School Innovativeness as Process and Product

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Summary The paper describes an approach to the definition and measurement of school innovativeness. Multiple criterion measures were developed to examine the complex interrelatedness of process and product dimensions of innovativeness. Process, defined as schools' continuous capacity for growth and self‐renewal, was operationalised by means of measures of school organisational climate for change and of principals' decision‐making behaviour in the management of innovation. Multiple product measures based on an inventory of specific innovations were used to define school level adoption, implementation and internalisation of innovations. Schools were found to differ significantly on each of the process and product measures. School mean scores for process and product were significantly related to each other and to measures of school openness to influence, of school supportiveness of change and of general motivational climate. School structure, process and norms appear to exert a significant influence on teachers' innovative attitudes and behaviours. The evidence suggests the utility of exploring innovativeness as a dimensional organisation level construct. The instruments developed for the study were found to possess a high degree of reliability and validity. Some 2000 teachers participated in the pilot and main studies.Since the pioneering work of Mort in the 1930s the study of innovation in schools has been dominated by models of analysis and explanation borrowed mainly from diffusion research in rural sociology. It is now a commonplace criticism that there are theoretical and practical problems in the grounding assumption that innovation in schools is homologous to adoption by individuals in agricultural settings (Fullan, 1972; Rogers & Shoemaker, 1971). The complexity of organisational change processes in schools is well documented in studies which, contrary to the prevailing rhetoric of change, found limited evidence of the successful implementation of adopted innovations (Goodlad & Klein, 1970; Smith & Keith, 1971; Gross et al. 1971; Sarason, 1974).Typical ‘rate of adoption’ approaches stop short of an examination both of the variable stages in the ‘life’ of an innovation and of the organisational properties of schools which may inhibit or facilitate its adoption and institutionalisation. The use of criteria of innovativeness based on the number of innovations reportedly adopted obscures differences in levels, targets and processes of change. Neither do such measures differentiate functional and dysfunctional innovation characteristics, individual and system cost benefits, manifest‐latent and direct‐indirect consequences (Rogers & Shoemaker, 1971). In practice innovations may be highly divergent in complexity and consequences and such variations may carry significant implications for implementation strategies (Fullan & Pomfret, 1977).The studies reported here describe an attempt to define and measure school inno‐vativeness and to test the validity of the assertion that innovativeness may be analysed more meaningfully as an organisation level construct. Innovativeness is defined both as product (i.e. the adoption and implementation of specific innovations) and as process (i.e. schools' continuous capacity for growth and self‐renewal). Multiple criterion measures were developed to explore the dimensionality of product and of process and the complex interrelatedness of product and process. The measures were derived from theories of innovation and organisation and from a content analysis of reported perceptions of innovations and of innovative processes in schools. It was hypothesised that between school variance would significantly (p<0‐001) exceed within school variance on each of the product and process measures and that product and process measures would be significantly related to each other and to measures of postulated organisational correlates.The main thrust of the argument is that there are limitations in approaches which regard innovations exclusively as episodic events and as ends in themselves (Gross, Giacquinta & Bernstein, 1971). Innovation is inextricably related to organisational processes, structures and norms. Innovation occurs in organisational contexts which may vary significantly in functional flexibility and openness to new knowledge. In organisational terms school is defined as an open socio‐technical system (Emery & Trist, 1963) interacting with a ‘turbulent environment’ (Terrerberry, 1968). There may be wide variations in degree of openness among schools and within schools over time (Davies, 1973). Innovativeness may be defined partially as a school's attempt to grow and adapt to changing internal and external circumstances. The position adopted here shifts the emphasis from a preoccupation with ‘one shot’ innovations to an exploration of the processes of implementing and assimilating exogenous and endogenous changes within a framework of changing contextual demands and constraints. Specific innovations, however designated, are likely to be interrelated critically with one another. Their adopters interact with other individuals and groups within the system. Neither can the processes of growth and adaptation be considered meaningfully in isolation from the complementary processes of task achievement and group maintenance in schools. An adequate analysis of organisational change processes, it is argued, must take account of the interaction of school's tasks, structures, technology and leadership styles, the norms and behaviours of groups and individuals and the transactions of the organisation with its environment. It was hoped that the studies reported here might yield a better insight into a complex construct which lacks conceptual clarity.

This publication has 7 references indexed in Scilit: