microfilms international - open...
TRANSCRIPT
ANALYSIS OF THE CONCERNS SURROUNDING THERESEARCH RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INSTITUTIONS OFHIGHER EDUCATION AND LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCIES
Item Type text; Dissertation-Reproduction (electronic)
Authors Richardson, Denise Rose
Publisher The University of Arizona.
Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this materialis made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona.Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such aspublic display or performance) of protected items is prohibitedexcept with permission of the author.
Download date 06/06/2018 00:43:36
Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/282078
INFORMATION TO USERS
This was produced from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted.
The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction.
1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity.
2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an indication that the film inspector noticed either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed, you will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. If copyrighted materials were deleted you will find a target note listing the pages in the adjacent frame.
3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photographed the photographer has followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete.
4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and tipped into your xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our Dissertations Customer Services Department.
5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases we have filmed the best available copy.
University Microfilms
International 300 N. ZEEB RD„ ANN ARBOR, Ml 48106
8207905
Richardson, Denise Rose
ANALYSIS OF THE CONCERNS SURROUNDING THE RESEARCH RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION AND LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCIES
The University of Arizona PH.D. 1981
University Microfilms
International 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106
PLEASE NOTE:
In all cases this material has been filmed in the best possible way from the available copy. Problems encountered with this document have been identified here with a check mark V .
1. Glossy photographs or pages
2. Colored illustrations, paper or print
3. Photographs with dark background
4. Illustrations are poor copy
5. Pages with black marks, not original copy
6. Print shows through as there is text on both sides of page
7; Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages •/
8. Print exceeds margin requirements
9. Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine
10. Computer printout pages with indistinct print
11. Page(s) lacking when material received, and not available from school or author.
12; Page(s) seem to be missing in numbering only as text follows.
13. Two pages numbered . Text follows.
14. Curling and wrinkled pages
15. Other ;
University Microfilms
International
ANALYSIS OF THE CONCERNS SURROUNDING THE RESEARCH
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER
EDUCATION AND LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCIES
by
Denise Rose Richardson
A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
In the Graduate College
THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA
1 9 8 1
THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA GRADUATE COLLEGE
As members of the Final Examination Committee, we certify that we have read
the dissertation prepared by Denise Rose Richardson '
entitled ANALYSIS OF THE CONCERNS SURROUNDING,THE RESEARCH
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION
AND LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCIES
and recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement
for the Degree of Ph.D. .
Date
9.- V. -wa-gy
UL/M
Date
jry ( Date
Date
Date
Final approval and acceptance of this dissertation is contingent upon the candidate's submission of the final copy of the dissertation to the Graduate College.
I hereby certify that I have read this dissertation prepared under my direction and recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement.
$aJVuMxXfcw 5~-/3 -X! Dissertation Director Date
STATEMENT BY AUTHOR
This dissertation has been submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for an advanced degree at The University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library.
Brief quotations from this dissertation are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major department or the Dean of the Graduate College when in his judgment the proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author.
SIGNED:
DEDICATION
This work is dedicated with love and apreciation to My Past, My Present, My Future Rosa E. Hadley, my grandmother, L. Maye Richardson, my mother, Sarita, my l i tt le sister Sonya and Melissa, my neices
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author would like to acknowledge and express her
appreciation to the following people for their respective guidance,
support and encouragement during the undertaking of this study.
Dr. Darrell L. Sabers, a truly great editor, who provided the
kind of skill, objectivity, and unselfishness that is the mark of all
exceptional dissertation directors—I thank you for setting the stan
dards, keeping me on task, and all the positive strokes.
Dr. Henry E. Butler, Jr., my mentor, whose genuine caring and
support never waivered during the 3 1/2 years of my doctoral program.
The contributions you have made to the educational field will long be
remembered by those who had the good fortune to have had you touch
their lives—I thank you for being you.
Dr. Roy F. Blake, whose consistency logical rigor, and frank
ness helped me set the framework for the data collection and report
ing—I thank you for sharing your expertise unselfishly.
The subject of this study was chosen because of the efforts of
Dr. Barbara S. Prentice, Dr. Walter Hathaway, Jr., and the members of
the AERA: Division H Task Force on "Fostering Fruitful Relationships
between IHEs and LEAS." A very special thanks to Barbara Prentice for
her moral support and actions taken to advance my career.
v
vi
To the researchers who piloted the instruments used in this
study; and the respondents who took time out of their busy schedules to
complete the questionnaire—I gratefully acknowledge my indebtedness.
Stan Malinowitz, a budding statistician—I thank you for your
help in designing and running the computer analysis.
Carmen Barrio and Shelby Erwin who typed all the drafts of the
two questionnaires—thank you for your professionalism and patience.
Fran Johnson and Helen Hurley, the backbones of the EDFA De
partment—I thank you for the emergency typing and information re
trieval, your smiles and words of encouragement.
Barbara Romero, my secretary and friend—I thank you for taking
the time during a hectic year to type the first drafts for several
chapters. Your cooperation is greatly appreciated.
The dynamic trio, Ken Hayden, Louise Hayden, and Michaele Ann
Melton, who took time out of their busy lives to proofread, edit, and
most importantly—care—I thank you for sharing your lives with me.
I express my appreciation to my many friends who remained
loyal and supportive even when I could not return their support.
My best buddy, Beryl Varner, who through many long distance
calls, kept my spirits liftdd and my nose to the grindstone—I thank
you for being the unselfish person you are.
Last, but most importantly, I want to thank those whose inti
mate love for me made me want to succeed—my Mom, my Aunt Pauline
Jones, the girls, and Joseph—I love you all and I know you share in
the realization of my dreams.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES x
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS xiii
ABSTRACT ' . . . xiv
CHAPTER
1. PRESENTATION OF THE PROBLEM 1
Introduction 1 Rationale 3 Statement of the Problem 7 Statement of the Purpose 7 Hypotheses 7 Assumptions 8 Limitations 9 Definitions of Terms 9 Organization of the Study 11
2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 13
Traditional Cooperative Relationships Between the IHE and the LEA 13 Preservice 14 Student Teaching 15 Administrative Internship 16 Continuing Education 17 Part-time or Guest Lectures 17 Inservice Education 17 Consultant Services . 18
Organizations: Focus and Purpose 19 Theoretical Hindrances to Collaboration 23
Interorganizational Cooperation (IOC) 26 Getzels-Guba Model 29 Structural-Functional Analysis 34
Institutional Hindrances of Collaborative Research in the XHE 36 Introduction 36 Findings from UNESCO Conference ..... 37
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS—-Continued
viii
Page
Findings from the Sieber Study 43 Institutional Hindrances to Collaborative Research in the LEA 51
Sociological Hindrances to Inter-Institutional Collaboration 55 Differences with Regard to Policy-Making 56 Differences with Regard to the Role of the Written Word 57
Differences with Regard to Daily Activities ... 57 Differences in Attitudes toward Cooperation . . : 58 Differences with Regard to Expenditure of Funds . 59 Differences Relating to Research and Development . 59 Differences with Regard to Personnel Matters ... 59 Differences with Regard to Personal Commitment
to the Organization 61 Differences with Regard to Relative Statuses ... 61 Differences in Educational, Political, and Social Views 62
Perceptual Hindrances to Collaborative Research Efforts 63 Introduction 63 Perceptions: The Institution of Higher Education. 63 Perceptions: The Local Education Agency 65
Recommendations for Increasing the Probability of Success in Collaborative Research Efforts 67
Summary 80
3. METHOD 84
Introduction 84 Sample 85 Description of the Instruments 87 Procedures for Collecting the Data 88 Method of Analysis 90
Demographic Data (Census and organization) .... 90 Perceptions of the "Reality" and "Expectation of the Research Relationship" 91
Selecting the Chi Square Categories. ....... 95 Rationale for the Selection of ANOVA 95 Decision to Use Parametric Statistics 96 Rationale for Selecting the Tukey HSD Procedure. . 97 Rationale for Selection of the Chi Square 97
Summary 98
ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued
Page
4. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA 99
Response Rate 99 Census Data 102 Organizational Data . 105 Null Hypothesis 1 Ill
Presentation of the Data . . Ill Analysis of the Data 115
Null Hypothesis 2 115 Presentation of the Data 115 Analysis of the Data 116
Null Hypothesis 3 120 Presentation of the Data 120 Analysis of the Data 126
Null Hypothesis 4 127 Presentation of the Data 128 Analysis of the Data 140
Summary 140
5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ... 142
Summary 142 Conclusions 143 Discussion 147 Recommendations 149
APPENDIX A: SURVEY INSTRUMENT FOR DRE, IHE, AND LEA 151
APPENDIX B: SURVEY INSTRUMENT FOR COLLEGE OF EDUCATION TEACHERS 158
APPENDIX C: CONCEPTUAL CHECKLIST FOR PERSONS PLANNING TO DEVELOP INTERINSTITUTIONAL COLLABORATIONS .... 161
LIST OF REFERENCES 163
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Motivators and Costs Associated with Inter-organizational Cooperation 28
2. Emphasis on Research by Various Groups, and the Influence Which They Have on the Goals of the School (according to deans) 47
3. Number of Questionnaires Sent and Percentage of Returns by Group Membership 100
4. Number of DCE and DRE Respondents Giving Each Reason for Non-return of Questionnaire 101
5. Number of Respondents in Each Group by Gender, Ethnicity, and Educational Level 103
6. Number of Respondents in Each Student Enrollment Category 104
7. Number of LEA and DRE Responses to Questions Regarding a Central Research and Evaluation Unit .... 106
8. Number of IHE and DCE Responses to Questions Regarding Coordinating Research Offices 107
9. Number of DCE Responses to the Question—"Does College of Education Have a Research Policy?" 108
10. Number and Percentage of Persons by Group Membership Responding to the Question—"From whom do you request assistance in a cooperative research project?" 109
11. Number and Percentage of Persons by Group Membership Responding to the Question—"Who requests assistance from you in a cooperative research project?" 110
x
xi
LIST OF TABLES—Continued
Table Page
12. P Values of the Dependent Variables in Which There Were Not Significant Differences among the Respondents on the Perceptions of the "Reality" of Research Relationship 112
13. P Values of the Dependent Variables on Which There Were Significant Differences among •the Respondents on the Perceptions of the "Reality" of the Research Relationship 113
1.4. P Values of the Dependent Variables on Which There Were Not Significant Differences in the Perceptions of the "Expectation" of Research Relationships 117
15. P Values of the Dependent Variables on Which There Were Significant Differences in Perceptions among the Respondents on the Expectation of the Research Relationship 119
16. Summarization of Tukey HSD Results for R, E, R - E, Significant Interactions, Trial Means and Confidence Intervals for Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3 .... 121
17. Categories of and Observed Frequencies for Chi Square Calculations for Null Hypothesis 4a 129
18. Categories of and Observed Frequencies for Chi Square Calculations for Null Hypothesis 4b 130
19. Categories of and Observed Frequencies for Chi Square Calculations for Null Hypothesis 4c 131
20. Free Responses of DRE Respondents to "What are your most common complaints regarding IHE/LEA research relationships?" 132
21. Free Responses of LEA Respondents to "What are your most common complaints regarding IHE/LEA research relationships?" 133
22. Free Responses of IHE Respondents to "What are your most common complaints regarding IHE/LEA research relationships?" 134
xii
LIST OF TABLES—Continued
Table Page
23. Free Responses of DCE Respondents to "What are your most common complaints regarding IHE/LEA research relationships?" 135
24. Free Responses of DRE, LEA, IHE and DCE Respondents to the Question "What are some benefits of IHE/ LEA research relationships?" 136
25. Free Responses of DRE, LEA, IHE and DCE Respondents to the Question "What can be done to foster better collaborative research relationships between the IHE and LEA?" 138
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure Page
1. Levels of Organization ..... 21
2. Lewin's Theoretical Construct of Relations between Individuals 25
3. Determinants of Interorganizational Cooperation 30
4. Getzel-Guba Model of a Social Process . 32
5. The Collaborative Decision-Making Process 69
6. Parsonian Paradigm of a Social System 72
7. Key Elements in the IOD Action and Research Domain 75
8. Procedure for Testing Null Hypothesis 1 92
9. Procedure for Testing Null Hypothesis 2 93
10. Procedure for Testing Null Hypothesis 3 94
xiii
ABSTRACT
The problem of this study was: What practical and theoretical
problems attend the research relationship between Institutions of
Higher Education (IHE) and Local Education Agencies (LEA)? The major
purpose of the study was to ascertain the extent and nature of the
problems and issues in the LEA/IHE research relationship from the per
spective of respondents from both groups.
Four populations were sampled through researcher designed ques
tionnaires—Deans of Colleges of Education (DCE), college faculty
(IHE), Directors of Research and Evaluation (DRE), and research staff
(LEA) from public schools.
Four hypotheses were tested. Null hypotheses 1 and 2 were
tested by a one-way ANOVA. Null hypothesis 3 was tested by a two-way
ANOVA. Chi-square was the statistic used to test null hypothesis 4.
Based on the retention or rejection of the four null hypotheses
in this study the following general conclusions were made:
1. This study supports the examined literature that perceptual
differences do indeed exist between members of the IHE and LEA
in relation to the research relationship between these two
institutions.
2. The significant differences in perceptions of the research
relationship relate to planning, decision making powers, role
xiv
XV
definition, finances, value of research, communication and
institutional arrangements for conducting research.
3. All respondents feel there is some benefit from research col-
laboratives between the IHE and the LEA.
Several recommendations were made. Some of these were as fol
lows. This study was focused primarily on the perceptual hindrances to
collaborative research in the IHE and LEA. There exists a need for
more empirical studies which focus on various aspects of the research
relationship between the IHE and LEA. There should be a continuing
search for other factors which hinder or facilitate successful colla-
boratives. A compiled body of research relating to this topic should
be encouraged so that there will exist several data banks which can
systematically be searched. This data-based feedback would be extreme
ly useful to those entering into a collaborative relationship. Studies
should be conducted which examine the relationship between the ideal
and actual purposes of research in an effort to find ways to bring those
purposes closer together.
CHAPTER 1
PRESENTATION OF THE PROBLEM
If no distinction of superiority and inferiority prevail among officers, they will devote themselves to their tasks rather than to rivalries with one another. It is because we single out something and treat it as distinct from other things that we get the idea of its opposite. In conflicts between opposites, the more one attacks his seeming opponent (upon which he really depends for his completion) the more he defeats himself. (Tao Teh King Circa 500 B.C.)
Introduction
Evidence exists which suggests that the American public feels
that the public school system is failing (Bloom 1977, Rand Corporation
1972, Gallup 1979, 1980). The ensuing result has been a decline in pub
lic confidence as evidenced by tax revolts, court cases, flight to pri
vate schools, and parent militancy. The key to gaining public confidence
is to help the public understand schools and how they are operated
(McCloskey 1967). But educational administrators have not and conse
quently have let themselves be placed in a situation where the public
now demands of them certain definite educational behavior. Answers to
the myriad and multifaceted problems that presently beset the educa
tional system are being sought—even demanded by the public (Carter
1979). Educational administrators have been made the responsible party.
This situation has been described by several scholars as the "account
ability era" (Lessinger 1970, Stufflebeam 1971).
1
2
These renewed demands present challenging implications for
educational administrators. In the past educators have not relied on
research to establish a basis of process accountability (Kimbrough
1976). The challenge lies in that this era or movement requires that
administrators have a rational, defensible, and retrievable foundation
for their decisionmaking. As a result, the concern and the need for
research and evaluation has increased considerably.
Local education agencies, institutions of higher education, and
other educational organizations have invested considerable resources in
institutional and evaluation research. This increase in effort was in
direct response to the loss of credibility and public interest in ac
countability (Kimbrough 1976).
Prior to this movement, educational research and development was
given a new scope and direction with the:
1. 1963, Vocational Education Act,
2. 1964, Amendments to the Cooperative Research Act, and
3. 1965, ESEA Title IV.
With this change in scope and direction came a newfound hope for research
and development to become a significant independent variable toward im
proving educational practice (Taylor 1972) and decisionmaking (Cohen
1970). However, research efforts by Institutions of Higher Education
(IHE) and the resulting data have not been uniformly welcomed by educa
tional administrators in the Local Education Agency (LEA) (Carter 1979).
Some educators believe that accountability is one of the many
fads in education that come and go. Kimbrough (1976) advocates that
the accountability movement
3
is symptomatic of deeply ingrained problems in the administration of public schools. It is symptomatic of the lack of professional development and low level of research-based knowledge about how children learn. . . educators must become much more professionally respectable than they have been in dealing with learning problems. Basic research and development programs are needed (page 190).
Other educators purport that the research coming out of the Institutions
of Higher Education does not respond to their needs (Rankin 1980).
That research does not assist them in their daily decisions and policy
development is a perennial complaint from educational practitioners.
Yet educational research is accelerating as more scholars from more
disciplines turn their attention to phenomena, processes,and problems
related to education (Averch 1974).
Evidence from surveys, reviews of literature, and personal
experience indicate that there is a definite need for improvement in
both the willingness and ability of the Institutions of Higher Educa
tion and the Local Education Agency to work cooperatively in research
ventures (Hathaway 1979).
This study was focused on isolating some of the factors, at both
the institutional and personal level, which hinder or facilitate
cooperative research relationships between Institutions of Higher
Educations and Local Educational Agencies.
Rationale
The subject of the Institution of Higher Education (IHE) and
Local Education Agency (LEA) relationships has been a long-term
concern. Until the last 20 years the concern has focused more on the
4
lag between research and practice than on the nature of the relation
ship. The rationale for this study stemmed from the possibility that
an increased understanding of the nature of the IHE/LEA research rela
tionship could facilitate collaboration between these two major educa
tional institutions.
Much has been written in professional literature about the
various types of cooperative relationships between the IHE and the LEA.
The most frequently mentioned is the field practice, where the LEA ••
provides sites in which IHE students put theory into practice. However,
a search of the Educational Research Information Clearing House (ERIC)
indicies revealed that there is limited research on collaborative re
search practices between the IHE and LEA. In part to address this need,
and generally to study the position of educational research, an inter
national conference convened at the UNESCO Institute in Hamburg,
Germany. The main purpose of this meeting was to:
. . . submit to critical scrutiny the present arrangements for organizing and carrying out educational research with a view to discovering ways in which these arrangements might be so modified as to lead to a more fruitful partnership between educational research and educational practice (Yates 1971, 15).
The conference had its origin in a widely shared concern that education
al research appeared to be failing the needs of its patrons. Those who
sponsored and those who participated in the conference were committed
to the proposition that the justification of educational research must
rest on the contribution that it can make to the improvement of educa
tional practice. That useful data for decisionmaking and the
5
improvement of educational practice are yielded by collaborative
research is acknowledged by both the LEA practitioner (Holley 1977,
Barber 1979, Rankin 1980) and the IHE researcher (Cohen 1970, Carter
1979, Carlson 1980).
Why. then is collaborative research not utilized with more
frequency? Interwoven in this issue of collaborative research are
several key variables which have impeded its success. These variables
include perception, structure, and finance (Kean 1979). Listed below
are a few of these central issues.
1. More often than not the lament heard from the LEA practitioner
is the inability of the ivory-tower academicians to communicate
with and offer solutions to real-life problems (Prentice 1980).
Concomitantly, the academicians question the impact of their
research and evaluation efforts on school problems (Kerlinger
1977, Callahan 1980).
2. A number of problems exist in the development of cooperative
research between the IHEs and the LEAs, but perhaps the
pivotal problem is that each party has a different stake in
research and these different stakes are often in competition.
The questions of which type of research, basic or applied, will
most benefit the LEA has yet to be answered.
3. It appears that larger urban school districts are no longer
hospitable to outside researchers wishing to use the schools,
staff, students, and resources in research that is frequently
useless to the schools (Holley 1977). In short, IHEs are no
longer automatically welcomed into school districts for the
purpose of conducting research.
4. With the very real presence of the shrinking research dollar,
collaborative research efforts have to progress from being an
innovation to a necessity for survival. The historical inde
pendent approach of IHE research on schools and LEA research
in schools can ill-afford to continue if either is to be ef
fective (Kean 1979). Collaboration increases both the possible
securement of research dollars and the efficiency of the re
search project.
5. The controversy between the IHE and the LEA has centered on
the question, "Who uses whom in the research process?" Some
where in the heat of this emotional tornado lies the calm of
truth (Haase 1979). This study was an attempt to systematical
ly forage some of these truths.
Most of the writings on the topic of the nature of the IHE/LEA
research relationships have been discursive and theoretical rather
than empirically based. The purpose of this study was not to negate
the importance of previous work in this area. However, there exists
a need for additional empirically-based studies which isolate some of
the problems as well as describe how the LEA and IHE can have mutually
beneficial impact on each other. This study helped meet that need.
Statement of the Problem
What theoretical and practical problems attend the IHE/LEA
research relationship?
Statement of the Purpose
This study was a descriptive study in that the major purposes
were to:
1. Describe the organizational features of the IHE which hinder
collaborative research with LEA.
2. Describe the organizational features of the LEA which hinder
collaborative research with IHE.
3. Obtain information which could be used to facilitate collabora
tive research.
4. Ascertain the extent and nature of the problems and issues in
LEA/IHE research relationships from the perspective of respon
dents from both institutions.
Hypotheses
The relationship among the respective perceptions of the
Directors of Evaluation and Research (DRE), Deans of Colleges of
Education (DGE), IHE faculty and LEA research staff respondents
was tested by the following null hypotheses:
1. There are no differences among the perceptions of IHE, DRE,
and LEA respondents on the "reality" of the research relation
ships between the IHE and the LEA.
2. There are no differences among the perceptions of IHE, DRE, and
LEA respondents on the "expectation" of the research relation
ship between the IHE and the LEA.
3. The discrepancies between "reality" and "expectation" of the
research relationship are not different among respondents from
the LEA, IHE, or DRE populations.
4a. There are no differences among LEA, DRE, IHE, and DCE respon
dents on their perceptions of the benefits that result from
the IHE/LEA research relationship.
4b. There are no differences among the LEA, DRE, IHE,and DCE
respondents on their most common complaints about the IHE/LEA
research relationship.
4c. There are no differences among the LEA, DRE, IHE, and DCE
respondents on their perceptions of what should be done to
foster better collaborative relationships between the LEA
and the IHE.
Assumptions
For purposes of this study, the following assumptions were made:
1. Some relationship exists between research and improved in
struction.
2. Improved research relations between Local Education Agencies
and Institutions of Higher Education will benefit educational
practice.
Limitations
The study was limited by the following:
The selection of subjects was more purposive than random,
therefore limited direct extrapolation can be made to similar
populations.
Because of the use of the bulk mailing system for the distribu
tion of one questionnaire, it was not possible to accurately
assess how many subjects received the questionnaire.
The time of the study was limited to one year.
The findings were limited by the scope of the research-designed
questionnaires.
Although there were many varied relationships between the Local
Education Agency and the Institution of Higher Education, this
study was limited to the research relationship.
Definitions of Terms
For the purposes of this study, the following terms applied:
AERA: The American Educational Research Association, a pro
fessional educational organization.
Collaborative: The substantially joint effort of the LEA and
IHE in a research endeavor. The institutions share the respon
sibility for decision-making in certain significant areas. It
often requires significant organizational modifications.
10
3. Cooperative: The association with the LEA and IHE in joint
efforts of mutual benefits. It is distinguished from a
collaborative in that it may proceed without either cooperating
agency changing its major policies or practices.
4. Consortium: A formal relationship between participating
organizations with specific guidelines established in advance.
5. DCE: Deans of Colleges of Education: One of the populations
sampled in this study.
6. Division H: A formal section of the AERA membership which
focuses on School Evaluation and Program Development.
7. PRE: Directors of Research and Evaluation in public school
districts with a student enrollment above 45,000; one of the
populations sampled in this study.
8. Expectation: How the respondents to the questionnaire perceive
the ideal or "How it should be" in research relationships be
tween the LEA and IHE.
9. IHE: Institutions of Higher Education. This includes four-
year colleges and universities. Respondents from this group
include all faculty except Deans of Colleges of Education.
10. Informal Relationships: Interactions between IHE and LEA which
result from personal relationships.
11. LEA: Local Education Agency or public school district. Respon
dents from this group include all research personnel except
Directors of Research and Evaluation.
11
12. Out-of-Dlstrict-Research: Any research initiated and/or
conducted by personnel not employed by the LEA in which the
research is conducted.
13. Personnel Exchange: An arrangement where LEA and IHE personnel
are shared or exchanged for periods of time.
14. Reality: How the respondents to the questionnaire perceive
the state of the art or "How it is" in research relationships
between the IHE and LEA.
15. Research: Empirical investigation as distinguished from field
services or library research.
16. Solicited Cooperative: An arrangement where the IHE is apprised
of topics which the LEA wants investigated.
Organization of the Study
The report of this study is presented in five chapters. Chapter
1 introduced the problem, presented the rationale, made a statement of
the problem and purpose, stated th.e hypotheses, established the
assumptions and limitations, and defined the terms which were important
to the study.
Selected related literature and research are reviewed in Chap
ter 2. The chapter is introduced and organized into nine sections
which review the following: traditional cooperative relationships between
the IHE and LEA; organizations; focus and purpose; theoretical hin
drances to collaborative efforts; perceptual hindrances to collaborative
research efforts; institutional hindrances to collaborative research
12
in the IHE; institutional hindrances to collaborative research in the
LEA; sociological hindrances to collaborative research; recommendations
for successful collaboratives; and summary.
The procedures and design of the study are presented in Chapter
3 which includes the following: introduction, sample, description of
the instruments, procedure for collecting the data, method of analysis,
rationale for selection of the statistics used, and summary.
Chapter 4 includes the presentation and analysis of the data
with respect to each of the four hypotheses tested. Tables and figures
are used to present pertinent data.
The summary, conclusions, discussion, and recommendations
are presented in Chapter 5.
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
The following review is the result of an examination of the
literature in the area of collaborative efforts between institutions,
particularly institutions of higher education (IHE) and local educa
tion agencies (LEA). Both the practical and theoretical problems of
interinstitutional collaboration have been examined.
The review is divided into nine sections: (1) traditional
cooperative relationships between IHEs and LEAs; (2) organizations:
focus and purpose; (3) theoretical hindrances to collaborative efforts;
(4) institutional hindrances of collaborative research in the IHE;
(5) institutional hindrances to collaborative research in the LEA;
(6) sociological hindrances to interinstitutional collaboration;
(7) perceptual hindrances to collaborative research efforts; (8) recom
mendations for successful collaboratives; and (9) summary.
Traditional Cooperative Relationships between the IHE and the LEA
Historically, the most common activities in which LEAs and
IHEs have cooperated have been:
1. Preservice (teacher and administrator preparation)
2. Student teaching
3. Administrative internship
13
14
4. Continuing education
5. Part-time or guest lectures
6. Inservice activities
7. Consultant services (Hathaway 1980).
Included in this section will be a brief description of the preceding
types of cooperatives.
1. Preservice
The public school's first priority is the education of young
children. The university's contribution to this goal is the education
of the young (and sometimes not so young) adult as a teacher (or ad
ministrator) of children (Perdew 1968).
In the colonial years, teachers were often poorly trained.
Teacher certification varied from colony to colony. Generally, certi
fication of elementary teachers was based first on religion and poli
tics and then on skill (Butts 1953). As America accepted the public
support and control of schools a parallel interest developed in teacher
education (Gutek 1972).
Thirty-four years after the establishment of the first Normal
School for the training of teachers, university instruction for the
training of teachers was initiated with the establishment of the
first permanent chair of education at the University of Iowa in 1873
(Butts 1953). By 1879 the idea of university instruction began to move
forward and increasingly institutions created similar departments to
attract potential secondary teachers or candidates for principalships.
15
The first BA in education was given at the University of
Michigan in 1905 (Butts 1953).
2. Student Teaching
Student teaching has been in existence for a century or more
(Perdew 1968). Gutek (1972) states that in 1875 the curriculum in most
normal schools included practice teaching in a model school under
supervision.
Blake (1980) relates that
. . . some form of experienced based or on the job training component has been a part of (university) teacher education programs in the U.S. since 1904 (page 1).
An important part of teacher preparation is student teaching
which is an excellent test of the theories of education (Mayer 1960).
Students while still enrolled in the IHE are placed under the direction
of a master teacher in the LEA. An IHE professor, who is in charge of
student teaching, evaluates the practical aptitude and success of the
prospective teacher. Student teaching is based on the idea of in
creased interaction between the IHE and the LEA for the benefit of the
personnel and agencies involved (Sage 1977). This link between the two
institutions has been profitable in at least two ways. In addition to
skills learned by student teaching it serves as a recruitment vehicle
for many LEA administrators (Perdew 1968).
16
3. Administrative Internship
The internship program is based on the concept of learning by
doing. The internship is an experience in which prospective or ex
perienced administrators work under supervision in actual job related
field roles of various types to perfect their skills and develop an
understanding of the dynamics of school administration (American
Association of School Administrators 1979). At its best, the intern
ship presents a vital real-life opportunity to integrate academic
preparation with the professional demands of actual situations (Hartley
1968).
Administrative internships have been sponsored by school
districts and universities for many years. Borgeson reports that the
first administrative internship program began in one university in the
early 1930s. However, it was not until the 1950s that the administra
tive internship took on real stature and began to be included in pre
paration programs for educational administrators (Blake 1980).
*
There are some educational leaders who purport that the
administrative internship is one of the most significant advances in
the 20th century in the professional preparation of school leaders
(Blake 1980, Borgeson circa 1950). Hartley (.1968) summarizes the im
portance of the internship w.ith the following statements:
The internship provides an important linkage between public schools and universities. This helps to reduce the lag between the development of new knowledge, methodology, and media by administrative theorists and the implementation by practitioners (page 10).
17
4. Continuing Education
A fundamental characteristic of the professional is that
his/her professional education is never finished. It is also
hypothesized that the less tangible the content with which the pro
fessional deals, the greater is the need for continuing education
throughout the career (Goldhammer 1969). Professionals recognize the
need to continually upgrade their knowledge and skills in light of the
continuous development of new knowledge, new techniques, and new
interpretations of need (.Committee for the Advancement of School Ad
ministrators 1979). As this need is recognized many professionals
return to the IHE for matriculation into a formal educational program.
Others enroll in established courses, seminars, or workshops offered
through the Continuing Education College or Department.
5. Part-time or Guest Lectures
To support the idea of increased relationships between the IHE
and LEA, various consortia and other mechanisms have been developed for
insuring joint participation and communication between academia and the
field of practice (Sage 1977). One of these is the personnel exchange
(Hathaway 1980). Under this program personnel from the LEA work in
the IHE, and vice versa, for short or extended periods of time.
6. Inservice Education
As practioners feel themselves out of touch with developments
in the profession, the need arises to be brought back into the fold.
Since many cannot reasonably expect to undergo further extensive formal
18
preparation, they seek the only available alternative—"inservice
education (Howsam 1969). Howsam states that inservice education grew
out of times of rapid change and the need for continuous relearning
and retooling. The major difference between inservice and continuing
education is that the inservice activities must be flexible in relation
to individual needs and adaptable as to design (CASA 1979). Howsam
categorizes inservices into retreats, workshops, seminars, and con
ferences.
7. Consultant Services
From time to time, the LEA and IHE have needs that require
brief or limited input from each other. Historically, the LEA has
called on IHE for consultant services more frequently than the con
verse. These services have been in the areas of law, negotiations,
curriculum, evaluation, policy formation, finance, and planning as
well as other areas. This relationship is ongoing and utilized as
needed.
With these types of cooperatives there is a promise that
quality of teaching performance can be improved at every level. The
simple act of working cooperatively on common tasks holds promise for
finding new solutions to old problems and for discovering new changes
(Smith 1965). As a caveat, Smith further warns:
All of the cooperative ventures and partnership structures between teacher education institutions and agencies that are being built will be for naught unless they meet some of the promises for institutional improvement and research development that appear in their stated goals.
19
Although all of the aforementioned cooperatives have had
problems as they experienced growing pains, cooperative activities of
such a kind can go forward without forcing either the LEA or IHE to
seriously modify its major policies or practices (Ladd 1969). Ladd
further states that the traditional joint activities are so tangential
as to require little or no departure from the customary independence
of either institution.
This study examines the etiology of tensions in collaborative
research efforts between the IHE and the LEA. Ladd distinguishes a
cooperative venture from a collaborative one with the following state
ment :
The term 'collaboration' is used to mean a substantially joint activity of two or more institutions. This is more than one institution's employment of personnel of the other, for example as consultants or part-time faculty members, or purchase of services from the other. In collaboration, as we use the term, the jointness embraces such significant areas as the spending of sizeable amounts of money, the setting of policies on matters of consequence, the making of curriculum decisions, and the recruiting and appointment of staff. In collaboration, in other words, the institutions share the responsibility for decision-making in certain significant areas (page 3).
Several sources of tension will be examined in subsequent
sections in this chapter.
Organizations: Focus and Purpose
Organizations and thus their study can be extremely complex.
This part of the literature review will focus on some aspects of
organization which are germane to this study.
20
All organizations of any considerable size share certain basic
characteristics (Selznick 1957; Spindler 1951; Etzioni 1961). This
means that all such organizations will be characterized by
1. centralization of authority
2. an ordered hierarchy of offices with certain responsibilities
and duties attached to them
3. formalized lines of communication within the ordered hierarchy
4. some agreement within the ranks of its responsible personnel
regarding the purposes of the organization.
All organizations must maintain mechanisms of defense against
potentially disruptive environmental elements and forces—so that they
may continue to exist in order to achieve their goals (Spindler 1959).
According to organizational theory a number of organizational
levels can be identified (Boulding 1956). Figure 1 is an adaptation
and extension of a classification of organizations developed by
Kenneth E. Boulding (Hicks 1975).
This study, however, is concerned with the organization at
the human organization level. Within and among the human organizations
exist five types of relationships (Hicks 1975).
1. Accidental-no participant deliberately associates with another,
yet some benefit often accrues to at least one participant.
2. Parasitic-one participant gains from an association at the
expense of the other.
21
System Level Description of Characterization Examples
1. Elemental interaction
2. Static structure
3. Simple dynamic
4. Cybernetic
5. Simple open
6. Genetic-societal
7. Animal
8. Human
9. Human organizations
10. Transcendental
Fundamental
Normative or descriptive models of things, events, and concepts
Predetermined or necessary motions
Possess the ability to modify itself or seek or maintain a certain condition
Simple self-maintenance with capacity to reproduce and ability to accept input, transform that input, and product output
Division and specialization of labor among cells; each part or cell aggregation mutually dependent
Possess specialized information receivers (eyes, ears, nose), complex nervous systems, and a brain
Intelligence, self-reflexivity, time reference, adaptability, control of environment to a certain extent, toolmaking, language, and cultural heritage
Organizations of two or more people
In pursuit of ultimate and perhaps illusive knowledge, truths, and aesthetics
Thoughts Chemical Reactions
Road maps Organization charts
Clocks Standard operating procedures
Heating system with thermostatic control Management using standard cost control system
Germs Body cells
Botanical plants
Cat Dogs Horses Cows
Man
Corporations Social clubs Athletic teams
Religious groups Philosophical orders
Figure 1. Levels of Organization
22
3. One-way-one participant benefits without harming or helping
the other. The one benefitted is indifferently tolerated by
the one providing the benefit
4. Mutualistic-all participants mutually contribute to the well-
being of each other; all participants expect to benefit from
the association.
5. Transcendental-a mutualistic association where all parties
work to achieve the highest productivity in order to benefit
persons outside the immediate association (Likert 1961;
Maslow 1964; McGregor 1967).
The information presented earlier in this study indicated that
the research relationships between the LEA and the IHE are usually
perceived as falling into the first three types of relationships.
One purpose of this study was to obtain information which
could lead to organizational relationships of the latter two types.
A major question which needs to be answered is "What
organizational features of the LEA and the IHE create and/or perpetrate
the ill-feelings between the IHE researcher and the LEA practitioner?"
What conditions conceivably impinge on the production of research?
Rodman (1964) states that the strains are built into the
formal organization of the agency. He further states that the agency
structure of necessity conditions the response of the researchers and
practitioners to each other. He indicates that personality factors
are often cited as the core of the problem and that organizationally
structured strains are overlooked. Holley (1977) concurs that
problems that arise are often fundamentally organizational ones. Two
of the following sections examine the organizational plight of educa
tional research in the IHE and the LEA. A number or organizational
constraints exist in both organizations (Keun 1979). Only a few will
be examined.
Discussed in the next section are some of the theoretical
hindrances to collaborative research.
Theoretical Hindrances to Collaboration
Theory is useful to the extent that it serves as a mechanism
for understanding events, is productive of hypotheses, and leads to
the identification of new issues and problems (Kimbrough 1976). In
cluded in this section will be an examination of a few theories which
can be used to explain tensions between the IHE and LEA which hinder
collaborative research efforts.
Many of the problems encountered in IHE-LEA research collabora
tion appear to be endemic in any interinstitutional collaboration. The
same kinds of problems could conceivably arise in collaborative efforts
between military bodies or industrial corporations which have formed
consortia for a special purpose (Ladd 1969). In Crusade in Europe,
General Eisenhower, for example refers to "mutual irritations between
American soldiers and the English" and at the staff level to "dif
ferences in national conceptions that struck at the very foundation
of our basic plan."
In 1948 Kurt Lewin used sets of concentric circles in
discussing relations between individuals (Figure 2A). Ladd (1969)
makes reference to this in his article examined in this study. Ladd
summarizes Kean's approach by writing
He used the outer rings to represent 'regions' of the person, attitudes, habits, and the like, that are less 'intimate, personal,' and that can presumably be modified with relative ease and at little psychic cost. The inner circles and the core are, of course, the attitudes and habits which more nearly constitute the self. They are preserved and defended at any cost.
When individuals are in relation to one another, the regions of their persons overlap, though not necessarily, as the use of circles might seem to suggest, symmetrically, (Figure 2B). A joint activity, then, influences, or requires change in, habits ranging from the quite marginal, e.g., where a person is to spend Tuesday afternoons, to the very deep and personal, e.g., strongly-held convictions. And 'personal friction occurs more easily if personal regions are touched' (page 5).
Ladd then draws the conclusions
Like persons, institutions can be regarded as occupying life-spaces which come in layers. When two institutions collaborate, impingements may be only peripheral, or they may affect the most vital interests. There is little psychic cost when organizations become involved in drafting joint recommendations on subjects on which they agree; it is a major change where one institution is given veto power over a key personnel appointment within the other.
Although most of the school system-university collaboration in the United States today invades only the outer rings of the respective institutions, in the years just ahead many of us will be engaged in activities which involve our institutions in each other's inner rings. It seems inevitable, other things remaining constant, that these involvements will bring new threats and may arouse new tensions and even antagonisms (page 6).
Figure 2. Lewin's Theoretical Construct of Relations between Individuals
26
.Interorganizational Cooperation (IOC)
In the 1960s theories of organizational development (OD) began
to surface. Some of its chief proponents were Blake and Mouton (1964),
Golembiewski (1969), Argyris (1964), Bennis (1965) and others. This
construct has been applied primarily in private industry, although
some have attempted to introduce OD in the field of education
(Kimbrough 1976).
Carlson (1980) summarizes the concept with the following
definition:
Basically OD is seen as a process for organizations to deal with a range of situations, problems, needs that build in data gathering, analysis, intergroup/interpersonal dialogue and training, goal setting and long range activities which are potentially designed to ameliorate a problem situation or to maximize an opportunity. Further the OD process draws heavily on the behavioral sciences for conceptual models theories and appropriate intervention methodologies (page 2).
The aspect of OD which has particular relevance to this study
is that of interpersonal/intergroup conflict. In recent years this
aspect has been referred to as interorganizational organizational
development or IOD (Schemerhorn 1975). Some IOD proponents have
particular interest in interorganizational cooperation or IOC
(Schemerhorn 1975). Although a large body of knowledge has not been
accumulated some theory and research has been developed. Carlson
(1980) advocates that more interest in IOC will emerge over time
given the significant resource constraints facing public education
in the future.
27
Schermerhom (1975) provides an overview of IOC and has
defined it as:
the presence of deliberate relations between otherwise autonomous organizations for the joint accomplishment of individual operating goals (page 847).
Schermerhom further identifies what he calls motivators
(conditions which provide potential benefits for IOC activities)
and costs (conditions which necessitate some potential risks for
IOC activities). Shown in Table 1 is a summary of Schermerhom's
observations. In addition Schermerhom identifies additional factors
of organizational boundary permeability, organizational goals, and
actual opportunity for cooperation which are correlates of IOC.
Boundary permeability is the extent to which boundaries
separating an organization and its environment can be penetrated
and are open to persons external to the organization. There is a
high likelihood or potentioal of IOC where organizational boundaries
are permeable.
There is a high potential for IOC when two or more organi
zations share complementary organizational goals and recognize some
mutual need. Schermerhom notes that complementary goals may provide
a firmer base for IOC than common goals, since common goals may
generate more competition than cooperation.
28
Table 1. Motivators and Costs Associated with Interorganizational Cooperation (IOC)
MOTIVATORS
1. Situations of resource scarcity (e.g., facilities, services, information and clients) and performance distress (e.g., unfavorable image of identity or negative environmental pressures)
2. Situations in which "cooperation" per se takes on a positive value
3. Situations in which a powerful extra-organizational force demand this activity
COSTS
1. Situations which may involve loss of decision-making autonomy
2. Situations which may involve unfavorable ramifications for organizational image or identity
3. Situations which may require the direct expenditure of scarce organizational resources (e.g., time, transportation, and communication)
Source: John R. Schermerhorn, "Determinants of Interorganizational Cooperation." Academy of Management Journal, December, 1975, Vol. 18, p. 848.
29
Opportunities to cooperate are influenced by the extent to
which prevailing norms for cooperation exist both internal and external
of the organization.
The theory and research on IOC is summarized by Schermerhorn
(1979) in Figure 3.
Getzels-Guba Model
This model is based on a concept of a hierarchy of
superordinate-subordinate relationships within a conceptualized
social system (Getzels 1957). The locus for the allocation and inte
gration of roles and facilities to achieve the system's goals con
stitutes the hierarchy. In these relationships statuses are assigned,
facilities are provided, procedures are organized, activities are
regulated, and performances are evaluated. The social system in this
hierarchy is conceived of as having two dimensions, the nomothetic
and the idiographic.
The elements of the nomothetic or normative dimension are
institution, role, and expectation. Institution is defined as an
agency created to carry out certain institutionalized functions.
Roles refer to the "dynamic aspects" of a position and define the
expected behavior of the "role incumbent." Expectations refer to the
obligations and responsibilities of the given role.
The other dimension, the idiographic or personal dimension,
is composed of the individual, personality, and need-disposition.
30
Decision Maker Need
<-
Decision Maker Demand
Organizational Implementation
Perceptions of:
resource scarcity value expectancy
• coercive pressure
Perceptions of:
implications for organization image/identity
• resource requirements for implementation
• organizational domain considerations
• organizational support capacities environmental support capacities
Actual levels of:
• organizational support capacities
• environmental support capacities
Note: ^ represent lines of theoretical determination
Figure 3. Determinants of Interorganizational Cooperation
31
The elements in this dimension are defined as follows.
Individual is the self. The personality is "the dynamic organization
within the individual." Need dispositions are "individual tendencies
to orient and act with respect to objects in certain manners and
to expect certain consequences from these actions." Observed behavior
within a social system is a function of these two dimensions. Figure
4 shows the Getzels-Guba model.
Kimbrough (1976) explains the interaction of these elements by
summarizing the model's author with
Because a given act is the result of interaction between role factors and personality factors, the general equation derived is B = f(RxP), where B is observed behavior, R is the role defined by its expectations and P is personality of the role incumbent defined in terms of need-dispositions. The relative impact of role and personality factors on behavior will vary with the act, the personality, and the role (page 106).
One general derivation, which relates particularly to this
study, is that when the role incumbents in a particular institution
or interaction have overlapping perceptions, they feel satisfied with
their mutual accomplishments. The converse is also observed. When
the perceptions do not overlap there is less satisfaction and even
dissatisfaction with the interaction (Getzels 1957). More specifical
ly if the role incumbents of the IHE and the role incumbents of the
LEA differ in their perceptions and/or expectations of the research
relationship, then less satisfaction will be expressed with the re
lationship by both groups.
32
Nomothetic Dimension
Institution ^ Role ^ Expectation-
Social Observed System Behavior
Individual—^ Personality—^Need Disposition-^
Idiographic Dimension
Figure 4. Getzel-Guba Model of a Social Process
33
The model suggests three sources of conflict: intrarole
conflict, intrapersonality conflict, and role personality conflict.
Intrarole conflict refers to a situation in which a role incumbent must
simultaneously respond to a conflicting or inconsistent expectation.
In the case of a role incumbent in the IHE, s/he must conduct re
search which the higher education institution demands be scholarly and
the public school institution demands be practical.
Intrapersonality conflicts arise when there are opposing needs
within the role incumbent. For the Ph.D. in the LEA, there may be a
need for continued theoretical discussions with his IHE peers regarding
research, yet s/he also feels the need for practical research to help
in daily decision making.
The third source of conflict, role personality, occurs when
there is a lack of congruence between role expectations and the need
dispositions of a role incumbent. For example, one who accepts a
position as a professor in an IHE must be prepared to teach, research,
and publish. One who has a high need for student contact, which teach
ing affords, would have difficulty fulfilling his needs and roles.
Thus conflict would arise.
Support for analyzing IHE and LEA relations with social
systems theory is given by Parsons (1958) and Kimbrough (1976).
Parsons suggests that
. . . education, like other complex organizations, could be conceptualized in terms of technical, managerial, and institutional systems. The technical system is involved in actual task performance within the organization, and in education the technical system consists largely of
34
teachers and their support personnel. The managerial system functions to coordinate task performance and to ensure the presence of needed resources to the technical system (page 53).
Kimbrough more simply says
Within a given school, a number of subsystems can be found: classrooms, faculty cliques, informal leadership structure, decision making structures, interaction patterns, pupil friendship groups, group norms, allocation patterns, tasks to be performed, and so on. . . . Simply put the school social system takes pupils, teachers, and resources within a given environment and by means of several internal processes transforms these inputs into outputs related to both pupils and staff. These outputs, in turn provide feedback and condition future inputs (page 104).
Clearly illustrated by this model is the need for initial
steps to clarify roles and expectations in order to enhance the
chance for mutual satisfaction among role incumbents in any given
interactions.
Structural-Functional Analysis
Sociologists Robert Merton (1957) and Talcott Parsons (1956)
have developed a conceptual tool which is usually referred to as
structual-functional analysis. The tool can be used to identify
important structural and functional elements which operate within a
system and give defintion and meaning to the interaction occurring
within the system.
The proponents use structure to refer to the formal and
informal relationships within a system and the set of needs and modes
of satisfaction which characterize a particular system (Selznick 1958).
35
A function, which is performed by an occupant of a designated position,
is the result of a wide range of patterned activities. These activities
include, for example, social processes, social roles, controls, pat
terned emotional responses, cultural patterns, and belief systems
(Merton 1957).
Merton, in establishing a model for functional analysis
observes that functions are those "observed consequences" which encour
age adaptation or adjustment in a given system. Dysfunctions are
those "observed consequence 1̂ which interfere with adaptation or ad
justment. In addition functions may be latent or manifest. Manifest
functions are those which are overt and intended by members of the
system. Latent functions are those which are neither intended or per
ceived. Such "unanticipated consequences" may be functional or
dysfunctional for a specific system (Merton 1957). For the members
of a given system, individually or collectively, what may be functional
for one may be dysfunctional to another.
The utility of this approach is that it helps account for
many of the dynamic features of a system in a systematic way. Not
all of the elements essential to a structural-functional analysis are
included here. Rather, some of the key concepts have been alluded to
in order to make the following analysis.
A collaboration of IHE and LEA researchers is at once a
functional unit which exists to perform a variety of activities to
satisfy needs of a substructure. Still at the same moment they exist
within their own larger structures which sustain them and from which
36
they were created. The collaborative then can be conceived as a
functional structure containing a complex of intermeshing groups' needs
and processes of interaction. The group needs as well as the in
dividual needs will probably vary among a broad range of physiological,
psychological, and systematic requirements which may conflict with one
another.
A functional imperative for any system is its own survival or
equilibrium (Parsons 1956). This is an important variable in any deci
sion that an IHE or LEA member makes. Consequently, when a particular
satisfaction, or attempted satisfaction is functional as regards
one member or group of the collaborative, e.g., the LEA, it may
be dysfunctional to other members, e.g., the IHE. Since loyalties
will probably lie with the large structure, conflicts arise. This
suggests that a format for the accommodation, resolution, and solution
to these conflicting needs has to be developed prior to their
manifestation.
Institutional Hindrances of Collaborative Research in the IHE
Introduction
The information presented in this section was taken primarily
from two sources. The first was the information compiled from the
1970 UNESCO Institute Conference and presented by Alfred Yates in
1971. The second is a comprehensive study undertaken by Sam Sieber
and Paul Lazarsfeld in 1966. The purpose of Sieber's study was to
37
measure the numerous social conditions which might conceivably impinge
on the production of research. The techniques which were employed
included questionnaire surveys and interviews of education deans, re
search coordinators, directors of research units, project directors
in units, authors of published research reports, and observations
of selected research bureaus and centers. Also included in the study
were the works of professional associations, documentary analysis of
materials solicited through the questionnaires, content analysis of
school of education catalogues, research articles published in 1964,
and research proposals submitted to the Cooperative Research Program,
U.S.O.E., a secondary analysis of survey data collected in related
studies, and historical library research.
The author has drawn from these two references that which was
pertinent to this study.
Findings from UNESCO Conference (Yates 1971)
Educational research has recently become a prevalent activity
in nearly every part of the world. Although evidence of direct
causation is yet unproven, educational change has occurred with the
research. These changes are evident in the organization of schools,
the teaching methods, the ways children are grouped, and even the
focus of the curricula. Yet, instead of a healthy, productive coopera
tion between the researcher and practitioner, an air of mistrust and
mutual recrimination exists. The purpose of the UNESCO Institute
Conference was to ascertain some of the institutional causes of this
problem.
According to Yates (1971) if the various forms of research
organizations were visually represented, no doubt the institution of
higher education would emerge as a prominent figure in the research
process. Historically, the IHE has been primarily responsible for the
vast amounts of research compiled to date. However, there is evidence
to suggest that the way in which educational research is structured
and financed has limited research output. There are signs that the
IHE is losing the monopoly it once held as other research agencies
begin to emerge. At present, in the United States, there are five
major types of settings for the conduct of educational research: IHE
based, Regional Educational Laboratories, State Departments of Educa
tion, Local Education Agencies, and Private Testing and Research
Organizations.
The participants in the UNESCO Conference studied five
institutional hindrances to collaborative research. Parts of three
of them will be discussed in this study.
I. Structural Aspects of Educational Research: Problems Associated with Structure and Finance
Yates argues that one of the unresolved issues in any
argument concerning a viable structure for educational research is the
role to be assigned to the IHE. He submits that one of the most
crucial problems associated with the organization of research is the
balance between pure and applied research. Some of the developing
39
patterns of organization constitute a threat to the scope and influences
of pure research. The UNESCO participants argued that pure research
has a vital role to play in the composite picture of educational
research and change.
Research policy determines the balance between applied and
pure research.
However, the control of research policy is largely determined by the way in which research is organized, and in particular, by the methods used to provide the financial support it requires (Yates 1971, 105).
The reports indicated that the financial system of earmarked
grants—funds allocated to a specific topic—has become common practice,
almost to the exclusion of discretionary funds. The earmarked grant
system tends to encourage individualized piecemeal approaches to re
search. The continuity and replication needed in research is virtually
ignored. Neither the IHE or LEA benefit from the piecemeal approach.
In the present structure neither the interests of the practitioners
nor the researchers are adequately represented in the determination of
research policy.
II. Recruitment and Training of Staff
Although there are no shortages of educational problems, there
is an alarming shortage of qualified educational researchers. A sig
nificant portion of the discussion at the conference focused on the
need to improve training for potential researchers. After a lengthy
discussion it was concluded that the task and responsibilities of a
40
researcher have not been clearly defined, and until these
qualifications have been clearly stated, it is virtually impossible
to design a course that will effectively furnish them.
The participants reported a need for more specialized courses.
Yates summarized the reports with the following:
. . . the present arrangements for the training of researchers are mainly the responsibility of university departments or schools of education and, for the most part, are not provided exclusively as such. Indeed the courses that potential researchers follow are identical with those offered to intending teachers, and even the subsequent, more advanced courses are not specifically devised to prepare them for full-time educational research. On the contrary, the courses in university departments are primarily designed for those who are destined to become practitioners—teachers, lecturers in colleges of education, and administrators. They have pronounced practical bias at the elementary stage toward the preparation of effective teachers and this bias is not wholly absent from the later stages which lead to the master's and doctor's degrees. Potential researchers take these courses, not so much because they are specially appropriate to their needs but rather because they are, at present, the only ones available.
The practice of associating the training of researchers with that of teachers we regard as potentially harmful to recruitment and far from conducive to the development of suitable courses for researchers (page 51).
Upon completion of the same basic course of training the researcher is
expected to help solve educational problems which the latter could not.
III. Dissemination of Research Results
If the defects in the present structure and organization of
educational research were all remedied and a satisfactory flow of
suitably qualified and trained recruits secured, the success of the
enterprise still could not be guaranteed.
41
For research to be effective as an instrument of educational improvement, it must make an impact on those who make the decisions that affect day-to-day practices of the policy-makers, administrators, and teachers. It is clearly not enough to be able to demonstrate a high level of output; it is necessary also to show that its products are being efficiently marketed and that they are giving satisfaction to the consumers. The evidence before us suggests that for some time now the products of educational research have been stockpiled. Potential customers examine the samples that are offered for their inspection, but conspicuously refrain from placing any sizeable order (page 63).
To the many and myriad problems confronting the practitioner
research has little or nothing to contribute. Yet even in the highly
researched areas, the information compiled figures minutely in the
decisions of the practitioners. The UNESCO participants suggested
that the organization for dissemination was a primary factor.
The most prominent form of dissemination in the United States
is through the publication of books and articles. While this method
most probably meets the needs of researchers, the use of written
publications to disseminate information to practitioners has not
succeeded.
The use of written publications as a means of disseminating research results to practitioners involves even more difficult problems. The kind of report that serves to acquaint one researcher with the activities of another is clearly not serviceable as an instrument of wider dissemination. We have noted that a number of research organizations have adopted the policy of issuing reports in two forms—a straightforward technical report for those who are deeply versed in research methodology, and a layman's version. This seems to be a commendable procedure but simply to recommend it would be to beg a number of important questions. Just how and by whom this second kind of report can be effectively written has not yet been determined.
42
To regard the problem as a straightforward one of translation is to misrepresent it entirely. Many practitioners and even some researchers fall into the error of assuming that it is the jargon employed by social scientists that stands between the average reader of a research report and a full understanding of its contents and implications (page 73).
In their own defense the participants concluded:
One of the major obstacles to the effective dissemination of research results is the stubborn fact that those to whom the information is addressed are unwilling to give it their full attention. A good deal of this report is devoted to the openly confessed shortcomings of those who direct and conduct educational research. We have almost immolated ourselves in the attempt to discover defects in the present arrangements and we shall revert to self-criticism. In the meantime, however, it is a refreshing change to be able to apportion some of the blame to others. Educational practitioners are professionally qualified individuals who have accepted responsibility for the administration and conduct of educational affairs. Their failure to seek out and to utilize information that might enable them to discharge that responsibility more effectively we regard as reprehensible, especially since there is evidence that those who supply the information have been at pains to make it readily available. It seems fair to say that the researchers have gone more than half-way (which admittedly may not be far enough) to meet the consumers' requirements. The burden of our complaint is that the latter have made scarcely any effort in response to these overtures (page 69).
The conference participants agreed that for the most part,
practitioners have not learned to appreciate either the potential
utility or the limitations of research, largely because they have not
troubled to inform themselves concerning its objectives and its
methods. Research is often expected to provide solutions to problems,
and to highly specific problems at that, when all that is claimed on
its behalf is that it can contribute to a closer understanding of the
processes involved. All that researchers offer is well-attested
evidence that can help to make the practitioners' judgments more
firmly based. Their findings are not intended as a substitute for
their judgments. The practitioners, on the other hand, have demanded
the prescription of immediately applicable remedies and, finding that
these are not forthcoming, have turned almost petulantly away, refusing
the alternative forms of aid that could be supplied.
It might be argued, on behalf of the LEAs, that their mis
conceptions stem from the fact that their education and training have
not included any adequate explanation of the nature of research, but
against this must be set the unpalatable fact that they have, in the
main, displayed little or no eagerness to embrace the opportunities
for enlightenment that have been offered them. One is thus forced to
conclude that there are deeper underlying causes that determine their
relative indifference—and sometimes their positive hostility—toward
research. The participants concluded that the only solution to this
problem was a closer cooperative relationship between the researcher
and the practitioner.
Findings From the Sieber Study
A substantial portion of the following text was taken directly
from the Sieber Study (Sieber 1966).
Complex organizations make varied demands upon their members,
especially when there is a low level of specialization according to
the tasks which need to be performed. Organizations also allocate
44
resources in ways which emphasize certain goals while playing down
others. Institutional goals and resources affect both the quality
and the amount of effort devoted to various roles. Hence, to under
stand the barriers to the advancement of educational research, it is
not sufficient to pay attention to the intellectual or theoretical
content of research, as vitally important as this topic may be.
The study of organizational setting is at least as important.
A recurrent theme in this report was the potential and often
manifest conflict between the pursuit of different goals within
schools of education. While schools vary in the emphasis placed on
the functions of teaching, research, and service as obligations of
the faculty, virtually all of the schools are responsible in some
measure for all three functions. Since the same personnel are often
engaged in each of these task-areas, it is obvious that resources
and commitments are sometimes strained. When the deans, research
coordinators, and directors of research units were asked to check what
they considered the major hindrances to the advancement of educational
research, the four hindrances most frequently mentioned were organiza
tional hindrances: financial support, non-research duties, kinds and
amount of organization provisions for research, and the quality of
research training. The quality of research techniques and the problems
chosen for investigation—two major intellectual shortcomings—followed
fifth and sixth in order of frequency of citation as major hindrances.
45
Congruently, researchers in the LEA often cite financial support,
lack of research training and the problems chosen for investigation
as major hindrances to 1HE/LEA research relations (Kean 1979, Rankin
1979).
Another important variable which Sieber investigated was the
"value climate" of research.
The statuses responsible for the governance and performance of
professional roles in schools of education differ widely in their
emphasis on educational research as an obligation of the faculty. Most
often it is the dean of the graduate facilities who ranks research above
teaching or service, and least often it is the faculty of education.
These conclusions were based on the replies of the deans of schools of
education to the following questions:
1. Graduate schools or departments of education vary according to
the rank order of field service, teaching, and research as
responsibilities of the faculty. There may also be disagree
ment within the same school about the relative emphasis that
should be placed on these activities. To the best of your
knowledge, how would the groups listed below rank the three
activities in your school?
2. There are many forces, both inside and outside schools of
education, which shape their goals. In your judgment, which
of the following groups most affected the balance of emphasis
between teaching, field service and research in your institu
tion, either directly or indirectly, during the past five years?
46
The groups which were listed in these two questions, together
with the replies of the deans, are presented in Table 2. The groups
have been ranked according to the formal hierarchy of authority,
beginning with the trustees and moving down through the hierarchy to
the faculty members. In the lower part of Table 2, public school
systems and funding agencies outside the university have been added.
What is quite clear in the left-hand column of Table 2 is
that groups at the top and at the bottom of the hierarchy de-emphasize
research. Thus, the faculty is as little likely as the trustees of
the university to give top priority to research. The deans of the
graduate faculties most often emphasize research as the primary function
of the faculty of education (50%), while the deans of education follow
second (31%). But education deans are a poor second to graduate deans
in placing research ahead of teaching and field service. What needs
most to be underscored in this table, however, is that the group which
is responsible for carrying out projects, e.g., the faculty,is the
least likely to regard research as a primary obligation.
A comparison of the distribution of influence (right-hand
column of Table 2) with the distribution of favorable attitudes towards
research (left-hand column) provided an important clue to the question
of why research in schools of education seems to be lacking in
vitality. With the exception of the trustees, those who least often
emphasize research most often have the power to determine the balance
of emphasis among goals. The president of the university, the educa
tion chairmen, and the education faculty least often place research
47
Table 2. Emphasis on Research by Various Groups, and the Influence Which They Have on the Goals of the School (according to deans)
% Schools (reported by deans)
a. Where each group b. Where each group sees research as the influences the , primary goal balance of emphasis
Groups within the university on goals
Trustees 9% 1%
President 28 51
Graduate faculties dean 50 36
Education dean 31 32
Educational dept. chairmen 19 51
Education faculty 8 85
Groups outside the university
Public school systems 3 32
Funding agencies outside the university 73 47
No. of deans: (74) (74)
Source: Sam Sieber. The Organization of Educational Research in the United States. New York: Columbia University. Bureau of Applied Social Research. 1966, p. 25.
in the first rank, but most often have the power to set the goals of
the schools. The dean of the graduate faculties and the education
deans—the authorities who most often emphasize research—least often
have any influence (again with the exception of the trustees).
If the picture of goals and of influence drawn by the deans
is accurate, it appears that it is the faculty members in education
who are mainly responsible for the secondary or even tertiary position
of research in many schools of education.
The extent to which public school systems are said to place
primary emphasis on research as a faculty responsibility is also shown
in Table 2. More than half of the deans (56%) maintain that the
public schools rank teaching first, service second, and research third
in order of importance. Further, about a third of the deans indicated
that school systems exert a major influence on the goals of the
professional school. Another important source of the de-emphasis on
research, then, resides in the expressed needs of public school
practitioners for professional training and services.
No doubt one of the major counterbalances to the downgrading
of research by faculty members is the funding agency outside the
university. As shown in Table 2, these agencies are widely recognized
as principally concerned with the promotion of research (73 per cent
of the deans so responding); and they are also widely regarded as
exerting influence on the schools of education to move the balance
of emphasis towards research.
49
The goals emphasized by various groups within IHE is by no
means an irrelevant issue, for the value climate of schools of
education is a fairly accurate predictor of the quality and type of the
research which is turned out. The quality of research produced by
the school of education is higher when each group considers research
to be the primary obligation of the faculty. It was concluded that
the value climate is an important feature of the organizational con
text of research. Since the faculty of education least often empha
sizes research, and since the faculty tends to set the goals of the
school, research is frequently demoted to a relatively low position
in the institutional hierarchy of goals.
Rossman (1978) comments that it seems ludicrous in an environ
ment where the faculty is "committed to seeking truth," that research
is not a typical faculty activity. He attributes this phenomenon to
three causes.
1. Research activities are often perceived as infringing on a
faculty member's autonomy thus causing swift and negative
reaction.
2. In those instances where faculty are engaged in research
projects, if the data collected are perceived as being of
primary use to off campus agencies, with little positive
pay off for the college and especially for the faculty,
not many will be eager participants.
3. Regardless of the extent to which faculty members are
involved in advisory or collaborative activities related
to research, if these functions are perceived as tools of the
administration, and therefore threatening, the reaction will
be negative.
Another potential source of hindrance is explained by Saupe
(1978). The basic perspectives of the researcher and the academician
are in conflict. The academician views the institution as a base for
his professional enterprise, teaching,and scholarship. In contrast
the researcher sees the institution as belonging to and a servant of
society. To insist that both these functions--research and teaching—
be conducted by the same individuals can only be a source of tension.
It is little wonder that the academician, who is forced to conduct
research in the LEA in order to "publish and not perish," has difficulty
collaborating with LEA personnel.
Sieber found that collaboration in research, even within the
colleges of education, was rare. The emphasis was on independent
research. There are grounds for believing that an individualistic
approach to research is somewhat peculiar to education. There is also
very good reason to believe that schools of education support a unique
climate of highly individualized research effort.
When this issue was explored with research bureau directors,
the authors were informed that one of the main sources of "individual
ism" on the part of educational researchers was pressure to achieve
recognition as a means of institutional advancement. Further,
collaborative research was not valued by the institutions administra
tion. It appears then that research organizations can play a vital
role in the promotion or discouragement of collaborative work in this
individualistic climate of schools of education. It may be true also
that the administration is the key figure in stimulating joint research.
Institutional Hindrances to Collaborative Research in the LEA
The movement to establish separately organized divisions of the
school system to conduct educational research began 68 years ago
(Witsky 1938). These divisions were created primarily to investigate
a pressing local problem and/or to oversee the new testing activities
which did not fit into the other public school departments. Over 40
years ago Jonas Witsky defined the public school research bureau as
a separately organized division of the school system, whose primary function is to make investigations and to assemble and interpret data for the improvement of school procedures (page 25).
Justman (1968) described the major work of a research bureau
in a school system as a "bread and butter task" performing tasks re
lated to various administrative operations. In 1979, Barber stated
that the purpose of educational research in the public schools was
to improve the educational process, program content, or techniques for the local district. Further, if it is to be of value the results of the research should be valid, reliable, and timely so as to assist decision makers to evaluate problems and make rational defensible decisions (page 1).
Key to all of the preceding statements is the idea that
educational research conducted by a local education agency is to im
prove the operation of the schools. The fact of the matter is that
research in the LEA is not really research in the English and English
52
(dictionary) definition of research. Usually research done in the LEA
will be action or operational research (Payne 1956). Rarely is LEA
research conducted to systematically discover the theoretical underly-
ings of a problem (Barber 1979). In short the primary purpose for the
organization known as the department of research and evaluation in an
LEA is to provide information for decision making.
Obviously then the LEA organizational purposes differ from that
of the IHE or any other clinical research facility; not in methodology,
merit, or rigor but in context and communication (Schutz 1976).
How then does the IHE researcher fit into the organizational
research structure of the LEA? LEA decision makers would utilize the
results of basic research in their decision making/planning process—
but since basic research is not problem oriented—they cannot withhold
the decision process until theory is translated into practice. Conse
quently, when problems arise the LEA decision maker chooses to ignore
the arguments of basic-fundamental research over policy research or
field investigation. In doing so the system becomes less tolerant of
the necessity of basic research, (Barber 1972) and by extension basic
researchers (Rodman 1964).
Another organizational factor which affects research relations
is cost. In the decision to participate in out-of-district research,
the cost of conducting the research is a paramount consideration.
The cost to conduct a research study with internal staff is
approximately one half the cost it would be for outsiders to conduct
the same study. Costs are defined not only in actual dollars, but in
53
staff time, facility utilization and length of fruition. If an LEA can
afford an internal research staff the productivity for that staff is
very high (Barber 1979). Barber illustrates this with the following:
A case in point is Eugene, Oregon where a full time professional staff of 7 people have produced approximately 169 studies in four years at cost of approximately $3000 per study. At least half of those studies have brought about policy change, district procedural changes, or program modifications within the district (page 6).
A fourth LEA organizational constraint is the Board of Educa
tion, State, and federal regulations by which the LEA must abide.
Many of these regulations provide limited access to resources which the
IHE researcher needs in order to conduct a successful study.
One issue that continues to plague IHE researchers is the re
searcher's right to know and an individual's right to privacy (Carter
1979). It is well recognized that if a researcher is to carry out his/
her duty she/he must have access to the needed information. Conversely,
however, such a need must not jeopardize an individual's well-being.
What student information falls within a researcher's right to know re
mains problematic (Carter 1979). It is the tendency of the organiza
tion to protect its members (Thayer 1973).
Most LEAs, that had research departments, were developing pol
icies and procedures to screen out-of-district research requests even
before the 1974 Family Rights and Privacy Act (FRPA) (Barber 1972).
Organizationally, the FRPA does not restrict the right of the LEA to
obtain information to assist it in teaching, testing, program develop
ment, etc., when the purpose is to assist the students for whom it is
54
responsible. What the Act has done is to impose even more restrictions
on outsider researchers by:
1. restricting access to school files
2. requiring written parental consent
3. requiring that parents have a right to inspect all instruc
tional material used in the research.
From the LEAs perspective the new laws have "brought about a
revision, a clarity, and a rigorous implementation of policy directed
toward the protection of their constituent's rights of privacy" (Barber
1976). However, from the perspective of the IHE researcher the laws
have placed basic educational research at a virtual standstill
(Kerlinger 1977; Carter 1979; Barber 1979).
A final organizational variable which hinders collaborative re
search is planning. While LEAs plan on a year to year basis, IHEs and
other institutions of research must have longer timelines to conduct
research. School organization is in a constant state of flux which
makes prolonged collaboration more difficult (Holley 1977).
The researcher in the IHE can define a general area of interest
and plan a series of studies related to an overall objective. The re
searcher in the LEA ordinarily does not have the latitude in his/her
planning. In a school system, the demands upon the research department
are so heavy that an integrated program cannot be organized. Attempts
to help meet the needs of the out-of-district researcher might mean
the neglect of other in-district areas of concern (Justman 1968).
55
Sociological Hindrances to Inter-Institutional Collaboration
Discussed in this section are non-essential subcultural
differences commonly found in' American IIIEs and LEAs that can cause
tension in collaborative research efforts.
Ladd (1969) states:
probably the most exasperating tensions, but those most capable of being overcome, are those that derive from the clash of divergent customs and attitudes which dp not reflect essential or necessary differences between the respective types of institutions but are characteristics they have taken on for other reasons (page 23).
Ladd makes reference to "the different subcultures of the IHE and LEA."
If these differences are not recognized they are likely to cause "sub-
cultural clashes."
Chilcott (1969) writes of the "special" culture of public school
administrators. He writes:
. . .educational administrators, as a group, have developed their own special culture; one that is unique to them. That is to say educational administrators or any group have developed their own cultural map with special meaning—language, role expectations, behavior, and world view (page 443).
He further states that much of any group's culture exists at the
subconscious level.
Zahn (1967) in her observations of an IHE and LEA working to
gether noted the similarity between some of the problems of IHE and LEA
people working together and those of American technological experts
working with persons of other cultural backgrounds.
The following statement from noted anthropologist George M.
Foster (1962) further elucidates the tensions which this section ad
dresses :
56
To the person suffering from cultural shock "everything seems to go wrong," and he becomes "increasingly outspoken about the shortcomings of the country he expected to like. ... It is obvious that the host country and its unpredictable inhabitants are to blame." "The malady ... is caused in part by communication problems, and in part by gnawing feelings of inadequacy which grow stronger and stronger as the specialist realizes he is not going to reach all of those technical goals he had marked out." He feels, too, that the contribution he came prepared to make is not appreciated. Typical criticisms of the host country are: "These people can't plan," "They have no manners," "They ought to be taught how to get things done in a hurry." These symptoms reflect a failure to understand the customs of the country and to accept them "for what they are." For the professional a contributing cause is the fear that in this strange situation he may be unable to achieve the professional success which his self-esteem and his reputation require. Foster, incidentally, recommends that the technician draw upon the services of the anthropologist, so that he can develop as broad as possible an understanding of the customs he enounters, their interrelationships and their dynamics (page 188).
The following categories of tension have been identified by Ladd (1969).
They are offered as suggestive and incomplete.
Differences with Regard to Policy-Making
In universities the faculty is accustomed to making policy decisions. This means extensive discussion of policy questions, a lot of prior checking with many people on actions of many types, and often collective drafting of documents. University faculty members get nervous when they see administrators making decisions rapidly. And administrators can ordinarily commit an institution to a project only in the sense of agreeing to enable faculty members who want to become involved in it to do so.
University plans tend to be designed to provide considerable flex-, ibility and latitude; universities choose general directions, seek
funds which will give them freedom, and reject funds with too many strings attached. Thus university people tend to be confident that they will remain in control of a project and are not inclined to fear being pushed around.
In school systems administrators commonly make most major decisions, with varying amounts of consultation with others. Decision-making tends to be more centralized. This means rapid decision-making. School people tend to become nervous when decisions have to await the outcome of extensive deliberation or checking with various categories
57
of persons, or when discussion is continued after agreement appears to have been reached. Host public school teachers lack experience and skill in policy-making.
Public schools are inclined to accept all moneys that become
available and are thus more susceptible to direction-setting by whoever has the power of the purse. For this reason public school people are more sensitive about possible outside control and more jealous of their independence.
Differences with Regard to the Role of the Written Word
University people work naturally and easily with the written word: commonly they start a conversation by presenting a written summary of an idea. They draft, read, tear apart, and redraft plans, proposals, and policy statements with pleasure. Many of them can hardly think about a problem without writing or reading what someone else has written about it. They make much use of blackboards, even in their private offices. When agreements have been put in writing, university people tend to treat them with great seri-ouseness. When problems arise they are inclined to put their views down in the form of memoranda. They tend to get frustrated by public school people's unwillingness to spend time on careful reading of memoranda and drafts.
University people tend to write formally and heavily. They sometimes resent the informality of some school people's productions.
Public school people typically communicate with one another mostly by the spoken word. Often they feel no need to put an important idea in writing. If they do write, it tends to be at a late stage and to indicate near-finality. They tend to get nervous when university people present them with a draft or statement early in a joint undertaking, or when disagreement has arisen. They are less accustomed to radical criticism of their own written products. Written materials dealing with complex issues, even materials they have helped to draft, often appear to them of little use and may receive from them only perfunctory attention.
Public school people often write in a breezy style, using line drawings, and so on. They resent the heaviness and length of most university persons' products.
Differences with Regard to Daily Activities
University faculty members have substantial control over the priorities on their time and over their own schedules. They can make themselves available for meetings and other activities during the morning
and for a whole day or several days at a time. They have substantial vacations during parts of which, at least, they are expected to work on their own. They resent the limits within
58
which they have to work in setting appointments and meeting times with public school people.
University faculty members do a good deal of their work in interaction with one another, in informal conversations, conferences, committees, and sometimes teams. They want and expect school teachers to be as ready as they are for professional activities in groups and are sometimes irritated to learn that this is not the case. They tend to enjoy sharp argument and disagreement, and they express disagreement freely, often inconsiderately, sometimes even rudely.
Public school people at all levels are expected to be at their posts during regular working hours. Teachers have little control over their day-to-day schedules. They
are usually unavailable for collaborative activities during the morning hours. Holidays are explicit and limited in number. Except for the highest administrators, public school personnel are not expected to work during vacations.
Public school teachers do most of their work alone. They are less accustomed to working in professional groups and less skilled in it. They sometimes feel overridden by university people when they work in joint committees. Perhaps because many of them have little professional companionship during the day, they are inclined to be courteous and considerate in meetings. They tend to avoid, and to be put off by, remarks which may seem to show disapproval or sharp disagreement.
Differences in Attitudes toward Cooperation
Universities have engaged in cooperative undertakings comparatively frequently but usually at little cost to their established ways of doing things. Thus, partly because they are unaware of the true cost of collaboration, university people tend to favor it in principle and to regard persons who do not favor it as uncooperative.
School systems have little experience in collaboration, and their
experience with cooperation has been chiefly in helping colleges with teacher training. School people see more clearly the threat collaboration may pose to their established ways and tend to be fearful of losing their autonomy in collaborative ventures. When they are courted by universities, they tend to fear that the university people wish to take over.
59
Differences with Regard to Expenditure of Funds
University people have a tradition of liberal construction of missions, of service obligations, and of use of government and foundation funds. They tend to approve expenditures which are "in the spirit" of the original plan. Often they are more liberal about delegating authority to commit funds.
Public school people are more inclined to be concerned about value-for-dollar; they are more cautious about the justification of individual expenditures; and they usually reserve to relatively few persons the authority to approve expenditures of funds.
Differences Relating to Research and Development
Universities tend today to collect numbers of people whose preference for theoretical matters is so great that they are uninterested in down-to-earth realities. To borrow Lazarsfeld's distinction, university faculties tend to be more interested in "academically-induced research" than in "field-induced research," that is, they tend to start building new theory by examining the implications of existing theory rather than by examining real phenomena. They tend to be reluctant to try to provide help with the solving of down-to-earth problems.
"University professors frequently place highest priority on the quickly executed, neatly packaged, and statistically manageable research problems."
Public school staffs are largely composed of persons who are primarily concerned with the solving of immediate practical problems. They are often inclined to doubt or deny the value of any help they might receive from a theoretician.
Those school people who are interested in basic research tend to be most concerned about large problems which are difficult to formulate scientifically and to study, and which require ambitious, sophisticated, expensive, long-term research designs.
Differences with Regard to Personnel Matters
Universities make relatively few appointments and tend to pursue individuals who have been recommended. Routinely they screen many names thoroughly and at length. Many, before making an offer, will interview three to six candidates for a day or two each. Throughout the
procedure they are trying to sell candidates on the positions as well as judging the candidates. They tend to regard any less thorough procedure as casual and ineffective.
60
Universities usually promote individuals without greatly changing their duties, and, when new positions are created, they usually bring in new persons to fill them. In general, vacancies arise less frequently than in school systems, and filling them has less effect on the overall staffing picture. Positions can often be left unfilled for substantial periods of time or can be filled reasonably satisfactorily by graduate students. For all these reasons university people tend to move more slowly to fill positions and often delay for long periods of time before taking final action. They may misinterpret the tendency of school people to move rapidly in joint staffing as being intended to limit their freedom.
Universities pay relatively low salaries for highly qualified scholars and administrators. The discrepancies between salaries do not clearly reflect the nature of individuals' responsibilities.
Universities have moderate numbers of non-instructional staff personnel, ranging from professionals through gradudate assistants to typists.
School systems make many appointments. They commonly solicit and respond to applications and concentrate on judging between the individuals who want the position. They tend to take formal qualifications (e.g., degrees or certification) as prima facie evidence of competence. They are inclined to be impatient with any extensive collection of dossiers or interviewing, which to them appear fussy, burdensome, or expensive.
Promotion within school systems usually involves a change in duties. Thus there is a great deal of change in staff assignments. Usually, so far as possible, their appointments are made from within their own staffs, thus creating vacancies. Staffing is extremely tight, and one person's doubling in two positions is not usually practicable. Also, there are not usually well-qualified persons available who can fill in as temporary substitutes. So the selection of a person for a new assignment starts a chain reaction of vacancies which must be filled immediately. School people find it difficult or impossible to accommodate themselves to the leisurely pace of university staffing practices, and they may interpret it as showing a lack of commitment to collaboration or of concern for the school system's needs.
Public school systems pay higher salaries for topflight personnel. Salaries are keyed to the nature of the duties, with administrators typically being paid more than teachers.
Public school systems are usually almost devoid of staff persons (as distinguished from line persons). University people sometimes find it difficult to relate to the school system in the absence of an opposite number or what they would regard as adequate staff work.
61
Differences with Regard to Personal Commitment to the Organization
In universities staff members tend to feel relatively little obligation to give up their independence for the sake of preserving or strengthening the institution; a professor's first loyalty is usually to the broader community of scholars in his field. University people are inclined to be independent in their dealings with their own institutions and with state and federal authorities.
In public school systems there is a tradition that the staff has an obligation to help preserve and strengthen the institution and the educational system in general. "Rocking the boat" is frowned upon and is relatively uncommon. Public criticism which may play into the hands of outside critics is taboo.
Differences with Regard to Relative Statuses
In universities internal status tends to be non-linear and is often difficult for outsiders to gauge; it does not necessarily relate directly to rank, to salary, to nature of responsibility, or to whether there is a name on the door or a rug on the floor. Status differences impede communication of information and views and affect decision-making somewhat less than in most organizations. Relationships between administrators and instructional staff tend to have an informal, give-and-take character, often a cordial one. (To some extent this is true even or relationships with students.) Pressures from "below" are not usually resented. University people are sometimes offended by the formality of role relationships in school systems.
In society at large university personnel in general are assigned comfortably high socio-economic status; some may be outside the ordinary class system. Many of them are unaware of the constraining effect status differences have
on their relationships with public school people. Some tend to fear building too close relationships with public school people.
In school systems role relationships tend to be hierarchical. Differences in status are clear and well-advertised and have a considerable limiting effect on communication of information and views. Administrators tend to resent pressures from below. School people of various kinds are sometimes made uncomfortable by the absence of role clarity in universities.
In society at large public school people are in general assigned middle-class status. Many of them feel somewhat insecure and even defensive in dealings with college professors, deans, and presidents.
62
Differences in Educational, Political, and Social Views
University people tend to be more critical of the educational, political, and social status quo. They tend to be more optimistic about current egalitarian trends, and to favor more rapid change in all areas. Thus they tend to be more liberal than the general community. They tend to identify themselves with civil rights and
other reform movements and to look to public education as a means of social reform.
Public school people tend to be representative of the middle-class community and to have moderate to conservative attitudes about proposals for educational, political, and social reform.
Ladd concludes his compilation with:
Each of these differences between the two subcultures is a difference which in the opinion of one observer or another has provided a point of friction between public school and university personnel. As has been suggested over and over again, in so far as they are not charted, understood, or anticipated, the frustrations they cause will be the more intense. The converse is equally true.
63
Perceptual Hindrances.to Collaborative Research Efforts
Introduction
How does research influence educational practice? No
satisfactory empirical answer to this question exists (Kerlinger 1977).
It has been reported that the lag between educational research and
practice is about 50 years.
Researchers say that this is the result of the school practi
tioners' lack of interest in innovation and theory (Carlson 1980). The
LEA practitioner purports that it is because nothing of immediate in
terest to them is researched (Hathaway 1979). It is obvious that feelings
of isolation and victimization occur for both participants (Haase 1979).
Included in the rationale for this study were statements on the
perceptions of the IHE researcher and the LEA practitioner regarding
the research relationship between them. As in most areas of endeavor
where people are involved, research in education is vitally influenced
by relationships among people (Hines 1956). The relationship between
the researcher and practitioner is plagued by a variety of problems
(Rodman 1964). Perception is one of them.
The purpose of this section is to review the perceptions of the
participants in an effort to further delineate the problem.
Perception: The Institution of Higher Education
Carter (1979)—Without consideration of possible influences,
too many administrators view research as an inessential activity. In
other words even though they spend little time analyzing the research
64
findings, they automatically oppose the activity. Their failure to
recognize the usefulness of research contributes to the continuing
strain in the relationship between school districts and universities.
Additionally, it is the failure of the LEA to set forth clear policy
for conducting research which results in problems for school personnel.
Haase (1979)—University researchers remark that school system
educators make unreasonable demands on their time and resources in ex
change for use of a small amount of their students' time and facilities.
Their demands indicate that school personnel do not understand the im
portance of proper conditions under which a study must be conducted.
Kerlinger (.1971)—Researchers maintain that neither the poten
tialities nor the limitations of their expertise are recognized by the
practitioner. On the one hand, innovations are often introduced with
out regard to such relevant evidence as is available. The practitioner
prefers to rely on experience, intuition, or simply what is fashionable.
On the other hand, the requests that are made often reveal misconcep
tions about the kinds of evidence that educational research can provide.
Justman (.1968)—Most individuals who enter teaching as a pro
fession are not interested in research. Most are required to take a
research course at the graduate level. They approach it with feelings
of anxiety, complete it with marked feelings of relief, and live hap
pily ever after—never feeling the need to read, talk or think about
research from then on.
65
Tyler (1974)—The findings of research make continuing
contributions to knowledge; but utilizing the research and utilizing
it effectively is rarely studied and often results in problems.
Gephart (1980)—A dream (of the practitioner) is that whenever
a teaching problem is encountered, the names of people who have done
research on that topic could be readily found. Once contacted, they
could give immediate solutions to the problem. It is an impossible
dream!
Ladd (.1969)—The tempo of educational change will always be
slower than the institutions' sense of urgency to alter programs and
procedures as new problems come to light.
Perceptions: The Local Education Agency
Yates (1971)—Those who play an active role in the educational
process—as policy makers, administrators and teachers—complain that
researchers pursue their esoteric activities without any apparent ap
preciation of the most pressing problems confronting those who have to
make practical day-to-day decisions. Further, even those reports that
may be marginally relevant to the practitioners* concerns are camou
flaged by unfamiliar jargon.
Rodman (1967)—The practitioner feels that his work, is being
assessed by someone with a vested interest in discerning errors.
Weiss (1972)—The practitioners' roles and the norms of their
service professions tend to make them unresponsive to research requests
and promises. As they see it, the imperative is service; research is not
66
likely to make such contributions to the improvement of program service
that it is worth disruptions and delays.
Aronson (1967)—The practitioner typically feels that research
ers are more interested in research than in people. The research prac
tice of control groups—where some students don't receive the
treatment—adds fuel to this perception.
Cohen (.1975)—Research may be quite valid in a scientific sense,
but it is ordinarily quite irrelevant to the practitioner. It is
focused on the questions university professors want to answer, rather
than on the decisions officials have to make.
Sarasson (1977)—The reality is that most service agencies (in
this case the IHE) are accustomed to taking from them who are willing
to give; while expecting the givers to be grateful for the opportunity
to participate.
Rankin (1980)—The major force which shapes the relationship
for the worse is the lack of involvement in the planning phase. The
relationship is viewed with suspicion and mistrust when the LEA is ex
pected to implement a program with very little input into the initial
planning.
The preceding comments in no way exhaust the possibilities of
the varying perceptions between the IHE researcher and the LEA practi
tioner. They represent only the tip of the iceberg.
Those who are closely connected with the organization and direc
tion of educational research are distressed by the apparent disharmony
67
between researchers and practitioners. They recognize the threat to the
status and progress of educational research that this chasm represents.
Yates (1971) advocates that the lack of harmony between re
searchers and practitioners must be regarded as would be a marital
conflict. If two partners fail to agree, experience and common sense
suggests that there are likely to be faults on both sides which must be
examined.
Service (1975) suggested that the conflict was symptomatic of
larger organizational questions. In the next section some of these
organizational features will be examined.
Recommendations for Increasing the Probability of Success in Collaborative Research Efforts
Included in this section are recommendations and models for
successful collaboratives by various experts and participants in the
field of interinstitutional relations. Examined are practical and
theoretical features that have been -verified empirically or experimen
tally and found to be significant for developing successful collabora
tive ventures.
PanKratz (1974) suggests that in any collaborative there are at
least three distinct groups—each with a unique role and function. He
terms these groups as the controllers of resources, the role groups,
and the task groups. By definition the "controllers" have the power to
make decisions which can give life to consortium or which can crush its
existence. The "role groups" (teachers, parents, students, etc.) are
affected by the decisions of the first group, but their voices are
68
vital to a truly shared decision-making effort. Lastly, there are the
"task groups" whose responsibility it is to plan and implement programs
agreed to by the collaborative decision-making bodies.
In order for collaboratives to work, PanKratz makes the fol
lowing recommendations:
1. For collaboration to be functional, the controllers of resour
ces must be willing to share their power by responding to input
from role groups.
2. Collaboration is more functional when the controllers of
resources from the various institutions in a consortium form a
shared decision-making body which operates separately from a
body comprised of representatives of significant role groups in
the consortium. For.collaboration, these two decision-making
bodies must agree.
3. For collaboration to be functional the purpose and limits of
the consortium must be clearly defined and agreed to by all
parties involved.
4. The commitment to shared decision-making by member institutions
in a consortium is directly related to the investment of its
own resources in the shared effort.
5. For collaboration to be functional, a process for input and
shared decision-making must be clearly defined and understood
by all role groups.
Figure 5 is the model used by PanKratz and associates to imple
ment a successful collaborative relationship.
INPUT
SOURCES OF INPUT FOR DECISIONS
Proposal Individuals Role Groups
Council
DECISION
Council of Administrators for
Portal Schools (Superintendents and College Deans)
Set Policy and Control Resources
To Committee \ for Approval/ Modification/
To Council for Action & Allocation
f Resources
PLANNING
Allocat Allocate Resources for
Plannin for Progra
mplementation
Planning Task Group
To Decision-Making Groups
or Action
Master Steering Committee
(Representatives of Role Groups)
Monitors and Evalutes Programs
Implementation Task Group
DECISION Council of Mas ter Administra Steering
tors Committee
IMPLEMENTATION
EVALUATION
Allocate Resource for
mplementation
Implementation Task Groups
Progress Monitored and Approved by
Council Committee
Progress Monitored ana Approved by
Council I Committee
Figure 5. The Collaborative Decision-Making Process
70
Parsons (1956) suggests that no particular pattern of
interaction can simultaneously satisfy all the needs of all the indivi
duals and groups in a system. Hence, when needs remain unsatisfied
they become tensions and sources of conflict. He suggests the forma
tion of a normative arrangement within the system which establishes
accepted ways of behaving for the participants. This continuous accom
modation and conflict avoidance is referred to by Parsons as "dynamic
equilibrium." To reach this state, Parsons makes reference to a number
of specific functional problems which he poses as essential for all
systems to resolve if they are to ensure their own continuance. The
problems to be resolved are:
1. The problems involved in a goal attainment. This poses a
means-end perspective and involved coordination of activities
toward the end which the system is manifestly designed to
serve.
2. The problems of adaptation to the external situation. This
includes meeting and manipulating the environment in order to
permit survival.
3. The problems of integration. This emphasizes the relations of
the components in the system with one another, such as accommo
dating conflict in such a.way as to enable the system to
function and satisfy a requisite number of needs for the sys
tem itself and its component subsystems so as to assure survi
val.
71
4. The problems of pattern maintenance and tension management.
Pattern maintenance exists where an actor (or group) reconciles
the great variety of inconsistent demands and norms imposed
upon him (or the group) by his participation in the system with
those in other systems where he (or the group) is also a parti
cipant.
Illustrated in Figure 6 are these four problems in a system
known as the Parsonian Paradigm of a Social System.
Serious conflicting demands made on a person or group may be
dysfunctional to person, group and system. Tension management is the
problem of maintaining a sufficient commitment on the part of the ac
tors sufficient for their necessary fulfillment of their tasks.
Smith (1968) recommends following the subsequent organization
al principles when planning collaborative efforts:
1. To organize in such a way that there is always a legitimate
route for the injection of new ideas from each party concerned.
This requires a flexibility in organization which suits local
situations, so that leadership can arise from various sources
and not be swamped by a system or a tradition.
2. To arrange the power structure in such a way that university
and school are responsible for that which is peculiarly in
their domains and bring to the partnership their special learn
ings and concerns. Hopefully one may influence the other, but
one point of view should not wholly dominate what they do
jointly.
[A] [G]
Adaptation Goal
Attainment
[L] [I]
Pattern Maintenance
and Integration
Tension Management
Figure 6. Parsonian Paradigm of a Social System
73
3. To set up organizational structures which are viable enough as
institutions that they do not stand or fall on the strength of
one or two enthusiastic personalities, but can exist through
transitions caused by changes in specific personnel. So many
of the great experimental projects of the past, particularly
cooperative ones, fell by the wayside as soon as the key per-"
sons who were excited about a certain project moved on to other
vineyards.
4. To provide for a system of checks and balances of power to
prevent one power block from overwhelming all the others. When
genuine involvement of cooperating members ceases, then the
structure falls and with it the program.
5. To plan on a gradual emergence of inter-institutional structure
as individuals persuade others of need. Let the structure grow
naturally and uniquely rather than falling into the trap of
building a grandiose structure that does not fit and is, there
fore, never used.
6. To insure that there are executive positions or officers desig
nated in the structure whose duties are described and include
the right to carry out the decisions of policy making and pro
gram planning groups. In the history of cooperation in educa
tion, there are too many examples of joint advisory committees
which talked and talked, but never did anything.
Schermerhorn (1979) proposes a model for Interorganizational
Organization Development (IOD) which provides a framework for the nine
74
steps he proposes for developing a successful plan of action. Figure 7
shows his model. The nine steps Schermerhorn proposes are:
Step 1: Awareness and Mutual Trust Establishment—Boundary-
spanning representatives from potentially-cooperative organiza
tions are made aware of one another, of one another's
organizations, and of the prospects of cooperative action.
These representatives come to know one another as "persons,"
and interpersonal trust and respect is established.
Step 2: Common Interest Identification—Boundary-spanners engage
one another in dialog that results in the exchange of informa
tion on their organizations' goals. This information is pro
cessed to identify points of potential common interest.
Step 3: Intraorganizational Cost-Benefit Evaluation—Boundary-
spanners engage other members of their respective organizations
in a cost-benefit evaluation of cooperative action in the areas
of common interest. The feasibility of cooperation is estab
lished in terms of the given organization's needs, resources,
and operating realities.
Step 4: Program Planning and Design—Boundary-spanners engage one
another in dialog that results in prioritizing common interests,
establishing the feasibility of specific cooperative action
programs, and agreeing on tentative designs for the possible
programs.
Step 5: Intraorganizational Cost-Benefit Evaluation—Boundary-
spanners engage other members of their respective organizations
Decision making within
organizations
^ Evaluation Boundary' spanners
Figure 7. Key Elements in the IOD Action and Research Domain
in a cost-benefit evaluation of the proposed cooperative
action program(s).
Step 6: Program Implementation—Boundary-spanners and other sup
porting resources are mobilized for action to implement one or
more of the cooperative programs.
Step 7: Inter-organizational Cost-Benefit Evaluation—Boundary-
spanners engage one another in evaluative dialog that results
in proposals for the constructive redesign of the cooperative
action program(s) over time.
Step 8: Intraorganizational Cost-Benefit Evaluation—Boundary-
spanners engage other members of their respective organizations
in a cost.-benef it evaluation of the ongoing program(s). Deci
sions are made regarding continuing program participation and
support.
Step 9: Program Integration and Maintenance—Boundary-spanners
implement constructive changes in the cooperative program(s).
Steps 7-9 are engaged on a continual and recycling basis.
Carlson (1980) suggests "networking" to achieve successful
collaboration. He defines networking as
The bringing together of various elements into a combination of units, a whole, which works toward a purpose, shared by its members. The network, then, is a set of elements (people) which link at particular points or nodes (places at which elements connect and information is channeled)(page 14).
Carlson states further that networking provides another way to think
about bringing together, in an organized way, a "coterie" of people's
talent and expertise to address some needs or purpose. Listed in
Appendix C is Carlson's conceptual checklist for persons planning to
develop interinstitutional collaborations.
Dosher (1977), another proponent of networking, presents ten
guidelines for developing a network. They are as follows:
1. Develop a statement of purpose which is broad and generalizable
to the multiple values and expectations intrinsic to the mem
bers or potential members of the network.
2. Know thyself sufficiently to know the need and the vision for
the network which will enable the development of plans to in
clude long and short range goals, operational objectives and
measurable outcomes.
3. Face power issues openly, squarely and in a timely fashion.
Conflict is inevitable in contexts in which parties share dif
ferent viewpoints over "ends" and "means" thus conflict re
ducing strategies are needed.
4. Give priority to information processing since information is
the lifeblood of such systems. The exchange of information,
ideas, gains, and losses provide the necessary stimuli to keep
members' attention attuned to network efforts.
5. Identify, train and nurture leaders, for venture to succeed,
leadership is an important element. It is better to err on the
side of recruiting more persons of varying skills, knowledge,
and experience than to limit involvement to a clique of organi
zational elitists.
78
6. Identify "boundary persons" who are knowledgeable about
organization development, group dynamics and interpersonal
communications and share their expertise at appropriate times
in the development of a network.
7. Conceptualize network as a learning system where all its mem
bers take part in developing an understanding of the complexity
of creating new insights about the area in which all are taking
a part. A certain level of tolerance for ambiguity and un
certainty is desirable as well as being flexible and open to
new knowledge.
8. Stress management, accountability, and responsibility for en
suring strategies and to defend to others the merits of the
network.
9. Evaluate stringently in order to ensure to modify or change
strategies and to defend to others the merits of the network.
10. Celebrate and treasure payoffs which emerge from the coopera
tive efforts and which bring new meaning to those involved.
In addition to these guidelines, Schon (1971) suggests the fol
lowing roles which are essential to the design, creation, negotiation
and management of networks.
1. Systems negotiator—The ombudsman or guide who serves as the
vehicle by which others negotiate a difficult, isolated, rigid,
or fragmented system.
'Underground' manager—S/he maintains and operates informal,
underground networks. Through personal relationships, s/he
maintains a coherent operation—for example, across governmen
tal agency lines—sometimes pursuing in this way functional
goals that have little or nothing to do with the formal poli
cies of the agencies involved.
Manoeuvrer—S/he operates on a 'project' basis, and is able
through personal networks to persuade or coerce institutions
to make the shifts required to realize a project that cuts
across institutional lines. Real estate 'packagers,' or the
effective managers of a housing or renewal agency in virtually
any large city, stand as examples of the type.
Broker—In the literal, commercial sense a broker connects
buyers and sellers. S/he helps each to identify the other,
services as a channel for information (in principle, there
would be no need for brokers if information flow were perfect)
and makes 'deals' if s/he is able to convince buyer and seller
that each has something the other wants.
Often, s/he also serves to clear away the institutional,
regulatory and administrative debris which stands in the way
of transactions, performing these functions both because of
her/his superior knowledge of the necesary steps and because of
her/his willingness to cope with this level of detail.
Network manager—S/he oversees official networks of activities
and elements, assuring the flows of information, the processes
80
of referral, tracking and follow-up, and the provision
of resources required for the network to operate.
6. Facilitator—S/he attempts to foster the development and inter
connection of regional enterprises, each of which constitutes
a variant of central themes of policy or function. Her/his
role is at once that of consultant, expediter, guide, and connec
tor. S/he must provide, as well, the 'meta' functions of
training and consultation which enable regional operators to
establish and maintain their own networks.
The summation of this literature is stated well by Mangone
(1976).
Again and again the literature on . . . collaborative research has stressed the necessity of equal participation in a respectful relationship between the research associates in a common enterprise and the avoidance of any hierarchical cast in which the . . . collaborators are merely used for the . . . data they can furnish the principal . . . investigator (page 44).
Summary
Interinstitutional collaboration is a subject which has
received considerable attention in the literature in the last 20 years.
It can be defined as any substantially joint activity in which two
agencies enter for mutual benefit. The key elements cited in the lit
erature on interinstitutional collaboration are shared decision-making,
policy development, and financial control.
81
The primary focus of this literature review was the hindrances
to successful interinstitutional collaboration. Five types of hin
drances were examined. Also included were historically successful
interinstitutional cooperatives between institutions of higher educa
tion (IHE) and local education agencies (LEA) and the focus or organi
zations.
Cited in the literature were seven traditional interinstitu
tional cooperatives between the IHE and the LEA. These were preservice,
student teaching, administrative internship, continuing education, part
time or guest lecturers, inservice activities, and consultant services.
A brief history and description were included for each type of coopera
tive.
In section two the focus of the review was the purposes and
commonalities among organizations. Jive types of organizational rela
tionships—accidental; parasitic; one-way; mutualistic; and trancen-
dental—were identified. The implications were that the latter two
types were the most heneficial in inter-organizational collaboration.
In section three theoretical hindrances to interinstitutional
collaborations were examined. The theoretical constructs of Lewin,
Schermerhorn, Getzels and Guba, Parsons and Merton can all be summar
ized with the following statements as they apply to interinstitutional
collaboration. For members of any given system individually or col
lectively what may be functional for one may not be functional for
82
another. The need for initial steps to clarify roles and expectations
in order to enhance the chance for mutual satisfaction is imperative.
The fourth and fifth sections dealt with literature on the
topic of institutional hindrances to research in the IHE and LEA res
pectively. What was revealed is that both institutions have policies
and practices within their respective organizations which seriously in
hibit the production of research not only cooperatively but singularly
as well.
Sociological hindrances to interinstitutional collaboration
were discussed in section six. The literature indicates that the dif
ferences between the IHE and LEA are likened to those of two different
subcultures. Twelve subcultural differences were examined. These
differences were in the areas of policy making, the role of the written
word, daily activities, attitudes toward cooperation, expenditure of
funds, research and development, personnel matters, relative status,
personal commitment to the organization, educational, political, and
social views. It was suggested that these differences have provided
a serious point of friction between the IHE and LEA.
Section seven was focused on the perceptions of the research
relationship between the IHE and LEA from the perspective of members
of the two institutions. The most prevalent perception was that the
one did not understand nor try to understand the other.
Discussed in the final section were theoretical and practical
recommendations for successful collaboratives. The literature in
this section was summed up with the statement by Mangone (1976)
Again and again the literature on . . . collaborative research has the necessity of equal partnership in a respectful relationship . . .(page 44).
CHAPTER 3
METHOD
Introduction
This study was a descriptive study in that the major purpose
was to ascertain the extent and nature of the problems and issues in
the research relationship between Institutions of Higher Education
(IHE) and Local Educational Agencies (LEA) from the perspective of
four groups of respondents. The perspectives were measured by a
researcher-designed questionnaire which focused on the "reality" (how
it is) and "expectation" (how it should be) of the research relation
ship. The dependent variables were the responses to the 28 problems
and issues statements and free responses items on the questionnaire.
The independent variables were reality, expectation, and group member
ship.
This chapter delineates the research procedures followed in
conducting the study. It includes: 1) the sample selection process,
2) a description of the instruments used to collect the data, 3) the
procedures for collecting the data, 4) the method of analysis, and
5) a summary of the chapter.
84
85
Sample
For the purposes of this study three populations were sampled.
Population One: Directors of Research and Evaluation departments in
local education agencies in large cities (DRE).
Step 1: An organized group of research and evaluation directors in
school systems with a student enrollment of 45,000 or more was
identified through their affiliation with the American Educa
tional Research Association (AREA). The American Educational
Research Association is an organization of professionals whose
emphasis is research in the field of education.
Step 2: The chairperson of the Large City Directors of Research
and Evaluation was contacted and asked to provide the researcher
with the names and school district addresses of the members.
Ninety-nine LEAs were represented by the DRE membership.
Step 3: All 99 DREs and their respective LEAs were selected from
this membership list. The membership included representation
from the United States and Canada.
Population Two: Members of AREA: Division H
Division H is comprised of individuals who have an interest in school
evaluation and program development.
Step 4: The Subgroups within Division H were identified by the
chairperson of the Division. Comprising these subgroups were
personnel from the following types of organizations:
86
1. Local Education Agency (LEA)
2. Institution of Higher Education (IHE)
3. Research Development and Evaluation Lab (RDE)
4. State Education Agency (SEA)
5. Other (includes private, non-profit organizations, con
sultants, retirees)
Step 5: Three persons from each of these types of organizations
were contacted by telephone and asked if they could respond
to a questionnaire concerning the research relationship be
tween universities and school districts. All responses were
positive. Consequently, five subgroups were included in the
populations to be sampled. However, for the purposes of this
study only IHE and LEA respondents were included in the
statistical analyses. The membership included representation
from the United States, Canada and Guam.
Population Three: Deans of Colleges of Education (DCE)
Step 6: A copy of the mailing list of the Association of Colleges
and School of Education in State Universities and Land Grant
Colleges was obtained from a southwestern university.
Step 7: Forty colleges of education, that were within a 25 mile
radius of a school district with a student enrollment in ex
cess of 24,000, were selected from the mailing list. The
Deans of these 40 colleges were included in the sample.
87
Description of the Instruments
To collect the data for this study two questionnaires were
developed by the researcher. The purpose of the instruments was to
obtain demographic data, survey personnel from various organizations on
their perceptions of research and evaluation relationships between the
IHE and LEA, and obtain information on how to improve and expand those
relationships for the benefit of both groups.
Questionnaire #1 (Appendix A) was designed for members of
AREA: Division H and DREs.
Step 1: The Questionnaire was designed using information from a
literature review, a Division H task force on "Fostering
Fruitful Relationships Between IHEs and LEAs,"and past papers
of AREA conferences.
Step 2: A working copy of the questionnaire was mailed to 15
researchers who represented the five subgroups of Division H
and the DRE group.
Step 3: When the working copies were returned the remarks were
used to construct a second draft of the questionnaire.
Step 4: The second draft was returned to the same 15 individuals.
Comments on the second draft were recorded by phone conversa
tion and used to prepare the third and final draft.
Step 5: The final draft was piloted and approved by five univer
sity faculty members, five school based research and evaluation
personnel, and one member from each of the remaining three
Division H Subgroups.
Questionnaire #2 (Appendix B) was designed to survey Deans of
Colleges of Education.
Step 6: This second questionnaire was developed by modifying
(deleting, rewording, and adding) the first questionnaire.
Step 7: The questionnaire was piloted and approved by four
Associate Deans of Colleges of Education.
Procedures for Collecting the Data
(Directors of Research and Evaluation)
Step 1: A questionnaire package was mailed to each of the 99
Large City DREs. The package contained:
One copy of questionnaire #1
One introductory letter
One subject consent form
One stamped return envelope
Step 2: Although the respondents were guaranteed confidentiality,
the returns were coded to identify when respondents had re
turned the questionnaire. If there was no response by the end
of three weeks a second package was mailed to the non-
respondents.
Step 3: If there was no response to the second mailing after two
additional weeks, a follow-up telephone call was made. The
call was made to 10 non-respondents (10% of the original
sample) to determine the reasons for non-response.
(IHE and LEA members of AERA: Division H)
Step 4: The chairperson of Division H was contacted for the
purpose of determining the most expedient and cost effective
method of sampling the membership. It was determined that the
questionnaire could be included as part of the Division
Newsletter.
Step 5: An article was written in the October 1979 newsletter
describing the study and asking for membership participation.
Step 6: Two days before the scheduled mailing 50% of the news
letters were randomly selected for inclusion of the question
naire. Thus approximately 1000 Division H members were mailed
questionnaires. Because the questionnaire was mailed using
the bulk mailing system no follow-up could be done. It was
not known how many of the members actually received the
ques tionnaire.
(Deans of Colleges of Educations)
Step 7: A questionnaire package was mailed to each of the
selected Deans of Colleges of Education. The package included
One introductory letter
One copy of questionnaire it2
Two copies of questionnaire #1
One stamped return envelope
There was no second mailing.
90
Step 8: In order to determine the reasons for non-response, ten
percent of the original sample, who had not responded, were
contacted by telephone.
Method of Analysis
The purpose of this section is to describe the methods used to
analyze the data that were yielded by the questionnaire survey. The
questionnaires used in this study were designed to enable the re
searcher to examine three aspects of the research relationship between
the IHE and the LEA. Sections of both questionnaires were used to col
lect demographic data and free responses on questions pertaining to
problems and issues encountered in the research relationship between
the IHE and the LEA. In addition the questionnaire sent to DRE, LEA
and IHE respondents was focused on the reality and expectation of
research relationship as perceived by the three groups.
Demographic Data (census and organizational)
The descriptive method used to display the qualitative data
yielded by the census and organization sections of the questionnaire
was the crosstabulation. This method was chosen because it allows
accurate and clear communication of the nature of the data so that
the sample of subjects is described properly. The data were compiled,
displayed, and compared in order to develop a composite picture of
the respondents and the organizations which they respectively repre
sented.
91
Perceptions of the "Reality" and "Expectation of the Research Relationship"
The procedures which were used to implement the design and test
three of the four null hypotheses are summarized in the following
organizational charts.
Null hypothesis 1 was concerned with the perceptions of three
groups of respondents, Directors of Research & Evaluation (DRE), Local
Education Agency Research personnel (LEA), and Institution of Higher
Education faculty (IHE), on the "reality" of the research relation
ship. The procedures for testing this hypothesis are shown in Figure
8 .
Procedures for testing null hypothesis 2 are shown in Figure
9. This hypothesis was concerned with the respondents perspective
of the "expectation" of the research relationship.
The differences between "reality" and "expectation" as per
ceived by the three groups were the focus of null hypothesis 3. The
procedures for testing are depicted in Figure 10.
Hypothesis 4 dealt with three free response items answered by
DRE, LEA, IHE, and DCE respondents. To test the hypotheses, it was
divided into null hypotheses 4a, 4b, and 4c.
Null hypothesis 4a was concerned with the respondents per
ceptions of the benefits derived from collaborative research.
The focus of null hypothesis 4b was the complaints regarding
collaborative research between the IHE and LEA.
Conducted a one-way ANOVA for each of the 28 dependent variables on the "reality" of the Research Relationship.
Calculated df, ss, ms, F-ratio and significance of F for each variable on "how it is."
1 F-I F-value significant for hypothesis 1 at the .05 level? ; ?
Conducted a Tukey HSD Procedure to see among which groups differences in perception of "reality" existed.
Reported results of Tukey-HSD.
Reported no significant difference.
Figure 8. Procedure for Testing Null Hypothesis 1
93
Conducted a one-way ANOVA for each of the 28 dependent variables on the "Expectation" of the Research Relationship.
Calculated df, ss, ms, F-ratio and significance of F for each variable under "how is should be."
• F-value significant for hypothesis 2 at the .05 level?;
Yes No
Conducted a Tukey HSD Reported no significant procedure to determine difference. which groups differ from each other on their perceptions of "expectation."
Reported results of Tukey-HSD.
Figure 9. Procedure for Testing Null Hypothesis 2
Conducted a two-way ANOVA for the differences between the "reality" and "expectation" of the research relationship for each of the 28 variables
Calculated df, ss, ms, F-ratio, the significance of F for trials, and the interaction effect.
*\ Is F-value significant for interaction (group by ? trials at the .05 level?
Conducted a one-way ANOVA for discrepancy scores on "Reality" minus "Expectation" for each group.
Calculated df, ss, ms, F-ratio and significance of F for differences.
Is F-value significant J at .05 level?
Examined F-Value for trials (main effect).
*\ Is F-value for main effect significant at .01 level?
Examined trials' means to determine if R < E or R > E for groups combined .
Reported results
Reported R » E for all three groups.
Examined confidence intervals to determine if R = E for each group separately.
Conducted a Tukey HSD test to determine which groups were significantly different in their perceptions of reality vs. expectation.
Report no significant difference.
Reported results of Tukey-HSD: R > E, E > R, or E • R.
Figure 10. Procedure for Testing Null Hypothesis 3 /
95
Null hypothesis 4c dealt with the respondents' suggestions
for improvement of research relationships.
The tests of significance were three separate chi squares.
Selecting the Chi Square Categories
The categories used in the chi squares were developed by using
the responses of the Deans of Colleges of Education as a basis of
organization. Each response was read and placed in a category.
Another rater was asked to place the DCE responses into the
chosen categories. Inter-rater reliability was established with the
Spearman rank correlation coefficient. After three category changes
the correlation was .72.
These categories were then used to sort the responses of other
respondents. Similar responses of less than three were eliminated from
the analyses. Categories with an expected cell frequency of less
than five were collapsed. The result was one four by five and two
four by four Chi Squares.
The decision rule was that each hypothesis would be tested at
the .05 level of significance.
Rationale for the Selection of ANOVA
Analysis of variance is a statistical technique used to
determine whether several populations have the same mean. The null
hypothesis in analysis of variance proposes that the population means
are equal. The null hypothesis is tested by examining the variation
among sample means in comparison with variation within several samples
96
(Dinham 1976). This study was designed to examine variety in human
perceptions. Since ANOVA is based on statistical comparison of varia
tion between groups and variation within groups, it was selected as the
appropriate statistic to use.
One-way ANOVA was selected for hypotheses 1 and 2 because it is
appropriate to use when three or more categories of one independent
variable are compared. Two-way ANOYA was selected for hypothesis 3
because it is appropriate to use to test null hypotheses when two in
dependent variables are used. Two-way ANOYA also tests the interaction
of the two independent variahles. Hypothesis was tested by a two-way
ANOVA.
Decision to use Parametric Statistics
When the data are not strong interval data, non-parametric
tests are often used. An examination of the appropriate non-parametric
statistics indicated the following procedure:
1) the data were initially treated as interval
2) an assumption of no ties was made
3) the data were then treated as non-interval.
Since the ANOVA assumptions could be met as readily as the non-
parametric assumptions, the more powerful ANOVA was statistic of choice.
Empirical evidence exists which shows that slight deviations in meeting
the parametric assumptions does not have radical effects on the ob
tained probability figure (.Seigel 1956).
97
Rationale for Selecting the Tukey HSD Procedure
The rejection of a null hypothesis is not an overwhelmingly
insightful or interesting result. Once some difference has been found,
some further analysis is warranted to determine just which population
means differ. In ANOVA when a null hypothesis is rejected, a multiple
comparison (post hoc) test is used to search for the exact source of
the population differences that produce the significant F statistic
(Dinham 1976). For the purposes of this study, the Tukey HSD procedure
was chosen. The HSD controls Type 1 error at a given level for the to
tal experiment. There is no compounding of Type 1 error with each com
parison as with multiple t tests, no matter how many pairs of means are
compared. This test was only a follow-up to hypotheses 1, 2, and 3 be
cause a multiple comparison procedure is usually conducted in conjunc
tion with ANOVA.
Rationale for Selection of the Chi Square
The data yielded by the free response section of the question
naire was qualitative. When the data are of this type, distribution
free statistical methods are most frequently used. The chi square is
such a method. Chi square procedures apply to data that are frequency
counts for categories defined by the independent variable (usually group
membership) and the dependent variable (responses of subjects). The
null hypothesis tested in chi square is a hypothesis proposing the in
dependence of the independent variable and the dependent variable (Dinham
1976). Since the chi square requirement of independent cell frequencies
was met, Chi square was the statistic of choice for hypothesis 4.
98
Summary
Participants in this study included four groups of respondents
in a nationwide survey. The four groups were professional staff from
Local Education Agencies (LEAS) and Institutions of Higher Education
(IHES) and administrative staff from Local Education Agencies (DRES) and
Institutions of Higher Education (DCES)•
The populations were surveyed using a researcher designed ques
tionnaire. The primary purpose of the questionnaire was to survey the
extent and nature of the problems encountered in the research relation
ship between the Institutions of Higher Education and the Local Educa
tion Agencies.
Four null hypotheses were tested in this study. To test the hy
potheses the data were analyzed using the following statistical tests:
Null Hypothesis 1 was tested by a one-way ANOVA
Null Hypothesis 2 was tested by a one-way ANOVA
Null Hypothesis 3 was tested by a two-way ANOVA
Null Hypothesis 4 was tested by Chi Squares
The level of significance was .05. Where significance for each
test was found in hypotheses 1, 2, and 3 a Tukey HSD procedure was con
ducted to determine the source of the differences.
CHAPTER 4
PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OP THE DATA
This chapter includes the presentation and analysis of the
response rate, census and organizational data, and the hypotheses tested.
The statistical analyses of the hypotheses were calculated by the
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) (Nie et al. 1975).
Except where noted the .05 level of significance was used to test the
null hypotheses.
Response Rate
The total sample for this study was 275 respondents. Geograph
ically the respondents represented 43 states, Washington, D.C., Canada,
and Guam. The states not represented were Idaho, Maine, Montana,
North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, and Washington. Compiled in Table
3 is the response rate of the surveyed groups—Directors of Research
and Evaluation (DRE) (71%), Local Education Agency Staff (LEA) and
Institutions of Higher Education faculty (IHE) chosen from Division H
of AERA (24%), and Deans of Colleges of Education (DCE) (60%).
In order to determine the reasons for non-response, ten percent
of the original sample who had not responded were randomly selected for
a telephone interview. Table 4 is a summarization of these responses.
The most frequently mentioned hindrance was the length of the question
naire.
99
100
Table 3. Number of Questionnaires Sent and Percentage of Returns by Group Membership
# of Category
questionnaires sent
§ returned after 1st mailing
# returned after 2nd mailing Total
% age of returns
DRE 99 43 27 **
70 71
LEA Division H
IHE 1000
59 no 2nd mailing
181— 24
DCE 40 24 no 2nd mailing
TOTAL
24
275
60
**Three DRE respondents answered only the free response items. Their questionnaires were not calculated in the statistical analysis (N=67)
—19 responses from RDE, 12 from SEA, and 24 from other are not included in this analysis, but are included in total response rate from Division H.
101
Table 4. Number of DCE and DRE Respondents Giving Each Reason for Non-Return of Questionnaire
Curtailment of outside No cooperative Questionnaire Not Row
Category research projects Too Lengthy Interested Total
DRE 3 2
DCE
Total 3 2
4 1 10
2 2 4
6 3 14
Census Data
The subsequent information provides a composite picture of the
respondents in this study. Presented in Table 5 are the gender, ethnic
ity, and educational level of the respondents by group membership. An
analysis of these data indicated that the most respondents were Anglo
(all others) males with an earned Doctorate. Over 76% of the respon
dents were male. Of the 64 female respondents approximately 51% were
employed by an IHE. Eighty-four percent of the respondents have Doc
torates, 13 percent have a Masters Degree only and one percent have a
Bachelors Degree only. Of all Doctorates 24 percent were DREs, 11% LEA
staff, and 59% IHE personnel.
The results of the analysis by ethnicity closely corresponds to
the American Educational Research Association Membership as reported in
1979 Annual Report. Ninety-four percent of all respondents were Anglo,
three percent Asian American, two percent Black American and less than
one percent Hispanic. There were no Native American respondents. Mi
norities constituted six percent of the total IHE membership and 11% of
the combined DRE and LEA membership.
Presented in Table 6 is a compilation of student enrollment data.
The majority (48%) of the IHE (including DCE) respondents are employed
in schools with a population which ranges from 10,000-24,999. Twenty-
nine percent work within institutions with a population range of 25,000-
44,999. Fifteen percent and eight percent respectively work in schools
with population below 10,000 or above 45,000. Ninety-seven percent of
DRE respondents are administrators in schools where student enrollment
103
Table 5. Number of Respondents in Each Group by Gender, Ethnicity, and Educational Level
Category DRE . LEA IHE DCE Row Total
Male 57 44 89 21 211
Female 13 15 33 3 64
Native American — — — ~
Black American 2 1 3 2 8
Asian American 3 — 3 1 7
Hispanic 1 1 — — 2
All Others 59 56 114 21 250
Total Responses 275
104
Table 6. Number of Respondents in Each Student Enrollment Category
Below 10,000- 25,000- Above Category 10,000 24,000 44,999 45,000 Total
DRE — — 2 68 70
LEA 12 20 9 17 58
IHE 18 59 32 10 119
DCE 4 10 9 1 24
Totals 34 89 52 96 *271
*Four respondents did not complete this question.
105
is above 45,000. Most LEA respondents (64%) were from school districts
with student enrollments in the 10,000-24,999 or above 45,000 range.
Organizational Data
The information in this section was included to illustrate how
the agencies are structured to carry out collaborative research. The
data presented in Table 7 show that 70% of the respondents from a Local
Education Agency have a centralized research and evaluation unit. Fur
ther analysis indicates that most of these units (42%) have been in
existence between 10 and 15 years. A study conducted by the Center for
the Study of Evaluation found similarly that most Research and Evalua
tion offices were established after 1965 (Lyons 1979). A corresponding
question to respondents from institutions of higher education was "Do
you have a coordinating research office (CRO)?" The responses are tabu
lated in Table 8. Approximately 72% responded affirmatively. The most
prevalent type of CRO is at the university level. However, 36% did re
port having a college level CRO. Table 9 summarizes the responses from
the Deans of Colleges of Education to the inquiry regarding a college
level research policy. The responses were approximately equal in both
the yes and no category.
The data in Tables 10 and 11 are presented to show who requests
assistance from whom in collaborative research projects. The analysis
indicated that when research assistance is requested, all three groups--
LEA, DRE, and IHE—request assistance from the IHE more frequently than
they request assistance from other sources. Requests to the IHE for
assistance represented 35% of the total requests. From the perspective
106
Table 7. Number of LEA and DRE Responses to Questions Regarding a Central Research and Evaluation Unit
Centralized Research and Evaluation Unit If yes, how long in existence
Less than 1-5 5-10 More than Totals Category No Yes one year years years 10 years By Row
DRE ' 7 63 1 9 23 30 63
LEA 20 39 5 8 13 13 39
Totals by Column 27 102 5 17 35 43 102
107
Table 8. Number of IHE and DCE Responses to Questions Regarding Coordinating Research Offices
Category
Coordinating Research Office
No Yes
If yes, what
Department Level
ft* type
College Level
University Level
Totals by Row
IHE
00 o
cn
15 - 44 59 118
DCE 8 16 4 8 11 23
Totals by Column 38 100 19 52 70 141
**May respond in more than one category.
108
Table 9. Number of DCE Responses to the Question-<-"Does College of Education Have a Research Policy?"
Yes No
13 11
109
Table 10. Number and Percentage of Persons by Group Membership Responding to the Question^—"From whom do you request assistance in a cooperative research project?"
DRE LEA IHE Row Totals
Row Percent
Requests to LEA 9 4 18 31 8
Requests to SEA 15 8 22 45 12
Requests to IHE 49 . 31 51 131 35
Requests to RD & E 21 13 17 51 14
Requests to Consultant 30 19 32 81 22
Requests to Other Sources 6 1 5 12 3
No Cooperative Projects 4 5 10 19 5
Total Respondents 187 134 81 155 370 100
110
Table 11. Number and Percentage of Persons by Group Membership Responding to the Question—"Who requests assistance from you in a cooperative research project?"
DRE LEA IHE Row Row Totals Percent
Requests from LEA 18 12 57 87 16
Requests from SEA 32 14 41 87 16
Requests from IHE 81 36 71 188 35
Requests from RD & E 30 10 26 66 12
Requests from Consultant 26 10 26 62 11
Requests from Other Sources 10 6 17 33 6
No Cooperative Projects 4 7 7 18 3
Total Respondents 199 201 95 245 541 100
Ill
of the Local Education Agency respondents (DRE and LEA) requests to
the IHE for assistance (37%) and from the IHE for assistance (39%) are
approximately equal. The data from the IHE respondents suggest that
only 12% of the time when assistance is needed is it requested from the
LEA. However, 23% of the requests for assistance from outside agencies
come from the LEA. The data indicate that the IHE respondents tend to
utilize assistance from other IHEs more frequently than they do any
other source.
Null Hypothesis I
This hypothesis was stated as follows:
There are no differences among the perceptions of the IHE, DRE,
and LEA respondents on the "reality" of the research relationship be
tween the IHE and the LEA.
Presentation of the Data
Hypothesis I was tested by a one-way ANOVA. The independent
variable was group membership. The "reality" (How It Is) scores on each
of the 28 Problems and Issues Statements served as the dependent vari
ables. The F-values were calculated for each of the 28 dependent
variables. The seven dependent variables which were found not to be
significant are listed in Table 12. Those 21 dependent variables which
were found to be significant are shown in Table 13. The 21 dependent
variables on which there were significant differences in perception
among the groups were then tested by the Tukey HSD to determine between
which groups there were differences.
112
Table 12. P Values of the Dependent Variables in Which There Were Not Significant Differences among the Respondents on the Perceptions of the "Reality" of Research Relationship
Variable P--Value
#29 Expectations are clearly defined. .12
#30 Policies and Procedures are clearly defined. .07
#35 Division H awards program includes the category "Best Example of a Collaborative University/LEA Effort."
.58
#36 Research journals are encouraged to develop special issues on this subject of University/LEA relations and maintain it as an editorial priority.
.30
#41 Research conducted by the LEA is of value to the IHE. .59
#46 Cooperative Data basis have been developed. .17
#48 Information is shared concerning ongoing research activities.
.20
P = .05
113
Table 13. P Values of the Dependent Variables on Which There Were Significant Differences among the Respondents on the Perceptions of the "Reality" of the Research Relationship
Variable P-Value
#27 There is early, cooperative involvement of both groups in planning the research effort. .01
#28 Decisionmaking and power is shared equally by the resource controllers and those affected by the effort .04
#31 Roles are clearly defined. .02
#32 Responsibilities are clearly defined. .009
#33 Funding agencies encourage collaborative research efforts through the allocation of resources. .009
#34 Monies are allocated to research on fostering cooperative relations. .000
#37 University research is based on LEA needs. .000
#38 University research is based on university needs. .006
#39 University research is based on joint needs. .000
#40 Research conducted by university is of value to LEA. .000
#42 A compilation of LEA research needs is available to university and others. .001
#43 LEA has a policy/procedure for out-of-district research. .000
#44 LEA Data Base Information is available. .001
114
Table 13.—Continued
Variable P-Value
#45 University Data' Base Information is available. .003
#47 Knowledge and resources have been pooled in an attempt to solve metropolitan educational problems. .01
#49 There is a designated person(s) in LEA office who handles out-of-district research requests. .000
#50 Human subject form(s) is required for appropriate research projects. .0253
The following approaches to cooperative research are used:
#51 The Consortium or formal relationship between participating organizations with specific guidelines established in advance. .0370
#52 Informal Relationships resulting from personal relationships. .0003
#53 Personnel Exchange where LEA and university personnel are shared or exchanged for periods of time. .0001
#54 Solicited Cooperatives where university and labs are apprised of topics which LEAs would be interested in pursuing. .0032
P = .05
115
Analysis of the Data
The calculated F-values for perceptions pf "reality" among IHE,
DRE, and LEA respondents were not significant at the .05 level for vari
ables 29, 30, 35, 36, 41, 46, and 48. Based on these results Null Hypo
thesis I was retained for those variables. The calcualted F-values for
perceptions of "reality" among the respondents were significant for
variables 27, 28, 31, 32, 33, 34, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47,
49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54. Based on these results, Null Hypothesis I was
rejected for those variables.
By looking at the Tukey-HSD results and calculating percentages
of occurrence the following was indicated. Forty percent of the time
significant differences in perceptions were between the IHE and LEA
respondents. Twenty percent of the time the perceptions of "reality"
differed between the DRE and LEA respondents. The IHE and DRE respon
dents differed in perception 40% of the time.
Null Hypothesis 2
This hypothesis was stated as follows:
There are no differences among the perceptions of the IHE, DRE,
and LEA respondents on the "expectation" of the research relationship
between the IHE and the LEA.
Presentation of the Data
Hypothesis 2 was tested by a one-way ANOVA. Group membership
was the independent variable. The "expectation" (How It Should Be)
responses to each of the 28 Problems and Issues statements were the
responses to each of the 28 Problems and Issues statements were the
dependent variables. The significance levels of F were calculated for
each of the 28 dependent variables. Twenty of the 28 variables were
not significant at the .05 level. The variables and the P-values are
depicted in Table 14. The eight variables on which there were signifi
cant differences in the perception of the respondents on the "expecta
tion" of the research relationships are listed in Table 15.
The Tukey-HSD was used as a follow-up procedure to determine
which respondents differed in their perceptions.
Analysis of the Data
The calculated F-values on the perceptions of the "exepctation"
of the research relationship were not significant at the .05 level for
20 of the 28 dependent variables. This indicates that the perceptions
did not differ significantly among the three groups of respondents.
Those variables which were not significant were 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33,
34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44, 47, 50, 51, 53, and 54. For these
20 dependent variables Null Hypothesis 2 was retained. For dependent
variables 28, 37, 43, 45, 46, 48, 49, and 52, the calculated F-values
were significant. The DRE, LEA, and IHE respondents differed signifi
cantly in their perceptions of the "expectation" of the research
relationship between the LEA and the IHE. For those eight dependent
variables Null Hypothesis 2 was rejected.
The Tukey-HSD analysis indicated that the significant differences
in perception were primarily between the DRE and LHE respondents (80%).
117
Table 14. P Values of the Dependent Variables on Which There Were Not Significant Differences in the Perceptions of the "Expectation" of Research Relationships
Variable P-Value
#27 There is early cooperative involvement of both groups in planning the research effort. .62
#29 Expectations are clearly defined. .84
#30 Policies and procedures are clearly defined. .41
#31 Roles are clearly defined. .31
#32 Responsibilities are clearly defined. .52
#33 Funding agencies encourage collaborative research efforts through the allocation of resources. .22
#34 Monies are allocated to research on fostering cooperative relations. .79
#35 Division H awards program includes the category "Best Example of a Collaborative University/LEA Effort." .73
#36 Research journals are encouraged to develop special issues on this subject of University/LEA relations and maintain it as an editorial priority. .74
#38 University research is based on university needs. .42
#39 University research is based on joint needs. .27
#40 Research conducted by university is of value to LEA. .67
118
Table 14.—Continued
Variable P-Value
#41 Research conducted by LEA is of value to the.university. .99
#42 A compilation of LEA research needs is available to university and others. .52
#44 LEA Data Base Information is available. .25
#47 Knowledge and resources have been pooled in an attempt to solve metropolitan educational problems. .40
#50 Human subject form(s) is required for appropriate research projects. .36
The following approaches to cooperative research are used:
#51 The Consortium or formal relationship between participating organizations with specific guidelines established in advance. .41
#53 Personnel Exchange where LEA and university personnel are shared or exchanged for periods of time. .12
#54 Solicited Cooperatives where university and labs are apprised of topics which LEAs would be interested in pursuing. .84
P = .05
119
Table 15. P Values of the Dependent Variables on Which There Were Significant Differences in Perceptions among the Respondents on the Expectation of the Research Relationship
Variable P-Value
#28 Decisionmaking and power is shared equally by the resource controllers and those affected by the effort. .04
#37 University research is based on LEA needs. .004
#43 LEA has a policy/procedure for out-of-district research. .001
#45 University Data Base Information is available. .008
#46 Cooperative Data Bases have been developed. .002
#48 Information is shared concerning ongoing activities. .04
#49 There is a designated person(s) in LEA office who handles out-of-district research requests. .004
The following approaches to cooperative research are used:
#52 Informal Relationships resulting from personal relationships. .02
P = .05
120
Perceptual differences between the IHE and LEA, and the DRE and LEA
respondents represented ten percent each.
Null Hypothesis 3
This hypothesis was stated as follows:
The differences between the "reality" and "expectation" of the
research relationship are not different among the respondents from the
LEA, IHE, or DRE populations.
Presentation of the Data
Hypothesis 3 was tested by a two-way ANOVA. The independent
variables were "reality" and "expectation" and group membership. The
dependent variables were the 28 responses on the "How It Is" (Tiral one)
and the 28 responses on the "How It Should Be" (Trial two) sections
of the Problems and Issues statements. F-values were calculated for
the between (groups), within (trials) and the interaction (groups by
trials) for each of the dependent variables. Illustrated in Table 16
are the cumulative results of the data analysis for three hypotheses
tested. This table corresponds to the procedures in F.igures8, 9, and
10. Summarized in column one of Table 16 are the results of the Tukey-
HSD for the "reality" variable. In column two in Table 16 these
results are summarized. In column three of Table 16 are the summarized
results of the calculations of the interaction of "reality" and
"expectation" by group membership. A "yes" in column three indicates
that the interaction lines were parallel, therefore, there was no
significant interaction. If the lines were not parallel, this
Table 16. Summarization of Tukey HSD Results for R, E, R - E, Significant Interactions, Trial Means and Confidence Intervals for Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3
Variable
1 R
Results of the Tukey HSD for the variables on vhich there were significant differences in the perceptions of the "Reality" of the Research Relationship
2 E
Results of the Tukey HSD for the variables on which there were significant differences in the perceptions of the "Expectation" of the Research Relationship
Report of the interaction effect in 2-way ANOVA by examining if the Slopes are Parallel
4 R = E
Report of the combined trial means for R & E for all three groups in the 2-way ANOVA
5 R « E
Report of the confidence intervals from significant differences between R & E for each group separately
6 R » E
Results of the Tukey HSD for variables on which there were significant differences in the differences in perception between Reality & Expectation
27. There is early, cooperative involvement of both groups in planning the
research effort*
28. Decisionmaking and power is shared equally by the resource controllers and those affected by the effort.
LEA PRE I HE (1, 2, 3) E > R
LEA PRE IHE
LEA PRE IHE PRE LEA IHE
The following are clearly defined:
29. Expectations
30« Policies and procedures
31. Roles
32. Responsibilities
33. Funding agencies encourage collaborative research efforts through the allocation of resources.
NSD
NSD
LEA IHE DRE
LEA LEA IHE DRE
LEA
DRE
LEA DRE IHE IHE
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
E > R
E > R
E > R
E > R
<1, 2, 3) E > R
PRE IHE LEA
Table 16.—Continued.
Variable
1 R
Results of the Tukey HSD for the variables on which there were significant differences in the perceptions of the "Reality" of the Research Relationship
2 E
Results of the Tukey HSD for the variables on which there were significant differences in the perceptions of the "Expectation" of the Research Relationship
Report of the interaction effect in 2-vay ANOVA by examining if the Slopes are Parallel
U R = E
Report of the combined trial means for R & E for all three groups in the 2-way ANOVA
5 R - E
Report of the confidence intervals from significant differences between R & E for each group separately
6 R « E
Results of the Tukey HSD for variables on which there were significant differences
in the differences in perception between Reality & Expectation
34. Monies are allocated to research on fostering cooperative relations.
LEA 1HE DRE (1, 2, 3) E > R
DRE IHE LEA
35. Division H awards program includes the category "Best Example of a Collaborative University/LEA Effort."
36. Research journals are encouraged to develop special issues on this subject of University/LEA relations and maintain it as an editorial priority.
NSD
E > R
37. University research is based on LEA needs.
DRE LEA IHE IHE LEA DRE NO (1, 2, 3) E > R
IHE LEA DRE
38. University research is based on university needs.
IHE LEA DRE NSD NO - 1) E > R 2) E > R 3) E = R
DRE LEA IHE University research is based on university needs.
1) E > R 2) E > R 3) E = R
Table 16.—Continued.
Variable
1 R
Results of the Tukey HSD for the variables on which there were significant differences in the perceptions of the "Reality" of the Research Relationship
2 E
Results of the Tukey HSD for the variables on which there were significant differences in the perceptions of the "Expectation" of the Research Relationship
Report of the interaction effect in 2-way ANOVA by examining if the Slopes are Parallel
4 R = E
Report of the combined trial means for R & E for all three groups in the 2-way ANOVA
5 R = E
Report of the confidence intervals from significant differences between R & E for each group separately
6 R » E
Results of the Tukey HSD for variables on which there were significant differences
in the differences of perception between Reality & Expectation
39. University research is based on joint needs.
LEA DRE IHE NSD NO (1, 2, 3) E > R
IHE LEA DRE
40. Research conducted by university is of value to LEA.
DRE LEA IHE NSD NO ~ (1, 2, 3) E > R
IHE LEA DRE
41. Research conducted by LEA is of value to university.
NSD NSD YES E > R —
"
42. A compilation of LEA research needs is available to university and others.
IHE LEA DRE NSD NO (1, 2, 3) ' E > R
DRE LEA IHE
43. LEA has a policy/ procedure for out-of-district research.
IHE LEA DRE IHE LEA DRE NO - (1, 2, 3) DRE LEA IHE LEA has a policy/ procedure for out-of-district research.
44. LEA Data Base Information is available.
IHE LEA DRE NSD NO - <1, 2, 3) DRE LEA IHE LEA Data Base Information is available. E > R
45. University Data Base Information is available.
DRE LEA IHE DRE LEA IHE YES E > R _ University Data Base Information is available.
46. Cooperative Data Bases have been developed.
NSD DRE LEA IHE YES E > R - -
Table 16- Summarization of Tukey HSD Results for R, E, R - E, Significant Interactions, Trial Means and Confidence Intervals for Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3
4 R = E
5 R = E
6 R « E
Variable Results of the Tukey HSD for the variables on which there were significant differences in the "Reality" of the Research Relationship
Results of the Tukey HSD for the variables on which there were significant differences in the perceptions of the "Expectation" of the Research Relationship
Report of the interaction effect in 2-way ANOVA by examining if the Slopes are Parallel
Report of the combined.trial means for R & E for all three groups in the 2-way ANOVA
Report of the confidence intervals from significant differences between R & E for each group separately
Results of the Tukey HSD for variables on which there were significant differences in the differences in perception between Reality & Expectation
47. Knowledge and resources have been pooled in an attempt to solve metropolitan educational problems*
PRE LEA IHE YES
48. Information is shared concerning ongoing activities.
49. There is a designated person(s) in LEA office who handles out-of-district research requests*
50. Human subject form(s) is required for appropriate research projects.
The following approaches to cooperative research are used:
51. The Consortium or formal relationship between participating organizations with specific guidelines established in advance.
NSD
IHE LEA PRE
LEA DRE IHE
PRE LEA IHE
IHE LEA DRE (1, 2, 3) E > R
DRE LEA IHE
NSD
LEA DRE IHE (1, 2, 3) E > R
IHE DRE LEA
to 4S
Table 16.—Continued.
Variable
1 R
Results of the Tukey HSD for the variables on which there were significant differences in the perceptions of the "Reality" of the Research Relationship
2 E
Results of the Tukey HSD for the variables on which there were significant differences in the perceptions of the "Expectation" of the Research Relationship
Report of the interaction effect in 2-way ANOVA by examining if the Slopes are Parallel
4 R » E
Report of the combined trial means for R & E for all three groups in the 2-way ANOVA
5 R » E
Report of the confidence intervals from significant differences between R & E for each group separately
6 R - E
Results of the Tukey HSD for variables on which there were significant differences
in the differences
in perception between Reality & Expectation
52. Informal Relationships resulting from personal
relationships.
53. Personnel Exchange where LEA and university personnel are shared or exchanged for periods of time.
LEA PRE IHE
LEA PRE IHE
PRE LEA IHE 1) E - R 2) E > R 3) E - R
IHE PRE LEA
(1, 2, 3) IHE PRE LEA E > R
54. Solicited Cooperatives where university and labs are apprised of topics which LEAs would be interested in pursuing.
LEA PRE IHE NSD (1, 2, 3) IHE PRE LEA E > R
a • .05; (1, 2, 3) = (PRE, LEA, IHE); NO - Significant Differences in Perceptions; YES - No Significant Pifference in Perception; E « Expectation of the Research Relationship; R = Reality of the Research Relationship; NSD - No Significant Pifference; Pifferent From
Is Not Significantly
126
indicated that there was significant interaction and "no" was entered
in column three.
When the interaction was not significant, the follow-up proce
dure was to examine the F-value for the within group (trials) calculation.
The examination summary is depicted in column four of Table 16. The
level of significance for trials was set at .01. When the calculated
F-value for the existence of interaction between the groups and their
perceptions was significant a one-way ANOVAon the difference scores was
conducted. The purpose of these data was to provide an examination of
each group separately. How each group perceived the difference between
"reality" and "expectation" is summarized in column five in Table 16.
To determine which groups of respondents significantly differed
in their differences scores, a Tukey-HSD procedure was conducted. The
results of the Tukey are shown in column six of Table 16.
Analysis of the Data
The calculated F-value for the interaction of groups by percep
tion was not significant for 13 of the dependent variables. For vari
ables 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 36, 41, 45, 46, 47, 48, and 50 there were no
significant differences among the groups in how they viewed the dis
crepancy between "reality" and "expectation." For these variables the
null hypothesis was retained. The "trials" main effect was examined
to compare "reality" and "expectation." The examination showed that
"expectation" was greater than "reality" for all groups.
127
For variables 27, 32, 34, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 49, 51,
52, 53, and 54 the calculated F-value indicated a significant inter
action effect. The analysis of the follow-up one-way ANOVA on the sep
arate difference scores showed that although on most variables (87%)
"expectation" was greater than "reality" for all groups, the differences
were not comparable. On variable 38 the DRE and LEA respondents per
ceived "expectation" (The Way It Should Be) as significantly lower than
"reality" (The Way It Is) while the IHE viewed the two as equal to each
other. On variable 52 the DRE and the IHE respondents saw "reality" as
equal to "expectation.11 The LEA respondents perceived the "Way It Is"
as significantly less than the "WAy It Should Be." For these 15 vari
ables Null Hypothesis 3 was rejected.
The Tukey-HSD analysis revealed between which groups the dif
ferences significantly varied. By calculating the percentages of occur
rence the following was indicated. For those significant variables 32
percent of the time the differences were between the DRE and IHE groups,
32 percent between the DRE and LEA groups, and 36 percent between the
IHE and LEA groups.
Null Hypothesis 4
These hypotheses are stated as follows:
a. These are no differences among LEA, DRE, IHE, and DCE respon
dents on their perceptions of the benefits that result from the IHE/LEA
research relationship.
128
b. There are no differences among the LEA, DRE, IHE, and DCE
respondents on their most common complaints about the IHE/LEA research
relationship.
c. There are no differences among the LEA, DRE, IHE, and DCE re
spondents on their perceptions of what be done to foster better collabo
rative, research relationships between the LEA and the IHE.
Presentation of the Data
These hypotheses were tested by calculating chi-squares on three
2 free response questions. Table 17 depicts the X calculation for hypo
thesis 4a. Respondents were asked the question, "What are the benefits
of the IHE/LEA research relationship?" The table is organized into five
categories of responses by group membership, LEA, DRE, IHE and DCE re
spondents were included. How the categories for this table and the sub
sequent two tables were determined is discussed in Chapter 3. The
calculations in Table 18 were completed for the question regarding com
mon complaints in the IHE/LEA research relationship. The four catego
ries of response were chosen using the same procedures as previously
discussed. In Table 19 are the results for the question, "What can be
done to foster better collaborative relationships?"
Listed in Table 20, 21, 22, and 23 are some of the free res
ponses of DRE, LEA, IHE and DCE respectively on the question regarding
complaints in IHE/LEA research relationships.
In Table 24 are some of the free responses from all four groups
of respondents regarding the benefits derived from collaborative
research.
Table 17. Categories of and Observed Frequencies for Chi Square Calculations for Null Hypothesis 4a
Gaining & Disseminating Better Knowledge for Communications Educational Professional and Better Access
Group Practice Development Financial Relationships to Resources
DCE 13 16 3 10 12
IHE 29 24 6 19 27
DRE 24 10 5 9 16
LEA 22 13 3 13 15
88 63 17 51 70
Degrees of freedom = 12 Tabled Chi Square for a = .05 = 21.03 Calculated Chi Square = 6.62
Question: What benefits are derived from collaboration between IHE and LEA?
Table 18. Categories of and Observed Frequencies for Chi Square Calculations for Null Hypothesis 4b
Group
LEA does not feel that it benefits from IHE research Organizational Human Relations Poor Communications
DCE 10 21 13 7
IHE 13 31 22 19
DRE 17 27 19 12
LEA 18 16 12 14
58 95 66 52
Degrees of freedom = 9 Tabled Chi Square for a = .05 = 16.92 Calculated Chi Square = 8.22
Question: What are the most common complaints regarding collaborative research between IHE and LEA?
Table 19. Categories of and Observed Frequencies for Chi Square Calculations for Null Hypothesis 4c
Establish joint Joint sharing Develop better advisory commit- of staff, re- Participate in and utilize tees which meet sources, and professional/ current avenues for cooperative time to develop social organiza- for communication-planning and mutually bene- tions where both of research policy develop- ficial ventures groups are needs and
Group ment members results
DCE 11 18 3 6
IHE 9 31 12 5
DRE 9 17 7 3
LEA 10 17 6 2
39 83 28 16
Degrees of freedom = 8 Tabled Chi Square for a = .05 = 16.92 Calculated Chi Square = 8.04
Question: What can be done to foster better collaborative efforts between IHE and LEA?
132
Table 20. Free Responses of DRE Respondents to "What are your most common complaints regarding IHE/LEA research relationships?"
Large City Directors of Research and Evaluation (DREs)*
They have no concept of what is happening in a public school K-12.
Too much dominance in decision-making function by university personnel.
Requests for studies with urgent timeliness that do not permit adequate planning and negotiation for change.
Our major problem with universities is that dissertation proposals which their doctoral candidates submit to us are poorly written and conceived. This puts us in the awkward position of rejecting a proposal for technical/qualitative reasons after a doctoral committee has approved it.
Universities and LEAs don't coordinate joint projects well (partly because of differences in expectations and organizations).
Each group is so concerned about their own problems and operations that little time remains for one another.
Preoccupation of schools of education with very narrow and specialized areas of research.
There is no continuous relationship on which the LEA can depend.
Assumption that the particular research effort planned has priority over instructional needs and the school district should be grateful that the researcher is interested in working in the LEA.
Attempts to circumvent the jointly approved procedures.
* Comments typed as written.
Table 21. Free Responses of LEA Respondents to "What are your most common complaints regarding IHE/LEA research relationships ?"
Local Educational Agency Personnel (LEAs)*
The University tends towards types of research that are initiated at University levels and reflect that special interest of the individual professor.
University isolates itself . . .
Failure of Universities to understand the practical limitations placed on 'good' research design in the LEA setting.
Advisors who move their graduate students far along a research track without consultation with the school system in which they wish to conduct research.
Lack of direct relevance or applicability of results in the everyday situation.
LEA curriculum planning does not include university research as a viable component.
LEA frequently does not receive final reports or results even though this is always stipulated in the approval. Graduate students doing dissertation research are the worst about sending final report copies.
Lack of personnel in the university setting with relevant experience at the elementary grade levels.
Amount of recordkeeping and followup necessitated by these joint efforts.
Universities concerned with pure research, LEAs concerned with operations research.
* Comments typed as written.
134
Table 22. Free Responses of IHE Respondents to "What are your most common complaints regarding IHE/LEA research relationships?"
Institutions of Higher Education (University and College)* (IHE)
Little cooperative efforts.
No policies have been developed for facilitating cooperation.
LEAs often do not realize the benefits of basic or generic research. They want an immediate and guaranteed product.
Universities are often insensitive to public school pressures and requirements for accountability.
Schools are not receptive to open (creative) involvement with university programs/personnel.
University personnel do not see the point of helping LEA personnel to translate pertinent research finding into practical applications.
Failure to inform universities of research needs and/or desires.
Contacts based more on what Sieber calls 'patronage ties' rather than on training or expertise.
Unless equal time is given or other demands are met the school districts will not allow professors and their students into the districts to do research.
No respect for local educators shown by reformist graduate students.
* Comments typed as written.
135
Table 23. Free Responses of DCE Respondents to "What are your most common complaints regarding IHE/LEA research relationships ?"
Deans of Colleges of Education* (DCE)
LEA staff is not interested in repeated research.
Convincing LEA faculty that research is important.
Schools do not see need for theoretical research.
Neither recognizes that each has a differing set of expectations about the purposes/benefits of research.
Lack of willingness on both sides to recognize the other's strengths and own weaknesses.
Lack of clearly defined roles of each party.
Uncoordinated and overlapping requests for sites and subjects.
Time requirements of most studies are too costly to LEA in lost instruction time.
Schools get nothing in return for their cooperation.
Failure of the research to follow established approval procedures.
* Comments typed as written.
136
Table 24. Free Responses of DRE, LEA, IHE and DCE Respondents to the Question "What are some benefits of IHE/LEA research relationships?"
Benefits Derived from University/LEA Relationships *
All the survey respondents agreed that there are presently some
benefits being derived from the collaborative University/LEA relation
ship. The comments that follow were selected from the Division H
respondents, Large City Research Directors of Research and Evaluation,
and Deans of Colleges of Education. Some of the most commonly men
tioned benefits were:*
Collaborative relationships allow staff and faculty from both groups to begin to understand more completely the needs and potential of the other.
Closer contact with reality.
Research results that are considered valuable.
Satisfaction in solving a mutual academic problem.
Access to target populations.
An opportunity to grow in understanding and knowledge about areas that otherwise would not be touched.
LEA has the opportunity to receive technical help at a reduced cost to the LEA.
LEA has the credibility of an outside authority speaking for them on local matters of emotional concern.
Collaborative projects are often found at higher levels than either one separately.
It is an opportunity for graduate students to learn to conduct research.
137
Table 24.—Continued
The quality of the research questions improves.
There is often a direct spinoff for improved relationships in other areas.
*Comments typed as written
138
Table 25. Free Responses of DRE, LEA, IHE and DCE Respondents to the Question "What can be done to foster better collaborative research relationships between the IHE and LEA?"*
LEAs should compile and make available to the Universities a list of LEA research needs (solicited cooperatives).
Establish specific communication channels.
Communicate to researchers that they are responsible for reporting the results of their studies and the immediate application of those findings for the practitioners involved.
Establish a research department team in LEA that would keep current on educational research, match it with the district's problems, and then translate the research into objectives, activities, etc., for school district personnel.
Set up an advisory committee for Research and Evaluation in schools with both LEA and higher education members.
Develop specific workable procedures for processing research requests.
Consider research, development, dissemination, evaluation, and implementation as parts of Research and Development.
Attacking mutually defined topics and apply the findings systematically.
Construct centers for field services through which to relate answers most useful to LEAs.
Develop policy agreements.
Make assurances that results will have benefits to community or research will not be undertaken.
Use University resources to assist LEAs in seeking external funds.
Encourage research discussions on relevant topics to a district.
Request of schools the areas in which they need assistance and attempt to match these requests with pertinent faculty.
139
Table 25.—Continued
Collaborate to develop guidelines.
Establishment of joint University/LEA policy boards for specific research projects.
Joint sponsorship of legislation (state and national) for Research and Evaluation.
Careful monitoring of proposals at the University level.
Make sure those who cooperate are informed of results in an efficient way.
Have periodic discussions planned between on-line school administration and selected and interested researchers.
Develop cooperative Data Bases.
Pool knowledge and resources in an attempt to solve metropolitan educational problems.
Submit joint proposals for funding.
Establish a consortium with public school people to not only deal with research but program development.
*comments typed as written
140
Recommendations from the four groups of respondents are
compiled in Table 25.
Analysis of the Data
For each of the three free response items analyzed the calcula
ted chi-square was less than the tabled value. This indicated that
there were no significant differences in perceptions among the four
groups of respondents. Based on this analysis Null Hypotheses 4a, 4b,
and 4c were retained.
Summary
Presented in this chapter were a presentation and analysis of
the response rate, census and organizational data, and four hypotheses
related to this study.
Null Hypothesis I was concerned with perspectives of DRE, LEA,
and IHE respondents of the "reality" (How It Is) of the research rela
tionship between Local Education Agencies and Institutions of Higher
Education. A one-way ANOVA was conducted for 28 dependent variables.
For seven of the dependent variables the Null Hypothesis was retained.
For the remaining 21 the Null Hypothesis was rejected.
The focus of Null Hypothesis 2 was the respondents' perspective
of the "expectation" (How It Should Be) in research relationships be
tween the IHE and LEA. Scores for 28 dependent variables were calcula
ted using a one-way ANOVA. The Null Hypothesis was retained for 20 of
those variables. For eight of the dependent variables the Null Hypo
thesis was rejected.
141
Null Hypothesis 3 pertained to the differences between "reality"
and "expectation" as perceived by the three groups. A two-way ANOVA
was used to test the hypothesis. The null was retained for 13 variables
and rejected for 15.
The Tukey-HSD procedure was conducted for hypotheses 1, 2, and
3 when significance was found.
Hypothesis 4 was focused on three free response items answered
by DCE, DRE, IHE, and LEA respondents. Three separate chi-squares were
conducted. There were no significant differences found. The null hypo
thesis was retained.
The .05 level of significance was used to test each hypothesis.
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS,
DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
The problem addressed in this study was: What practical and
theoretical problems attend the Institution of Higher Education (IHE/
Local Educaction Agency (LEA) research relationship? The major pur
poses of the study were to:
1. Describe the organizational features of the IHE which hinder
collaborative research with IHE.
2. Describe the organizational features of the LEA which hinder
collaborative research with IHE.
3. Obtain information which could be used to facilitate collabora
tive research.
4. Ascertain the extent and nature of the problems and issues in
LEA/IHE research relationships from the perspective of re
spondents from both institutions.
The literature contains considerable theoretical and practical
observations regarding the tensions involved in interinstitutional
collaboration. However, a limited number of empirical studies exist
on this topic, particularly as it relates to IHE/LEA interinstitutional
142
143
collaboration. This justified the need for futher research in this
area.
For the purposes of this study three populations were sampled:
Deans of Colleges of Education (DCE), Large City Director of Research
and Evaluation in public school systems (DRE), and members of the
American Educational Research Association: Division H who were faculty
in an institution of higher education (IHE) or staff in a research unit
in a local education agency (LEA).
Four null hypotheses were tested. DRE, LEA, and IHE respondents
were included in the analysis of hypotheses 1, 2, and 3. All four
groups were included in the analysis for hypothesis 4.
To collect the data necessary for analysis, the subjects re
ceived research designed questionnaires. The primary focus of the
questionnaires was on problems and perceptions encountered in research
relationships between the IHE and LEA.
The data were analyzed by a one-way ANOVA for hypotheses 1 and
2. Data for hypothesis 3 were analyzed using a two-way ANOVA. Chi-
square was the statistic used to test null hypothesis 4.
Conclusions
The results of the statistical tests of the four null hypothe
ses used in the study led to the following conclusions.
With "reality" serving as the dependent variable, and group
membership serving as the independent variable, the null hypothesis of
no difference among the DRE, LEA and IHE respondents in their perceptions
144
of the "reality" of the research relationship was rejected for 21 of
the variables. From this it was concluded that the perceptions among
the three groups did differ significantly on those variables. The
Tukey HSD indicated that the perceptual differences were most frequently
between LEA and IHE respondents.
The null hypothesis was retained for seven of the dependent
variables. This finding meant that on those variables the perceptions
of the "reality" of the research relationship did not significantly
differ among the three groups.
For the 28 dependent variables on the "how it should be" state
ments, the null hypothesis of no difference among the respondents on
their perceptions of the "expectations" of the research relationship
was retained for 20 of the variables. It was concluded that the three
groups of respondents did not differ significantly from each other in
their perceptions on those variables.
The null hypothesis was rejected for eight of the 28 "how it
should be" variables. It was concluded that on those variables there
were significant differences in the perceptions of the IHE, DRE, and
LEA respondents on the "expectation" of the research relationship. The
Tukey HSD indicated that the differences in perceptions were primarily
between the IHE and DRE respondents.
With "reality" and "expectation" and group membership serving
as the independent variables and the interactions of the 28 variables
on "how it is" and the 28 variables on "how it should be" serving as
145
the dependent variables the null hypothesis of no difference in
the respondents' perceptions of the discrepancy between "reality" and
"expectation" was tested. The results were as follows:
The null hypothesis of no difference was retained for 13 of the
28 variables. The follow-up examination supported that for all groups
expectation was greater than reality. For 15 variables the null
hypothesis was rejected. These findings supported that a significant
interaction existed among the respondents on their perceptions of the
discrepancy between "reality" and "expectation" of the research rela
tionship on those specific variables.
The null hypothesis of no differences between the IHE, DRE,
LEA, and DCE respondents' perceptions of the benefits derived from
collaborative IHE/LEA relationships was retained. It was concluded
that the respondents did not differ significantly from each other in
their perceptions.
The study retained the null hypothesis of no differences among
the four groups of respondents on their complaints regarding the IHE/
LEA research relationship. This finding indicated that there were no
significant differences among the DCE, LEA, IHE, and DRE respondents
on this variable.
The study retained the null hypothesis of no differences among
the respondents!, suggestions for fostering better collaborative re
lationships. It was concluded that there were no significant differ
ences among the DCE, LEA, IHE, and LEA respondents.
Based on the retention or rejection of the four null hypotheses
in this study the following general conclusions were made:
1. This study supports the examined literature that perceptual
differences do indeed exist between members of the IHE and LEA
in relation to the research relationship between these two
institutions.
2. The significant differences in perception of the "reality" of
the research relationship relate to planning, decision making
powers, role definition, finances, value of research, and
institutional arrangements for conducting research.
3. The significant differences in perception of the "expectation"
of the research relationship are in the areas of decision
making, value of research, institutional arrangements for
conducting research, role definition, and communications.
4. The areas of significance in the hypothesis relating to the
respondents perceptions of the differences between "reality"
and "expectation" were planning, role definition, finances,
value of research, knowledge of research needs, and institu
tional arrangements for conducting research.
5. The retention of null hypothesis 4 indicates that:
a) all respondents feel there is some benefit from research
collaboratives between the IHE and the LEA.
b) the complaints about research collaboratives are similar.
c) suggestions for alleviating some of the problems encountered
are similar.
«
147
Discussion
Included in the review of the literature in this study were
sections discussing the organizational, sociological, and perceptual
hindrances to collaborative research between Institutions of Higher
Education (IHE) and Local Education Agencies (LEA)• The four null
hypotheses in this study were focused on the perceptions of four
groups—two from the IHE and two from the LEA—on these topics. The
following implications were derived from the conclusions of this study.
Perception is an important factor which contributes to the success or
failure of a collaborative research effort. This implies that when an
IHE and LEA desire to enter into a collaborative research arrangement,
perceptions of the participants—the reality and expectation of the
research relationship—should be discussed early in the arrangement.
The results of the study further imply that some of the initial
discussions should be centered on decision making arrangements, role
definition, communication procedures, the -value of the research to be
conducted for the participants involved, the research needs of the
participants, and institutional barriers and facilitators in the con
ducting of the proposed research. The results also indicate that there
are areas of agreement among IHE and LEA personnel. These mutual areas
can act as a springboard for the initiation of collaborative efforts.
There is much yet to be learned in the field of education—in
learning, teaching, and the administration of educational facilities.
Breakthroughs in these areas are important to the survival of public
148
education. If the two major institutions in the field of education can
collaborate to develop needed research, educational endeavors can be
enhanced. Concurrently, if the two major educational institutions can
not collaborate to help to find needed information, the impending
result is continued and proliferated failure. This study helped to
identify some sources of conflict in the collaborative research rela
tionship. The implication is that identified sources of conflict can
be minimized through communication. Two institutions so closely
bound in purpose and need can ill-afford to continue their present
course of isolated research efforts.
A major purpose of this study was to ascertain information
which hinders or facilitates collaborate research between the IHE and
the LEA. The major purposes of this study were met in that contained
in this document are the following:
1. Organizational features of the IHE and LEA which hinder
collaborative research.
2„ Information which can be used to facilitate collaborative
research.
3. Perceptions of IHE and LEA respondents on the extent and
nature of problems and issues in collaborative research efforts.
In addition this study:
1. helps to expand the empirical knowledge base of collaborative
research problems and solutions
2. provides a base for further development of future studies.
3. provides a number of variables to be considered when entering
into a collaborative research arrangement.
149
4. represents a unique effort to empirically investigate per
ceptual differences which cause problems in collaborative
research.
Recommendations
Most of the writings on the topic of collaborative research
relationships between the Institution of Higher Education (IHE) and
the Local Education Agency (LEA) have been theoretical and discursive
rather than empirically based. The extensive literature review in
this study supports this statement. There exists a need for more em
pirical studies which focus on various aspects of the research relation
ship between the IHE and LEA. It is therefore recommended that this
study be replicated involving LEA, DRE, and IHE personnel from popula
tions other than AERA memberships.
This study was focused primarily on the perceptual hindrances
to collaborative research in the IHE and LEA. There should be a con
tinuing search for other factors which hinder or facilitate successful
collaboratives. A compiled body of research relating to this topic
should be encouraged so that there will exist several data banks which
can be systematically searched. This data-based feedback on the effective
ness, weaknesses which need modification, problems, solutions, etc.
would be extremely useful to those who desire to enter into a collabora
tive relationship.
The instrument used in this study proved very useful in mea
suring perceptions about research collaboratives. However, the length
150
was unwieldy. If the instrument is to be used again, it must be better
refined. It is also recommended that survey instruments he constructed
which specifically measure political, organizational, communicative,
and planning factors.
The sample included in this study involved only one group of
high level administrators in the IHE. The literature suggests that top
level administrators are the key to collaborative success (Sieber 1966).
It is recommended that future studies include top level administrators
from both the IHE and the LEA. In addition some studies should include
all major relevant audiences. Only research staff were included in
this study. If the level of interest in research is to be raised, the
threat of research decreased, and the potential for use maximized
then this recommendation should be considered.
Stressed in some of the literature was the lack of training of
those who conduct research. Studies could be focused on the training
programs in institutions of higher educations with the intention of
building a data bank which demonstrates a need for an internship pro
gram in research.
Finally, it is recommended that studies be conducted which
examine the relationship between the ideal and actual purposes of re
search in an effort to find ways to bring those purposes closer together.
APPENDIX A
SURVEY INSTRUMENT FOR DRE, IHE, AND LEA
Survey Questionnaire for Division H: School Evaluation and Program Development
FOSTERING FRUITFUL UNIVERSITY/LEA RELATIONS
This questionnaire will be keypunched. After you have responded to each question by circling or checking the appropriate response, place the coded number of that response in the ( ) provided before or after each question.
Example 1: ( 2 ) 3. 1. Male 2. \J Female
Example 2: (3) 11. 1 2 (J) 4 5 University research is relative.
The entire questionnaire takes 20 minutes to complete; you are encouraged to respond.
Census Data (Mark all that apply.)
( ) 1. Circle Division Memberships: ABCDEFGHI 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
2. Name of state in which you work.
( ) 3. 1. Male 2. Female
( ) 4. Highest degree obtained.
1 . Bachelor 3. Doctorate 2 . Master's 4. Other (please specify)
( ) 5. Ethnic origin.
1. American Indian 4. Spanish Surname American 2 . Black American 5. All Others 3. Asian American
151
152
( ) 6. Indicate where you presently work. (If more than one, put percentage of time.)
1 . Local Education 5. Research Development and Agency (LEA) Evaluation (RD&E) Organization
2 . State Education 6. Other Agency (SEA) (please specify)
3 University 4. College
( ) 7. Indicate where you worked previously.
( ) 8. If higher education, what is student enrollment?
1 . Below 10,000 3. 25,000-44,999 2 . 10,000-24,999 4. 45,000 or more
( ) 9. If LEA, what is student enrollment?
1 . Below 10,000 3. 25,000-44,999 2 . 10,000-24,999 4. [45,000 or more
( ) 10. Position function.
1 . Dean 4. College/University Personnel 2. RD&E Director 5. RD&E Staff 3 . Project Director 6. Other
(please specify)
Organizational Data (LEA only, check one)
( ) 11. Do you have a centralized research and evaluation (R&E) unit?
1. Yes 2. No
( ) 12. If yes, how long has this office been in existence?
1 . Less than 1 year 3. 5-10 years 2 . 1-5 years 4. More than 10 years
( ) 13. If yes, number of total staff in R&E unit.
1 . 1-4 3. 11-15 2 . 5-10 4. More than 15
(UNIVERSITY ONLY)
14. Name of department.
153
( ) 15. Do you have a coordinating research office (CRO)?
1. Yes 2. No
( ) 16. If yes, check all that apply.
1 . Department level CRO 3. University level CRO 2 . College level CRO
(END OF UNIVERSITY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS)
(FOR ALL RESPONDENTS)
( ) 17. If you request outside RD&E, from whom do you request assistance? (Check all that apply.)
1 . LEA 5. RD&E Organization 2 . SEA 6. Private Consultant 3. University 7. No Cooperative Projects 4 . College 8. Other
(please specify)
( ) 18. Who requests to work with you on RD&E?
1 . LEA 5. RD&E Organization 2 . SEA 6. Private Consultant 3 . University 7. No Cooperative Projects 4 . College 8. Other_
(please specify)
( ) 19. Person(s) responsible for final approval of research requests.
1 . Superintendet 5. Dean 2 . Review Panel/Committee 6. Department Chairperson 3. RD&E Director 7. Other 4. Project Director (please specify)
Problems and Issues
Please circle appropriate numbered responses on both sides of statement as they relate to University/LEA relations. 1 = Never, 2 = Rarely, 3 = Sometimes, 4 = Frequently, 5 = Always.
How It Is How It Should Be
( ) 20. 12 3 4 5 There is early, cooperative in- 12 3 4 5 ( ) volvement of both groups in planning the research effort.
154
How It Is How It Should Be
( ) 21. 12345 Decision-making and power is 12345 () shared equally by the resource controllers and those affected by the effort.
The following are clearly defined:
( ) 22. 12345 Expectations 1 2 3 4 5 ( )
( ) 23. 12345 Policies and procedures 12 3 4 5 ( )
( ) 24. 12 3 4 5 Roles 12 3 4 5 ( )
( ) 25. 12345 Responsibilities 12 3 4 5 ( )
( ) 26. 12345 Funding agencies encourage 12 3 4 5 ( ) collaborative research efforts through the allocation of resources.
( ) 27. 12345 Monies are allocated to research 12 3 4 5 ( ) on fostering cooperative relations.
( ) 28. 12345 Division H awards program in- 12 3 4 5 ( ) eludes the category "Best Example of a Collaborative University/LEA Effort."
( ) 29. 12345 Research journals are encouraged 12 3 4 5 ( ) to develop special issues on this subject of University/LEA relations and maintain it as an editorial priority.
( ) 30. 12345 University research is based on 12345 ( ) LEA needs.
( ) 31. 12345 University research is based on 12345 ( ) university needs.
( ) 32. 12345 University research is based on 12345 ( ) joint needs.
( ) 33. 12345 Research conducted by univer- 12 3 4 5 ( ) sity is of value to LEA.
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
155
How It Is How It Should Be
12 3 4 5 Research conducted by LEA is of 12345 ( ) value to university.
12 3 4 5 A compilation of LEA research 12 3 4 5 ( ) needs is available to university and others.
12 3 4 5 LEA has a policy/procedure for out-of-district research.
12 3 4 5 LEA Data Base Information is 12345 () available.
12 3 4 5 University Data Base Information 12 3 4 5 ( ) is available.
12 3 4 5 Cooperative Data Bases have been 12 3 4 5 ( ) developed.
12 3 4 5 Knowledge and resources have 12 3 4 5 ( ) been pooled in an attempt to solve metropolitan educational problems.
12 3 4 5 Information is shared concerning 12 3 4 5 ( ) ongoing activities.
12 3 4 5 There is a designated person(s) 12 3 4 5 ( ) in LEA office who handles out-of-district research requests.
12 3 4 5 Human subject form(s) is required 12 3 4 5 ( ) for appropriate research projects.
The following approaches to cooperative research are used:
12 3 4 5 The Consortium or formal rela- 12 3 4 5 ( ) tionship between participating organizations with specific guidelines established in advance.
1 2 3 4 5 Informal Relationships resulting 12 3 4 5 ( ) from personal relationships.
156
How It Is How It Should Be
( ) 46. 12345 Personnel Exchange where LEA and 12 3 4 5 ( ) university personnel are shared or exchanged for periods of time.
( ) 47. 12345 Solicited Cooperatives where 12 3 4 5 ( ) university and labs are apprised of topics which LEAs would be interested in pursuing.
Please answer these questions to the best of your ability on a separate sheet of paper.
43. Briefly list your three most common complaints about University/ LEA relationships.
49. Briefly list your three most common benefits from University/LEA collaborative R&E relationships.
Successful Joint Relationships
Please answer these questions to the best of your ability on a separate sheet of paper.
( ) 50. Did you engage in any joint University/LEA proposals for funding in the last 3 years?
1. Yes 2. No
51. If yes, please state number and nature of proposals.
( ) 52. Were any of the proposals funded?
1. Yes 2. No
53. If yes, which ones.
54. List 3 activities in which you engage to foster cooperative relationships.
55. Briefly describe 3 successful University/LEA cooperatives you have had in the last 3 years. Please attach available examples.
( ) 56. Would you be willing to be interviewed by phone?
1. Yes 2. No
( ) 57. Do you wish survey results?
1. Yes 2. No
NAME PHONE/Area
ADDRESS
Return questionnaires and supporting data to:
Dr. Barbara S. Prentice, Director Research and Evaluation Department TUCSON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT P. 0. Box 40400 Tucson, AZ 85717
Thank you for your prompt response - Denise Richardson, Administrative Intern
APPENDIX B
SURVEY INSTRUMENT FOR COLLEGE OF EDUCATION TEACHERS
Survey Questionnaire for Division H: To Deans of Colleges of Education
School Evaluation and Program Development FOSTERING FRUITFUL UNIVERSITY/LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY (LEA) RELATIONS
This questionnaire will be keypunched. After you have responded to each question by circling or checking the appropriate response, place the coded number of that response in the ( ) provided before each question. The entire questionnaire takes 10 minutes to complete; you are encouraged to respond.
EXAMPLE: ( 2 ) 3. 1. Male 2. / Female
1. Name of state in which you work.
( ) 2. 1. Male 2. Female
( ) 3. Ethnic origin.
1 . American Indian 3. Asian American 5. All Others 2 . Black American 4. Spanish Surname American
( ) 4. What is the student enrollment of your institution?
1 . Below 10,000 3. 25,000-44,999 2 . 10,000-24,999 4. 45,000 or more
5. What is graduate student enrollment in College of Education?
6. Approximate number of faculty conducting research in LEAs annually?
( ) 7. Do you have a coordinating research office(s)(CRO)? 1. Yes 2. No
158
159
( ) 8. If yes, check all that apply. 1 . Departmental Level CRO 3. University Level CRO 2 . College Level CRO
( ) 9. Who is responsible for final approval of graduate research (check one). 1. Mai or Advisor 3. Dean (or Assistant) 2 . Department Head 4. Other
( )10. Does College of Education have a research policy? 1. Yes 2. No
11. If yes, briefly explain how research policy is determined, or attach a copy of your policy.
Please answer these questions to the best of your ability.
12. Briefly explain the process for approval of faculty research in school districts.
13. Briefly list your three most common complaints about University/ LEA relationships.
14. Why do you think problems between University researchers and LEAs exist?
15. Briefly list your three most common benefits from University/LEA collaborative R&E relationships.
16. List three activities in which you would engage to foster cooperative relationships with local school districts.
160
Please check the appropriate response as it pertains to your college.
( )17. 1. Yes 2. No
( )18. 1. Yes 2. No
( )19. 1. Yes 2. No
( )20. 1. Yes 2. No
The following approaches to cooperative research are used:
The Consortium or formal relationship between participating organizations with specific guidelines established in advance.
Informal Relationships resulting from personal relationships.
Personnel Exchange where LEA and University personnel are shared or exchanged for periods of time.
Solicited Cooperatives where the University is apprised of topics which LEAs would be interested in pursuing.
Please attach any information or examples you feel are relevant to this study.
( )21. 1. Yes 2. No Would you be willing to be interviewed by phone?
( )22. 1. Yes 2. No Do you wish survey results?
NAME PHONE/Area
ADDRESS
Return questionnaires and supporting data to: Dr. Barbara S. Prentice, Director, Research and Evaluation Department, TUCSON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, P. 0. BOX 40400, Tucson, AZ 85716
Thank you for your prompt response—Denise Richardson, Administrative Intern
APPENDIX C
CONCEPTUAL CHECKLIST FOR PERSONS PLANNING TO
DEVELOP INTERINSTITUTIONAL COLLABORATIONS
1.0 Desired Results
As a result of the cooperative efforts, which of the following is desired? Circle the appropriate response—Yes, No, or Maybe (?)
Yes No 1 1. 1 To increase facilities Yes No 1 1. 2 To increase services Yes No 1 1. 3 To increase the quality of services Yes No 1 1. 4 To increase a bank of knowledge Yes No 1 1. 5 To increase the number of clients to serve Yes No 1 1. 6 To satisfy external pressures for cooperation Yes No 1 1. 7 To develop a spirit of cooperation Yes No 7 1. 8 To increase the positive image of the organiza
tion Yes No 1 1. 9 To increase problem solving and resolution
potential
2.0 Potential Constraints/Facilitators
Depending on the purposes identified and the general context in which the cooperative efforts are to transpire, which of the following is a relevant constraint and/or facilitator?
2.1 Potential Constraints
Yes No 1 2 .1.1 Potential loss of decision-making autonomy Yes No 1 2 .1.2 Threat to positive image of the organization Yes No 1 2 .1.3 Threat to identity of organization Yes No 1 2 .1.4 Dilution of resources available to organization Yes No 7 2 .1.5 Create territorial turf issues Yes No ? 2 .1.6 Existence of common goals which, may jcesult in
a competitive situation
2.2 Potential Facilitators
Yes No ? 2.2.1 Existence of openness and access by persons external to the organization
Yes No ? 2.2.2 Existence of complementary goals with other organizations involved in the cooperative effort
Yes No ? 2.2.3 Existence of an identifiable, mutual need
161
162
Yes No ? 2.2.4 Existence of prevailing norms, both internally and externally, which support cooperative efforts
Yes No ? 2.2.5 Existence of legitimation for cooperative efforts through varying forms of recognition, compensatory time-off and other rewards
Yes No ? 2.2.6 Existence of geographical proximity of reasonable travel time between cooperating institutions
Yes No ? 2.2.7 Existence of needed expertise, e.g., OD, group dynamics and interpersonal communications
3.0 Desired Processes
The following represents potential processes which should be considered in bringing about cooperative efforts. Circle A for those which are appropriate and IA for those which appear inappropriate.
A IA ? 3.1 Develop a trusting atmosphere A IA ? 3.2 Develop points of potential common interests A IA 1 3.3 Develop a priority list of common interests A IA 1 3.4 Establish the feasibility of specific programs A IA 1 3.5 Specify the desired outcomes of the cooperative
effort A IA 1 3.6 Conduct a cost-benefit evaluation of potential
cooperative efforts A IA 1 3.7 Involve internal personnel in cost-benefit
analysis A IA 1 3.8 Identify and mobilize needed resources A IA 1 3.9 Participate in ongoing evaluation of implemen
tation of plans A IA 1 3.10 Recognize and reward successes
4.0 Desired Structure
The following represents structured options in facilitating the preceding desired results and processes. Circle A for the appropriate options, and IA for inappropriate options.
A IA 1 4. 1 Create boundary spanning roles (Boundary persons)
A IA 1 4. 2 Create environment scanning capacities A IA 1 4. 3 Establish overlapping memberships A IA 1 4. 4 Establish tentative designs for possible pro
grams A IA 1 4. 5 Redesign programs based on evaluation A IA 1 4. 6 Delineate functions or subsystems needed to
achieve goals of the cooperative effort A IA 1 4. 7 Establish multiple roles to facilitate coopera
tive efforts (e.g., negotiator, underground manager, manoeuvrer, broker, network manager, and facilitator)
A IA 1 4. 8 Establish a goverance structure for policy development and client representation
LIST OF REFERENCES
American Educational Research Association, "Annual Membership Report" Educational Researcher, Summer 1979, Vol. 2, 18-26.
American Association of School Administrators, Guidelines for the Preparation of School Administrators: Superintendent Career Development Series, Number 1, Arlington, VA, 1979.
Argyris, Chris. Integrating the Individual and the Organization. New York: Wiley. 1964.
Aronson, Sidney H. "Researcher vs Practitioner: Problems in Social Action Research." Social Work, Oct. 1967, Vol 12, 89-96.
Averch, Harvey A. How Effective Is Schooling: A Critical Review of Research. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Educational Technology Publications, 1974.
Barber, Larry W. A Local Education Agency's Approach to the Protection of Human Subjects in Educational Research and Development. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), San Francisco, April 1979.
Release of Research Information—A Tale of Two Cities. Paper presented to AERA annual meeting, April 1976.
"Research and Evaluation in the Louisville Public Schools." Journal of Research and Development in Education, Summer 1972. Vol. 5, 79-97.
Bennis, Warren G. "Beyond Bureaucracy" TransAction (July-August) 1965, Vol. 2, 30-37.
Blake, Robert R., Jane S. Mouton, L. B. Barnes, and L. E. Greiner. "Breakthrough in Organizational Development." Harvard Business Review. December 1964, Vol. 42, p. 133-155.
Blake, Roy F. The Administrative Internship: Current Trends. Paper presented at American Association of School Administrators, Anaheim, CA, 1980.
Bloom, Benjamin. Human Characteristics and School Learning. New York: McGraw Hill, 1977.
163
164
Boulding, Kenneth E. "General Systems Theory—The Skeleton of Science," Management Science, April 1956, Vol 2, 197-208.
Butts, Freeman. A History of Education in American Culture. New York: Henry Holt & Company, 1953.
Callahan, Carolyn M. Evaluating a Local Gifted Program: An LEA/ University Cooperative Effort. Paper presented at AERA Annual Meeting, Boston, 1980.
Carlson, Robert V. Conceptual Frameworks for Viewing Interinstitu-tional Collaborative Efforts. Paper presented at AERA, Boston, 1980.
Carter, David G. Conducting Research in School Systems—Confessions of a College Dean. Paper presented at AERA, San Francisco, 1979.
Chilcott, John H. Anthropology and Educational Administration, Tucson, Arizona: Impresora Sahuaro, 1979.
Cohen, David K. "Reforming Educational Policy with Applied Social Research." Harvard Educational Review, February 1975, vol 45, 17-43.
. "Politics and Research: Evaluation of Social Action Programs." Review of Educational Research, April 1970, vol 40, 213-238.
Dinham, Sarah M. Exploring Statistics: An Introduction for Psychology and Education. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, 1976.
Dosher, Anne. "Networks: A Key to Person-Community Development." Paper presented to the Office of Youth Department, HEW, Denver, 1977.
Eisenhower, Dwight D. Crusade in Europe. New York: Doubleday and Company, 1948, 57-58 and 62-65.
Etzioni, Amitai, Ed. Complex Organizations: A Sociological Reader. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1961.
Foster, George M. Traditional Cultures; and the Impact of Technological Change, New York: Harper and Brothers, 1962.
165
Gallup, George H. "The Eleventh Annual Gallup Poll of the Public's Attitudes toward the Public Schools," Phi Delta Kappan, September 1979, vol 61, 33-45.
. "The Twelveth Annual Gallup Poll of the Public's Attitudes toward the Public Schools," Phi Delta Kappan, September 1980, vol.62, 33-48.
Gephart, William J. "Practical Applications of Research: Time to Sum Up." Practical Applications of Research, PDK Newsletter, June 1980, vol 2.
Getzels, Jacob W. and Guba, Egon G. "Social Behavior and the Administrative Process." School Review, . Winter 1957, vol 65, 423-441.
Goldhammer, Keith. Notes on Institutional Relations in the Inservice Education of the Professional Administrator. Paper presented at the University Council for Educational Administrators, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 1969.
Golembiewski, Robert T. "Organizational Patterns of the Future: What They Mean to Personnel Administration," in Jay M. Shafritz (Ed.) A New World: Readings on modern public personnel management . Chicago IL: International Personnel Management Association, 1975, 219-233.
Gutek, Gerald L., A History of the Western Educational Experience. New York: Random House, 1972.
Haase, Ann Marie Bernazza, Personal Communication (question from a doctoral preliminary exam) Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona, Fall, 1979.
. "On The Threshold of Networking in Educational Research." Scope. A publication of the Arizona Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Winter, 1979, Vol 5, 20-23.
Hathaway, Walter E. Report of the American Educational Research Association: Division H Task Force on Relations Between Local Educational Agencies and Institutions of Higher Education. Paper presented at AERA Annual Meeting, Boston, 1980.
. "Interim Report to the American Education Research Association: Division H Task Force on Relations between Local Education Agencies and Institutions of Higher Education." Paper presented at AERA Annual Meeting, San Francisco, 1979.
166
Hartley, Harry J. The Administrative Internship in Education. Buffalo, New York: Faculty of Educational Studies, Department of Educational Administration, State University of New York, 1968.
Hicks, Herbert G. Organizations: Theory and Behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1975.
Howsam, Robert. "Inservice Education of School Administrators, Background, Present Status, and Problems," in Monograph Series Institutional Roles for In-service Education of School Administrators, Albuquerque, N.M., 1969.
Justman, Joseph. "Problems of Research in Large School Systems." Educational Forum, May 1968, Vol 32, 429-437.
Kean, Michael H. Cooperative Research Efforts—Problems and Potential Symposium. AERA, San Francisco, 1979.
. The Development of a Metropolitan Research Partnership. Paper presented at AERA Annual Meeting, San Francisco, 1979.
Kerlinger, Fred N. "The Influence of Research on Education Practice." Educational Researcher, September 1977, Vol. 6, 5-11.
Kimbrough, Ralph B. Educational Administration: An Introduction. New York: MacMillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1976.
Ladd, Edward T. Sources of Tension in School-UniversityCollaboration. Atlanta: Urban Laboratory in Education, 1969.
Lessinger, Leon M. Every Kid A Winner: Accountability in Education. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1970.
Lewin, Kurt. Resolving Social Conflicts: Selected Paper on Group Dynamics. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1948, 20-25.
Likert, Rensis. New Patterns in Management. New York: McGraw Hill Book Co., 1961, 55-60.
Mangone, Gerard J. Transnational Research Collaboration. A report submitted by the Task Force on Transnational Collaborative Research International Education Project Occasional Paper No. 2, February 1976.
Maslow, Abraham H. "Synergy in the Society and in the Individual." Journal of Individual Psychology, November 1964, Vol 20., 153-164.
167
Mayer, Frederick. A History of Educational Thought. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Books, Inc., 1960.
McCloskey, Gordon. Education and Public Understanding. New York: Harper, 1967.
McGregor, Douglas. The Professional Manager. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1967.
Merton, Robert K. Social Theory and Social Structure. Glencoe, II: The Free Press, 1957.
Nie, Norman H., C. Hadlac Hull, Jean G. Jenkins, Karin Steinbrenner, and Dale H. Bent. SPSS-Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1975.
Pankratz, Roger and Williams, John. Three Years of Collaboration in the Development of Portal Schools. US Dept of Health, Education and Welfare: National Institute of Education Publication, 1974.
Parsons, Talcott. "Some Ingredients of a General Theory of Formal Organizations," in Andrew W. Halpin (Ed.) Administrative Theory in Education. New York: MacMillan, 1958, 40-72.
. "A Sociological Approach to the Theory of Organizations." Administrative Science Quarterly, June 1956, Vol. 1, pp. 63-85 and September 1956, Vol. 11, 225-239.
Payne, Joseph C. "The Responsibilities of a Research Director in a Public School System." Educational Administration and Supervision, November 1956, Vol. 42, 398-402.
Perdew, Philip W. "Partnership in Teacher Education. Reflections on a Conference." American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, Washington, D.C., 1968.
Prentice, Barbara S. and Denise R. Richardson. "Results of a Questionnaire Survey for AERA: Division H." Paper presented at the AERA Annual Meeting, Boston, 1980.
Rand Corporation. Emerging Issues in Education: Policy Implications for the Schools,- Lexington MA: Lexington Books, 1972.
Rankin, Stuart C. Relationships between the Detroit Public Schools and Selected Universities. Presented at AERA, Boston, 1980.
168
Richards, Les. Relations between Local Education Agencies and Institutions of Higher Education in the Area of Preservice and Inservice Staff Training. Presented at AERA, Boston, 1980.
Rodman, Hyman. "Organizational Strains in the Research-Practioner Relationships." Human Organization, Summer 1964. Vol 23, 171-182.
Rossman, Jack E. "The Faculty and Institutional Research—Perspectives from a Private College" in Special Problems of Institutional Research, Hawaii: Center for Educational Management Studies, 1978, 9-13.
Sage, Daniel D. "An Experience in University School System Exchange from the Perspective of the Guest," UCEA Review, 1977, Vol. 18, 18-20.
Sarrason, S. Human Services and Resources Network. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1977.
Schermerhorn, John R. "Determinants of Interorganizational Cooperation," Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 18, December 1975, 846-856.
. "Interorganizational Development," Journal of Management, January 1979, Vol. 5, 21-38.
Schon, D. A Design for Youth Development Policy. Boulder Colorado: Center for Action Research, Inc. 1976.
Schutz, Richard E. "Research in Schools," (Editorial), Educational Researcher, May 1976. Vol. 5, p. 5.
Selznick, Phillip. "Foundations of the Theory of Organization," American Sociological Review, February 1958, Vol. 13, 25-35.
Service, Alan L. "Planning and Management Uses of Institutional Data: Examples, Issues and Plans," National Center for Higher Education Management Systems at Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, Boulder, CO, 1975.
Sieber, Sam and Lazarsfield, P. The Organization of Educational Research in the United States. New York: Columbia University, Bureau of Applied Social Research, 1966.
Siegel, Sydney. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1956.
169
Smith, E. Brooks. "Promises and Pitfalls in the Trend toward Collaboration," Partnership in Teacher Education, Washington, D.C.: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 1968.
Spindler, George D. "The Doolittle Board and Cooperation in the Army," Social Forces, 1951, Vol. 29, 305-310.
. The Transmission of American Culture, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1959.
Stufflebeam, Daniel W., W. G. Foley, E. Guba, R. Hammond, H. Merriman, and M. Provus. Educational Evaluation and Decisionmaking, Itasca, IL: Peacock Publishers, Inc., 1971.
Taylor, Robert C. "Problems and Potentials of Managing Large-Scale Multidisciplinary Research and Development in a University Setting," Journal of Research and Development in Education, Summer 1972, Vol. 5, 20-27.
Thayer, Frederick C. An End to Hierarchy! An End to Competition!, New York: Franklin Watts, 1973.
Tyler, Ralph W. "Utilizing Research in Curriculum Development," Theory into Practice, February 1974, Vol. 8, 5-10.
Weiss, Carol H. Evaluation Research. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1972.
Witsky, Jonas. "The Organization and Function of City School Research Bureaus," American School Board Journal. April 1948. 25-27.
Yates, Alfred (Ed). The Role of Research in Educational Change. Palo Alto: Pacific Books, 1971.
Zahn, Jane. Observations Concerning Some Problems and Events of a College and a School District Working Together. Unpublished paper, 1967.