Chapter IV: Research Outputs And Potential Users
Knowledge utilization depends on having knowledge that is useful and
applicable to potential users. Scientific knowledge results from research.
Research outputs and technological advances often referred to in the
literature as innovations are described in research reports, journal articles,
and in presentations, poster sessions, or exhibits at conferences. Sometimes
these are picked up by news letters, the mass media, or change agents; and
sometimes these are demonstrated in selected settings. Research outputs may
include theories, models, paradigms, postulates, generalizations, or findings
pointing to cause and effect or covarying relationships among independent and
dependent variables. Research results may also include validated tests,
curricula, techniques, programs, or systems. Technological advances may
include software products, devices, equipment or machinery. The innovation may
or may not be marketable for profit.
Potential users may be policymakers, practitioners, other researchers,
the general public, or specific groups of clients, students, patients, or
significant others. They may be associated with varying groups, organizations,
businesses, cultures, or society. They may be in the public or private
sector. They may access information through varying personal and impersonal
media or a combination of media.
This chapter explores the factors predicting use of research outputs
by potential users. Many of the factors stem from studies couched in the
framework of two communities: researchers versus users. Factors are
components of a product, process, or program. In scientific jargon factors are
described sometimes as variables, independent or dependent. Some factors are
more important than others in predicting the extent to which knowledge will be
used. When looking at users, this chapter distinguishes among the individual
user, the organizational user, and the societal user. Change at the
individual level involves differing personalities, values, beliefs, attitudes,
stages of development, learning styles, tasks, roles, and relationships.
Change at the organizational level encompasses structures, systems, cultures,
life cycle stages, leadership styles, and decisionmaking practices. Change at
the societal level affects and is affected by social, political, and economic
features of that society and the international community.
Before detailing factors related to research outputs and users, it is
important to discuss sets of factors, the interrelatedness among them, and the
primary and secondary attributes aspect to factors studies.
I. INTRODUCTION TO FACTORS
A. Sets of factors
Researchers have been studying factors related to the innovation, the
user, the context, and the information channel in order to determine
predictors of use. Glaser and others (1983:36-37) compared and charted four
major 1970's studies on factors: Davis (8 factors), Glaser (19 factors),
Zaltman (19 factors), and Havelock and Lingwood (10 factors). Common among
three or more of these studies were the following user-oriented factors:
ability of staff to carry out the change in terms of resources, planning,
structuring, leadership, experience, costs, [and risktaking] and readiness of
the staff and leaders to consider the idea of innovation and embark on a
course of change. This readiness may be due to contextual circumstances that
prevail at the time such as dissatisfaction with the status quo or
environmental pressures to change, or seeing an innovation as a gateway to
other innovations. Readiness may also come from perceiving relative advantage
or benefits involved in innovating or a sense of obligation to deal with a
particular problem.
Common factors related to the innovation or research itself were:
qualities of the innovation, e.g., credibility, observability, divisibility,
reversibility, complexity, communicability, trialabilty, availability of
technical assistance, modifiability, scientific status, point of origin,
terminality.
Between the research output and the user were the factors of
compatibility of the innovation with values or institutional/cultural norms
and the linkages. Linkages may mean adequate interaction between the innovator
and potential users. It may mean gatekeepers or approved channels of
information dissemination. Or it may mean use of a change agent or consultant
who can help facilitate acceptance and adoption of the research output
including working through resistances. It could also mean the integration of
the producer and consumer of knowledge in such a way that other forms of
linkage may not be necessary, i.e., the prosumer approach. While the latter
interpretation currently lies outside the knowledge utilization literature,
the line of reasoning is becoming more popular.
Other researchers cited by Glaser and others (1983:36-37) looked at
factors from a central theme perspective or from a deterrent perspective.
Sieber used the central theme approach and identified factors centered on the
user, compliance, change, research, process, economics, resource,
organization, expansion, resistance, and person. Mirvis and Berg identified
deterrent factors: incomplete theories, inaccurate diagnoses, inappropriate
change technologies, intractable organization members, incapable change
agents, and inflexible organizations.
B. Interrelatedness of factors
Over time the synthesizers of studies on factors such as Glaser,
Rogers, and others have come to recognize that factors are interrelated and
interdependent. Even characteristics identified as specific to the
innovation are dependent upon the interpretations of the potential user within
a given context. Stevens and others warn that an overemphasis on a particular
set of factors deters integrated approaches and is too easily contradicted
and refuted (in Cahill, et al, 1990:59).
C. Primary and secondary attributes
Besides interdependency among factors, there is another area of
concern in studying factors. Studies of factors determining knowledge use
vary in definitions of the same factor as well as in methodology and the
context for studying use. Downs and Mohr tried to address the problems that
such variety presents. They suggested, among other things, differentiating
between primary and secondary attributes, with the former implying attributes
inherent in a characteristic and the latter addressing characteristics
differing across organizations (cited in Bingham et al, 1984:311). However,
until others heed this suggestion, the bulk of the studies completed to date
and highlighted in this and subsequent chapters have used the secondary
characteristic approach.
Keeping those cautions in mind, let's explore in more depth factors
related to research outputs.
II. RESEARCH OUTPUTS
The literature reports a wide range of innovation factors that appear
to influence utilization. Most of that literature is from the seventies and
early eighties. This author could find no significant changes in factors
related to research outputs from studies conducted since the l983
state-of-the-art studies. Therefore, this section on factors related to
research outputs highlights key innovation characteristics identified by
Glaser in 1973 and 1983 (with others) and Rogers (1983) with related terms
from other researchers juxtaposed to those terms.
Rogers in his meta-analysis of the diffusion of innovations reported
on twelve studies from 1960 to 1978 in terms of innovation attributes and
rates of adoption (1983:220-221). Attributes found to be significantly related
to the rate of adoption included: relative advantage, compatibility,
complexity, observability, and trialability.
Those will be discussed first with related factors grouped with them.
-- Relative advantage
(costs, investment returns, efficiency, or yield)
-- Compatibility
(consistency with users, political acceptability)
-- Complexity
(comprehensibility and ease of installation)
-- Observability
(demonstrability)
-- Trialability
(divisibility)
-- Other
-- Credibility, scientific status, quality, or source
-- Relevance, timing, practical or action-oriented
-- Reversibility
Relative advantage:
(costs, investment returns, efficiency, or yield)
Technology that leads to future profits and covers the costs of
development have relative advantage or yield. Innovations that offer
sufficient incentive to "offset the considerable effort that change may
require" or to minimize concerns about undesirable side effects or risks also
can be thought of as producing a satisfactory yield or relative advantage
(Glaser, 1973 and Davis and Salasin, 1975 as cited in Glaser et al
1983:30-31).
Rogers (1983:382-3) says that early adopters, i.e., the risk takers,
are likely to earn the windfall profits from the introduction of a new idea
into a social system which subsequent adopters will not likely earn as prices
drop.
Zaltman included costs, efficiency and return on investment in his
lists of variables predictive of use. Costs included financial and social;
efficiency included overall timesaving and avoidance of bottlenecks; return on
investment implied tangible and intangible (Zaltman, 1973 in Glaser, 1983:32).
Down & Mohrs suggest that research findings related to high-costs are
"generalizable only to other high-cost innovations" (1976:702 quoted by
Fellers in Rich, 1981:90).
From an efficiency perspective Trattner developed a formula for
selecting and ranking research or development ideas which he named 'rule of
the three Es'. "Efficiency is present when the effects produced are greater
than the efforts to achieve them, or Efficiency=Effect divided by Effort"
(1977 in Glaser et al, 1983:57).
Glaser and others (1983) reported more ready adoptions when potential
users perceive a relative advantage, especially when espoused by well
respected opinion leaders (Hovland, Janis, and Kelley, 1953; Rogers, 1962a;
Coleman, Katz, and Menzel, 1966b cited in Glaser et al, 1983:56). They also
cited studies related to industry and commerce pointing to the attraction of a
low-risk profit incentive as potentially outweighing in the short run the use
of relevant and validated innovations though they may yield over time benefits
to many consumers and producers (Miles, 1964c; Glaser and Taylor, 1973 in
Glaser et al, 1983:56).
Among the incentives cited among teachers for enhancing the use of
innovation are those that help increase effectiveness or professional growth
(Berman & McLaughlin cited in Crandell et al, 1986:39). Other teacher benefits
include "satisfaction, recognition, professional gain, teacher-student
interaction, student achievement, and changes in student behavior and
attitudes" (Loucks et al, 1981 cited in Crandell et al, 1986:39).
Disincentives linked to innovation include experiences of loss of autonomy
(Sieber cited in Crandell et al, 1986:39).
Difficulty in assessing relative advantage may hinder adoption of some
research findings (Rogers, 1968 in Glaser et al, 1983:57).
Compatibility:
(consistency w/users and political acceptability)
Studies finding positive relationships between acceptance of
innovations when they "seem compatible with users' previously established
values, norms, procedures, and facilities" were conducted by Rogers (1962a),
Miles (1964c), Niehoff (1966), Davis (1971), Zaltman and others (1973) and
cited by Glaser et al (1983:58).
In a study of the mental health program administration, Weiss and
Bucuvalas unexpectedly found challenges to the status quo and even hostile
studies sometimes welcomed (1977, cited in Wright, 1984: 36-38). Hostile
studies enabled respondents to take preemptive action and therefore were
viewed as agency-supportive and politically acceptable. Caplan (et al,
1975:35) found "the political acceptability of research dominated all other
use-related factors, including those such as relevance" (cited in Wright,
1984:37).
Deshpande & Zaltman (1982; 1984) found surprise and
counterintuitiveness of results important in affecting use of marketing
research among marketing managers and confirmatory research purpose and
actionability among researchers.
Manning and Rapoport (1976) found compatibility reaching into the
research formulation stages as well as in the utilization stage. Collaborative
formulation of the research enhanced direct use in an applied research study
(cited in Glaser et al, 1983:64).
Complexity:
(comprehensibility and ease of installation)
Can potential users readily understand and install the innovation? How
complex is the innovation? Does it require installation in many units or only
one, statewide or nationwide? Can it be transplanted easily to different
settings? How clear are the research results and how readable and usable is
the report or presentation of the innovation? Those are some of the many
questions related to the complexity and comprehensibility factor(s).
Zaltman says that "complexity of concept or of implementation is a
deterrent to the adoption of innovations" (1973 cited in Glaser et al,
1983:60). Pelz found data supporting the proposition that "technically simple
innovations are installed with a more discrete succession of stages than are
complex innovations"(1985:288). The opposite tendency was found with the
complexity of installation "ranging from a 'homogeneous' innovation involving
few groups to a 'heterogeneous' one involving many groups" (Pelz, 1985:288).
On the other hand, Crandall, Eiseman, and Louis (1986:25) cite several
large educational studies by the Rand Corporation and others suggesting "the
larger the scope and personal 'demandingness' of a change the greater the
chance for success." The citing authors explain the apparent conflict with
other findings by indicating that educational studies represent implementation
after an adoption decision has been made rather than prior to the decision.
"Apparent complexity," they say, "may initially deter a potential adopter who
has to master the innovation alone" (Crandall, et al 1986:25).
When reporting results Rothman (1980:153) and Seidel say, (1981:239)
"clear, concise reporting enhances the chances of research being put to use"
(cited in Wright 1984:32). Alken, Daillak, and White (1979) found that the
form of the research report by itself did not explain the utilization decision
(cited in Wright, 1984:32). Ballard and James see merit in focusing on
manipulables such as reporting style rather than on the less manipulable
factors related to organizational barriers (1983:414 cited in Wright,
1984:32).
Abelson (1970) found an inverse relationship between the
'technicality' of a prescriptively stated psychoeducational idea, as judged
by the investigator, and its importance and application to teaching practice,
as judged by teachers (cited in Glaser et al, 1983:60).
Fessenden-Raden, Fitchen, and Heath (1987:99) caution risk information
givers about (1) simplifying technical messages to the point of omission of
essential facts, (2) use of regulatory terminology rather than
receiver-oriented terminology, (3) and use of aggregated data that hasn't been
interpreted for its application to the community being addressed.
Observability: (Demonstrability or visibility) and Trialability: (Divisibility)
Studies addressing the importance of users being able to see a
demonstration of an innovation or having the opportunity to try it out with
minimal risk included those by Bright (1964), Rogers and Svenning (1969), and
Glaser (1973) (cited in Glaser et al, 1983:61). "Situations in which
the user need not 'play for keeps' provide more opportunity for innovation"
(Miles, 1964c; Lippitt and Havelock, 1968; Zaltman and others, 1973 in Glaser
et al, 1983:61). Being able to introduce a change on a step by step basis
with time for assimilation was found important by Rogers (1962) and Fliegel
and Kivlin (1966) (cited in Glaser et al, 1983:61).
Visibility of results of application is also seen as important under
the nature of readiness of the item for use by others (compilation from other
sources by Roessner, 1975 in Glaser, 1983:40-41).
Other: (Credibility, scientific status, quality, or source)
Credibility may derive from interpretations of scientific status,
source, or quality. Credibility as interpreted by Glaser (1973) stems "from
the soundness of evidence for the value of the innovation or from its espousal
by highly respected persons or institutions" (cited in Glaser et al, 1983:30).
Scientific status, a determining factor identified by Zaltman (1973, cited in
Glaser et al, 1983:33), refers to the research study's reliability, validity,
generality, and so on. Quality of research, found frequently in the current
literature, is closely related to scientific status as a factor.
Quality of research has been explored with inconsistent results.
When potential research users were directly asked whether the quality of
research played a role in deciding to use research, quality was deemed
important (Caplan et al, 1975:30; Weiss & Bucuvalas, 1977:222; Rothman,
1980:140 cited in Wright, 1984:33). The technical quality of research was one
of five sets of variables deemed important in affecting use of market research
by marketing managers and by researchers (Deshpande & Zaltman, 1982; Deshpande
& Zaltman, 1984:32).
On the other hand, when studies "assigned quality scores...according
to objectively determined characteristics of the research and then looked for
a correlation between quality and use," they found no relationship between
research quality and use (Van de Vall and Bolas, 1981:476; Dunn, 1980:525; and
Alkin, Daillak, & White, 1979:241 cited in Wright, 1984:33; Huberman,
1987:606). Johnson factor analyzed measures of quality and found that "none of
the three research quality measures [conflict, collaboration, and policy
focused attributes] of this study proved to be important" (Johnson, 1985:180).
He added, "It is possible that although research quality may be related to
perceived research use as measured by Weiss and Bucuvalas, this factor is not
related to actual use"(1985:180). Again the issue as Wright pointed out
relates to the method of determining quality of research. It also relates to
the definitions used or the circumstances of the potential user (Wright,
1984:34).
Another dimension of credibility or quality is linked to the point of
origin of the study, internal or external to an organization, state, or
country. While according to Van de Vall and Bolas the pro-external sources has
the widest following, their own studies pointed to internal sources as the
more advantageous (1981:462). The advantages of internal sources are greater
understanding of the context in which the research will be used and greater
communication (Van de Vall & Bolas, 1981:479). Other advantages include
"faster service, better control over resources, and greater access to sources
of information and decision-making" (Bursk & Sethi cited by Ibid, 1981:463).
Van de Vall & Bolas also identified intermediate positions that suggest
complementary roles of external and internal research.
Crandall, Eiseman, and Louis (1986) report education studies finding
little evidence that the local innovation has any advantages in increasing
usage over the nonlocal innovation. According to Crandell and others
interaction can diminish potential negative effects of the source of origin.
Studies on the point of origin include, but are not limited to, those
by Van de Vall and Bolas (1981), Zaltman (1973 in Glaser, 1983:33); Pelz and
Munson (1982), Pelz (1985), and Johnson (1985).
Other:
(Relevance, Importance, Timing, Practical, or Action-oriented)
Glaser defines relevance in terms of "coping with a persistent and
sharply bothersome problem of concern to a large number of people or to
influential people" (Glaser, 1973 in Glaser et al, 1983:30). Durability of
an innovation depends upon the innovation meeting a recognized, well-defined
need (Glaser, 1981:179).
From an instrumental use perspective, Rothman says to be relevant the
innovation "must contain timely, practical, and action-oriented
recommendations" (1980:132-133 cited in Wright, 1984:31). From a conceptual
perspective, Weiss & Bucuvalas viewed relevance as a precondition to
usefulness but not necessarily connected to timeliness, action-orientation,
or practicality (1977:220-1 cited in Wright, 1984: 31).
Rich found time to be a factor related to whether policymakers in
several federal agencies used research instrumentally or conceptually
(1977:202-205 cited in Wright, 1984:19). Heavy instrumental use occurred
within the first two months; conceptual use took place during months three to
six. Larsen concluded from another study that information use takes time.
Failure to recognize the time demand of utilization activities may lead to
data collection before the outcome is possible (Larsen, 1985:157).
Others have pointed to the impact of time on utilization (Ciarlo,
cited in Davis and Salasin, 1975; Strommen and Aleshire, 1979; Tornatzky and
Fergus, 1980; cited in Larsen, 1985:146-7). Van de Vall says the project's
impact is dependent on "the researcher's ability to 'co-align' the stream of
research information with the sequence of decisions in the policy-making
process" (Van de Vall, 1975:23 in Glaser et al, 1983:64).
What about outmoded technology or routinized innovations, how
relevant are these? Rosenberg points to the difficulties in determining
outmodedness. "'Old' technology often continues to be improved after the
introduction of the 'new,' thus postponing even further the time when the old
technology is clearly outmoded" (1972 cited in Glaser, 1983:49). Yin says: "If
followed over a long period, information that once was new eventually becomes
routinized, losing its distinguishing characteristics as it melds into the
organization's ongoing program" (1976 cited in Larsen, 1985:146). Havelock
adds: "Alternatively, implementation of new information may be followed by
discontinuance, discontinuance by readoption, and rejection by later adoption"
(1969 cited in Larsen, 1985:146). Summary of research output factors:
Little change has occurred in research findings related to factors.
The rehabilitation field is likely to have greater utilization from research
that is perceived as compatible, less complex, observable, trialable, and
having relative advantage. This fits the two-communities framework.
Factors related to users follow. They begin with individuals as users,
include organizations as users, and end with societies as users.
III. INDIVIDUALS AS USERS
Authors of Megatrends 2000, John Naisbitt and Patricia Aburdene,
characterize the 1990's "as a new respect for the individual as the foundation
of society and the basic unit of change" (1990:298). Individual
responsibility, these authors believe, will become the first principle of the
New Age movement. As the individual assumes responsibility, no longer will the
individual hide behind collective structures such as organized religion,
unions, the Communist party, big business, political parties, cities, or
government. Technology (e.g., computers, cellular phones, fax machines,
global television, video cassettes) is empowering individuals to change
themselves and their communities.
When the focus was on the institution, individuals got what suited the
institution; everyone got the same thing. No more. With the rise of the
individual has come the primacy of the consumer. It has been said for many
years: The customer is king. Now it is true (Naisbitt & Aburdene, 1990:307).
This section looks more closely at individual factors and techniques
contributing to individual change or to the individual's acceptance of
organizational or social changes.
A. The personal factor
Organizations do not consume information; people do--individual,
idiosyncratic, caring, uncertain, searching people. Who is in a position
makes all the difference in the world to information use (Patton, 1986:54).
The individual is the most important factor in getting research
results used (Patton, 1986:55). Patton came to that conclusion after studying
the literature and conducting many evaluation research studies. He explored
use factors related to quality and appropriateness of research methods,
timeliness or lateness of the report, positive and negative findings, surprise
of findings, central or peripheral program objectives, presence or absence of
related studies, political factors, interactions between decision maker and
evaluator, as well as resources available for the study.
None of the other specific literature factors about which we asked
questions emerged as important with any consistency....The personal factor
represents the leadership, interest, enthusiasm, determination, commitment,
assertiveness, and caring of specific, individual people. These are the
people who are actively seeking information to reduce decision uncertainties
so as to increase their ability to predict the outcomes of progammatic
activity and enhance their own discretion as decision makers. These are the
primary users of evaluation (Patton, 1986:45).
There's no question about it. The personal factor is far and away the
most important....research of the last five years confirms the primacy of the
personal factor (interview with Burry, 1985 cited in Patton 1986:55).
B. Personality and information intake & use
Although Glaser and others emphasized the inseparableness of
characteristics of people, projects, and organizations, they also recognized
the "variations in the makeup and status of the individuals who are the actors
in the drama of change phenomena" (1983:88). They recommended studying
individual roles as positive and as negative forces (1983:88).
Rogers (1983:257-259) reported support for the following personality
variables in earlier versus later adopters: greater empathy, less dogmatic,
greater ability to deal with abstractions, greater rationality, greater
intelligence, more favorable attitude toward change, more able to cope with
uncertainty and risk, more favorable attitude toward education and toward
science, less fatalistic, higher levels of achievement motivation and higher
aspirations.
Using Jungian personality theory and Berne's transactional analysis
(TA) as frameworks, Ian and Donna Mitroff looked at ways individuals take in
knowledge for use (1979). Jungian views, they say, are operationalized in the
Myers-Briggs Personality Indicators and provide a nonthreatening mode of
looking at the strengths and weaknesses of each personality type. For people
whose primary mode of behavior is sensation, information intake is best using
concrete, specific, hard, impersonal facts. For those who measure intuitive on
the scale, hunches and ideas from out of the blue depict their intake mode.
Perhaps they are enlightened by an array of input rather than informed by
specific research studies. By juxtaposing transactional analysis against the
combinations of sensing-intuiting and thinking-feeling indicators, they derive
breakdowns for impersonal facts, impersonal possiblities, personal facts, and
personal possibilities.
As an example, the sensing-thinking combination under the critical
parent heading of transactional analysis is: "The only valid form of knowledge
is that which is based on impersonal facts and which can be shown to be
statistically reliable" (Mitroff & Mitroff, 1979:212). The mature adult,
however, with the same sensing-thinking designation would say: "I prefer
knowledge which is based on impersonal facts and can be shown to be
statistically reliable but I recognize that this is not the only valid form of
knowledge and I am prepared to learn from others" (Ibid).
C. Demographic aspects of knowledge use
From a demographic perspective, Rogers (1983:251-252) reported earlier
adopters differed from later adopters as follows: more years of education,
more literate, higher social status, greater degree of upward social mobility,
larger-sized units (farms, companies, etc.), have a commercial economic
orientation, more favorable attitude toward borrowing money, and have more
specialized operations.
Achenbaum (1983) identified seven value dilemmas associated with aging
some of which may affect responses to change. The seven value conflicts are:
self reliance vs. dependency; expectation vs. entitlement; work vs. leisure;
individual vs. family; private vs. public; equity vs. adequacy; novelty vs.
tradition. In the latter there is a choice about whether to look for new,
rational, possibly transient ways to cope with problems, or to rely on
perennial, time-tested, widely-accepted means of addressing problems.
D. Communication behavior
Rogers (1983:258-9) reported that earlier adopters differed from later
adopters in communication behavior as follows: more social participation, more
highly interconnected in the social system, more cosmopolite, more change
agent contact, greater exposure to mass media communication channels, greater
exposure to interpersonal communication channels, seek information about
innovations more actively, greater knowledge of innovations, higher degree of
opinion leadership, and more likely to belong to highly interconnected
systems.
Communication behavior in the future may be affected greatly by
technology. Technology is not only helping to equalize access to information
through computers, fax, television, etc. but also influencing the distribution
of power. Power comes from knowledge as well as from wealth. As consumers gain
greater direct access to knowledge, shifts will likely occur in the roles of
those involved in knowledge production and use (Toffler, 1990).
E. Other
Perceptions, commitment, expectations, relationships
The user context of Huberman's model building study (discussed at
length in chapter 6) points to perceptions, commitment, expectations, and
relationships as important variables related to use. "Predictors can cluster
differently for different user publics" (Huberman, 1987: 604).
For example, highly defensive organizations can demonstrate poor
knowledge of research findings yet perceive strong compatibility with staff
opinions. They might then perceive the study as highly valid without having
understood it, and might then contribute time and resources to following
through. So we get strong instrumental effects through distortion of findings
and a cascade of strategic use--the scenario that drives researchers wild
(Ibid).
Tenure
Glaser and others (1983) indicated they found many studies related to
tenure and productivity but not to tenure and innovativeness.
Social learning
Social learning theory as espoused by Professor Bandura (1977) and
studied by others indicates that individuals learn by observing models of the
desired behavior in person or via mass media. In a comparison of social
learning and diffusion theories, Rogers said:
both sets of scholars have begun to move more forcefully
toward focus on the mutual exchange of information between
two or more individuals as the basis for the convergence in
cognitive and behavioral change (Rogers, 1983:306).
F. Techniques for individual change
Techniques for enhancing individual change proliferate the
psychological literature. Selected examples include weight control, altering
smoking habits, and the use of self-help groups or organizations. For weight
control, Ferguson (1976) has assembled and successfully demonstrated the
effectiveness of a number of behavior modification techniques including habit
awareness, cue elimination, stimulus control, behavior chains and alternate
activities, behavior analysis, problem solving, and environmental support.
For altering smoking habits, Kennedy (1989) has identified the stages
of individual change as: awareness, understanding, commitment to change,
seeking out information, changing the habit. Kennedy says that too much
attention is paid to the latter stages of the process and not enough to the
first three stages where attitude change and social learning have to occur for
successful implementation (1989: 110). She illustrates differences in change
at the individual versus the organizational level.
When organizational policies change before individuals change, we get
"No Smoking" signs that are ignored. When individual behaviors change first,
social norms also change, and the official signs are no longer needed
(Kennedy, 1989:114).
Powell, in analyzing self-help organizations, categorized them in
terms of their orientation to helping individuals make changes in themselves
or in society (1987). The change strategies are more often based on
experiential rather than scientific knowledge. However, studies have shown
some of the change efforts to be effective. Habit-disturbance organizations
include Alcoholics Anonymous, Overeaters Anonymous, Weight Watchers, and
Smokestoppers. These groups focus on behavior change and view habits as
disadvantageous. They provide supporting literature such as the 12-step
process, role models, and a reference group to assist in the habit change
process.
General purpose self-help organizations, according to Powell (1987),
encourage members through a reference group to work the program and gain the
benefits. They are encouraged to let the program change the way they think
about themselves so that changes in attitudes towards other things and people
will follow.
They differ from the habit-disturbance organization in the more
general and abstract goals requiring personal, concrete interpretation. They
emphasize cognitive-expressive techniques, identification building, and
resemble psychotherapy. They use mentors and models.
Lifestyle self-help organizations, according to Powell, cluster in
varied subcategories and include adult singles organizations, widow-to-widow
programs, mental health consumer groups, retirement associations, adoption
groups, and women's groups. Examples include Parents without Partners,
American Association of Retired Persons, and the Federation of Parents and
Friends of Lesbians and Gays. Change for members involves adapting to a new
lifestyle either temporarily or permanently. The group provides peer support
with its concomitant experiential information and information on resources for
adapting lifestyles. Their goals are broad and less specific. They advocate
for social changes.
Significant-other organizations, Powell continues, help members
overcome feelings of shame and guilt, protect them from troubled family
members, insist public officials carry out their responsibilities, and try new
approaches in relating to family members. Organizations included in this
category include Families Anonymous, Toughlove, and the National Alliance for
the Mentally Ill. Change for members begins through confidence-building
discussions, moves into developing assertiveness and networks (e.g. dime
therapy or telephoning) and finally moves into paying back the organization
for the help received.
Physical handicap organizations include goals that are
disease-specific, adaptational, lifestyle, and technical. They help members
through inspiration, reinforcement, modeling, information-communication,
encouragement, and behavioral monitoring. These may include hospital
visitation, individual and group discussion, newsletters, and pen pals.
Professionals for whom helping is a primary activity contribute to
individual change by creating a safe emotional environment for change. They
help individuals identify goals and appropriate means for attaining those
goals. They provide information needed to reach the goals. They assist the
individual through the stages of change as needed and as included in their
agency's procedures.
Self-help organizations and professionals sometimes work in
complementary roles to help individuals make needed changes in their lives.
Professionals may refer clients to self-help groups and self-help groups may
refer members to professionals for individualized and skilled help. It is the
complementary supportive role of provider and consumer that the prosumer
approach to knowledge utilization seeks to promote.
IV. ORGANIZATIONS AS USERS
The organizational context for change consists of structures, systems,
stages of development, and cultures that can affect receptivity to, and use
of, knowledge and technology. Structures are centralized or decentralized (by
geography, products, or tasks); entrepreneurial, functional, matrix, or
multistructured; formal or informal (Handy, 1983:290-301); segmentalist or
integrative (Kanter, 1984). Organizational systems likely to be affected by
change include the adapting systems, operating systems, maintenance systems,
and information systems (Handy, 1983:323-324). Organizations may be at one of
several stages in their life cycles such as survival, growth, maintenance, or
revitalization (Cribbin, 1984:49) when research results become available for
use. Organizations differ in their cultural orientation--power, role, task,
or person--(Handy, 1983:177-185) that contribute to readiness for and the
manner of change. Cultures manifest in observable artifacts, values, and basic
underlying assumptions (Schein, 1990:111).
Let's look more closely at organizations as users of research outputs.
What factors have been identified as predictive of use?
A. Organizational structures, systems, & cultures
Rogers summarized the findings from hundreds of studies in the sixties
and seventies on organizational innovativeness due to structural
characteristics (1983:359-362). He found low negative correlations between
centralization and formalization to initiation of innovations; however, once
the decision to innovate was made, centralization and formalization "may
actually encourage the implementation of innovations" (Rogers, 1983: 360).
Interconnectedness among units in a social system as well as organizational
slack (i.e., availability of uncommitted external resources) positively relate
to organizational innovativeness.
Zaltman, Florio, and Sikorski (1977) had found similar results in the
studies they reviewed on organizational variables and the innovation process.
High correlations in the initiation phase were found for organizational
complexity, interpersonal relations, and dealing with conflict and low
correlations in this phase for formalization and centralization. In the
implementation phase centralization, formalization, interpersonal relations,
and dealing with conflict rated high and complexity rated low.
Bingham, Freeman, and Felbinger (1984) studied organizational
characteristics in relation to innovation characteristics and to differing
contexts. The organizational characteristics included centralization,
stability, bureaucratization, and complexity. The settings included
council-manager cities and mayor-council cities. They found more study
variables such as bureaucracy and complexity affect innovation adoption in
mayor-council cities than in council-manager cities. Citing the consistency of
that finding with Lineberry and Fowler (1967) they indicate this may be due to
managers attenuation of the impact of the predictor variables on urban policy.
Stability had little impact on innovative behavior in either setting except
when interacting with high levels of other variables. Other aspects of their
study explored relationships between process innovations vs. product
innovations.
For rehabilitation organizations, Riggar and others (1990) suggest use
of matrix organizational structures to improve dealing with environmental
changes. Administrators, they say, who pursue matrix structuring can move into
a proactive rather than reactive change orientation. The former relies on
internal control of change rather than external controls. They cite Kilmann's
approach to helping an organization move from a pyramid to a matrix: (1)
educate personnel, (2) outline current culture, (3) create a matrix culture,
and (4) balance the dual power (1985 cited in Riggar et al, 1990:116). They
illustrate the system's culture factors delineated by Hagesfeld and Jones
(1981 cited in Riggar, 1990:117). They believe it has direct applicability to
rehabilitation organizations with their rigid rules and regulations. Misra
and White (1990) suggest that structure and functions of rehabilitation
programs are in part governed by their respective umbrella agencies. Shifting
to a matrix structure, Riggar and others conclude, requires "considerable
understanding, determination, and effort on the part of rehabilitation
administrators before the real long-term advantages can be realized"
(1990:117).
Kanter (1984) concluded from her study of 47 companies and 115
innovations that too many companies are still operating under a segmentalist
system that inhibits efforts to solve problems and make necessary changes.
The traditional mechanistic bureaucracy isolates departments and levels. That
isolation results in people seeing only local manifestations of the problem
and discourages the spreading of bad news, i.e., that there is a problem. The
search for solutions is hampered in segmentalist cultures by favoring sorting
of issues into preexisting categories or turning them over to specialists who
respond within their own narrow frames of reference. "This style, this mode of
organizing protects the successful organization against unnecessary change,
ensures that it will repeat what it already 'knows'" (Kanter, 1984:31). When
integrative methods are attempted within segmentalist organizational
structures, the structure stifles innovation preferring the past solutions,
forgetting the sources of its own original entrepreneurial successes.
Among the intangible incentives for enterprise in high innovation
companies, Kanter (1984) identified the following: pride-in-company;
mainstreaming innovation norms; broad job charters; nonroutine, ambiguous, and
change-directed assignments; intersecting job territories; and sufficient
local autonomy to act without long delays for higher-level approvals. Instead
of expecting formal reward systems to serve as incentives, high innovation
companies invested in people before they carried out their projects. They
trusted employees with assignments that required stretching of abilities. High
innovation companies financed the project, provided resource support, and gave
employees even bigger opportunities later which translated into enhanced
reputation or position.
Less innovative companies attempted changes by top-down dictation,
trials by change specialists, and the use of outsiders. An attitude of
innovation was not ingrained or integrated among the employees within the
organization. Instead it lay in the hands of outsiders and reinforced the
culture of inferiority.
B. Organizational size
Studies of organizations and innovation adoption have operationalized
size in terms of number of employees, numbers of the population served, number
of hospital beds, daily student attendance, etc. Findings, therefore, differ
partly due to definitions. Rogers (1983:359) sees size as a probable surrogate
measure of other dimensions leading to innovation such as total resources,
slack resources, organizational structure, and so on. He cites one study that
juxtaposed the size of the agency to the size of the city and the
cosmopoliteness, accreditation, and prestige of the director among his or her
peers. He suggests saying farewell to size "or at least turn it over, and see
what lies underneath" (Rogers, 1983:359).
C. Leadership and management
Leadership according to Thompson (1967) and Tichy (1983) represents
"those organizational members able to control allocation of resources,
maintain control, and deal with uncertainty" (Thompson, 1967 cited in Tichy,
1983:18). Naisbitt and Aburdene, on the other hand, suggest that the dominant
principle of organization has shifted from "management in order to control an
enterprise to leadership in order to bring out the best in people and to
respond quickly to change" (1990:218). They quote Russell E. Palmer, dean of
the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School of Business, on the
differences between managers and leaders:
We have a lot of managers--short-term, control-oriented,
report-oriented. Leaders think longer term, grasp the relationship of larger
realities, think in terms of renewal, have political skills, cause change,
affirm values, achieve unity (Palmer cited in Naisbitt & Aburdene, 1990:219).
Turnover of leadership in an organization has been hypothesized as
linked to adoption of product innovations. The expectation is that new
executives are not only open to change, but feel compelled to make at least
some type of change in an attempt to develop his or her identity in the
organization (March & Simon, 1958; Downs, 1966; Meyer, 1975 cited in Bingham
et al, 1984:321).
How stable the leadership--center of the decision-making process--is
in an organization also affects consideration of innovations (Rogers &
Shoemacher, 1971; Kimberly and Evanisko, 1981 cited in Bingham et al,
1984:321). Continuity of leadership was one of five elements that Crandell
and others identified from several studies of utilization efforts (1986:40).
Other related elements are: an absence of debilitating conflict; an effective,
debugged innovation; frequent reminders that successful and faithful
implementation is important; and adequate resources and support (Crandell et
al, 1986:40).
Another leader-oriented factor affecting successful change is the
confronting of significant problems. When leaders have a willingness to
confront problems and the resource levels to do so, action will more likely be
taken (Knight, 1967 in Bingham et al, 1984:321).
Of the factors that Peters and Waterman (1982) found as contributors
to excellence many revolve around leaders and how they relate to employees and
customers. These include passioned leaders, getting everyone involved and
committed to quality, taking time to recognize and reward initiative and
excellent performance, instilling pride in the products and services,
promoting a common vision, out-thinking the competition, and focusing on
satisfying customer needs.
Managers may stifle innovations by viewing new ideas with suspicion,
controlling everything, criticizing freely, treating problem identification as
failure signs, insisting on multiple signatures for approvals, assigning
lower-level managers the job of carrying out threatening decisions made,
giving out information sparingly and only with justification, and never
forgetting that the higher-ups know everything important about this business
(Kanter, 1984).
Styles of leadership or management in an organization can also affect
use. Styles may be authoritative or democratic [or laissez-faire] and in
more recent years, contingency oriented, i.e., the best fit between leader and
follower (Handy, 1983:87-103).
D. Continuum of organizational change strategies
Change may be initiated, internally or externally, by the
organization's managers or internal champions or by external consultants or
environmental conditions. Change may be planned or unplanned, incremental or
transformative, collaborative or coerced, evolutionary or revolutionary.
Dunphy and Stace (1988) offered a typology of change strategies in a
contingency framework. They differentiated four types of change according to
collaborative or coercive modes and incremental or transformative change
strategies. Types 1 and 3 are participative evolution and forced evolution.
Types 2 and 4 are charismatic transformation and dictatorial transformation.
They relate each type to the perceived fitness with the environment in which
the organization operates. They also relate it to support available for
change.
Type 1, participative evolution, is used under two conditions: (1)
when an organization fits with its environment but needs minor adjustments or
(2) is not fitting with the environment but time is available and key interest
groups favor change (1988:331). Type 2, charismatic transformation, is used
when organizations are not fitting with their environments and there is little
time for extensive participation but there is support within the organization
for radical change. Type 3, they continue, is forced evolution. This is used
(1) when organizations are fitting with the environment but minor adjustments
need to be made or (2) the organizations are out of fit but time is available
and key interest groups oppose change. Type 4, dictatorial transformation, is
used when organizations are out of fit with the environment, there is no time
for extensive participation and no support within the organization for radical
change but radical change is vital to organizational survival and fulfillment
of the basic mission. Change agents, they say, should select and use the most
effective strategy and mode of change rather than relying solely on those
compatible with their own personal values.
Tichy (1983) identified and brought together three dominant traditions
that have guided thinking about organizations and the practice of change.
Those are the technical, political, and cultural traditions. The technical
tradition focuses on production problems amid "environmental threats and
opportunities, social, financial, and technical resources" (1983:9). This
tradition derives from Weberian bureaucracy, scientific and classical
management, job design, and contingency theories. The political tradition
centers on problems related to the allocation of power and resources. This
tradition stems from Machiavellianism, coalitional view of organizations,
exchange theorists, and political science power analyses. The cultural
tradition looks at "values, objectives, beliefs, and interpretations shared by
organizational members" (1983:10). Sources for this tradition come from
studies in cultural anthropology, human relations, organization development,
and humanistic psychology.
Tichy looked at those traditions as overlapping cycles that require
continual adjustments (Tichy, 1983). Strategic change, nonroutine and
nonincremental, starts with the recognition of problems, crises, or
opportunities. His guidelines for managing transitions include:
1. Review the current state diagnosis and the desired state
change strategy to determine the technical, political, and
cultural adjustments required by the change.
2. Project the sequence of cycles. When will the
technical, political, and cultural cycles peak?
3. Plan for unbundling and uncoupling the three systems in
order to manage the transition in each.
4. Plan for managing the transitions in each
cycle--technical transition, political transition, and
cultural transition.
5. Plan for recoupling the systems. How will the
technical, political, and cultural systems mesh in the
desired state organization? (Tichy, 1983:335).
Chapter 6 will highlight models of organizational change linked with
knowledge utilization literature. Chapter 7 will address the concept of change
agents and consultants' roles in the change process.
V. SOCIETIES AS USERS
A. Kinds of societal changes
A number of authors have highlighted the changes occurring nationally
and internationally that touch us all. Changes in world view, age, wave, &
power have been noted by authors such as Elisabet Sahtouris (1989), John
Naisbitt with Patricia Aburdene (1982, 1990), Leon Martel (1986), and Alvin
Toffler (1980; 1990).
A decade ago Naisbitt pointed to shifts from industrial society to
information society, forced technology to high tech/high touch, national
economy to world economy, short- term orientation to long-term orientation,
centralization to decentralization, institutional help to self help,
representative democracy to participatory democracy, hierarchies to
networking, north to south, and either/or to multiple options (1982). For the
coming decade he points to trends such as (l) the booming global economy, (2)
a renaissance in the arts, (3) the emergence of free-market socialism, (4)
global lifestyles and cultural nationalism, (5) the privatization of the
welfare state, (6) the rise of the pacific rim, (7) the decade of women in
leadership, (8) the age of biology, (9) the religious revival of the new
millennium, and (10) the triumph of the individual (Naisbitt and Aburdene,
1990).
Toffler's trilogy of books on societal change began with Future shock.
That book highlighted the process of change and the effects of change on
people and organizations. He warned of the disorientation and stress (shock)
that comes to individuals, organizations, and countries from trying to cope
with too many changes in too short a timespan. His second book, The third
wave, dealt with the directions of change. The agricultural and industrial
waves were being superseded by a third wave that is characterized in large
part by the prosumer, the fusion of producer and consumer. His latest book,
Powershift, concentrates on the control of changes still to come. Knowledge,
he says, provides the essential raw material for wealth creation that affects
power distribution in companies, countries, and the world. Knowledge is being
restructured by the computer, by advances in artificial intelligence and
expert systems, and by "cognitive theory, learning theory, fuzzy logic,
neurobiology, and other intellectual developments" (Toffler, 1990:427).
B. Understanding and managing societal changes
Martel (1986) believes understanding change rather than trends is the
most effective way to anticipate and relate to the future. He elaborated a
five-step strategy for ways readers could master structural and cyclical
changes: recognize it, identify changes in the upstream versus downstream
categories, determine type and pattern of each change, rank by importance and
likelihood, and strategically respond to structural changes and tactically
respond to cyclical changes.
Martel (1986) also identified changes that offered hope for our
futures. Changes included information becoming a valued resource, education
increasing among the world's people, electronic networks of communication
linking people more closely, hope for economic solutions, slowing population
growth rate, changing nature of work, and rising per capita and discretionary
incomes. He indicated that changing attitudes, preferences and priorities were
signaling greater concern for quality, health, comfort and safety in our
personal lives and environments. Juxtaposed to those structural more permanent
changes are cyclical ones whose problems include periods of recession and
inflation of business cycles, shortages and gluts in the demand-supply cycles,
conflict and destruction of wars that enter cycles of organizational and
societal behavior, and rises in rates of family breakup and crime in cycles of
social behavior. Using his five-step strategy, he believes, the negative
effects of the cyclical changes can be minimized.
C. Social policies
Bagentos, writing from an education perspective, calls our attention
to the complex interactions operating between policy and context (1989).
Intellectual issues and changing technology affect and are affected by federal
education dissemination policy. As an example of intellectual issues, she
references the national focus first on poverty and later on "equality--for
bilingual students, for the handicapped, for women" (Bagenstos, 1989:29).
Public concerns influence the content of what is disseminated and policies
regarding "the appropriate structures and methods for disseminating
information to support change" (Bagenstos, 1989:29). About technology she
writes:
Technology opens possibilities, but it also raises questions
about which possibilities should be pursued. Those questions
are policy questions in the deepest sense, involving choices
based on values (Bagenstos, 1989:34).
She calls for research studies on the complex interaction between policy and
context.
Glaser and others echo from their studies the sizable impact of
governmental factors on the diffusion and linkage process (1983:149). Federal
subsidies and regulations inhibit and expand uses of innovations by the states
and by businesses.
VI. A WORD ABOUT RESISTANCE TO CHANGE
Numerous studies have dealt with the concept of obstacles, barriers,
or resistance to change. They have identified cultural, social,
organizational, and psychological barriers (Zaltman and Duncan, 1977). They
have looked at the concept of resistance from varied perspectives: personal
vs. structural, conscious vs. unconscious, unforced vs. forced change.
Resistance from a personality perspective has been identified with factors
such as homeostatis, habit, primacy, selective perception and retention,
dependence, illusion of impotence, superego, self-distrust, insecurity and
regression, deprivation, and anxiety (Watson, 1973 cited in Glaser et al,
1983:80). Resistance from an individual perspective may include perception,
motivation, attitude, legitimization, accompaniments of trial, results of
evaluation, actual adoption or rejection and manner of dissonance resolution
(Zaltman and others, 1973 cited in Glaser et al, 1983:83-84). Glaser (1983)
highlights studies linking change to fears of loss of status, job security,
prestige, power, and self-esteem (Berlin, 1969, Havelock, 1969a, Glaser and
Ross, 1974, Bright, 1964, Blum and Downing, 1964, Costello and Zalkind, 1963,
Marmor, Bernard, and Ottenberg, 1960, Becker, 1970b, and Karmos and Jacko,
1977). The fear of loss can also be applied to independence, beliefs, values,
people, places, and things.
Watson (1973) suggested that there is a life cycle of resistance to an
innovation. The life cycle entails resistance that is first
undifferentiated, then differentiated, and mobilized. This is followed by
supporters of change coming into power and eventually by "one-time advocates
of change becoming resisters of emerging change" (in Glaser et al,
1983:86-87).
As any well trained salesperson knows, the features of a given product
must be couched in terms of the needs of the individual and the benefits from
using the product. As marketing specialists have learned in more recent years,
if the consumers don't have a say in the product, they may reject it totally.
The long history of pushing research in a simplistic fashion without adequate
consideration of the basic needs of potential users has contributed to the
concept of resistance and the subsequent research validating it as a
phenomena. Perhaps changing the focus of research may change the outcomes. The
prosumer approach maximizes consumer involvement throughout every stage of the
knowledge production and use process. Equal participation can help reduce
resistance.
VII. FACTORS: UNKNOWNS
Glaser and others (1983) identified questions unanswered at that time
and only beginning to be partly answered today. Those were:
1. "What is the nature of the influence or causation
implied?" Where does causation reside? (Ibid, 53)
2. "To what extent and by what mechanism is a given factor
connected with other factors in producing whatever effect it
may have?" (Ibid, 54)
3. What is the likely impact of variations in the factor's
designation? (Ibid, 67)
4. "Are there characteristics of particular subject matters
that make products based on them more or less likely to be
adopted?" (Ibid, 46)
SUMMARY:
This chapter identified some of the major factors affecting knowledge
utilization from the user and the research output perspectives. Output factors
included, but were not limited to relative advantage, compatibility,
complexity, observability, and trialability. Research outputs that link to
the respective user populations' needs and interests are most effective.
Individual factors related to personality, demographics,
commmunication behavior, social learning styles, perceptions, commitment,
expectations, and relationships. Techniques and resources for individual
change included an array of professional and self-help strategies.
Organizational structures, systems, cultures, leaders, and stages of
development affect change. A continuum of change strategies ranged from
incremental to transformative and from evolutionary to revolutionary. Martel
offered hope for our futures by showing readers how to distinguish between
structural and cyclical changes in the environment and use that knowledge to
deal with societal change.
Naisbitt and Aburdene point to the growth in individual responsibility
as the key to the future. Toffler supported that with his prosumer approach,
the fusion of the producer and consumer. Toffler went further to suggest that
power-shifts will occur because of knowledge: its availability and its
restructuring. The field of disability and rehabilitation will likely benefit
most from considering ways to integrate consumers and producers more
effectivley in service delivery and in research creation, dissemination, and
utilization.
A LOOK AHEAD:
Chapter 5 addresses the information channels and dissemination
strategies. The channel may be mass media (e.g., television, radio,
newspapers, comics, videotext, magazines), informal contacts (such as a mail
carrier, druggist, friend, family member), formal contacts (such as a
champion, change agent or consultant), information service systems,
educational programs, or other varied forms for information giving.
|
.gif){kind=spacer}
