terms o f i t s three items.  the poor q u a l i t y o f such a measure tends  With regard to grants,, to g r e a t l y reduce  i t s c o n s i d e r a b l e p o t e n t i a l p r e d i c t i n g power.  (An i n d i v i d u a l  may produce: on the b a s i s o f grants p r e v i o u s l y r e c e i v e d . )  67  CHATTER  VI  CONCLUSIONS  SUMMARY OF' RESULTS' The  r e s u l t s o f t h i s survey have s i g n i f i c a n t l y l i n k e d a  number o f the independent variables, w i t h the dependent v a r i able.  When a department head's behavior i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by  aloofness and  ( a c t i o n s which a r e formal and impersonal, nomothetic  bureaucratic)  ment.  group p r o d u c t i v i t y i s reduced i n h i s d e p a r t -  I n o t h e r words, the g r e a t e r  the aloofness",  the l e s s  the p r o d u c t i v i t y , and the obverse holds as: w e l l . partment head shows c o n s i d e r a t i o n  When a de-  I (an i n c l i n a t i o n to t r e a t  s t a f f , members "humanly"), the group p r o d u c t i v i t y i s i n c r e a s e d , w i t h the obverse holding- i n t h i s case as; above. student a s s i s t a n t s which a; g i v e n p r o f e s s o r the g r e a t e r h i s i n d i v i d u a l p r o d u c t i v i t y .  The more  has a t h i s d i s p o s a l , And i f a department  member i n d i c a t e s that h i s p e r s o n a l o r i e n t a t i o n i s towards, teaching,  then h i s p r o d u c t i v i t y may be p r e d i c t e d  than a man who i n d i c a t e s r e s e a r c h  t o be lower  o r both teaching  and r e -  search as his. p e r s o n a l o r i e n t a t i o n . F u r t h e r r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e t h a t a number o f o t h e r tors are less conclusively linked with educational ity.  predic-  productiv-  Keeping i n mind that any conclusions, t o be reached a r e  m o s t . t e n t a t i v e , i t would appear t h a t h i g h group e s p r i t , s t i m -  l a t i o n , high leader i n i t i a t i n g structure, sizeable t r a v e l allowances,  a. r e s e a r c h o r i e n t a t i o n , a d o c t o r a t e , a degree  r e c e n t l y awarded, and  s e n i o r rank a l l c o n t r i b u t e to the  u c a t i o n a l p r o d u c t i v i t y o f an i n d i v i d u a l . t h a t w i t h advancing  age  However, i t appears,  (and receeding date of degree),  d u c t i v i t y i s l i k e l y to be The  ed-  pro-  lessened.  e x p l o r a t o r y r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e (again, t e n t a t i v e l y )  that there are r e l a t i v e l y minor d i f f e r e n c e s between analyses based on i n d i v i d u a l responses as opposed to group consensus, and among analyses based on those w i t h combined teaching  and  academic o r i e n t a t i o n s as. compared to those w i t h academic o r i e n t a t i o n s as compared to those w i t h g r e a t e r sympathy f o r teaching. d i c t o r s and  Judging  on the b a s i s of number of s i g n i f i c a n t  pre-  percentage of p r o d u c t i v i t y v a r i a n c e e x p l a i n e d , i t  would seem t h a t the o r i g i n a l a n a l y s i s , planned  on the b a s i s  o f group consensus, w i t h regard to l e a d e r behavior and work r e l a t i o n s , and on the b a s i s of g e n e r a l consensus: r e g a r d i n g the weights f o r aspects of p r o d u c t i v i t y , was  s u p e r i o r to  any  o f the e x p l o r a t o r y a n a l y s e s . COMMENTARY This t h e s i s has attempted to d e s c r i b e and account f o r one  s m a l l aspect of the behavior of p r o f e s s i o n a l personnel,  i n a modern bureaucracy. s o c i a l determinants  The b e l i e f i n the e x i s t e n c e of  the  of behavior which are;comparable i n power-  to p h y s i c a l , b i o l o g i c a l , economic, o r p s y c h o l o g i c a l ^ d e t e r minants has been t e n t a t i v e l y supported  through the i n v e s t i g a -  t i o n of p r e d i c t o r s which have probable  causal relations  with  69 the e l u s i v e concept  of e d u c a t i o n a l p r o d u c t i v i t y .  From the p o i n t of view of the e d u c a t i o n a l a d m i n i s t r a t o r , the " p r a c t i c a l man"  ;  w i t h the requirement  f o r techniques  of  o p t i m i z a t i o n of r o l e f u l f i l l m e n t , a few p r e s c r i p t i o n s are i n order.  I t would appear t h a t a u n i v e r s i t y department head i s  a b l e to f a c i l i t a t e the p r o d u c t i v i t y of h i s s t a f f members. Despite the wide a c c l a i m of p r o f e s s o r i a l independence, the a c t i o n s of department, heads and  the behaviors o f c o l l e a g u e s  are a p p a r e n t l y a b l e to i n f l u e n c e the amount of output o f such scholars.  I t I s p o s s i b l e , then, through the s u p p r e s s i o n  behaviors d e s c r i b e d by a l o o f n e s s and d e s c r i b e d by c o n s i d e r a t i o n I, and  the s t r e s s of  through the  of  behaviors  manipulation  of group v a r i a b l e s , to c r e a t e a " c l i m a t e " w i t h i n a u n i v e r s i t y department which i s h i g h l y conducive  to e d u c a t i o n a l produc-  tivity. T h i s t h e s i s was construction.  a l s o undertaken w i t h a view to  theory  G e n e r a l l y , the r e s u l t s appear to lend  to the explanations o f f e r e d i n the theory s e c t i o n . f a c t o r s which were n o t a b l e exceptions were:  support Four  to t h i s trend o f  i n t i m a c y , p r o d u c t i o n emphasis, t h r u s t , and  as they were o p e r a t i o n a l l y d e f i n e d i n t h i s study.  support  hindrance, While  p o s s i b l e a l t e r n a t i v e explanations were: o f f e r e d , i t s h o u l d noted  t h a t these had  be  t h e i r basis: i n the methodology o f the  study r a t h e r than i n t h e o r y .  The o n l y t h e o r e t i c a l c o n s i d e r -  a t i o n r a i s e d was. t h a t ' p r o d u c t i v i t y may  be viewed as an  pendentent v a r i a b l e as w e l l as a dependent one. i s of the view t h a t although  inde-  The  author:  the s u p p o r t i v e evidence  f o r the  70 theory i s o n l y p a r t i a l , none o f i t s - explanations; should be d i s c a r d e d u n t i l f u r t h e r - i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s undertaken. A": comment on the l i m i t s , o f g e n e r a l i z a t i o n o f the thesis; r e s u l t s i s warranted. s e c t i o n that while  I t was mentioned i n the methodology  the s t a t i s t i c a l p o p u l a t i o n i s l i m i t e d to  the f o u r u n i v e r s i t i e s from which the sample was drawn, the conceptual  p o p u l a t i o n encompasses;- a l l those i n s t i t u t i o n s which  are not s u f f i c i e n t l y d i s s i m i l a r from those sampled.  With  i n c r e a s i n g c a u t i o n , i n f e r e n c e s may be extended to those s o c i a l s c i e n c e departments i n Canada, to a l l r e s e a r c h departments; i n North American u n i v e r s i t i e s , and to a l l r e s e a r c h departments i n North American r e s e a r c h i n s t i t u t i o n s .  F i n a l l y , but w i t h  the most r e s e r v a t i o n , the f i n d i n g s may perhaps be generalized, to a l l . departments i n both knowledge-producing and knowledget r a n s m i t t i n g o r g a n i z a t i o n s , w i t h i n our general aries;..  c u l t u r a l bound-  This l a s t i n f e r e n c e , while h i g h l y s p e c u l a t i v e , would  apply t o v i r t u a l l y a l l e d u c a t i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s and t h e i r respective educational productivities.. FURTHER RESEARCH Research on this: t o p i c may be extended on the basis: o f the theory presented.  Thy hypotheses which were chosen f o r  i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t h i s study are: o n l y a few o f many p o s s i b l e alternatives.  Other' c o r o l l a r i e s which may be d e r i v e d from  the theory a r e the i n d i v i d u a l cause-and-effect selves.  u n i t s them-  D i f f e r e n t combinations o f these u n i t s a l s o  considerable  challenge  provide,  to the e m p i r i c a l i n v e s t i g a t o r . F o r  i n s t a n c e , does the leader's, v i o l a t i o n o f the autonomy norm  71 imply a r e d u c t i o n i n group s t i m u l a t i o n ?  A. suggestion  which  r e l a t e s - to the theory but does n o t f o l l o w from i t i s t h i s : , r e s e a r c h may be c a r r i e d out when the antecedent conditions: o f the theory are: manipulated.  I n other words, given t h a t some  of the c o n d i t i o n s o f the s m a l l g r o u p — the presence o f the formal  l e a d e r , the t a s k - o r i e n t a t i o n o f the group, the group  autonomy norm, and the work n o r m — a r e n o t present, which o f the deduced r e l a t i o n s s t i l l hold?  Theory b u i l d i n g and e m p i r i -  c a l t e s t i n g o f t h i s v a r i e t y could l e a d towards a s u b s t a n t i a t e d , general  theory o f work groups which might be a p p l i c a b l e under'  many conditions.. The  study o f the"concept o f e d u c a t i o n a l p r o d u c t i v i t y may  be undertaken i n many ways.  Focusing  on the p r o d u c t i v i t y  instrument f o r a moment, and r e c a l l i n g t h e comments regarding i t s q u a n t i t a t i v i t y and i t s . l a c k of" any attempt a t v a l i d i t y , it  might be suggested that any f u t u r e p r o d u c t i v i t y study be  undertaken w i t h some q u a l i t a t i v e base i n mind. of having  The thought  each department member r a t e the o v e r a l l p r o d u c t i v i t y  of each other member has i t s p r a c t i c a l d i f f i c u l t i e s but a l s o i t s obvious benefits?.  I n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y and  a l considerations, come i n t o p l a y here. o f productivity i t s e l f  interdepartment-  Perhaps the concept  (a g l o b a l one) could be broken i n t o  some major areas such as teaching  and student  s e r v i c e , admin-  i s t r a t i v e and departmental s e r v i c e j and r e s e a r c h o r p r o f e s sional service.  I n t h i s : way,  given three r a t i n g s .  one department member could be  The thought o f l o o k i n g a t the pay o f a  p r o f e s s o r a l s o has i t s merits::  "Let the market'be your  guide"'.  Yet'some markets have d e l i b e r a t e l y f o s t e r e d t h e i r separatepromotion and  s a l a r y plans and  many p r o f e s s o r s f i n d s a l a r y  as  being o n l y one of many p o s i t i o n c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , others, being p r e s t i g e , r e s e a r c h o p p o r t u n i t y , funds, and'favourable ing  and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e l o a d s . :  teach-  The best advice w i t h regard to  sc p r o d u c t i v i t y instrument seems to be the warning t h a t whatever the: instrument s e l e c t e d , i t i s . open to c o n s i d e r a b l e c i r cumspection. of"a  P r a c t i c a l inconvenience  a s i d e , the a p p l i c a t i o n  number of instruments which g i v e r i s e to a composite score  would seem to render the f a i r e s t a p p r a i s a l of a man's product i v i t y i n a university setting. v a l i d i t y i s also a d i f f i c u l t  one.  The problem of  instrument  As was:, i n d i c a t e d above,  the p r o d u c t i v i t y instrument used i n t h i s study l a r g e l y d e f i n e s a busy man, As was  but l e s s so a p r o d u c t i v e  one.  the ease i n t h i s study, an instrument  agreement index which is* c o n s t r u c t e d on l a r g e l y grounds i s d i f f i c u l t  to defend.  such as. therational  The: s o l u t i o n to t h i s problem  i s the c o n s t r u c t i o n of an instrument which has i t s c l u s t e r s defined THE  empirically.  EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATOR Is  i t p o s s i b l e to d e v i s e an instrument  so complete, t h a t  i t might be put to p r a c t i c a l use i n e d u c a t i o n a l a d m i n i s t r a tion?  I t i s c o n c e i v a b l e t h a t one day educators- may  come to  r e l y on such an instrument a s an a i d ' to -assessment f o r promotion?  While crudeness of instrumentations prohibits, present  u t i l i z a t i o n by p r a c t i t i o n e r s , f u t u r e measures may  indeed  be-  come commonplace i n the e d u c a t i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s of tomorrow.  73 A t present,  the warning should  be heeded t h a t r e l i a n c e on such  instilments might w e l l l e a d to abuse i f the many other  intui-  t i v e i n d i c a t o r s of p r o d u c t i v i t y a r e not taken i n t o account. The  author wishes to emphasize: t h a t the r e s u l t s rendered  the measure o f e d u c a t i o n a l p r o d u c t i v i t y used i n t h i s  from  study  must be t r e a t e d most t e n t a t i v e l y . As f o r the agreement index:, there a r e many p o s s i b i l i t i e s ; f o r the growth o f other s u p e r i o r instruments.  Such devices:  could be used as s e n s i t i z e r s , to d i s c o v e r the a c t u a l l e a d e r behaviors  and working c l i m a t e i n any e d u c a t i o n a l department'.  Leaders could then be i m p e r s o n a l l y a l e r t e d to the a c t i o n s which might be taken i n order t o f o s t e r g r e a t e r  educational  p r o d u c t i v i t y on the p a r t o f t h e i r s u b o r d i n a t e s .  A g a i n the  c a u t i o n i s g i v e n t h a t an a d m i n i s t r a t o r u s i n g instruments  such  as t h i s must take a l l known f a c t o r s i n t o account and then, w i t h common sense as guide (but n o t master) he may b e t t e r a d m i n i s t e r h i s department.  7h  BIBLIOGRAPHY  Anderson,B., "Status. C l a s s e s i n O r g a n i z a t i o n s " , S c i e n c e Q u a r t e r l y , 1966, v o l . 11, p.264.  Administrative  B a u m g a r t e l , Howard, " L e a d e r s h i p S t y l e as a V a r i a b l e i n . Research A d m i n i s t r a t i o n * , A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S c i e n c e Q u a r t e r l y , 1957,  v o l . 2,  pp.  344-360.  B a u m g a r t e l , Howard, " L e a d e r s h i p , M o t i v a t i o n s , and A t t i t u d e s i n Research L a b o r a t o r i e s " , J o u r n a l o f S o c i a l Issued,1956, v o l . 12,  No.  2,  pp.  24-31.  B e n n i s , Warren G. " V a l u e s and O r g a n i z a t i o n i n a U n i v e r s i t y S o c i a l Research Group" , American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review, v o l . 21, 1956, p.555. 7  Brown, P a u l a , " B u r e a u c r a c y i n a Government L a b o r a t o r y " , S o c i a l F o r c e s , 1954, v o l . 32, pp. 259-268,. Bush, George P. and L o w e l l H. H a t l e r y , "Teamwork and C r e a t i v i t y i n Research", A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Science Quarterly,1956, v o l . 1,  pp.  361-372.  Caplow, Theodore, and R'.eece J; McGee, The Academic New Y o r k , Doubleday and Company, 1965.  Marketplace,  C r a n e , D i a n a , " S c i e n t i s t s a t M a j o r and M i n o r U n i v e r s ! t i e s ? A S t u d y o f P r o d u c t i v i t y and R e c o g n i t i o n " , American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review, 1965, v o l . 30, pp. 699-714. Davis., R o b e r t C. " F a c t o r s R e l a t e d to S c i e n t i f i c Performance Commitment", U n p u b l i s h e d 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 Michigan, 1957. Durkheim, E m i l e , Le S u i c i d e , P a r i s , F e l i x A l c a n L i b r a r y , p.277.  1930,  E a t o n , Joseph W., " S o c i a l P r o c e s s e s o f P r o f e s s i o n a l Teamwork, American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review, 1951, v o l . . 16, p.7Q7. . Evan,. l i l l i a m M. " S u p e r i o r - S u b o r d i n a t e C o n f l i c t i n Research Organizations"', A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S c i e n c e Q u a r t e r l y , June 1965j pp.  52-64.  F e s t i n g e r , L. and j . T h i b a u t , ^ I n t e r p e r s o n a l Communication i n Groups'"' J o u r n a l of Abnormal and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1951, v o l . 46, p.p.92-99.  75  BIBLIOGRAPHY  G l a s e r , Barney G., O r g a n i z a t i o n a l S c i e n t i s t s , T h e i r P r o f e s s i o n a l Careers, New York, B'obbs M e r r i l l , 1964* G l a s e r , Barney G. ^ A t t r a c t i o n , Autonomy, and R e c i p r o c i t y i n the S c i e n t i s t - S u p e r v i s o r R e l a t i o n s h i p " , A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Science Q u a r t e r l y , v o l . 8, 1963, pp. 379-398. G l a s e r , Barney G., " V a r i a t i o n s i n the Importance of R e c o g n i t i o n i n S c i e n t i s t s Careers, S o c i a l Problems, 1962-63, v o l . l O , pp. 268-276. 1  Golembiewski, Robert T. "Small Groups and Large O r g a n i z a t i o n s " i n James G. March, e d i t o r , Handbook: of O r g a n i z a t i o n s , Chicago, Rand McNally & Co:., 1965. " . :  Hagstrom, Warren 0. " 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", A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Science Quarterly,, Dec* 1964, v o l . 9, p. 241. H a l p i n , Andrew. Theory and Research i n A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , York, Macmillan, 1966.  New  H i l l , Winston, W. and Wendell L. French, "Perceptions of the Power of Department Chairmen by P r o f e s s o r s " , Administrative*; Science Q u a r t e r l y , 1967, March, pp. 548-574. Kaplan, Norman, "Pole of the Research A d m i n i s t r a t o r " , Admini s t r a t i v e Science, Q u a r t e r l y , June 1959, v o l . 4, pp, 20-42. Katz, D a n i e l , and Robert L . Kahn, The S o c i a l Psychology of O r g a n i z a t i o n s , New York, J^hn Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1966. Korhhauser, W i l l i a m , and Warren O. Hagstrom, S c i e n t i s t s i n I n d u s t r y ; C o n f l i c t and Accommodation, 1962, pp. 131-133. LaPorte, Todd R. " C o n d i t i o n s o f S t r a i n and Accommodation i n I n d u s t r i a l Research Groups", A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Science Q u a r t e r l y , June 1965, v o l . 10, p. 31 v L a z a r s f e l d , Paul F., and Wagner T h i e l a n s J r . , The Academic Mind, Glencoe, The Free P r e s s , 1958, pp. 7-10, 392-396, 102^406, Mauls, Jerome G., '•Some Academic I n f l u e n c e s on P u b l i c a t i o n P r o d u c t i v i t y " , S o c i a l F o r c e s , 1951, pp. 267-272.  76  BIBLIOGRAPHY  Marcson, Simon, The S c i e n t i s t s i n American I n d u s t r y , U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1960.  Princeton  McEwen, W i l l i a m J . ''Position C o n f l i c t and P r o f e s s i o n a l Orient** a t i o n i n a Research 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 S c i e n c e Q u a r t e r l y , v o l . 1 , 1956, pp. 208-224. M e l t z e r , Leo, " S c i e n t i f i c P r o d u c t i v i t y i n O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Settings"' J o u r n a l o f S o c i a l I s s u e s , 1956, N.6. 2, pp.32-^40. Pels?, Donald S.,"Some S o c i a l F a c t o r s Related to Performance i n a Research 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 Q u a r t e r l y , 1956, v o l . 1, pp, 310-325, P e l z , Donald arid Frank M, Andrews, S c i e n t i s t s i n Organi z a t i o n s , New Yqrk, John Wiley and Sons, Inc,, 1966. Schacte.r,S., " D e v i a t i o n , R e j e c t i o n , and Communication", J o u r n a l o f Abnormal and S o c i a l Psychology, 195i, v o l . 46, •pp. 190-207. !  S c h e i n , Edgar H. o t . a l . , " C a r e e r . O r i e n t a t i o n s and P e r c e p t i o n s o f Rewarded A c t i v i t y i n a Research Organization" , A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Science Q u a r t e r l y , March 1965, v o l . 9, pp. 333-349. 1  !  S c o t t , W.R. "Reactions t o . S u p e r v i s i o n i n a Heteronomous P r o f e s s i o n a l Organization", Administrative Science Q u a r t e r l y , 1965, v o l . 10, pp. 65-81. Shepherd, G l o v i s , and P a u l a Brown, ^ S t a t u s , P r e s t i g e , and Esteem i n a Research 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 S c i e n c e Q u a r t e r l y , 1956, v o l . 1, pp. 340-360. Shepard, Herbert A. " The Value System of a U n i v e r s i t y Research Group**, American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review, 1954, v o l . 19, pp. 456-462. West, S.S., "The Ideology.of American S c i e n t i s t s " I.R.E. T r a n s a c t i o n s on E n g i n e e r i n g Management, Em.Ml7,(I960) pp. 54-62.' " Z e t t e r b e r g , Hans. On Theory and V e r i f i c a t i o n i n S o c i o l o g y , Totowa, New J e r s e y , 1965. {&] ' ~^'' :  !  r  BIBLIOGRAPHY  Z e t t e r b e r g , Hans, On Theory, and V e r i f i c a t i o n i n S o c i o l o g y , Totowa, New J e r s e y , 1965, pp. 166-174. {¥]  78  APPENDIX'  UNIVERSITY  DEPARTMENT  (AGREEMENT  QUESTIONNAIRE  INDEX)  P l e a s e c i r c l e your response to: the statements below accourding to the f o l l o w i n g  scale:  1. strongly disagree 2. d i s a g r e e 3 . n e i t h e r agree nor d i s a g r e e , o r u n c e r t a i n agree 5. s t r o n g l y agree; 1.  D  I  2  A  SA  Members o f t h i s department keep to themselves.  2.  SD  3  5  3  4-5  Routine d u t i e s i n t e r f e r e w i t h r e s e a r c h and teaching.  ^  1 2  3 . Members o f t h i s department show much team spirit.  1  2  3  -+  5  1  2" 3  4-  5  h. Department members' c l o s e s t f r i e n d s a r e colleagues, i n the department. 5. Department meetings are dominated by department head r e p o r t s . 1 2 6 . The department head' determines the teaching assignments and loads o f department members.1 2 7.  4-5  j  5  3  4-5  The department head sets an example by working hard h i m s e l f .  8.  3  1 2  The department head helps department 1  2  3  i n t e r a c t i o n which promotes c r e a t i v e t h i n k i n g l  2  3~ k  2  3  members' s o l v e personal problems.  4-  5  9. Department members provide the type o f 5  10.. The department head's a t t i t u d e s a r e made c l e a r to. department members  1  4-5  79 -  SD  1 1 . -. The department head: i s , concerned w i t h the p e r s o n a l w e l f a r e o f i n d i v i d u a l department members'.  D  A.; SA.  12'  3  Members i n t h i s department ramble when they t a l k a t department meetings.  1  3  Department members have burdensome committee r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s .  1 2  3 4 - 5  14-. Department members accept the f a u l t s ' o f t h e i r colleagues:.  1 2  3  4-5  1 5 . Department members: i n v i t e c o l l e a g u e s from the' department to v i s i t them a t home.  1  2  3  4-5  1 6 . The. department, head runs the department meetings as i f they were business conferences.  1  2  3  4-5  1 7 . The department head ensures t h a t department memberswork to t h e i r f u l l c a p a c i t y . 1  2  3  4-5  1 8 . The department head provides criticism '  1  2  3  4-5.  19 •• The department head helps s t a f f members s e t t l e minor differences'.  1  2  3  4  2 0 . Research designs a r e i n f l u e n c e d by i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h f e l l o w department members.  1  2  3  4-5  1  2  3  4-5  22. The department head t r e a t s a l l department members as c o l l e a g u e s .  1  2  3  4-5  23. Department members s t r i v e extremely hard to advance t h e i r p r o f e s s i o n a l r e p u t a t i o n s .  1  2  3  4-5  24-. A d m i n i s t r a t i v e paperwork i s burdensome i n t h i s department.  1  2  3  4-5  2'5. There i s s i n c e r i t y and genuineness i n i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s w i t h i n the d e p a r t ment.  1  2  3  4-5  2 6 . Department members t a l k about t h e i r p e r s o n a l l i v e s . t o colleagues' i n the department. 1  2'  3  12. 13.  21.  4-.  5  -  2'  4 - 5  constructive  The department head informs department members, what i s expected o f them.  :  4-  5  5  spr 27.  The department head i s . " r e g u l a t i o n oriented" .  80  p_  A  SA  1 2  3  4- 5?  2'8. The department head i n s i s t s - that p r e v i o u s l y e s t a b l i s h e d p o l i c i e s : be f o l l o w e d . 1 2  3  4-  5  2" 3  h  5  7  29.  The department head works longer hours: than department members.  1  The department head attempts to o b t a i n b e t t e r s a l a r i e s f o r department members.  1 2  3  1 2  3  3 2 . The department head e f f e c t i v e l y coordinates the tasks' o f department members. 1 2  3  33• The department head i s f r i e n d l y and approachable.  3  30.  3 1 . Department members a c t as f r i e n d l y c r i t i c s f o r each other to a s s i s t i n c l a r i f y i n g thinking.  The. instrument  i s arranged  Variable Disengagement Hindrance Esprit Intimacy Aloofness P r o d u c t i o n Emphasis: Thrust Consideration I Stimulation I n i t i a t i n g Structure Consideration II  1 2  as f o l l o w s : Statements 1, 1 2 , 23 2if 2", 3 , 1^, 25 1 5 , 26 5 16; 27 6 , 1 7 , .28 1 8 , 29 h 8 , 1 9 , 30 9 , 2 0 , 31 1 0 , 2 1 , 32 11, 2 2 , 33  5 h  5 5  if  5  81  TABLE RESPONSE  DISTRIBUTIONS  Question  ,  • 1 2 ' 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 88 29 30 31 32 > 33  1 18 14 10 8 45 27 5 19 13 13 8 12 6 7 1 34 12 11 11 11 9 12 3 15 7 10 49 30 5 2 4 16 10  FOR 2  •"45"' 35 34 29 48 34 13 30 30 18 19 35 47 19 12 59 44 31 28 25 26 14 23 53 20 27 42 44 28 5 21 25 6  5 AGREEMENT  3  4  40 "~'- 19 48 19 42 26 55 24 14 10 18 34 59 20 28 46 28 4958 20 29 59 37 30 33 36 59 39 15 82 13 20 57 15 41 39 48 37 21 61 35 50 15 46 37 51 . 36 16 33 51 33 55 15 15 33 18 38 50 25 65 34 58 35 44 16 52  INDEX 5  Mode  7 13 17 13 12 16 32 6 9 20 14 15 7 5 19 3 1 7 5 11 9 42 15 9 18 4 8 4 8 32 12 8 45  2 (3) 3 3 2 (3) 4 3 (3) 4 4 (3) (3) 4 4 2 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 1 2 3 4 4 4 4  82  DEPARTMENT. MEMBER  INTERVIEW  1. U n i v e r s i t y : " 2". Department: 3» Department h.  member:  A p p r o p r i a t e time f o r a 10-minute  5 . Could you t e l l me when you f i r s t  interview: -joined the department?  I n s e r t t h i s time of: time under p r e s e n t department  head,,  whichever i s l e s s . (Time: "T") 6. Would you please; respond to these questions- on the basis; of 7.  time "T"'?  Could you please g i v e me the approximate number o f graduate students, whose services- you have u t i l i z e d department for  ( t h a t is;, those who  i n this  have done d i r e c t e d studies; .  you, o r have been a s s i s t a n t s to you) d u r i n g time "T ? tn  8. What, Would you say, would be your average number o f hours per  week spent w i t h h e l p i n g s t u d e n t s , course p r e p a r a t i o n ,  classes., marking; your t e a c h i n g f u n c t i o n g e n e r a l l y ? 9. What might be your average number o f hours per week spent w i t h meetings? 10. To what extent would you say t h a t the b a s i s f o r promot i o n and s a l a r y i n c r e a s e i n t h i s department i s p u b l i c a t i o n and r e l a t e d a c t i v i t y ? a b l y (V),  Is- t h i s : emphasized  consider-  about average ( 3 ) , or less, than average (2)  (a. f i v e - p o i n t  scale)?  11. What would you say was  your main i n t e r e s t p r i o r to j o i n -  i n g the department?  By t h i s I mean, was i t teaching ( 1 ) ,  development C2)., r e s e a r c h ( 3 ) , o r what? 12., Regarding  (Both, 0+)).  the a v a i l a b i l i t y o f t r a v e l funds' from u n i v e r s -  i t y sources, would i t be e x c e l l e n t ( 1 ) , v e r y good ( 2 ) , good ( 3 ) » f a i r  (h), o r poor (5) i n your judgement?  1 3 . Approximately how many conferences have you attended s i n c e time "T"? Ih. Could you p l e a s e t e l l me the t o t a l value o f any grants you may have been awarded d u r i n g time " T and the number m  o f r e c i p i e n t s o f each g r a n t i f i t was shared? 15• A r e you any o f the f o l l o w i n g : . viewer o f a p u b l i s h i n g f i r m ?  A r e you a manuscript r e A r e you an o f f i c e r o r  director i n a professional association? a guest l e c t u r e r a t a conference?  Have you been  On the e d i t o r i a l  board  of a j o u r n a l ? 1 6 . Do you do c o n s u l t i n g work f o r government o r another agency, 17.  ( I f yes, how many p r o j e c t s ? )  Have yo_u made an appearance society?  on the program o f a l e a r n e d  ( I f yes, was i t to g i v e a paper, s i t on a  panel, o r c h a i r a meeting?) 1 8 . Have you d i r e c t e d any masters  theses d u r i n g time "T""?  1 9 . Have you d i r e c t e d any d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n s d u r i n g time. "T""?  ( j yes, were you major a d v i s e r , committee member?) f  2 0 . With regard to p u b l i c a t i o n , do you have any books i n progress? 2 1 . Any monographs o r a r t i c l e s i n progress? 22. Do you have any books i n press?  • 23.  8k  Do you have, any monographs or a r t i c l e s i n p r e s s ?  2h. Have you p u b l i s h e d any books., i n time " T ? m  ( I f yes,  could you g i v e me the name of the p u b l i s h i n g house, • please?)! 25.  Have you p u b l i s h e d any monographs?  26.  Any  27.  Your degree p l e a s e ?  28.  And  29.  Ahd you are a (an) ( f i l l i n w i t h rank one above the most  j o u r n a l a r t i c l e s ? ( i n time "T"") (M.A.  (2),  Ph.D.  (3))  i t s date?  ;  likely)?  (instructor  (1),  a s s o c i a t e p r o f e s s o r (3), 30.  Approximate  31.  Fine.  assistant professor  (2),  f u l l p r o f e s s o r 0+), l e c t u r e r  age:  Would you p l e a s e f i l l  t h i s out?  I t ' s an agreement  index going from d i s a g r e e on the l e f t to agree on the right. 32.  (5))  I t takes a couple o f minutes.  Thanks f o r time and k i n d c o o p e r a t i o n .  '  85  TABLE  SELECTED- RESPONSE  £  DISTRIBUTIONS..FOR  D E P A R T M E N T ^ MEMBER.  INTERVIEW:-  Cues.  710 ilia  15 15  15-  15 16* 17 17' 17 18 19 19 20 21 T  22 23 2h 27  29  0  1  2  28 student a s s i s t a n t s p u b l i c a t i o n emphasis: personal o r i e n t a t i o n t r a v e l funds; manus;cript' reviewer o f f i c e r or:"director 19h guest l e c t u r e r 65 e d i t o r i a l board 106 c o n s u l t i n g projects7& gave paper 75 on panel 111 c h a i r e d meeting 121. theses; d i r e c t e d 56 d i s s e r t a t i o n s : d i r e c t e d 87 d o c t o r a l committees 69 books i n progress: 66 monographs; o r a r t i c l e s i n progress 23; books i n p r e s s 12k monographs, ora r t i c l e s i n press; 89 monographs: published . 102. degree rank  23 3 33 36 15 22' 55 21 32 31 19 10 2^  30 18.  To Die  3  16 60  .k  1  6;  1  16  7 h  8  3  3"  2.  k6' tf2  •4! 27 1 1  9  15  15 3 13  7"  2-  k  5  k  1  2  1  % 11  11  3 1 6"  2 1 3"  h  li  1  if*  13  "1  16"  2k: 10  &  3  k 6'  20 ^9  16 12  20  35 22: 15 12 2. 0 1  if  if.  23 10 5 2 20 7 2: 0 21 108 o- 63- kj 19  I  5  1  86  TABLE  Z  CORRELATION. MATRIX FOR ALL, VARIABLES' KEY/r  1.. 2.  12.  stud ent ass i s t e n t s p u b l i c a t i o n emphasis 14-.. teaching o r i e n t a t i o n 15. r e s e a r c h o r i e n t a t i o n 16. t r a v e l funds 17. g r a n t s  disengagement hindrance esprit 'intimacy aloofnessp r o d u c t i o n emphasis; thrust consideration I stimulation i n i t i a t i n g structure consideration II  I: I: •I: 9. 10. l l .  18. degree  degree, date  21. 22:. *  2L 1. 2,  1.00  0.13 1.00  -0.73 -0..28 1.00  I:7i  rank  approximate age productivity dependent variable?  il.  £.  £,  2.  -0.340.09 0.331.00  0,4-3 0.4-8 •0.57' -0.4-5 1.00  0^31 0.21 -0.50 •0.38  -0.53 -0.37 0.4-9 0.35 -0.71 -0.10  o;.64-  1.00  8.  1 1. 2.  I: I: 7. 8.  -0.-70 -0.02 0.68 0.4-8  =0.27  =0.24-  0.4-7  0.26  10 -0.67 0.10 0..37 0.67 -0.26 ^0.16 0.65 0.37.  11 -0.63 -0.22 -0.63 0.4-8 •0.69 •0.31 0.8.1 o;4-8  IE. o.oi o.io  -oc.05  0.26 -0.02 0.03 0.11 -0.03  ilt. -0.07  0.14:  0.10 -0.18  -0.61  -0.240.38 ~0.18 -0.21  -0.00 o".4-6 1.00  v  i i i i  -0.08 0.04- -0.11  -0.01 -0.17 0.09 -0.140.02 0.4-1 0.11  l.oo  8  0.04-  0.15  0.05  -0.12  -0.01 -0.01 -0.12  0.18 0.15  -0.00  -0.22 0.01 0.07 -0.10 -0.20 -0.10 0.3*+: -0.06  87 TABLE. £  1. 2. 3. ^. 5. 6. 78.  11  18.  0.16 0.03 -0.17 -0.040.11 0.06 -0.11 0.03  0.01 -0.10 -0.02 0.01 0.06  2. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.  1.00  0.11  0.10 -.09  I i  -0.11 0.040.11 0.04-0.03 0.00 0.04-  0.08  CONTINUED  20. -0.22 -0.12. 0.16 -0.03 -0.08 -0,01 0.10 0.12  21  -0.12 0.02 -0.05 0.15 0.02 - 0 , 0 9 -0.18 -0.09 0.02 0.17 0.08 0.20 -0.01 -0.07 0.01 0.03  io  11-  2£.  IX  0.50 1.00  0.54o;59 1.00  0.21 o.o40.01 1.00  0.23 0.17  0.4-0  li  20  21  0.00 -0.13  0.18 0.15 0.040.09 -0.03  0.03 0:13 -0.05 0.09 -0.08  0.04-  -0.08  0.14-0.04-  20  21.  l*f.  0.09 1.00  15. 16. IZ.  9. 10. 11. 12. 14-.  15. 16.  17. 18. 19. 20.. 21. 22:.  18  -0.10 0.12 0.02 -0.15 0.04-0.11 0.21 •0.10 0.11 -0.06" - 0 . 1 5 -0.24-* 0.04'0.19 -0.07 0.05 18 IZ 1.00  0.16 1.00  0.10 0.12 0.10  -0.13  0.00 -0.00 0.09 1.00  0.14-  0.14-  0.04-  0.32-0.4-41.00  22"  0.16  -0.03 0.01 -0.4-9 0.62 1.00  lit  0.10 0.07 -0.11  -0.14-  -0.12 1.00 22 0.03 oao  -0.08 0.4-30.01 -0.25 0.11 0.10 22: 0.03 0.22 o.o6 0.09 0.09 1.00  11 0.08 0.06 0.25 0.09 0.13 -0.51 1.00  16 0.33 0.4-1 0.25 0.09 0.06 0.09 1.00  88  MINISURVEY  PRODUCTIVITY  P l e a s e a s s i g n a weighting b a s i s o f how  INDEX"  to the items below on  you might gauge a c o l l e a g u e to be  or not, on a q u a n t i t a t i v e assessment -only. 1  Tf-Qtr.  j-f y  sidered.  0 U  productive  Please a s s i g n  f e e l t h a t the item does not deserve to be A" weight of ""6  has  tr  been assigned  p u b l i s h e d as a s t a r t i n g p o i n t .  the  a  con-  to a r t i c l e s :  Thev index; i s : understood to  have a f i x e d time l i m i t . 1.  Books p u b l i s h e d  _ per" number.  2:. Monographs, p u b l i s h e d 100 pages) 3.  Articles  (less  than  published  _ per number  if. Books i n press; 5.  7.  _ p e r number  Monographs o r a r t i c l e s : i n pres si  6'. Books i n p r o g r e s s development)  _ per;- number-  (any stage  per: number  of _ per number  Monographs; or a r t i c l e s i n progress;  peir number  8., D o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n s d i r e c t e d  _ p e r number  9.  _ per: number  D o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n committees  10., Masters theses., d i r e c t e d ; 11. 12.  I f manuscript reviewer publishing firm  _ per number  of a per f i r m  If o f f i c e r i n a professional association  „. p e r o f f i c e  13.  I f guest l e c t u r e r a t  ..per appearance  lh.  I f on e d i t o r i a l board of J o u r n a l  1%  I f does c o n s u l t i n g work  conference 7  per board ^ per project.  1 6 . I f a t a l e a r n e d society::  gave paper  per number  on panel  per number  chairman  p e r number  1 7 . Conferences attended  per number  1 8 . Honrs per.' week on meetings.  2 or less 3 (average) 4- o r more  1  1 9 . Teaching time (time: a l l o c a t e d to teaching f u n c t i o n ; includes prep a r a t i o n , c l a s s time, marking, h e l p i n g students) I f v e r y h i g h (over 45 - hours; per-.week) I f above average per week) I f average week)  (about 35  hours  (about 25 hours; p e r  I f below average per week)  (about 1 5 hours;  90 • ' ' TABLE  8  RESULTS' OF MINI SURVEY; ACADEMICS' AND TEACHERS COMBINED ;  (15  r e s i r o n s es;)  PRODUCTIVITY ASPECT' :  'MEAN STANDARD STANDARD DEVIATION ERROR  11.20 8.00', 6.00 -9.93 7.33 4-.06' 2.4-0 4-.80 .2.00 2.80 1.73 3.06 2.53 4-. 19 1.6o 3.86 2.00 1.4-6  books/published monographs' p u b l i s h e d articles; published books i n press; monographs o r a r t i c l e s i n press; books i n progressmonographs o r a r t i c l e s , i n progres s; doctoral dissertations, directed doctoral committees masters theses directed manuscript reviewer association o f f i c e r guest lecturer, e d i t o r i a l board consulting work learned society—gave; paper: learned society—ron panel learned society—as; chairman conferences attended :  meetings;—-less meeting—three meetings—more, teaching time—  per teaching teaching teaching  .66  t h a n three, h r s . per: week (average) hrs,* per week t h a n t h r e e h r s . p e r week v e r y h i g h ( o v e r 4-5 h r s *  time:—above hrs., time—averag .. hours, time—below 15  week)  average; (about per week) e (about 25 per. week)" average Cabout  h r s .  per  week)  35  .93  71M  2.13  17.4-0  6.24-  2.61 »00 6.63 2.89 2.4-0 1.50 V..4-7 1.51  . 1-61 .67 -OO  1.71 .74.62 .38 1.15 .39 2.24-.. .57 1.33 .341.75 .4-5 1.59 .4-1 2.78 .71 1.88 • .4-8 .3.0 1.18 1.00 .25 1*30 .33 .97 .25 1.22; .31 1.18 .30 1.50 .38  16^.4-3  4-.2%  12*93 12.52  3.23  8,93  11.4-0  2.9^  3.4-0  8.74--  2.25  91  RESULTS' OF MINISURVEY:: ACADEMICS" ( 9 responses) PRODUCTIVITY ASPECT  ."  MEAN  STANDARD STAND, DEVIATION ERROR  books; p u b l i s h e d monographs; p u b l i s h e d articles; published b o o k s ; i n pres;s;  7.55 7.11  3.20  monographs o r a r t i c l e s i n press:' books i n progress monographs o r a r t i c l e s i n progressdoctoral dissertations directed" doctoral committees masters theses directed manuscript reviewer association o f f i c e r guest l e c t u r e r e d i t o r i a l board consulting work . learned society—gave paper learned society—on panel learned society—as chairman conferences; attended  0.00  .75 0.00  6.77  3.71 2.94-.  1.23  3.11  •ft  .4-6 .54-  1.65  .55 .6% .4-4-  1.92 1.33 2.4-8 2.04-  h.22 1.77  4-.00 .'• 2.11 1.55 .77  per week) time—above average (about . 35 h r s . p e r week) t e a c h i n g • t i m e - - a v e r a g e ( a b o u t 25 h r s «,  .4-9  1.39 1.64.  .98  • M-  1.4-1  1.77 2.22 1.66 3.22 2.4-4-  t h r e e h r s ... p e r w e e l ge;) hrs„> per week t h r e e hrs;. p e r weel h i g h ( o v e r 4-5' h r s . ,  :  1.4-5 1.4-8/  2.77 3.66:  7  meetings—less; ,than meetings—three(avera meetings--more' than teaching time—very  6..00  6.4-4-  7  1.06  2.26  .,82 .68  1.32  1.26 1.50  '  1.20  .4-4.4-2.  .50  1.55 2.2.2  1.23  *4€ .4-6 .4-1  1.39  .4-6  5.99  3.35  1.22;  ,  1.39  1.11  teaching  teaching  per week) t i m e — b e l o w average- (about h r s . . per week)  H-.662.77  ;  2.34-  •  .78  2.10  .70  2.52  .84-  15 .88  92 TABLE RESULTS' OF MINISURVEY;PRODUCTIVITY ASPECT  10  TEACHERS ( 6 responses) MEAN  1  books p u b l i s h e d monographs; p u b l i s h e d articles? published books i n pressmonographs o r a r t i c l e s i n press books i n progressmonographs o r a r t i c l e s ; i n progress doctoral dissertations directed d o c t o r a l committees masters- t h e s e s d i r e c t e d manuscript reviewer association officer. guest l e c t u r e r e d i t o r i a l board c o n s u l t i n g work l e a r n e d s o c i e t y — g a v e paper l e a r n e d s o c i e t y — o n panel l e a r n e d s o c i e t y — a s chairman conferences attended meetings;—less than three hrs.. per week meetings;—three (average.) h r s . per week meetings—more than three hrs.. p e r week t e a c h i n g t i m e — v e r y h i g h (over 4-5 h r s . per week) t e a c h i n g t i m e — a b o v e average; (about: 35 hrs.. per week) t e a c h i n g t i m e — a v e r a g e (about 25 h r s . per week) t e a c h i n g t i m e — b e l o w average (about' 15 h r s . per week)  16.66 9.33' 6.00 15.16 8.16 5.50 1.83 6.4-9 2.33 3.66 1.83 2.83 2.66 J+.16 1.33 3.66 1.83 1.33 .50 .50 1.16 2.00  STANDARD STAND.. DEVIATION ERROR  5.75 2.73 0.00 6.82 2.85 2.,94-  2.3H-  1.11 ' 0.00 2.78 . 1.16 1.20 .60 lM 6.86 2.80 .71 1.75 1.172..87F •75 .30 .65 1.60 .842.06 3.4-3 1.4-0 .71 1.75 1.03 .4-2 .4-0 .16 1.03 .4-2 .9* .22 .83 .4-7 1.16 1.78 .73  34-.50 12.38  5.05  25.33 11.07  4-. 52  18.16 13.65  5.57  7.16- 13.24-  5.4o  ;  93  DISCUSSION OF EXPLORATORY: ANALYSIS- RESULTS Ah;overview o f the e x p l o r a t o r y  results indicates  that  the same patterns, emerge as found i n the planned r e s u l t s . The  same key v a r i a b l e s a r e present w h i l e those near the c r i t -  i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l f o r t h i s . s t u d y , 0.10 a l f a l e v e l , to r i s e above and then f a l l below t h i s c r i t i c a l l e v e l .  tend In a l l  ,the cases where the v a r i a b l e s were s i g n i f i c a n t , i t was observed that the signs o f the b e t a c o e f f i c i e n t s were r e t a i n e d . Some mention should be made.of the s p e c i f i c r e s u l t s o f some o f these analyses:.  In the group consensus-academic  anal-  yses', i t was observed t h a t the degree p r e d i c t o r emerged as a s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a b l e i n both the multiple: and' stepwise sions.  regres-  The group consensus-teacher stepwise analysis.showed  disengagement as a s i g n i f i c a n t p r e d i c t o r .  The i n d i v i d u a l -  academic and teacher combined a n a l y s i s was n o t a b l e f o r i t s : l a c k o f s i g n i f i c a n t variables..  The i n d i v i d u a l - a c a d e m i c  anal-  y s i s i n d i c a t e d disengagement as a s i g n i f i c a n t p r e d i c t o r i n m i l t i p i e - r e g r e s s i o n and degree as a s i g n i f i c a n t p r e d i c t o r i n the stepwise r e g r e s s i o n .  The f i n a l e x p l o r a t o r y  analysis,  t h a t o f i n d i v i d u a l - t e a c h e r b a s i s , r e g i s t e r e d t r a v e l fund" a v a i l a b i l i t y a s s i g n i f i c a n t both i n the stepwise and simple: regression The  analyses.  r e s u l t s from the simple r e g r e s s i o n analyses  both o r i g i n a l and e x p l o r a t o r y  (from  a n a l y s e s ) i n d i c a t e t h a t as  i n d i v i d u a l predictors operating  without regard  f o r any o t h e r  v a r i a b l e s , the number o f student a s s i s t a n t s , the o r i e n t a t i o n  towards, t e a c h i n g , and the presence of a d o c t o r a t e a l l tend t o account f o r a s i z e a b l e percentage of. the p r o d u c t i v i t y variance.  95  TABLE. 11 EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS' RESULTS?"  MULTIPLE REGRESSION FROM '  GROUP CONSENSUS" AND ACADEMIC WEIGHTINGS" COEFFICIENT OF MULTIPLE DETERMINATION:'  0.000  F-FROB.:•  STANDARD ERROR OF PRODUCTIVITYr  CONSTANT COEFFICIENT:-  14-:.95  -7.78  aloofness emphasis;  thrust student  STANDARD ERROR: TOTAL BETA' COEFF.  PREDICTOR  production  0.34-79  assistants;  degree  11.68  4-0.4-7  STAND-. F ERROR RATIO  ..  F PROB.  4-.10  3.59  0.05  6.68  2.98  5.01  0.02..  -9.66  5.16  3.4-9  o.o6  3.70  0.87  17.82  6.16  3.56  2.99  0.000 0.08  TABLE 121. EXPLORATORY' ANALYSIS- RESULTS':  STEPWISE REGRESSION FROM  GROUP CONSENSUS' AND ACADEMIC WEIGHTINGS' COEFFICIENT^ OF MULTIPLE. DETERMINATION: F-PROB.:  0.000  0.2951  STANDARD' ERROR OF PRODUCTIVITY:  CONSTANT" C O E F F I C I E N T :  5.4-1  STANDARD ERROR:  11.28  5.89  96 TOTAL STAND. F' • BETA, . COEFF.. ERROR . RATIO  PREDICTOR production student teaching  2.93  1.12  6.76  . .3.53  0.74-  22.51  2.1V  5-59  0.01  2.85  3-77  0.05  emphasis  assistants orientation  . 5.53  degree  EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTS":  F PROB.  0.01 0.000  SIMPLE REGRESSION FROM  GROUP CONSENSUS AND ACADEMIC' WEIGHTINGS  PREDICTOR  COEFF. TOTAL MULT. BETA DETERM.. ' COEFF.  esprit  .0.03  -2.34-  1.13  4-.30  0.03  0.02  1.82.  ' 1.06  2.94-  0.08  0.05  3.39  1.28  7.02  0.009  aloofness production  emphasis  F" ' STAND'. . F PEOB. ERROR RATIO'  stud ent. as s i s t a n t s;  0.18 \ ' 4-.15  O.76 . 29 .V3  0.000  teaching  orientation  0.06  2.39  9.08  0.003  research  orientation  0.01  3.89. • 2.kZ  2.57  .0.10  10.94-  0.001  :-7.22  0.07  degree  10.25  3.09  TABLE. 14:  EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTS ;• MULTIPLE REGRESSION'FROM GROUP CONSENSUS' AND TEACHER WEIGHTINGS COEFFICIENT OF" MULTIPLE. DETERMINATION: F-PROB.:  1  0.000  0.3592.  . STANDARD ERROR OF PRODUCTIVITY:  10.03  CONSTANT.' COEFFICIENT':;  35.4-9  STANDARD ERROR:  97  34-.76  PREDICTOR  TOTAL BETA. COEFF.  STAND. F ERROR RATIO  F PROB.  hindrance  2.84-  1.68  2.83  0.09  intimacy  -5.93  2.86  4-. 27  0.03  thrus t  -8.56  H-.4-3  3.72  0.05  3.4-2  0.75  20.63  0.000  -5.64-  2.53  4-.9V  0.02  student  assistants  teaching  orientation  TABLE EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTS:;  15 STEPWISE REGRESSION FROM  GROUP CONSENSUS AND TEACHER WEIGHTINGS COEFFICIENT OF MULTIPLE DETERMINATION:  0.000  F-PROB.:  STANDARD ERROR OF PRODUCTIVITYr  CONSTANT COEFFICIENT;:  disengagement hindrance intimacy  teaching  54-. 08'  STANDARD ERROR:TOTALBETA COEFF..  PREDICTOR  student  0.3103  assistants; o r i e n t a t i o n  9.71  11.4-0  STAND. F ERROR RATIO  PROB-.  -2,74-  1.05  . 6.78  0.01  2.75  0.91  9.09  0.003  -6.24-  1.38 20.19  0.000  3.33  0.65 26.11  •0.000  -6.38  1.87 11.56  0.001  F  98  TABLE EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS' RESULTS':  16' SIMPLE REGRESSION FROM  GROUP CONSENSUS' AND TEACHER WEIGHTINGS' . PREDICTOR  COEFF. MULTv DETERM.  TOTAL  BETA;  COEFF.  STAND. F ERROR RATIO  F PROB.  hindrance  0.03  2.37-  1.03  5.27  0.02  aloofness-  0.03  1.83  0.91  3.98  O.Oh  p r o d u c t i o n emphasis  0.02  2.16  1.12  3.^9  0.05  initiating  0.02  1.95  1.08  3.23  0.07  0.12  2.99  0.68  18.91  0.05  -5M  2.09  6.81  student teaching  structure  assistants orientation  TABLE EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTS:  17 MULTIPLE REGRESSION FROM  INDIVIDUAL RESPONSE AND COMBINED ACADEMIC AND TEACHER WEIGHTINGS COEFFICIENT OF MULTIPLE DETERMINATION: F-PROB.:  0.001  0.331!*  STANDARD ERROR OF PRODUCTIVITY:  CONSTANT COEFFICIENT:  6.68  STANDARD ERROR:  7.97  1H-.31  0.000 0.01  TOTAX BETA. COEFF.  STAND. F" ERROR RATIO  F PROBY  1.28  0.66  0.05  23-.06  5.57  17.08 • 0.000  -if.28  1.94-  . 4-.86  PREDICTOR production student  emphasis"  assistants'  teaching  orientation  TABLE  :  3.78  0.02  18  EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS' RESULTS'; : STEPWISE REGRESSION FROM' INDIVIDUAL RESPONSE AND COMBINED ACADEMIC AND TEACHER WEIGHTINGS' COEFFICIENT OF MULTIPLE DETERMINATION t  0.000  F-PROB.:  ,  STANDARD ERROR OF PRODUCTIVITY:  CONSTANT" COEFFICIENT":  student teaching  STANDARD' ERROR:-  18.02  :  PREDICTOR production  0.24-59'  STAND:. F. ERROR RATIO  ;  3.16.  25.83  5.07  25.89  . 0.000  " -3.7^  •1.4-7  6.4-1  0.01  TABLE  19  SIMPLE REGRESION FROM  INDIVIDUAL RESPONSE AND COMBINED ACADEMIC AND TEACHER WEIGHTINGS '."  'F PROB.  0.4-7  assistants:  EXPLORATORY" ANALYSIS RESULTS.:  2.21  0.84-  emphasis:  orientation  TOTAL . BETA" COEFF.  7.83  0.Q7  100  COEFF. TOTAL F' MULT: BETA. STAND. RAT IO F DETERM. COEFF. ERROR PROB.  PREDICTOR p r o d u c t i o n emphasis^  0.02  O.96  0.53  3.26  0.06  student  0.18  28.06  5.16  29.4-9  0.000  0.06  -if.78  1.61  8.76  0.004-  0.03  1.95  0.95  4-.19  0.04-  0.04-  5.4-0  2.12-  6.4-7  0.01  assistants'  teaching travel  orientation  funds  degree  TABLE-  20  EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTS":" MULTIPLE REGRESSION FROM' INDIVIDUAL RESPONSE ANDACADEMIC WEIGHTINGS' COEFFICIENT OF MULTIPLE DETERMINATION':' 0.3314F-PROB. :• 0.001 STANDARD ERROR OF" PRODUCTIVITY:" 11.83 CONSTANT' COEFFICIENT:- -7.34STANDARD ERROR: 21.23' 1  PREDICTOR  TOTAL F' F" BETA' STAND.RAT I O P R O "B'. COEFF. ERROR 1.4-5  0.89  2.65  0.10  s tud ent as s i s t a n t s  33.69  8..27  16.57  0.00  teaching  -5.83  2.88  4-.10  0.04-  disengagement  orientation  TABLE 21 EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTS': STEPWISE REGRESSION FROM INDIVIDUAL RESPONSE AND ACADEMIC WEIGHTINGS COEFFICIENT OF MULTIPLE DETERMINATION: O..2560 F-FROB..: 0.000 STANDARD ERROR OF' PRODUCTIVITY:"  11.54-  101 CONSTANT" COEFFICIENT"::  16.08.  STANDARD ERROR :-  3.12  PREDICTOR .  TOTAL BETA COEFF.  F' STAND. F' • PROB. ERROR RATIO  student' a s s i s t a n t s ;  35.52'  7.62  21.68  :  0.000  teaching  -5.05  2.19  5.29  ;  0.02  6.31  2.9O  4-.74-  orientation  degree  TABLE  0.02  22:  EXPLORATORY* ANALYSIS RESULTSTr SIMPLE REGRESSION FROM INDIVIDUAL RESPONSE" AND ACADEMIC WEIGHTINGS"  PREDICTORS  COEFF'. TOTAL MULT; BETA DETERM. COEFF..  ERROR  RATIO  PROB.  disengagement  0.02  1.33  O.76  3.00  0.08;  p r o d u c t i o n emphasis.  0.02  1.27  0.79  2.58  0.10  student a s s i s t a n t s ;  0.18  .4-1,56  7.67  29.35  0.000  teaching  orientation  0.06  -7.22  2.39  9.08  0.003  research  orientation  0.01  3.89  2.4-2  2.57  . 0.10  t r a v e l funds  0.10  2.27  1.4-2  2.54-  0.10  degree  0.07  10.25  3.09  10.94-  0.001  TABLE  23  EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTS.:: MULTIPLE REGRESSION FROM INDIVIDUAL RESPONSE. AND TEACHER WEIGHTINGS. COEFFICIENT OF MULTIPLE DETERMINATION:  0.2716  102 F-PROB.:  0.02  STANDARD' ERROR OF PRODUCTIVITY:  CONSTANT" COEFFICIENT":  18.88  STANDARD ERROR:TOTAL BETA" COEFF.  PREDICTOR p r o d u c t i o n emphasis  student  assistants  teaching  orientation  19.20  STAND: F ERROR RATIO  F PROB.  0.88  3.24-  0.07  -IM  0.82  3.05  0.07  24-.75  7.4-8  10.93  -5.13  2.60  1.59  thrus t  10.70  3.88  0.001 0.04-  TABLE 2k. EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTSr  STEPWISE REGRESSION FROM  INDIVIDUAL RESPONSE AND TEACHER WEIGHTINGS COEFFICIENT 'OF MULTIPLE DETERMINATION: 7  0.000  F-PROB.:  STANDARD ERROR OF PRODUCTIVITY:  CONSTANT COEFFICIENT:  23.03  STANDARD ERROR: TOTAL BETA COEFF.  PREDICTOR.  1.08  p r o d u c t i o n emphasis student a s s i s t a n t s . teaching travel  orientation  funds  r  0.1975  '  10.4-3  3.82  STAND. F . ERROR RATIO  O.63  2.94-  F PROB.  .0.08  25.60  6'..82 14-.06  0.000  -T.36  1-96  4-.92  0.02  1.87  1..14-  2.69  0.09  103  TABLE 25 EXPLORATORY^ ANALYSIS RESULTS;- SIMPLE REGRESSION' FROM INDIVIDUAL RESPONSE AND TEACHER WEIGHTINGS: COEFF. TOTAL BETA' MULT'. DETERM. COEFF".  PREDICTOR production student  ;  assistants  teaching travel  emphasis  orientation  funds  STAND. F ERROR RATIO  F PROB. 0.07  0.02  1.23  0.68  3.21  0.12  29.82  6.88  18.76'  0.05.  -5.H-6  2.09  6.81  0.01  0.03  2.58  1.22  ifO+6  0.03  0.000  

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}]}"
                            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:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0102400/manifest

Comment

Related Items